| Page 157

If Pro School Tax Message Is Given Platform At School Meetings, Should Anti Message Be Given Equal Time?

Posted on April 6, 2010 by Mike Bock

According to Kettering’s School Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, in his memo to the Kettering School Board, in previous levy campaigns, Kettering school officials did not address school gatherings and events to build levy support. Schoenlein says he is changing this policy and in this new 6.9 mill levy campaign, Schoenlein, and other school officials, “have been stepping up at meetings, gatherings, and events to say a few words about the levy.”

In his notes to the Kettering School Board, Schoenlein lists all of the school meetings between now and the May 4 election (see page 5), and indicates that because of multiple events “we will have to divide up to cover everything.”

It would be inappropriate and seemingly unlawful for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the election of a specific candidate, Republican or Democrat. And, I’ve never heard that such candidate advocacy ever happens at school meetings. But it also seems inappropriate for school officials to take advantage of a school gathering to advocate for the passing of a specific ballot issue. Doesn’t such advocacy violate the rules that govern non-profits, such as schools and churches?

What if a community member in attendance of such school gatherings wanted to use the opportunity to address the assembled Kettering parents with reasons why a “No” vote on the levy should be considered? At public meetings of non-profit organizations, shouldn’t both sides of an issue be given equal time?

Similarly, I’m interested that Kettering Schools’ publication, “The Blue Ribbon Report,” paid for with school tax money, in this Spring, 2010, issue, uses about half of the copy space in promoting the levy. There is much pertinent information that is omitted and only a pro-levy position is presented. It hardly seems right that tax money should be spent on one-sided levy advocacy.

In his memo to the board, the first topic Schoenlein addresses is the “Levy Update.” He praises three full time school employees working in the “public relations” office for their fine work creating a levy web-site. Using tax money to pay for work done to promote a ballot issue must be unlawful. There was no indication in the superintendent’s memo that the pro-levy work of these three employees happened after their regular working hours.

The Kettering levy campaign is impressive (see page 4), and has all the indications of a professionally organized effort. Since schools are continually involved in levy campaigns they have a lot of practice. The plans call for:

yard signs
field signs
parent newsletters
neighborhood walks
levy brochure to all registered voters
levy packets to all absentee voters
three different full color postcards sent
neighborhood levy coffee gatherings
a “Turn Out Seniors” project
employee fundraising
vendor fundraising
letters to the editor
newspaper ads
levy message on all school marquees
get-out-the-vote calling project

In previous campaigns, Citizens for Kettering Schools usually spend over $15,000 in a given campaign. The effort seems mostly funded by individual contributions from Kettering school employees — from money regularly withheld from the employees’ checks. According to the DDN, $9,133.70 was shown raised in this last report to the Board of Elections.

School employees, along with school vendors, represent a special interest in our community of individuals directly financially benefiting from Kettering Schools, and, it makes sense that this special interest seeks to assure a generous income continues to flow to the school system. After all 86% of all school expenditures goes to school personnel. As it stands, the 6.9 mill levy request is based on a five year projection that shows increases in personnel pay of 4.82% per year. A contribution to the levy campaign, from a school employee’s point of view, is a good investment.

But it seems unfair, and, I wonder if it is lawful, for Kettering schools to use school gatherings and school property, such as school marquees, to give one-sided advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy. It also seems unfair, and, I also wonder if it is lawful, that Citizens for Kettering Schools, a Political Action Committee, does not pay sales tax on items it purchases.

The bigger question is: what is the long term strategy in Kettering to build a great public education system? A school special interest v community strategy cannot work in the long run to build a great system.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | 12 Comments

Kettering School Superintendent Acquiesces To Teacher’s Union Concerning 2011 Start Of School Date

Posted on April 5, 2010 by Mike Bock

Kettering School Superintendent, Dr. Jim Schoenlein, writes, in his March 26 memo to the Kettering Board, that, although he prefers an earlier start to the 2011 school year, he is recommending to the board that Kettering keep the original starting date. His memo explains that the Kettering Education Association president, Melissa Gallagher, “said that the KEA would be disgruntled if, two years in a row, the school calendar was changed after the KEA agreed.” Schoenlein indicates that although the KEA objected to an earlier start in the 2011 school year, the union agreed to an earlier start in the 2012 school year.

Schoenlein wanted school to start a week earlier than originally planned to give students more instructional time before the state tests. He writes to the Kettering Board: “Even though I believe moving as many days as possible ahead of testing definitely benefits the district test scores, I don’t think it is worth creating animosity with the KEA to get five more days ahead of testing, when we can accomplish the same thing a year later with no hard feelings. Hope you agree.”

Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment

Why Are There No Teachers in Kettering Schools Who Earn $200,000 Per Year — Or Even More?

Posted on April 1, 2010 by Mike Bock

Kettering School’s “Blue Ribbon Report” is a regular publication of Kettering Schools, paid for with local tax money. About half of this Spring’s issue is dedicated to giving a one-sided view of why voters should approve the 6.9 mill school tax proposal that is on the May 4 ballot.

