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

Governor Ted Strickland arrived in a large campaign bus at the Montgomery County Democratic Headquarters in downtown Dayton this morning to be greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of local Democrats.  There were maybe 150 people in attendance.

Ohio's Governor Ted Strickland, after his address to supporters at Democratic Headquarters in downtown Dayton, spoke with the press.

State Senator Fred Strahorn gave a rousing introduction for the governor that praised Strickland’ s record, and particularly praised Strickland’s work ethic — the hours he spends on his job and the energy he shows in meeting his responsibility as Ohio’s governor.  Strahorn said that Ohio has never had such a hard working governor — one who gives each part of his job his full effort.

Secretary of State Candidate Maryellen O’Shaughnessy gave a short impassioned speech prior to Strickland’s remarks.  Kettering Republican and former Speaker of Ohio’s House, John Husted, is O’Shaughnessy’s opponent and O’Shaughnessy reminded listeners of the controversy concerning Husted’s residency.

Strickland spoke animatedly without notes for twenty-five minutes, or more, and outlined his case for reelection.  He was interrupted many times by the crowd’s energetic applause.

Strickland stated that he feels Dayton — Montgomery County — this year may well be the region that  determines the election outcome of the entire state of Ohio. He told his listeners that there was much at stake in this election and that the record of his opponent, Republican John Kaisch, shows that Kasich is not a friend of the average Ohioan.  Strickland ridiculed his opponent’s record — his legislative work and the millions he made with Lehman Brothers. He heaped particular scorn on Kasich’s proposal to eliminate Ohio’s income tax, saying it is ridiculous to propose destroying 48% of the funding of state government.  He said one result of such a move would be huge increases in property taxes.

Strickland urged his listeners to commit to the fight not only for his reelection, but for the election of the entire Democratic ticket.

My video camera let me down — and my efforts to tape this event, ended up with a tangled tape.  I need to move on to new technology — a camera without tapes.   (To see my you-tubes of previous Strickland talks see here, here , and here.)

Strickland’s comments were from the heart and he communicated his sense of urgency that this election is not just about him, but about the future of Ohio.  Strickland projects a great spirit.  After his address, I asked a friend in the crowd, in a more light-hearted way, evidently, than he was ready to hear, “Are you, Fired up?” I expected him to repeat the other part of the chant, “Ready to Go.” Instead, he said, “Mike, I can tell you, hearing the passion of this man, and understanding how important this election is, as the governor was speaking, I felt tears welling up in my eyes.”  Yes, I agreed, Strickland delivers a compelling message.

Yesterday was the first of eight public meetings in Kettering to discuss the Nov. 2 ballot issue for 4.9 mills of additional property tax for Kettering Schools.   I videotaped comments by Superintendent Jim Schoenlein, Treasurer Steve Clark, and Board Member Julie Gilmore. (Follow the you-tube links or see below.)

This November 2, Kettering will vote on whether, or not, to approve 4.9 mills of additional property tax for Kettering’s schools.

In a time of economic downturn, asking voters to voluntarily raise their taxes is a tough sell. A school board must show strong resolve to control its own budget.  At the first of eight scheduled public meetings, yesterday, the two school board members in attendance failed to make a strong pledge to implement Kettering School’s new five year budget.

During the meeting, after everyone else had had a chance to speak, I questioned the two Kettering School Board members in attendance — Julie Gilmore and George Bayless — whether the board is committed to implementing the new five year budget plan Kettering Schools recently submitted to the Ohio Department of Education. Both members danced around the question.

The new five year budget is surprisingly austere — so austere, in fact, that I am skeptical that the board has much commitment to implement it.  The new budget leaves very little, or zero, room in the next three year teachers’ contract, to negotiate any additional pay increases for Kettering teachers.

In his presentation last night, Dr. Schoenlein indicated that the current 1.5%, 1.5%, 0%, contract for teachers shows the “lowest pay raise in the last 25 years.” His point: “The district has controlled personnel costs.”

In my question to Gilmore and  Bayless, I noted that, after teachers have accepted zero increases in their contract, in the next cycle of negotiation, teachers often have successfully negotiated big increases. I told Mr. Bayless that it seems obvious that to keep to this new budget plan, the board will need to show some backbone and, in response, Mr. Bayless assured me that the board, indeed, has backbone.

“Backbone,” here defined as “rigid budget allegiance,” was not evident in either of these board members’ comments. Their comments — we’ll have to see, this is difficult, we’ll do the best we can — fell far short of showing allegiance to honoring a budget.  They know this budget will be very difficult to live by and know the budget can be modified if the situation dictates.

A lot of voters are in no mood to give generous salary increases to teachers and administrators but still want to support the school system.  Board members need to consider the fact that voters who might otherwise vote “No” might change their vote to “Yes” if they thought this five year budget had any teeth.  Voters need to hear board members make statements like:  “I will approve no new contract that expands expenses beyond those shown in this five year budget,” or “I’m drawing a line in the sand.”

Within the small group in attendance, I heard zero citizen support for the 4.9 mill school tax increase.

One woman, who described herself a long time Kettering citizen, expressed grief that for the first time, she will not support the new school property tax. She said she is too concerned for the situation in Kettering — the number of foreclosures in Kettering, the number of homeowners barely holding on — to agree to increased taxation at this time.  One young couple in attendance said they absolutely had no room in their budget for additional expenses and that, in fact, they were living in fear that they might lose their home.

The initial five year budget, justifying a 6.9 mill tax increase request, that voters rejected last May, showed inflation in salaries of 4.8% each year, and, with benefits, an inflation in total personnel cost of 5.6% each year.

After the defeat of the 6.9 mills, the school board decided to reduce the request to an amount more likely to get approval.  The change from a five year plan based on 6.9 mills of additional tax to 4.9 mills — a 29% decrease in new funding — required cutting millions from the budget. The new five year budget shows a total $19 million decrease in total expenditure compared to the previous five year budget.

But $10 million of this $19 million reduction came by decreasing the annual inflation rate of total personnel expense.  Salaries had a 4.8% inflation rate in the original five year budget, and now, in the new five year budget they have a 2.8% inflation.  I e-mailed this analysis to Dr. Schoenlein and asked him to indicate any errors he might discover and he e-mailed me back saying it looked accurate to him.

Since 2% of the 2.8% annual increase, budgeted in the new plan, is required simply to provide the automatic “step” increases already part of the master contract, and, since there is likely to be continuing galloping inflation in health insurance costs, to adhere to this new five year plan would require the next three year teacher contract, at best, I’m guessing, to be something like 0%,1%, 1%.  Such a contract likely would be unprecedented in Kettering.

The new five year budget, according to Dr. Schoenlein, represents a “new philosophy” for the Kettering Board.  But, words are easy, actions are difficult, and based on the tenor of the comments of the two board members in attendance last night, I’m skeptical that that board has sufficient resolve to stand firm and make the hard choices needed to implement its own budget.

I also addressed Dr. Schoenlein during the meeting concerning what I find to be a disturbing statement, recently printed in the KO Times, as a quote from him, and also used in his comments last night — “Teachers have agreed to a pay freeze for next year.” I pointed out that this comment communicates misinformation.

Instead of a “pay freeze,” the teachers agreed to a “contract freeze.” There is a huge difference between the two terms.

Based on last year’s data, over two-thirds of Kettering teachers receive automatic “step” increases of $2000 or more.  A 0% increase in the contract — what they are calling a “pay freeze” — does not impact these automatic increases, and, as noted above, these automatic increases cumulatively amount to a lot of money, a 2% inflation in total salary expenses.  I need current data to accurately calculate, but, I believe it is a fair guess that over 70% of Kettering teachers this year will receive automatic increases of between 3% to 8% of their salary.  (The larger increases go to teachers who gain two steps — one for an increase in seniority, one for accumulating sufficient university credits.)

I am going to make an official request of the school district to receive the data that will allow me to make a definitive analysis of these automatic increases.

After the meeting, I urged Dr. Schoenlein to reconsider his approach to “selling” this levy. I urged that in future community meetings he should present information that shows, with pride, the salary and benefits available to professionals who dedicate their careers to teaching in Kettering.  I urged him to offer the public total transparency about the entire budget, particularly teacher salary and benefits.

I offered Dr. Schoenlein this advice: You will gain votes for the levy, if voters conclude that you are attempting to be totally honest. You will lose votes, that otherwise might have been gained, if voters conclude that you are attempting to hide information, or attempting to manipulate them unfairly.

After the meeting, I had a brief dialogue with one central office administrator who defended the notion of calling a 0% increase in the teachers’ contract a “pay freeze.” His defense amounted to — “That’s what school districts always say.”

Yes, I pointed out, I imagine that the Ohio Election Commission, would approve the use of such a phrase in a levy campaign. (I was thinking of the definition of “truth” — see below — offered by the Kettering School Board’s attorney at my OEC hearing, as a defense to the then superintendent’s claim that the 6.9 mill renewal would result in “Absolutely zero increase in taxes.”) But, I said, it is an insult to tell voters that Kettering teachers agreed to a “pay freeze,” when 70% of the teachers are getting a pay raise of $2000 or more.

