Last May 4, Kettering voters rejected the 6.9 mill levy of additional operating revenue for Kettering Schools by 642 votes.  The tally showed 6573 votes (48%) in Favor and 7215 votes (52%) against.

The Kettering School Board is now asking for 4.9 mills — to be decided in this November’s general election. A change from 6.9 mills to 4.9 mills signals a significant change in the district’s five year budget plan, and, according to School Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, it is the result of, “a change in philosophy.”

Dr. Jim Schoenlein, Superintendent of Kettering Schools, in his office, last Friday, August, 13, 2010. We had a good conversation.

The previous five year budget forecast, that justified a 6.9 mill property tax increase for Kettering residents, showed that in budget years 2010 through 2014, total expenditures would be $440 million.  The new five year budget, for the same time period, shows total expenditures of $421 million — a total reduction over the five years of $19 million.

The first year of the new budget (2010) shows a total expenditure that is the same as the old budget — $82,139,965 — so the $19 million savings in the five year plan happens in the last four years.  However, the school year and the budget year are not the same, so cuts and changes start immediately in this 2010 – 2011 school year.  (See both five year plans here.)

This $19 million reduction in the five year budget required the Kettering Board to make some hard choices.

Here is my understanding of how $19 million was cut from the first five year plan, in order to decrease the request for new taxes from 6.9 mills to 4.9 mills:

• Closing Moraine Meadows Elementary School @ $500,000 per year — saving $2 million in the new budget plan
• Staff Reductions @ $1.5 million each year — saving $6 million in the new budget plan
• Other Non-staff reductions @ $250,000 each year — saving $1 million in the new budget plan.
• A reduction in inflation rate for personnel expenses from 4.8% in the first five year plan to 2.8% in the revised five year plan — saving $10 million in the new budget plan.

A budget that shows a change from 4.8% inflation in personnel expense to 2.8% inflation — while keeping the number of staff unchanged — shows a big shift in board policy.

Because the master contract includes built in step increases — for increased longevity and additional training — even if there is zero increase in the master contract, each year the contract results in a 2% inflation of personnel cost.  So budgeting for a 2.8% increase signals a tough bargaining stance. It looks like in the next three year contract there may be room in the budget, I’m guessing, for increases in the total cost of the master contract of: 0%, 1%, 1% .

In response to the e-mail that I sent to him, I met with Kettering School Superintendent, Dr. Jim Schoenlein, last Friday, in his office. I enjoyed the visit. Before I realized, almost an hour passed in discussion on topics inspired by Frederick Hess’s new book about “Greenfield Schooling.” I appreciated the fact that Dr. Schoenlein evidently had set aside a generous block of time for our meeting. We kept talking altogether for over two hours.

Dr. Schoenlein indicated that the new five year plan shows a “change in philosophy” for the school board, and is an effort by the board to respond to a change in the public attitude about pay for government workers.

The new plan shows a reduction in the percentage of the budget going to personnel expenses. The first five year budget plan, that required 6.9 mills of new taxes, showed that personnel expense took 85.9% of the budget.  The new budget, requiring 4.9 mills, shows that personnel expense will take 85.2% of the budget.

The reduction in staff, saving a total of $1.5 million each year, will occur through retirements.  Here is the list of the positions that will be eliminated:

• Director of curriculum and instruction
• Arena Manager / Kettering Education Fund executive
• Kettering Middle School Assistant Principal
• Data Coordinator
• Middle School librarian
• 3.5 Elementary Teachers
• 2.8 High School Teachers
• 1 Alternative School Teacher
• 2 Gifted Teachers
• 1 High School Counselor
• 1 preschool Teacher

Dr. Schoenlein indicated that these staff changes will mean that many teachers and administrators will have more responsibility, more to do, and that, “everybody will need to pitch in.”