The Report fails to explain that:

Because of a decrease in total property value in Kettering, the effective rate of property taxes needed to support Kettering Schools is increasing — from last year to this year by 2.34% — even if no new school tax levies are approved.
86% of the budget for Kettering Schools goes to personnel and the need for 6.9 additional mills of tax is based on a five year budget projection (below) that shows, in the last three years of the five year projection, increases of 4.82%, each year, for personnel.
Teachers in Kettering now earn, on average, $63,839 each year, with generous health and retirement benefits, and recent administrator contracts averaged $103,000, each year.

I am proud to live in a school district, that, through long tradition, pays its teachers and administrators well. I feel, however, a strong school district in a democracy must have transparency. I just think the school board, via its tax supported school publications, should be up front with the public.

I’m all in favor of paying teachers well. After all, I was a teacher for 30 years. It would make a good discussion, I think, to consider the question: “Why, in Kettering Schools, are there no teachers who earn $200,000, or more?” We live in an era when top professionals often earn much more than $200,000 each year. Wouldn’t it be desirable to create a system of public education where at least some teachers could earn top professional level salaries? For my book, “Kettering Public Education In The Year 2022: How Do We Get To A Great Future?”, I’m analyzing what a system might look like that would attract and develop top talent to its fullest potential.

There are a lot of good questions about system reform that are never asked, because it is assumed that the current system will go on forever and forever. The idea that the present system could work to find and reward top talent in some new way is exhausting to consider. The basic premise of the 6.9 mill tax proposal, reported in the Blue Ribbon Report, is that the system will continue as it is — bureaucratic, hierarchical — embedded in tradition, encoded in master contracts that seek to assure teacher equality.

According to W. Edwards Deming, who, Warned Against “Remodeling The Prison,” in every organization, overall system structure is the key to quality. What is needed, I feel, is a system that redefines teacher professionalism and teacher opportunity. But efforts to accomplish such change via bureaucratic processes is likely to fail. We need to consider redesigning public education from a market point of view. The point is to create a system that empowers teachers to find new creativity, excellence, and energy — to build a new standard of what it means to be a professional teacher. Such a system, would likely be more free market, more entrepreneurial — less bureaucratic, hierarchical.

As I walked neighborhoods, this past autumn, in my school board election effort, I heard a lot of good reports about Kettering Schools from parents and students. Many expressed to me their appreciation for a great education from caring teachers. Kettering Schools, I feel, deserves voter support. But, in my judgment, Kettering public education is not good enough. I believe, even in districts deemed “excellent,” with lots of good reports, public education needs transformation.

Superintendent, Dr. Jim Schoenlein, on page 1 in the Report, writes about, “preparing our kids to thrive in the new economy, developing into creative, innovative, high-level thinkers,” and I agree this is a great goal. The problem is, the present system does not have the capacity to accomplish this goal. The current system is not structured to accomplish top quality and the cost of maintaining the current system is increasing in a manner that cannot be sustained.

Dr. Schoenlein, in my view, finds himself the captain of a huge ship that is headed in the wrong direction. And, this 6.9 mill levy campaign seems all about finding the fuel needed to keep the ship headed in the same direction, not about using new energy to change direction.

The purpose of Kettering school district, at present, is the same as every other school district — to be deemed “excellent,” according to a governmental bureaucratic definition of excellence. The problem is, “schools of distinction” are failing to produce the creative, high-level thinkers Dr. Schoenlein writes about, and tinkering with the present system cannot possibly work to do much better.

“Excellent” schools, deemed so by the state of Ohio, are failing to produce the thoughtful and engaged citizens our democracy needs, and further gearing up the tests scores is not the answer. Everyone needs to remember that the original purpose of the state testing system was to define minimum standards and even today, the state testing system is still focused on minimum standards. These tests make no pretense to be indicators of high level thinking or creativity.

During the board election campaign last fall, the League of Women Voters asked each candidate to answer this question: “What Are The Biggest Challenges Facing The Kettering School System?” I wrote, in part, “Public education needs transformation. To achieve 21st century quality, we must stop simply replicating the present system. Authentic change is rare, because it is not easy. It requires leadership and strong community support.”

I keep quoting David Matthews, who writes in his book, “Reclaiming Public Education by Reclaiming Our Democracy,” that, “We must have the public we need before we can have the schools we want.” To improve education, Matthews argues, there must be a more engaged, more informed, more active public. In short, to improve education we must improve our democracy.

I’m happy to live in Kettering, because it is a great community. It is exactly the type of community that should be able to make a big breakthrough in showing the way to how to transform public education. It’s a community where democracy, at least, is awake and where democracy, I believe, can be vitalized.

Kettering is a community that should be a leader in public education. For Kettering to be a leader in public education we need an informed and engaged community. Tax money spent on preparing general school publications, like the Blue Ribbon Report, should have as its mission to inform, not to persuade.

The needed transformation of public education will not come from within the current system. The current system is all about replicating itself. Transformation of public education must come from the proper functioning of a strong democratic community. This proposal to the Kettering public — that we should voluntarily raise school property tax by 6.9 mills — offers a good opportunity for discussion about developing a long term plan for system transformation. In the short term, it is hard for a big system to change direction. But Kettering Schools, I believe, could and should develop a long term plan with two purpose: