The coming statewide debate over repealing Ohio’s SB-5 will pose a classic challenge for school leadership.
In 2030, I can imagine a Ph.D. candidate might be asked:
Suppose it is 2011 and you are the Superintendent of Schools for a prosperous Ohio suburb. What is your public stand on the referendum to repeal SB-5? Explain.
This morning, I met with Dr. Jim Schoenlein, Superintendent of Kettering Schools. I appreciate the fact that Dr. Schoenlein always is open to discussion. I didn’t press him to make a public stand on SB-5 — yes or no — but I thought it was telling that he pointed out that SB-5 isn’t just about teachers, it is also about police and fireman. I took his comment to mean a superintendent who might advocate for the repeal of SB-5 could emphasize his or her solidarity with public servants in general, not simply solidarity with teachers.
This picture of Dr. Schoenlein in his office was taken last August.
The campaign to repeal SB-5 poses this dilemma for Ohio’s school superintendents:
- SB-5 gives management a lot more control. I reminded Dr. Schoenlein of his disagreement with the teachers’ union about the start of school date and pointed out that under SB-5, he would not be required to negotiate such issues.
- Teachers and a strong constituency in the district want to repeal SB-5. Another equally strong group of Kettering voters seeks to retain SB-5. But, regardless of the outcome of the SB-5 repeal effort, both groups will be asked to vote for endless future school tax levies. In Kettering, on the November ballot, along with the SB-5 referendum, voters will be asked to renew a small ( .6 mill property tax with effective rate of .458860 mills) permanent improvement levy for Kettering Schools. And, next May, 2012, Kettering voters will be asked to support the renewal of a 4.9 mill school property tax.
On the one hand, a superintendent might seek the repeal of SB-5, because, regardless if SB-5 wins or loses, the superintendent needs to maintain a good relationship with the teachers and staff. On the other hand, how can a superintendent reject an opportunity to save the district money? How can a superintendent reject an opportunity to have the authority to fundamentally restructure the local system of public education?
How a superintendent chooses to respond to SB-5, and why it will remain a classic dilemma worthy of study in 2030, is that how a superintendent responds to SB-5 reveals whether a superintendent sees his or her role as that of a manager, or that of a leader.
Public education for these many years has been structured according to an industrial model — bureaucratic, hierarchical. Typically in such systems, those rising to positions of leadership are, in fact, so acclimated to bureaucratic thinking that they see their role as manager, team player, not as leader.
Leadership should lift up a vision of the future that inspires and unites. If school management had freedom to organize a better system, what would that system look like? What is the system that would nurture and motivate greatness in teachers and their students? My pitch to Dr. Schoenlein this morning was that this SB-5 situation creates a great opportunity to engage the public in a meaningful discussion about the central issues of public education, a meaningful discussion about the future of public education. Democracy is strengthened via an informed and engaged public. I said that, if we agree with David Matthews that the quality of public education is directly correlated with the quality of a community’s democracy, then, it follows, encouraging democracy within their community should be a strategy of the leadership of every school district.
I’m thinking that there is a public who is waiting to be invited to meaningfully participate in a vitalized democracy. For Ohio’s School Superintendents, The Repeal Of SB-5 Creates A Classic Leadership Challenge.
See:
