In response to my post, “The Best Hope For Public Education Is That Communities Vitalize Democracy And Exercise Local Control,” Dr. Ruddick commented that nations who demonstrate more success in education than the United States have less local control, not more, and, “are organized exactly the opposite of your proposal.”

Dr. Ruddick wrote:

“Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Australia, do not have local control. They have a national education administration that creates a standardized national curriculum, streamlines administration, and in the end saves money while succeeding (much like their national health care systems). … The fact remains that centralized government works well in nations that are open-minded enough to consider that government is not always “the problem”.

Here is how I hear Dr. Ruddick’s argument:

• Nations with centralized educational system do better with education than the United States, with its system of local control,
• To produce educational quality, national control is better than local control,
• Therefore, the United States should move away from local control and towards national control of its educational system.

The problem with Dr. Ruddick’s argument, as I see it, is, in truth, what happens in local schools in the United States is only marginally determined by local control.  The fact is local control, as practiced, is a myth.

Local control of schools, to me, indicates that a vigorous grassroots is awake, involved and in charge of the local system of public education via a system of representative democracy.  Obviously, we are a long way from this.   In practice, ours already is a centralized system — a hodgepodge of national and state control — inefficient, but, in practice, centralized.

I’m arguing that if a community could exert local control it would gain efficiency as well as gain quality.  A community that exerted local control, I believe, could bring needed transformation to its system of public education.  This is the premise of the book I am determined to write:  Kettering Public Education In The Year 2022.

David Matthews, who heads the Kettering Foundation offers a profound idea, in his book, “Reclaiming Public Education by Reclaiming Our Democracy,” that to improve public education we must improve our democracy.

If democracy is key to education, then our best hope to achieve educational excellence is practicing authentic local control. An invigorated grassroots democracy happens first at the local level, not the national level. There must be isolated outbreaks of democracy at the local level before there is any national movement.  Some communities, like Kettering, are better positioned than others to exert local control and such communities should have the gumption to show leadership.

This assertion that democracy is key to creating a system of education is thought provoking.  Not everyone agrees.

It seems a safe bet that a totalitarian, centralized, no-nonsense system should have a lot of success in raising test scores, a lot of success in training children to be workers in advanced technology and world class industries, etc.  Someone could make a good argument that democracy only stands to impede such achievement, not generate it.

If, early on, the children are divided and categorized according to tested “ability,” and if a stringent system of rewards and punishments is put in place to support a system of “rigor,” it’s safe to say that a totalitarian state could produce impressive results. I would imagine North Korea, for example, could produce some pretty great test results.

Of course, Denmark is not North Korea. But, any nation that defines its educational goals as producing test scores via a centralized totalitarian system risks moving toward North Koreanishness and away from democracy. The move now, in the United States, seems to be, well, if the test scores go up, then any system that works is OK.  So, we are praising schools where children are marching around like little soldiers and responding like automatons as their teachers bark out commands.

If education is all about producing results — as indicated by “No Child Left Behind” and ACT tests , etc. — then, a nationalized no nonsense system of rigor makes sense.  That such a system inevitably also advances a hidden agenda that seeks to mold citizens into brainless, compliant consumers is a byproduct that could be argued is unimportant compared to accomplishing educational goals as defined.

Every discussion about education, it seems to me, eventually must deal with these annoying questions:  What is education?  What is the purpose of an educational system?

If a school district wants to advertise itself as “Excellent,” then it should be able to answer the question, “Excellent at what?”  Right now, in its campaign to gain public support for increasing school property tax, Kettering is announcing in signs all around the community that it is even better than “Excellent,” it is “Excellent with distinction.”  Wow.  What next, “Excellent with distinction with a cherry on top”?

“Excellence” according to the bureaucracy means that sufficient numbers of students have demonstrated minimum competence. In Kettering, 1 out of every 7 of Kettering students are performing below its own minimum expectations.  And the push to get the cherry on top — fulfilling minimum expectations with more kids — caused the district to cut 40% of its gifted program in order to keep resources focused on achieving minimums.