I’m impressed with this new plan offered by the Kettering Board, and I’m impressed with Dr. Schoenlein.  I believe the Kettering public will support this new budget plan and will vote, this November, to approve the 4.9 mill tax increase.

I indicated to Schoenlein my conviction that the transformation that is needed in public education can only come from a big push from the grassroots. It can only come from an informed public and from a vitalized democracy that responds.  Dr. Schoenlein indicated that, if I put together a schedule of public meetings for this autumn, dealing with the topic of transforming public education, that he will be glad to attend and participate.

On the cover of Frederick Hess’s new book “Education Unbound: The Promise and Practice of Greenfield Schooling,” is an open green field. Hess’s theme is that we must transform the system of education and that the first step is to clear out the bramble and debris and create green space for new development.

Over the years, there’s been a lot of talk about transforming American education. The “Nation at Risk” report 27 years ago got the ball rolling by famously declaring, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

In 1994, “Goals 2000,” was funded with $105 million and established a list of what turned out to be fantasy ideas like, “By the year 2000, students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement,” and, “The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.”

The NCLB law, signed in Hamilton, Ohio, by George W. Bush, in 2002, had Ted Kennedy and John Boehner in attendance

The “No Child Left Behind” Act, a bipartisan idea that brought Ted Kennedy, George W Bush and John Boehner to Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio for its signing on Jan. 8, 2002, objectified goals into a plan for “standards-based education.” NCLB resulted in a maze of tests and reports that have greatly impacted how teachers and schools operate.

But, arguably, the net result of this 30 years of alarm, goal setting, increased expenditures, testing mania and talk of reform, has simply been that the rising tide of the gray goo of mediocrity in American education has risen even further. It’s nice that, because of this effort, more schools have moved from the truly awful to the barely mediocre, but what seems missing is any vision of authentic excellence.

Missing from Hess’s new book is indication of how Hess might define excellence.

According to Ohio’s rating system, a school is “excellent” if 75% of students in a school can show minimum competence on machine scored objective tests. It is shameful, in my judgment, that professional educators and community leaders, who certainly know better, can agree to such a ridiculous standard of educational “excellence.”

Our challenge at every level of education is to create excellence. And, as I’ve reported about my experience interviewing the legendary W. Edwards Deming, the key question, I believe, we must ask and answer is, “By What Method?”

Deming would no doubt agree with the basic premise of Hess’s book — that what is needed in education is systemic reform. He would agree with Hess that we must clear the bramble and debris and create a green space upon which to make a new system. But, Hess is lacking the answer that is needed: “By what method?”

Hess advocates that entrepreneurs need green space to have opportunity to build. He writes, “Rather than our repeated efforts to reinvent the wheel in district after district … we may fare better by focusing on how we might allow and encourage problem solvers to take their services to a wealth of communities and kids.”

The Hess vision is that states and districts should create opportunities so that entrepreneurs — like those who founded Apple, Amazon, eBay, or Pixar — might have access to the huge educational market. Hess writes, “In lieu of efforts to reform each of the country’s 15,000 school districts, a single entrepreneurial venture might dramatically improve … hundreds or thousands of districts.”

Of course, entrepreneurs already have access to the American market — textbook publishers, software designers, computer manufacturers, cheapest card machine, etc — but Hess is suggesting much more. His vision, evidently, is that American business should have the opportunity to sell comprehensive programs to districts — that would supplant current structures and current union rules. He mentions charter schools, such as KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) or Edison, and it appears he would like to see more districts simply contracting with the entrepreneurs who control such ventures.

Hess is suggesting a radical solution for American education, and I agree that radical solutions are called for. I agree, we need to create green space. But creating opportunity for entrepreneurs, by itself, is not nearly enough.  Hess’s idea that districts create green space is a first step. But then what?

The record is clear in Ohio, that creating green space for entrepreneurs to start charter schools did not result in excellence. At best, it resulted in improving the educational experience of some students from awful to mediocre. We need a system that will move education to authentic excellence, not simply to a good grade doled out by a government bureaucracy.

