I’m convinced that comments made during Kettering’s 6.9 mill renewal levy, that passed on May 5, violated Ohio’s Revised Code. I’ve given myself a week to think about whether I should proceed with making a formal complaint to the Ohio Election Commission, and I’ve decided to go ahead, though I still need to have the document notarized.

I’ve boiled down my complaint to one specific comment made by the Superintendent of Kettering Schools, Robert Mengerink, in the school publication mailed to all Kettering households, “The Blue Ribbon Report.” In that publication, received by voters a couple of weeks prior to the election, Dr. Mengerink is quoted as saying, “There will be absolutely no increase in taxes as a result of this Renewal Issue.”

If you listen to Dr. Mengerink’s comments at the Kettering Board of Education meeting, you will see that at that meeting he used great care to not say something that was technically inaccurate — though, obviously, his words transmitted misinformation to most viewers. It is interesting that, in light of Dr. Mengerink’s care in his spoken comments, that he would allow “The Blue Ribbon Report” to cross the line and print a written statement, a quote from him, that, in my judgment, is impossible to defend.

“Absolutely,” to me, rules out any exception of using alternative meanings of the phrase “no increase in taxes,” since the word “absolutely” means “without exception, without condition.” I am attaching the copy of “The Blue Ribbon Report” that was sent to my house. You can see the report here.

I followed the guide for making complaints, so I hope there is not some technicality I missed that will cause it to be rejected. You can see a PDF of my full complaint here.

I am also attaching to the complaint a copy of a letter prepared, I believe, by the principal of one of the Kettering Elementary School in my neighborhood, Oakview School. My contention is that this letter occured in response to Dr. Mengerink’s promise of “absolutely no increase in taxes,” and gives a clear meaning of how the word “absolutely” was meant to be understood. The Oakview letter says, “Remember, this issue won’t cost any of us one cent more in taxes …” You can see a copy of the Oakview letter here.

The issue that is important here is the issue of local control, as I write about here. The issue is that public schools have little hope for improvement if antidemocratic forces are in control. I write about here.

Now to get this notarized and in the mail — and then to see what happens.

Note: After reading Dr. Kinlaw’s book, I made this response:  When We Reject The Gods Of Our Childish Imaginations, What Remains?

My goal this week is to finish reading Dennis Kinlaw’s latest book, “Let Start With Jesus,” and write an article about what it says. Dr. Kinlaw was President of Asbury College when I graduated in 1969 — 40 years ago this year! Dr. Kinlaw was 46 years old at the time — 15 years younger than I am now! It seems hard for me to believe, but it must be true.

My class, “The Knights,” was his first graduating class. I hope to see Dr. Kinlaw at the college reunion at the end of June, and I want to be able to tell him that I read his book and that, in fact, I wrote about it. I need to get going. I’ve decided that Dennis Kinlaw’s New Book Is The Next Book I Am Going To Finish Reading

I’m proud to say that Governor Ted Strickland graduated from Asbury Colege in 1963 — two years before I got there as a freshman in 1965.

Lulu makes it easy to update a book. In this, the third edition of my book of web articles, I’ve corrected more errors. I joked with my high school English teacher, Larry O’Donnell, that I could advertise the book with the headline, “Now, With Even Less Errors,” and he corrected my error. He told me that I should say, “Now, With Even Fewer Errors.” I had to laugh.

I added some more recent posts in this third edition and deleted some others. I concluded the book with a new post, How A Lazy Disinterested Prince Came To Relish Learning, Treasure Understanding, Delight in Insight, the premise for a potential book, a sort of thought experiment. I’m wondering how it could be that a lazy prince is turned around? What would the qualities of such a teacher be, who could affect such a transformation? What would the education look like that had as its goal that students would come to relish learning?

I recently found the copy of my 1992 copy of WCEA News, the West Carrollton teacher magazine I edited, and reread my interview with W. Edwards Deming. I got to ask him, “What do you think should be the aim of schools?” Deming’s initial answer was, “Well, what do you think should be the aim of schools?” After I stammered around and laughed nervously, Deming said, “They should restore and nurture the yearning for learning that the child is born with.”

I’ve reread that sentence by Deming many times. It says a lot. It says that Motivation, Not Curriculum:
The Key to School Reform How do we get kids to relish learning? How do we activate the inner teacher in a child that will guide and push him or her throughout his or her lifetime to ever greater growth into his or her potential? To frame the aim and purpose of education in these terms is to suggest a profound transformation in educational practices. What theories and principles should guide such practices? How should the role of teacher be defined? How is a lazy prince to become motivated?

I’m sort of giving myself an assignment to make a stab at thinking though this thought experiment of the lazy prince.