In Kettering, during this time of economic recession, the fact that the public is being pushed to approve a new 6.9 mill school tax issue raises the question: Who is in charge of Kettering Schools?

Kettering Schools’ anticipated budget shortfall is testimony to the power, over time, of compound interest. The five year forecast, that justifies the need for a 6.9 mill levy, shows increase in personnel expenses compounded 4.82% each year, for three years. The fact that 86% of the budget goes to personnel means this inflating of salaries carries a huge expense.

One year ago, when Board President, Jim Trent, voted against approving a new teacher’s contract that showed a 1.5% increase each year for two years, he was quoted by the DDN as saying, “After receiving feedback from many of our citizens, observing the latest economic news, and giving this topic an unbelievable amount of thought, I have reached the conclusion that because of the current economic turmoil, the time is not right to approve an increase in pay for anyone.”

The economic climate has not improved, but, now, Mr. Trent is supporting a 6.9 mill increase in tax with, basically, the purpose of giving teachers and administrators new pay increases. He is quoted in The Blue Ribbon Report saying that, without sufficient funds, cuts to program will need to be made that, “will seriously impact the quality of the education we can provide to our students.”

The message of the levy campaign is an implicit threat that 6.9 mills in additional tax increase is needed — or, the educational program in Kettering will suffer. And, as I see it, Mr. Trent is describing a budget strategy in which increases in teacher and administrator salaries have first priority, and, in the case where there is insufficient funds both to give salary increases and to maintain program, then, it sounds to me, Trent feels salary increases must have the priority. How else can his advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy be explained?

Why present a plan calling for 4.82% increases, each year, in personnel pay — causing a deficit needing 6.9 mills of additional tax to fill? Why not present the public a more modest tax increase request — based upon freezing changes in the teacher and administrator contracts for a few years? It seems to me, a system with leadership responsive to local control would have made such a choice. A teacher contract frozen for three years would save, I figure, over $11 million in the five year plan. The current contract provides about two-thirds of the Kettering teachers, each year, with a 6% “step” pay increase, and these “step” increases would continue if the contract was “frozen.”

The 4.82% increase, each year, called for in the last three years of the five year plan, evidently, is the anticipated amount required to negotiate a new teachers’ contract, and, it looks like Mr. Trent and the rest of the board feel a big need to acquiesce to the teachers’ union. It is interesting that Superintendent Schoenlein thought it more important to seek peace with the teacher’s union, rather than to follow his own judgment about how to increase Kettering test scores. He didn’t want KEA to be “disgruntled.” (See Kettering School Superintendent Acquiesces To Teacher’s Union Concerning 2011 Start Of School Date.)

In this time of economic recession, it is a tough sell to ask the public to voluntarily tax themselves so that teachers and administrators can have substantial pay increases. And so, advertisements for the 6.9 mill levy avoid the central issue of how 86% of this new revenue will be spent, and spokespersons, like Mr. Trent, warn, “without sufficient funds, cuts to program will need to be made.”

It would be refreshing if the board would publicly defend what, evidently, they believe: “Yes our teachers are the highest paid and we think it is in the public interest to keep increasing teacher salaries even higher.” I think there is a good argument in favor of such a point of view, and this pov could gain the support of a lot of Kettering voters. It’s an implicit issue in this campaign, why not make it explicit?

The request to Kettering voters to voluntarily raise property taxes to support Kettering Schools should be a good opportunity to have meaningful discussion about public education in Kettering. It should be an opportunity to begin talking about the long term future of public education in Kettering. What might happen is that, because this effort to sell this 6.9 mill tax increase seems so out of whack with the present economic reality, this 6.9 mill levy request might cause Kettering residents to wonder if their local system of public education in under local control, or whether it is under special interest control.

Written By Mike Bock

Here is a new feature — Leave a voice message. Call free from anywhere in the U.S.

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.