You can’t gain votes by insulting people.

My 30 years of experience in teaching gives me a feeling of solidarity with the average teacher and student in Kettering Schools. Based on my previous interview with Dr. Schoenlein, prior to last evening, I was inclined to vote “Yes,” and voluntarily to agree to raise my total property tax 4.9 mills — a 7%  increase in total millage (from its current effective rate of 70.35 mills to 75.25 mills), a 11.6% increase in my taxes going to Kettering Schools (from the current effective rate of 42.105 mills to 47.005 mills).

Unfortunately, last evening’s meeting seemed like more of the “same old, same old.” Communicating that teachers have agreed to a zero increase in pay — via using the unexplained phrase “pay freeze” — purposefully communicates misinformation. In context of a sales campaign, how else can this be evaluated? The levy campaign in May, 2009, similarly communicated that the average home owner would see no increase in his or her effective tax rate — via the unexplained phrase “absolutely no increase in taxes” — and purposefully communicated misinformation.  See here.

The way to build a strong school district is via a strong democracy and democracy is only possible if voters are fully informed, fully empowered stakeholders.

My goal in becoming involved to this level — making a formal complaint to the Ohio Election Commission, seeking election to the Kettering Board — is to attempt to do my part to bring transformation to public education.  There are few problems in our society of greater urgency.  We need a new vision of quality, a new vision of “excellence” for public education and Kettering, I believe, is uniquely suited to be a leader in education.  The question is:  Can the Kettering community exert needed local control of its system of public education?

The school funding process in Ohio, that demands continuing voter support, is universally condemned by the educational establishment as a nuisance, a distraction, a waste of time that could be better spent. In many states, school property tax increases happen much more easily than in Ohio. In most states, school taxes are increased simply via the action of representative legislative bodies such as school boards and state legislatures.

In Ohio, we are fortunate that our system demands direct democracy — local voters directly participating — because, the transformation of public education requires a vitalized democracy.  If there is any place on the planet where democracy should be vital and effective, it is Kettering, Ohio.  If anything might help awaken our local democracy, maybe it is the public’s need to deal with Ohio’s frustrating system of school finance — maybe we should view this system of financing schools as the gift to our democracy that keeps on giving.

Neighborhood Meetings Concerning the 4.9 Mill School Tax Increase begin at 6:00 PM. Here is a schedule:

• Thursday, September 23:  Southdale Elementary, 1200 W. Dorothy Lane
• Wednesday, September 29:  Indian Riffle Elementary, 3090 Glengarry Drive
• Monday, October 4:  Orchard Park School, 600 E. Dorothy Lane
• Thursday, October 7: Beavertown Elementary School, 2700 Wilmington Pike
• Tuesday, October 12: John F. Kennedy Elementary School, 5030 Polen Drive
• Thursday, October 21: Oakview Elementary School, 4001 Ackerman Blvd.
• Monday, October 25:  J.E. Prass Elementary School, 2601 Parklawn Drive

Other information:

1. My concluding comments on 2009 school board contest (You-tube):  “The problem is , I don’t think democracy is working”
2. My comments to the League of Women Voters (You-tube):  “We must transform the system.”
3. OEC Says “Absolutely No Increase In Taxes” Is Not A False Statement — Dismisses Kettering Complaint; July 17th, 2009
4. Last Year, Kettering Schools Promised “ZERO Tax Increase” — But, School Taxes Increased By 2.34%; March 29th, 2010
5. Kettering Schools’ Reduced Tax Request — From 6.9 Mills To 4.9 Mills — Shows “Change Of Philosophy” ; August 19th, 2010
6. The Best Hope For Public Education Is That Communities Vitalize Democracy And Exercise Local Control; September 10th, 2010

The defense given by the Kettering Board of Education attorney at the OEC hearing (see here):  “A statement is not false where, even though it is misleading and fails to disclose all the relevant facts, the statement has some truth in it. Moreover, a statement that is subject to different interpretation is not ‘false.’”

Dr. Jim Schoenlein, Superintendent of Kettering Schools, presents his “Levy Talking Points”

Mr. Steve Clark, Treasurer of Kettering Schools, makes a short presentation on school finance (I missed part of this, sorry, Steve)

Ms Julie Gilmore, member of the Kettering Board of Education, explains the Kettering school program