“Excellent at what?” In Kettering the local board, it seems, has abandoned any local control over defining what in the world the local system of education is attempting to accomplish.

Last year I discovered, “Kettering Schools Threw Away Its Historical Record — Decades Of Accreditation Self-Study Reports Now Lost.” At one time, before this testing regime defined school purpose, when there was more local control, the local community periodically conducted in-depth self-studies that clarified its purpose / philosophy and showed the plan by which it intended to fulfill that purpose.  It was a thoughtful process. The astounding fact that this entire historical record in Kettering was trashed, literally, is evidence that, in Kettering, any effort to exert local control has been abandoned.

My conviction is that public education needs transformation and that the way to transformation is via a strengthening of local control.  It is an American conviction that progress bubbles up from the grassroots — through an independent entrepreneurial spirit that infused individuals like Charles Kettering and Orville and Wilbur Wright — and that the way to progress is not through topdown hierarchical and bureaucratic control.  Only through local control can we regain the democratic purpose of public education.  And only through a vitalized democracy can we regain local control.

France and Denmark have a different history and different way of thinking about progress.  The American outlook has been shown time and again to be the way forward to the breakthroughs that have transformed humanity’s progress.  The American solution is all about individual initiative and in education, that means individual communities asserting initiative by rising up to show leadership.

My conclusion: Strengthening Local Control Is Key To The Needed Transformation Of Public Education

Kettering is seeking approval for a 4.9 mill school tax levy in this November’s election. A big part of School Superintendent Jim Schoenlein’s pitch to voters, urging support for the levy, is that teachers have agreed to a one year “pay freeze,” and, teachers have agreed, that for one year they will, “pay more of their own health insurance.” (See Schoenlein’s comments in the recent “Blue Ribbon Report” — mailed to all Kettering residents.)

Since the claim about a “pay freeze” amounts to misinformation — in the one year the pay scale is frozen, 70% of Kettering teachers will receive “step” increases of 3% to 8% of their salary — I decided to research the claim about health insurance as well. I appreciate the fact that the Kettering Treasurer, Steve Clark, is accessible, and, yesterday, I met with Mr. Clark to find out details of the teachers’ health insurance agreement.

My conclusion is, like the claim that teachers have agreed to a “pay freeze,” the claim that teachers have agreed “to pay more of their own health insurance” amounts to misinformation.

What I discovered yesterday is that the basis for Dr. Schoenlein’s claim about health insurance is the fact that Kettering teachers, in the one year extension of their contract, have agreed, starting in January 2012, to receive a marginally smaller amount in their “health savings account.”

The two year teachers’ contract, approved in May, 2009, initiated a “high deductible health care plan.” As part of this high deductible plan, teachers are provided a “health savings account” — a credit card provided to each teacher, on which the district makes regular deposits.  The credit card is used for paying the amount of the deductible charged for doctor’s visits, lab work, prescription drugs, etc.

Each year, in the first two years of the contract, teachers with a single plan have $2000 added to this “health savings account” credit card, and, teachers with a family plan have $4000 added.

The modification that the teachers agreed to, for the 2011-12 school year, is, starting in January, 2012, teachers with a single plan will receive $1850 each year for their “health savings account,” rather than $2000; and, teachers with a family plan will receive $3700 each year rather than $4000.

One great feature of the plan is that the “health savings account” money is available for whatever the teacher chooses to spend it on — not just medical deductibles — and that the unused money on the card accumulates year after year.  So long as this savings account is used for medical deductibles, the money is tax free. If the money in the account is used for non-medical purposes, however, the teacher must then pay income tax on the money, plus an additional amount of 20% of the income tax.  Regardless, this plan means that a healthy teacher, over time, should accumulate extra cash for his or her own use.

The modification in the 2011-12 contract does not change the basic formula of how Kettering Schools pays health insurance premiums. The district will continue to pay 90% of the cost of premiums for the health insurance, and teachers will continue to pay 10%. Currently a single plan costs $4378 in premiums each year.  A family plan costs $11,532 in premiums each year.

