Should academically successful adolescents go to college at the end of their tenth grade? An editorial this week in the DDN urges Ohio to adopt this early college idea, but the proposal brings up a lot of questions.

The DDN says early college is, “a promising high school reform effort.” Reform seeks to bring more efficiency or more success to a system. So, to me, here is the sticking point for this early college idea: The definition of success of the system of public education is so lazily considered, there is little standard for judging ideas for system improvement.

The DDN defines success for the system in terms of student academic accomplishment as measured in test scores, academic credits and academic degrees. This definition of system success is widely accepted. In recent years, high schools have offered more and more college level work via a great proliferation of Advanced Placement classes. In general, curriculum has been pushed to be “covered” earlier and earlier in each child’s academic career. Algebra, for example, traditionally was always considered a high school level course of study. Now we see high school Algebra commonly offered to academically gifted children in the seventh grade, and earlier. We see curriculum for Kindergarten students that previously was designed for older students.

The system of public education is built on the notion of competition. Students compete with each other for academic honors and advancement, and these academic honors eventually are translated into superior earning power. One frequently cited purpose for public education is to make America, itself, more competitive in the world at large.

This definition of system purpose is seldom, if ever, challenged. But, there are many ways to think about the purpose and aim of public education and U.S. taxpayers should be wary of accepting a purpose for public education that is embraced by totalitarian or oligarchic states. I’m sure North Korea also seeks school reforms that will help prepare its citizens to more effectively compete and to more perfectly conform to the state definition of education and to more completely acquiesce to the state’s system of credentialling and rewards.

Public education in the United States has slipped away from public control. Such “reforms” as the instituting of AP classes in high schools, or the initiating of early college opportunities, are undoubtedly pushed and desired by many parents and students who also define system success in terms of competition and in terms of gaining economic advantage. Starting in preschool, the race is on for the best grades, the most recognition and most impressive credentials. The central purpose of this race is seen as securing good economic results in terms of winning the best jobs and best opportunities.

Parents demand greater advantages for their children.  But the fact that a demand is made by a big block of parents doesn’t mean that acquiescing to the demand makes for good public policy. The consensus view of education, the view that fuels the DDN editorial, is not challenged nearly enough.

We need to remember that public education is funded with public money. The rationale behind the demand that taxpayers fund public education is that public education is important to securing and advancing the general good.

If the purpose of public education is seen as an economic purpose, it’s hard to justify, in terms of the public good, pumping boat loads of money into a system that produces relatively few winners, but multitudes of losers. And the notion that the system can ever make every child a winner in this academic race, that all children can go to college and get credentials that will assure good paying jobs, is absurd.

In Kettering, at a per pupil expense approaching $12,000 each year, a K-12 education costs over $150,000. Rather than giving this money each year to an educational establishment, if, instead, this money was invested, then each Kettering child at age 18 could be given an endowment from the community of about $200,000.

I know such a thought — to simply give the money directly to the students — sounds ridiculous, but the point is, if the rationale for spending tax money on public education is all about accomplishing the purpose of providing economic opportunities to community children, then let’s get serious about the best way to use available resources to accomplish that purpose. $200,000 would make a good start in life and would have much more value and utility for most students than what they are getting from their public education.

But, the point is, the general good a community expects from spending tax money on public education is one that transcends purely economic purposes. The future of our society requires new generations to show good character, to have a commitment to community, to be prepared for and well practiced in active citizenship and leadership in a democracy, to have a commitment to personal excellence. The purpose of public education is to prepare and empower new generations of citizens.

Helping students get academic credentials at an accelerated pace is not, as the DDN says, a “promising high school reform effort.” The general good we seek in public education, that as a society we can agree is so important that it demands a system of coercive taxation for its funding, transcends academic accomplishment. The general good we seek in public education transcends competition.

Authentic high school reform will require in-depth thinking about purpose, about how the common good we seek in public education should best be defined and how that common good can best be accomplished. Authentic high school reform will be hard work and will challenge current assumptions and challenge the educational establishment.

Authentic high school reform is difficult. Sending kids to college early is easy. Advancing the notion that pushing kids out of high school early — with the excuse that they are bored or unchallenged in the present system — is the opposite of advancing an idea for “high school reform.”

See: Thinking Through Purposes and Principles Needed To Guide the Re-Design of Public Education And see, To Transform Our System Of Education, We Must Redefine The Aim Of The System

Here is a PDF showing the names of delegates seeking election to the Montgomery County Democratic Party Reorganization Meeting. Every precinct is allowed to elect one delegate at the May 4 Democratic Primary. The deadline to get the name on the ballot was February 18. Of the 360 precincts in Montgomery County, about one-half will have at least one candidate on the ballot. But almost half will not.

Candidates elected at the May 4 Democratic Primary will be delegates to the Reorganization Meeting (held in mid-May) and will be voting members of the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s Central Committee — the legislative body of the local county party — for the next four years.

The Montgomery County Republican Party will have its Reorganization Meeting in two years.

