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

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.