Hess says that educational reform should be guided by the philosophy of a gardener. He quotes Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek that because our knowledge is inadequate, we should not seek to be craftsmen, but rather, we should, “promote growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.”

Hess writes, “We would all do well to take Friedrich von Hayek’s advice and ask leaders to think more like gardeners and less like engineers. What can they do to reduce obstacles; foster smart private and public quality control; and promote talent, capital and networks?”

Yes, but here is the puzzle: Reducing obstacles, promoting talent, etc., is not easy. It is certainly not simply a matter of wishful thinking. Success requires planning. It requires engineering. It requires structure. Successful gardening is the result of a plan, the result of knowledge, the result of structure. It doesn’t just happen by itself.

Hess fails to bring to the discussion this important truth: Without structure, there can be no freedom. Hess wants entrepreneurs to have freedom in American education, but he shows no system design where that freedom will be meaningful or productive. He fails to answer Deming’s question: “By what method?”

Deming’s main idea is that quality, overwhelmingly (85%), can be attributed to organizational and systemic structure. Removing obstacles, creating green space, is not enough. We need to engineer a system that will support and advance quality, a system that will advance teacher professionalism, a system in which a gardener might have a chance for success, a system where responsible entrepreneurship can flourish. Hess, or someone, needs to take the next step and show what that system might be. I like the notion that successful systems promote, encourage, and empower natural growth, as if by the hand of a thoughtful gardener.  But a successfully designed system requires thoughtful and knowledgeable engineering.  My premise: To Bring Excellence To Public Education We Must First Engineer A Better System.

I’m going to give my best shot at describing such a system in my soon to be written book: “Public Education In Kettering, Ohio In The Year 2022”

See also:

• A Great Question: How Can We Tell If a School Is Excellent?;November 2, 2007
• To Transform Our System Of Education, We Must Redefine The Aim Of The System; May 27th, 2008
• Let’s Frame the Question of “Achievement Gap” to Include All Schools and All Students; June 4th, 2008
• The Change We Need In Education Is Radical Transformation Of The Present System; November 7th, 2008
• Thinking Through Purposes and Principles Needed To Guide the Re-Design of Public Education; July 17th, 2008
• In Education, Let’s Stop Trying To Improve a Horse and Buggy System; July 25th, 2008
• Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed; January 14th, 2009
• The Kettering School Board’s Biggest Challenge Is To Gain Public Support For Transformation; September 10th, 2009

Justin Coussoule, the Democrat challenging Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner, to represent Ohio’s 8th District, last Tuesday spoke to the Huber Heights Democratic Club at their annual picnic. Great food.

Coussoule, 35 years old and a West Point grad, shows poise and thoughtfulness. He makes a good impression. And he spoke with conviction that the race is winnable and that he is in the race to win.

He has already raised $100,000 to fund his effort, not nearly enough, but a great start.

Coussoule spoke of the leadership and character that was emphasized at West Point, and said that although politics and policy is often emphasized, a congressional representative must be dedicated to being a public servant. He said, “Leaders of character choose the harder right over the easier wrong. They do the right thing, even when no-one is watching. And public service is synonymous with selfless service.”

Coussoule said a government of the people, by the people and for the people doesn’t just happen, but must be fought for. He said, “There is not a single issue that working middle class people think about and care about that John Boehner is aligned with. His priorities lie with the corporate CEO’s and the super rich.”

The President of the Huber Heights Democratic Club, Georgia Hickey-Wolf, introduced Justin. A transcript follows this You-tube video:

I just want to say a few things about the race. The big thing about this race is viability. I’d like to bust a few myths the first myth is that this is a Republican District. It’s not a Democratic District either, but it is an overwhelmingly Independent District — 220,000 Independents; 104,000 Dems; 99,000 Republicans,

The second myth is that John Boehner is overwhelmingly beloved … If you look at the Republican primary in May, Boehner had two challengers for the first time ever. And one out of six Republican primary voter cast their vote for someone other than their 20 year incumbent, Minority Leader, John Boehner — 16% of Republicans in the primary, voted against him. So, he doesn’t even have his “base” shored up. Even they are losing faith.