It’s too late to get a name on the ballot, but any Democrat who wants to be elected as a delegate to the Reorganization Meeting may still be elected as a write-in candidate. The deadline is March 3 to turn in the needed paper work to be a write-in candidate.

The successful reorganization of our local political parties is of key importance to our communities. In my judgment, our best way to the future is through the vitalization of our democracy, through the building of authentic community, and political parties have a big role to play. I write here: What If More Democracy Is The Answer?

The Dayton Daily News in the past has criticized both the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Montgomery County Democratic Party for their antidemocratic actions. Yet, in this matter of this Reorganization Meeting, where democracy could actually gain some foothold, the DDN has made not a peep. Even my letter was not printed.

Although only about one-half of the 360 precincts have any candidates, there are 34 precincts where there is more than one candidate. In a couple of precincts there are four candidates. It will be interesting to see if in these contested precincts whether candidates will campaign and if so, what issues might emerge.

In my view, the local party needs a lot of improvement, a new direction, and needs new leadership. I think the current leadership is very much out of step with the thinking and the viewpoint of the grassroots. See here: Mark Owens Says Most Montgomery Dems Approve The Party’s Suppression Of Primary Participation.

I would like to see some changes to the constitution that will make the party more democratic and more forward looking. I plan on making some specific proposals that I will post here in the next few weeks.

The Kettering Board of Education at its Feb. 16 meeting, this evening, will discuss its plans to place a 6.9 mill operating levy on the May 4 ballot.  The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in the Recital Hall of Fairmont High School, 3301 Shroyer Road.

The need for a 6.9 mill levy is based on a five year budget projection prepared by Kettering’s School Treasurer, Steve Clark.  This school year (2009-2010), Kettering is spending $82.1 million to educate 7329 students, or, on average, $11,200 per student per year.  The budget projection shows that within four years (2013 – 2014) Kettering will need a budget of $95.6 million, or $13,040 per student per year.  This is an increase of 16.4%.

Since 85% of the school district budget always goes to salaries and benefits, almost all of this 6.9 mill tax increase will go to teachers and administrators.  The 6.9 mill levy request amounts to a request to increase salaries and benefits of teachers and administrators, over the next four years, by 19% — from the current $69.7 million to the projected amount of $83 million.

Last year, the board approved a two year contract for teachers of a 1.5% increase per year.  The last year for this contract is 2010 – 2011. The budget shows the 2009 – 2010 expenditure on salaries as $50.5 million and the 2010 – 2011 expenditure on salaries as $52.2 million — an increase of 3.32% above the expenditure of the previous year.

The reason why the total increase is shown to be 3.32%, rather than 1.5%, is because the 1.5% increase was added to the overall master contract. About 2/3 of teachers, according to the contract, each year earn increases in salary because of additional years of experience and / or additional academic credentials. Each “step” on the contract, on average, amounts to a 6% increase.

Usually teachers negotiate new contracts for a three year period, rather than a two year period as in this last contract, and this five year budget forecast shows that the school anticipates a new contract with a total 4.82% increase each year, for three years.  Part of this 4.82% increase will come from the experience and training “steps” already in the master contract.  But, about 2.5% -3% of this increase each year will be new money added to the contract.

It looks like the five year forecast anticipates a new three year teacher contract in which all teachers will receive at least a 2% – 3%  increase in salary each year for three years, and in which about 2/3 of the teachers will also receive a 6% experience or training “step.”  The way I read the budget forecast, the school treasurer is predicting a new three year teachers’ contract where most teachers (about 2/3) will receive an 8% increase each year beginning in 2011-12.

This year, the beginning salary for Kettering teachers is $35,000 per year, the ending salary is $80,000 or more, and the average salary for Kettering teachers is about $69,000.

Last year, the Kettering Board split 3-2 in approving the two year contract that gave 1.5% increase each year for two years.  Jim Trent, President of the Board, voted against the pay increase and, according to the DDN, said, “I can support all the components of the negotiated agreement with our teachers except the pay increase. 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.”

Here is a short video where Mr. Trent gives his opinion of the two year contract.

Board member, Frank Maus, also voted against the increase and is quoted by the DDN as saying, “Do the teachers deserve a raise? Yes, the teachers deserve a raise, but with the economic conditions, which our community is faced with today, a raise is not a prudent thing to do.”

Mr. Maus’ vote against the teachers’ pay increase may have cost him his board position.  Of the three incumbents seeking reelection, Maus was the only incumbent board member who was defeated this past November, and he was the only board member who opposed the new teachers’ contract.  The DDN reported, “Some Kettering teachers were angry when school board member Frank Maus voted last spring against a contract that called for a 1.5 percent raise for teachers. The two incumbents who voted for the contract — Julie Gilmore and George Bayless — were re-elected, while Mr. Maus narrowly lost to challenger James Brown.”

During the board campaign, I was a candidate for school board, and I discovered that school officials wanted to place a new 7 mill levy on the May ballot. I brought up the topic of this 7 mill increase in property tax whenever possible.  Such an anticipated tax increase should have been discussed as part of the Kettering School Board election. But other board candidates and school officials denied they had made such plans and, during the election, I never succeeded in bringing about much public discussion about the matter.