Last May, Citizens for Kettering Schools advertised the 6.9 mill tax renewal as “ZERO Increase In Taxes,” and spent about $13,200 on a successful campaign. Letters sent home to parents of Kettering students said, if the levy passed, there would not be “not a penny more in tax.” I objected to the Ohio Election Commission that when The Kettering Superintendent of Schools promised, “absolutely no increase in taxes,” he was engaging in false advertisement.

As it turns out, since last year, not only the effective tax rate for the 6.9 mill renewal school levy increased, but, the effective rate for other previous Kettering school levies and bonds also increased. In total, the effective rate in Kettering for school property tax increased, from last year to this year, by 2.34%.

To pay for Kettering school tax, the average property in Kettering ($164,932) is taxed $48.60 more this year ($2,126.74) than last year ($2078.14). This amounts to $29.47 more per $100,000 valuation. (Regardless of last year’s promise of “not a penny more,” of this additional $29.47 tax per $100,000 valuation, 53 cents comes from the renewed 6.9 mill levy approved last May.)

Effective rates for school taxes are variable, because, according to Ohio law, property tax levies cannot raise more tax money than the amount originally approved. The 6.9 mill levy, renewed last year, for example, originally was approved in 2004, and, at that time, 6.9 mills was needed to raise $8.2 million. After 2004, total property valuation increased in Kettering, and, in order to collect the $8.2 million, but no more, allocated for this levy, the effective rate for this 6.9 mills decreased. In 2007, the effective rate was 6.1317 mills — meaning, only 6.1317 mills were needed to raise the $8.2 million. But since 2007, the effective rate has been rising. To bring in the same revenue, $8.2 million, the effective tax rate for this 6.9 mill levy, this year, is 6.1768 mills.

In total, adding all of the effective rates of of bonds and levies from 13 accounts, last year, to support Kettering Schools, Kettering properties were taxed at an effective rate of 41.142869 mills. This year, to support Kettering Schools, Kettering properties are taxed at an effective rate of 42.105200 mills. The effective rate for property tax to support Kettering schools increased 2.34% — in a year when there was, supposedly, “ZERO” new taxes. Here are some of the increases:

• Last year the 6.9 mill levy, originally passed in 2004, had an effective tax rate of 6.1616 mills. This year, the effective rate is 6.1767.
• Last year the 3.2 mill levy, originally passed in 2000, had an effective rate of 2.6246. this year the effective rate is 2.6311
• Last year the 6.7 mill levy, originally passed in 1990, had an effective rate of 3.2890. This year the effective rate is 3.2970
• Last year, the 1993 bond for $14.8 million cost .5 mills This year it costs 1.0 mills
• Last year the 2002 bond for $102 million cost 4.5 mills. This year is costs 4.9 mills.

Here is a PDF showing the effective rates for the last five years.

In my post last year, A Decrease In The Value Of Kettering’s Total Tax Base Means The Renewal Levy Will Increase Taxes, I wrote, “I am not objecting to paying a few more dollars in taxes to support my local schools. I do object to our school board using antidemocratic practices as a strategy for funding the school system.”

I wrote, here, “The problem is, these ads trifled with the public’s trust. Losing public trust has long term consequences. In the long run, the only factor that can possibly make a strong system of public education is if the system is supported by a strong community. … This means transparency — it means inviting the public into meaningful participation.”

Now, the Kettering School Board is asking voters to approve a new levy for 6.9 mills, and in this important request, the Board should be held to a high standard of transparency to explain their reasons for this request. More on this new levy in a future post.

Here is how I calculated the amount of average Kettering school property tax increase — $48.60

• The current average listing price for houses in Kettering is $164,932. This seems a fair definition of “average Kettering property.” If the county auditor values a property at $164,932, then the tax requirement for this property for this renewal levy would be determined as follows: 35% of $164,932 = 57,726 (the taxable amount); the current effective rate for Kettering Schools is now 42.105200 mills ($42.105200 per $1000 of taxable property), so, 57,726/1000 = 57.726 and 57.726 X 42.105200 = $2430.56. After the 12.5% rollback this becomes $2,126.74
• Similarly, 41.142869 mills (the amount last year) on a property worth $164,932 has a tax of $2078.14.
• The difference is $48.60

According to the Finance Report, filed at the Montgomery County Board of Elections, “Citizens for Kettering Schools,” a registered Political Action Committee (PAC), in the 2009 campaign didn’t pay sales tax on items it purchased. Here are six invoices. All six invoices, made out to the Kettering PAC, show zero sales tax was charged. Two of the invoices show that sales tax was originally calculated and then later scratched out.

