Eric, responding to, “DDN School Voucher Article Fails To Point Out HB136 Will Use Coercive Taxation To Fund Religious Education,” writes, “Government should rise to the challenge of providing schools worthy of parental support.” But, should public education be all about pleasing parents? Eric’s comment made me once again return to ideas from TQM, and ask, “In public education, who is the customer?”

Twenty years ago “Total Quality Management” was a hot topic, and, in West Carrollton, where I taught, I participated in a district wide “Quality Committee,” formed to make recommendations for improving West Carrollton Schools. The reasonable premise of TQM is, in order for an organization to be successful, it must fulfill the aim of aligning the use of its resources to effectively and efficiently please, delight, and exceed the expectations of its customers. In education, the question, “Who is the Customer?” is the basis for some valuable analysis.

The U.S. Congress is deemed unsuccessful by 85% of Americans, yet, the defenders of congress absurdly continue to talk the talk of democracy. From one POV, however, Congress is spectacularly successful because it is accomplishing its actual aim: maintaining the status quo. After all, 90% of congressmen are assured of perpetual reelection and, overall, the customers of congress, the monied interests who donate millions to individual congressmen, couldn’t be more pleased by the legislation they have purchased.

Organizations have an ostensible aim and an actual aim. Congress is failing in its ostensible aim to be an effective branch of a representative democracy, but it is succeeding in its hidden actual aim — to secure its members’ power and enrich those who pay to play.

W. Edwards Deming warned that as organizations mature, inevitably, individual profit centers emerge, focused on promoting their own advantage, and sap the capacity of the organization to accomplish its ostensible aim. General Motors sought to make money for its unions, shareholders and executives and, over time, sort of forgot, if it was to have a future, it needed to focus its energy and resources on producing a quality product that would delight its customers. Oops.

Much of the sound and fury concerning improving public education has actually been fomented by individual profit centers seeking advantage. Corporations have demanded that public education train workers for their factories. Unions have pushed for more pay and benefits. Universities have demanded more expensive teacher credentialing. Politicians have sought voter favor with ham-fisted simplistic answers. And parents, cumulatively, have been the most forceful profit center of all — demanding, and receiving, ever more tax money to pay for expensive special programs for their children.

This sense of entitlement of Ohio parents, amazingly, has reached a new dimension, with some parents pushing for special privilege, via House Bill 136, to use public tax money to pay for a religious based education in private schools. HB136 should be a wake-up call for taxpayers. The idea that parents are the primary customers of public education, and are entitled to make unlimited demands on the system, has always been an erroneous claim. The push for HB136 simply makes the error of that claim more obvious.

The way forward for public education is a new assertion of local control, as a balance to the special interests of parents, industry, the educational establishment. A system of public education under the authority of local control would create an organizational structure that would align the use of its resources to please its customers, the local taxpayers. Yes, parents and the educational establishment would have an opportunity to influence the formation of public policy, but would not have the blank check they enjoy at present.

Local control can only exist in the context of an authentic local democracy. The way forward for the transformation that is needed in public education is to put the customers of public education, the taxpayers, in control via the vitalization of local democracies, via the vitalization of authentic community. In Kettering, local control would mean taking a fresh look at the $12,000 per student now spent in the district. It would mean finding a way to delight the taxpayer by finding an organizational structure that would produce much higher quality at lower expense. Defining system quality would be a big part of the process.

This is all an interesting thinking exercise and I am inching along in my goal to think big about the future — looking backwards from 2030 — and explain how the progressive community of Kettering transformed public education and set an example widely copied throughout the nation: When Anna Is Nineteen: Public Education In Kettering, Ohio, In The Year 2030. I think topics dealing with the future would be a good way to frame the Kettering School Board elections in 2013.