The small decrease agreed to in the “health savings account” — $300 less for those on a family plan and $150 less for those with a single plan — will result in only an insignificant change in the proportion of the total health insurance cost that teachers pay. As I calculate it, in the first two years of the contract, teachers, each year, will pay 7.77% of the total cost of their health insurance, and, with the new agreement, starting in 2012, teachers will pay 7.90% of the total cost.

A claim that teachers have “agreed to pay more of their health insurance” is misleading.  The increase in the proportion of total cost — from 7.77% to 7.90% — is insignificant.

But the chief reason that the claim is misleading is because most people would think, if teachers are “paying more for their health insurance” they must be paying more out of pocket money.  But that is not the case.  The truth is more complicated. Agreeing to accept a small decrease in the “health savings account” is not the same as agreeing to pay more out of pocket.

As a result of modifying the original health insurance agreement, most teachers will simply accumulate a slightly smaller amount in their “health savings account.” Only a teacher whose deductibles are large enough to exhaust the teacher’s “health savings account” will need to pay anything more.

Since there is nothing in the “Blue Ribbon Report” and nothing on the Kettering Schools’ web-site that attempts any explanation of how health insurance works in Kettering Schools — no explanation of what teachers actually agreed to in their two year contract, and no explanation of how this two year contract was modified for the 2011-12 school year — the superintendent and the school board, by claiming that teachers have agreed to “pay more for their health insurance,” have opened themselves up to the unfortunate criticism that they are not attempting to educate the public, not attempting to engage the public in a responsible way, but, rather, are simply attempting to manipulate public opinion as a means to achieve passage of the 4.9 mill tax levy on November 2.

However it’s analyzed, it seems clear that any objective observer must conclude: Kettering Superintendent’s Claim About Teachers Paying More For Health Insurance Is Misleading.

This letter, sent to Kettering Middle School parents, dated September 21, urging support for Kettering’s 4.9 mill school tax levy, was signed by Board President Jim Trent and Superintendent Jim Schoenlein.  I wrote this e-mail to Dr. Schoenlein as a response:

Dr. Schoenlein:  In your letter sent to Kettering Middle School parents, you write:  “There are people out there who have sworn to do everything they can to defeat the Kettering Schools levy.  We hope you don’t let this vocal minority dictate the quality of your child’s education.”

This sounds like an “Us versus Them” argument and, I feel, such an argument is likely to be counterproductive.  Pointing your finger at individuals who oppose this 4.9 mill levy is dangerous, because, when you point your finger, as they say, there are three fingers that point back at you.

In the narrative understood by many Kettering taxpayers, “Us” increasingly identifies “Them” as the local Kettering educational establishment, and, the danger of your argument is that it might push more citizens to accept this “Us versus Them” point of view.

Immediately after the 6.9 mill Renewal Levy was approved in May 2009, the school board approved a two year contract with a new generous health insurance package for teachers and an across-the-board salary increase of 1.5% the first year and 1.5% the second year.  The Kettering Board, in a rare outcome, was divided on this contract 3-2. Jim Trent and Frank Maus voted against the increase. Maus described it as “a kick in the teeth” to the average Kettering voter and Trent said, because of the recession, the community would not support new money for teachers.

The local educational establishment has a lot of influence concerning who gets on the board, and a lot of influence in determining board policies. Of the three incumbents seeking re-election in 2009, Maus, the incumbent who opposed pay increases for teachers, was the only one defeated.  And of the two challengers, I was the only one who made it clear I also would have voted against the pay increase, and I was the one defeated.

The local educational establishment works hard to pass school levies, and most every Kettering School employee contributes money via payroll deduction to help pay for levy campaigns.  Since 86% of the school budget goes to personnel, this makes sense. Teachers are required by contract to join the union — or pay “fairshare” — at about $700 per year, so there is pressure on union leadership to negotiate ever higher salaries, and to help generate the tax revenue that funds higher salaries.

So, pointing a finger, as you do, at a “minority” of citizens who question this tax levy, might well highlight the fact that the educational establishment in Kettering, not the public, seems to be the minority group that is actually in charge. When the educational community pushes too hard, it takes a chance of provoking a push-back reaction within the general public.  I believe Maus and Trent were right to oppose the 3% increases in the recent contract and the failure of the May levy can be explained, in part, as a predictable push-back by the public.