I talked briefly, by phone, with Steve Harsman, the director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, and asked whether it is possible that a Political Action Committee, seeking to influence voters to support a school tax levy, could be tax-exempt. He said he didn’t think so, but didn’t know for certain.

I have a call into the Ohio Department of Taxation, to inquire if this Kettering PAC, “Citizens For Kettering Schools,” is permitted by Ohio law to be exempt from state sales tax.

I did check out a couple of the six invoices by telephoning the businesses involved. Each business confirmed what the invoices say — the Kettering PAC paid no sales tax.

It doesn’t seem reasonable, to me, that a school levy advocacy group should not pay sales tax. Tax exempt organizations, like churches, I thought, were prohibited from partisan advocacy of candidates or issues. But, experienced school people are in charge of the “Citizens for Kettering” PAC, so, I’ll be interested to learn how this zero sales tax is justified. When I find out more information I will post it.

To pay for advertisements, to promote last year’s 6.9 mill renewal levy, “Citizens For Kettering Schools” spent $13,262. Much of this money came from small donations. School employees in Kettering, I’ve learned, are permitted to have money withdrawn from their checks on a monthly basis as a contribution to the “Citizens for Kettering Schools” PAC. In the 187 pages, in the finance report, are pages and pages of names and addresses of contributors, each making small gifts of $1, $2 or $3, or so.  It sounds like these donations are for one paycheck and, so, over a year accumulate to a much larger total donation per person.

The “Citizens for Kettering Schools” PAC started the 2009 campaign to support a 6.9 mill renewal levy with about $15,951 in the bank.  The PAC spent over $13,000 in the 2009 campaign, and ended up with a reserve of $13,012. The biggest gift reported in 2009 was $1000 from the Kettering Education Association.

So, for the 2010 campaign, in preparation for the May 4 election — to gain a “Yes” vote for 6.9 additional mills– the Kettering PAC started out with over $13,000.

To find out this information about the Kettering PAC took some effort and money on my part. It required that I make the trip downtown Dayton to The Board of Elections’ office to get the finance report. At 10 cents a page, I was required to pay $18.70 for a xeroxed copy of the PAC’s Finance Report, and, then, on top of that, I had to pay $2.00 in parking fees.

I complained to Betty Smith, the Deputy Director, as I was picking up the documents, that it would seem, here in 2010, that Montgomery County would be using the tools available today, via electronic files and the internet, to make all of the “public information” more accessible to the public.

Had I known about it, I would have mentioned to Ms Smith that this very week (March 14 – 20) is “National Sunshine Week”. The Montgomery County Board of Elections, it seems to me, needs to do better in helping the public to let the light shine.

Kettering’s School Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, in his March 5 memo to his administrative staff and board members, gives three reasons for voters to support Kettering Schools new 6.9 mill tax levy. And, he reports, “we are preparing our first glossy postcard mailer.” The election is May 4.

One reason taxpayers should vote for the levy, according to Schoenlein, is supported by the news that three Kettering high school students recently won a state engineering contest — The “Real World Design Challenge.”

Schoenlein argues that voters will support a school system that, “provides our children and grandchildren with a bright, successful, prosperous future by equipping them with a competitive edge in the new global economy,” and, he points to the fact that Kettering’s win in the engineering design contest helps make the case that education in Kettering provides students with a competitive edge.

An article in the DDN, “Three Fairmont Seniors Soar In Ohio Engineering Event,” has one comment that supports Schoenlein’s argument. “I am happy to live in a school district which provides this kind of opportunity for the students,” someone identified as “Webb,” writes, “With an upcoming levy, this kind of news shows my money is being well spent – for students.”

The three Kettering students were featured at a recent STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) conference where Governor Strickland spoke.