The last myth is that Democrats cannot compete in this district. But Democratic candidate for governor, Ted Strickland, in 2006, got 44% in the 8th District. And in 2008, Rich Cordray got 44%. These well funded professional campaigns did 5% better than they shot for. Just imagine what a well funded, professional campaign that shoots for 51% might actually do.

The other thing people say, “Well, Justin, doesn’t Boehner win two-thirds of the votes, cycle after election cycle?” And yes, that’s true, but he has not faced a real challenger in ten terms. People haven’t had a choice. And the good news is, there is a base. In every cycle, 33% or 34% of people in the 8th District vote against John Boehner. We could run a mop and a bucket with a “D” on it and probably get 33%. So there is a base to go up from. We are not starting from zero in this race, like a lot of people think.

Like most people, I value my vote. If I go into the booth, and it is the first time I see a name of a Democratic candidate person I’ve never heard of before, I might just vote for the devil I know, John Boehner, rather than a person I’ve never heard of. So the challenge in this race, and what we’ve not done in 20 years, is to get the Democratic name out, the challenger, and give voters one or two takeaways so they are comfortable with voting for an alternative. They are comfortable because they feel, “OK, this person is qualified, I’ve heard of this person.” …

But, here’s a thought: If you think it is tough running against John Boehner, try being represented by him. (Applause) … As much as it is about policy and politics in this race, it is also about public service. We don’t have a public servant, right now, representing the 8th District. We have a professional golfer and a coin operated one at that. … I don’t think there is a single issue that working middle class people think about and care about that John Boehner is aligned with. His priorities lie with the corporate CEO’s and the super rich — who is out on the golf course with, raising money. And, of course, that money is not used for his own race, instead, he gives it to other Republican candidates. That is why he is the Minority Leader. Boehner bought his position, and he will buy the Speaker’s Chair, if the Republicans win the majority and if he wins reelection.

People say, “Justin, why did you get into this race. You are not a politician, why do you want to take this fight on?” I believe we get the government we deserve and my wife and our children, and my neighbors and their children, and people across 8th District, deserve a lot better than John Boehner. This race is about what we learned in fifth grade civics class — that a government of the people, by the people and for the people doesn’t just happen. We have to fight for it, we have to earn it.

I’m in this race, because I believe what I learned at West Point. Leaders of character choose the harder right over the easier wrong. You do the right thing, even when no-one is watching. And public service is synonymous with selfless service.

I’m in this race, because we get the government we deserve, and we deserve better.

People ask: “How can we help?” You can spread the word, you can tell five friends or family members. You can join our facebook, twitter. You can wear my T-shirt or put a bumper sticker on your car, a sign in your yard, and encourage other people to do the same. Do underestimate the power of “word of mouth” in the District. You can donate your time. We need people to make phone calls and to knock on doors. … We need to get the word out … They say you need to hear a word or name seven times before you remember it. …

Many people need one takeaway: Justin Coussoule, he is a West Point guy, a veteran, I like him. Justin Coussoule, he is the guy from the blue collar family, his dad was a roofer, he talks about the need to make things again in this country, to refocus on jobs and the economy, I like him. Or, Justin Coussoule, he has a pretty wife. Whatever it is — people seeing or hearing the name seven times, and one takeaway. It’s as complicated and as simple as that.

One of the many lessons of leadership from West Point is that good leaders march to the sound of the gun. They arrive on the battlefield and they don’t delay, they head to the decisive point and they fight to win. They march to the sound of the gun. The guns have been raging in the 8th District for 20 years now. It is time for all of us to answer their call.

Thanks so much everybody.