You write in this letter:  “Our teachers and administrators accepted a pay freeze.” As noted here, it is inaccurate and misleading to use the term, “pay freeze.” If your efforts to sell the levy cause potential voters to conclude that you are treating them as dolts, then you are pushing too hard.

In my view, the sentences quoted above, from your letter to Middle School parents, might cause a push-back by ordinary voters.  You write:

There are people out there:   It is wrong to characterize fellow citizens as, “people out there.” They’re not “out there.”  They are our neighbors and friends who live right here, in Kettering, and they should be welcomed to participate in a meaningful discussion about the future of Kettering Schools.

They have sworn to do everything they can to defeat the Kettering School levy: This seems, to me, an exaggerated vilification of the opposition.  The way forward is via a vitalized democracy. The task of leadership is to create community, not to deliberately contribute to a division of community.

They are a vocal minority: Yes, and in our democracy they should be given respect and a fair hearing.

(Implied) If this vocal minority is successful, the quality of your child’s education will be diminished: It is not fair to communicate that a leveling off of tax revenue must necessarily result in a decrease in educational quality.  There are many strategies  that might be considered. It is a reasonable question:  Why can’t teachers and administrators simply agree to a 2% reduction in pay — rather than increasing class sizes or cutting programs?  Again, the “Us vs Them” point of view you encourage in the letter leads to questions such as:  Does the school board seek to represent the general public, or the local educational establishment?

As Superintendent of Kettering Schools, I appreciate the fact that you have huge challenges and a difficult job. Had the 4481 votes I received been sufficient to elect me to the school board last year, I would have done my best to be helpful to you, and my motive, still, is to be helpful. Kettering, I feel, should make its goal to be a leader in public education and should show the way to making a transformed system.  I feel the only way for Kettering to establish itself as a leader in public education is via a vitalized democracy.

Here is some belated advice I hope you might consider, concerning the best way to proceed in this levy campaign:

1. Make the system as transparent to the public as possible. Outline, with pride, for example, the financial benefits for teachers and administrators dedicating their professional lives to Kettering Schools. Explain the contract, the health insurance plan, etc.  There is legitimacy in public service and a strong school system attracts the best teachers and administrators for many reasons — including financial.  Co-opt criticism of teacher and administrator compensation by showing transparency and giving the rational explanation of why the compensation makes sense.
2. Explain the five year budget plan and show that this plan, by historical comparisons, is austere, one that will be difficult to keep. Explain that this budget plan allows for very little inflation of salaries, and, if followed, this budget will result in the smallest inflation in salaries in the last 25 years or more.  Make adhering to this budget plan a public issue and gain public support for such a budget so that public awareness and support will shore up your negotiation position when it comes time to establish new contracts for teachers and administrators. (See:  “To Gain Public Support For 4.9 Mill Tax Levy, The Kettering School Board Must Pledge To Uphold Its Own Budget Plan.”)
3. Be humble concerning the “Excellence With Distinction” grade given to Kettering Schools by the Ohio Education Department bureaucracy.  Point out that just as Kettering was illogically downgraded in previous years, now, even though Centerville’s scores are higher, it is illogical that Kettering’s grade is higher this year than Centerville’s.  Discuss the idea that Kettering does not think that the bureaucratic standards for excellence are sufficient or fair and that Kettering seeks to be “excellent” in ways much different from how the government bureaucracy defines “excellent.”  Engage the public in discussing their view of excellence .
4. Be forward looking — take the position that Kettering should be a leader in reforming and improving public education and that the way forward is via a willingness to question major assumptions about the current system and that the way forward to true educational improvement will require an engaged informed community that acts as a vitalized democracy. Stake out the position that we need a transformed system that produces much higher quality and that achieves higher quality at decreasing cost. Stake out the position that only a vitalized democracy can deliver such a system, and that you welcome this 4.9 mill election because it is a good opportunity to discuss important issues and a good opportunity for democracy to be renourished.

Sincerely,  Mike Bock