In a news release, Strickland said, “The Real World Design Challenge enhances STEM education in Ohio and reflects our commitment to giving students opportunities to creatively apply what they have learned.”

Ohio is busy creating a network of STEM schools, and one such school is at Wright State. And STEM schools, according to this you-tube report, offer project based, integrated learning across the disciplines.  Overall, STEM schools aim to create an education program that requires a school structure that is, “very different from how schools are now structured.” STEM experts like Kamau Bobb Google helped structure the national research agenda for effectively delivering equitable and quality computational education to all students.

Schoenlein in his memo indirectly acknowledges that Kettering’s is a traditional system. The fact that three Kettering high school students were successful in this state competition is great, but it would be wrong to suggest that Kettering High School has embraced the educational philosophy of the STEM schools, or an education with the same goals as STEM schools.

Schonlein writes, “Kettering City School System is uniquely positioned and qualified to enable our kids to be successful and prosperous in a highly competitive economic future. Our citizens can be fully confident that we can and will get this job done for their children and grandchildren.”

“We Can” and “We Will” sound like goal statements, not statements boasting what Kettering is already accomplishing. Schoenlein writes, “Our future lies with creativity, ingenuity, higher order thinking skills, problem solving, and entrepreneurship.”

Schoenlein is making a goal statement of what Kettering Schools should be emphasizing. But it sounds like the glossy mailer, being prepared, will ask voters to support the 6.9 mill levy by pointing to the three students who won the state competition, and will make it sound like these goals are already being accomplished in Kettering Schools.  (I’m guessing — based on Dr. Schoenlein’s memo. I’ll scan and post the glossy mailer, whenever I receive it.)

The idea that Kettering Schools should emphasize, “creativity, ingenuity, higher order thinking skills, problem solving, and entrepreneurship” would require a big change in a system — because, now, the system seems totally focused on producing good scores for the state achievement tests

It is easy to “talk the talk,” and public education has a history of making big promises. Saying that a school seeks to develop individual potential, or seeks to develop “higher order thinking skills,” is easy to say, but hard to do. As I’ve quoted before, the key question that must be answered is what W. Edwards Deming famously liked to roar, “BY WHAT METHOD?”

What is needed in Kettering is a commitment to change. Public education needs a big transformation. A good place to start the transformation of a system is to envision and articulate the goals and purpose of the system. I’d be glad if my local community would accept the goals suggested in Dr. Schoenlein’s memo and would define the goal of our local system of public education to develop creativity, develop individual potential in students. And, I’d want to add to those goals the goal of developing citizens for a democratic society.

The idea of local control is that, through their board of education, the citizens of a community can envision a purpose and goal for their system of public education.  The hard work is not setting the goals, but in answering the question, “BY WHAT METHOD?”

Ohio’s system of school finance requires local districts to continually request additional funding from their communities. This system of school finance has been bitterly criticized, but it has an up side: It provides a big opportunity for meaningful civic participation. It provides a big opportunity for citizens to have thoughtful discussion about what their community’s public schools is seeking to accomplish and an opportunity to evaluate plans for the community’s public schools in the future.

If we take Dr. Schoenlein’s comments that Kettering Schools should have as its goal to provide students the skills and experience needed to develop their “creativity, ingenuity, higher order thinking skills, problem solving, and entrepreneurship,” then it is a fair question to wonder to what degree is Kettering now meeting this goal.

If The Kettering Board Of Education wanted to know the answer to this question, there would be ways of finding out. Recently, Kettering Schools spent $19,000 on a poll to find out what Kettering voters are thinking. Why not take a poll of Kettering students to find out what Kettering students are thinking about their own education?

Three Kettering students winning a state competition is great news, but what about the other 7,400 Kettering students? The University of Kentucky has a great basketball team, with highly skilled and successful individual players, but most UK students, predictably, would be very inept basketball players. What a few uniquely equipped and motivated students accomplish doesn’t tell much about the student body as a whole.

My thought is that the community should begin to take a close look at its school system, envision and clarify its goals and purpose, and agree on a long term plan for the system transformation needed to accomplish this purpose.  I am preparing a book that I hope will help inspire such a community conversation: “Kettering Public Education In the Year 2020”