This election, in selecting their school board members, Kettering voters have a choice. The question is, should voters return current board members who are seeking re-election — or choose the challengers? The DDN in its editorial endorsement, recommended sticking with the incumbents. Of the challengers — Jim Brown and me — the DDN said, “They have not made a strong enough case that they would be better.”

At the community meeting tomorrow, I hope to make the case — it’s all about two very different points of view.

The question is: What is the leadership that has the best chance of bringing the community to a great future?

Leadership comes from different points of view and the reason why I would be better leader for the board, I feel, is because I have a better point of view concerning the role of a board member than the view held by current board members. My point of view, I feel, has a much better chance of giving the kind of direction the district needs in order to build a good future.

In my new flyer I am distributing, I focus on the May 5 election that asked Kettering voters to approve renewing the five year 6.9 mill levy. I point out that the current board members were responsible for the misleading advertisement campaign that promised “ZERO Increase In Taxes” and “Not A Penny More.”

This levy campaign, I feel, gives a window into the thinking of the current board members.

These levy ads really angered me. In my flyer, I say they “appalled” me. It was a gut reaction. But as I talked to different people, I realized that a lot of people, to my surprise, thought these ads were OK. One man told me that he was glad the levy renewal passed, because his daughter teaches in the district. Another man told me that he didn’t agree with the way the levy was advertised, but that he voted for it, because his children attend Kettering Schools.

So, in the same way as these two people, evidently, the current board members thought the levy advertisement — “Not a Penny More” — was OK. The ad campaign, after all, succeeded in assuring the district of $8.2 million revenue each year for the next five years.

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.

The incumbents sincerely want the school district to be strong. The incumbent point of view sees the role of board member as being mostly about marketing. The incumbents see their role as cheerleaders for the district, as fundraisers, etc. I disagree.

My point of view is that a board of education should be all about exercising “local control.” In my view, strong local control must be the foundation for public education and a board member must do everything possible, therefore, to strengthen local control. This means transparency — it means inviting the public into meaningful participation.

In the short term, the leadership provided by the incumbents seems to work. But in the long term, it is doomed to fail. And if it fails, the consequence of failure for the community will be great. The point of view I offer is a much safer bet for the long term health and strength of public education in Kettering.

So at the public meeting tomorrow, I plan on contrasting two different points of view.

The first community meeting for Kettering Board candidates is Wednesday, October 21 at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church at Stroop and Ackerman at 7:00. All five candidates are invited and will answer questions provided by public members who are present.

It’s hard to believe, but, according to Kettering’s Interim School Superintendent, Jim Schoenlein, the school district of Kettering has destroyed its entire historical record of North Central self-study reports.

Prior to recent times, school districts were accredited by accrediting agencies.  Every five years, school districts, in order to maintain their accredited status, conducted an in-depth self-study and made a detailed report.  These reports represent decades of community and school history. According to Dr. Schoenlein, this whole record of self-study in Kettering was thrown out a few years ago.

Kettering has always been known as a progressive, thoughtful community.  I believe the historical record of how Kettering community leaders and Kettering educators previously analyzed their system of public education is very relevant to understanding our system today. These self-study reports contained a wealth of data, and, so far as I can tell, none of this data was ever digitized.

I requested to see the historical record of these self-studies several weeks ago and reached a dead-end.  I telephoned Dr. Schoenlein and asked him to verify that these self-studies are actually gone — and not in some obscure file cabinet somewhere.  He confirmed they were gone and I made the observation that no secretary or custodian or principal would ever throw away such material without orders from someone in authority.  Dr. Schoenlein noted that these records were destroyed when Robert Mengerink was superintendent, but did not indicate whether he knew exactly how it came about that these self-study records were destroyed.

I particularly wanted to read in these old reports how previous generations in Kettering thought about the purpose of public education.  For every self-study report, a committee worked to write a statement of educational philosophy that should guide the actions and policies of the district.  The idea of the self-study was for the district to first clarify its purpose / philosophy and then show the plan by which it intended to fulfill that purpose.  It was a thoughtful process.  Have I mentioned that in Kettering the historical record of all of this was destroyed?

Kettering for decades was accredited by the group considered the gold standard for school districts — The North Central Accreditation Association.  Kettering dropped its North Central association five or six years ago.  Now Kettering simply uses the state report card system for its evaluation and, unlike North Central, the state system is almost 100% student academic tests based.

I’m wondering, and I will attempt to investigate, if maybe the North Central organization, itself, might have records of its member schools.

I wish I could take a time machine to West Carrollton about 1971 when I first started teaching.  I was a member of the “Philosophy Committee.”  I guess everyone in West Carrollton with strong opinions about school purpose got on that committee.  I remember we had intense discussions and debates.

What we were discussing in 1971, I don’t remember, but we were passionate about whatever it was. I would like to be refreshed as to what it was all about. The committee finally came to a consensus and made its written report, and then, as I recall, nothing happened.  The report languished in some file cabinet, and the school kept going pretty much as always.  But to read that report today would be valuable, because at least it would give a snapshot in time of how at least one group of young teachers and concerned citizens in West Carrollton in 1971 defined school purpose.

In my view, there is a huge need here in 2009 for public education to define its purpose / its aim.  If “local control” is to have any meaning, a local community, like Kettering, must periodically clarify its purpose and analyze how well its system of public education is doing in accomplishing its purpose.  I believe we need to bring back the whole concept of “self-study.”

In order to see clearly a path to the future, we need to be guided by some of the wisdom and thinking of the past.  I’m amazed that historical record — the work of thoughtful citizens and gifted educators in Kettering — was discarded.