Previous posts that seem pertinent:

• In Kettering, The Challenge Is To Help The Local School Board — Regardless Of Disappointment With Election, By Mike Bock, on November 10th, 2011
• Humanity Is On A Wire — In The Future, Education Will Seek To Develop Character More Than Intellect, By Mike Bock, on May 9th, 2011
• Bob Sommers — Ohio’s New Director Of 21St Century Education — Explains His Vision Of The Future, By Mike Bock, on April 6th, 2011
• Transformation Of Public Education Is Possible Only Via Strong Communities Exerting Local Control, By Mike Bock, on February 16th, 2011
• If The Aim Of Public Education Is To Provide Opportunity — How Should $150,000 Per Student Be Spent?, By Mike Bock, on November 22nd, 2010
• Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed, By Mike Bock, on January 14th, 2009
• To Transform Our System Of Education, We Must Redefine The Aim Of The System, By Mike Bock, on May 27th, 2008

In the aftermath of Ohio’s execution, yesterday, of Reginald Brooks — convicted of killing his three sons — I was glad to see that Ohio Capital Blog posted a You-tube video showing the comments Sister Helen Prejean, of “Dead Man Walking” fame, made in the state capital urging Ohio to turn against the use of the death penalty.

With Sister Prejean were State Representatives Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) and Ted Celeste (D-Grandview Heights), cosponsors of House Bill 160, proposed legislation to replace Ohio’s death penalty with a penalty of life without parole. And I was glad to see Dayton Representative Roland Winburn on the video, which I interpret as indicating his support.

I found this recent press release by Representative Celeste:

It’s Time To End Ohio’s Death Penalty

In 2010, Ohio had the second most executions of any state in the country, behind only Texas. With more than 156 people still on death row in Ohio and a proven track record of wrongful convictions, there is a real possibility that Ohio could execute an innocent man or woman—if we haven’t already.
That’s why I’ve introduced a bill in the Ohio state legislature to end the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

My bill has already had one hearing in the House Criminal Justice Committee. With a second hearing coming up in just a few weeks, I know many of my colleagues in the State House remain undecided. In order to build the support we need for this legislation, Ohioans like you need to make your voices heard.

So I created a petition to the Ohio State House on SignOn.org, which says:

It’s time that Ohio ends the death penalty. Show your support by encouraging the members of the Criminal Justice Committee in the Ohio House to vote in favor of HB 160.

Will you sign the petition?

Thanks!

–Representative Ted Celeste

Today’s DDN included a front page article concerning House Bill 136 written by Margo Rutledge Kissell.  HB136 greatly expands Ohio’s voucher program to make it possible that all state money now provided to local schools may, instead, be used to fund vouchers for private schools. If you want to gain some funds, sites like 겜블시티 가입코드 may be of great help.

The bill has been reported out of the House Education Committee, but, as yet has not been debated within the whole Assembly.  Here is an e-mail I sent to Ms. Kissell:

Ms Kissell:

I was glad to see your article in today’s DDN, “Voucher Bill Next School Battle,” but I think you missed noting the most newsworthy aspect of this bill — the fact that it proposes to use coercive taxation to fund religious education on a scale, up to now, unheard of in Ohio or, for that matter, any other state. This bill deserves a lot of attention and analysis, and I hope you will expand on what you wrote today to include three important aspects that you omitted in today’s piece:

1. You focused on the budgetary impact this HB136 legislation will have on local school districts, and ignored the key fact that almost all private schools in Ohio are religious schools. The current voucher program is defended as necessary to give children in failing schools a chance for a good education in a religious school. This POV, I believe, is misguided and makes for bad law, but, because of sympathy for the disadvantaged, the current voucher program has public and court support. The huge expansion of the use of tax money to pay for religious education, if HB136 is approved, however, is much more controversial and certainly will be subject to challenge in the court system. The expansion of vouchers to “excellent” Ohio school systems nullifies the argument that vouchers are needed to advance educational opportunity for the disadvantaged.  Of course, leaders in public school districts will wail and moan whenever it appears funds might be taken from their districts. They hate, for example, that they are losing students and funding to on-line public charter schools.  But, the big issue here is not the wailing and moaning of local school leaders concerning the possible diminishing of their funding. The big news, if HB136 is approved, is that tens of millions of tax dollars will be transferred from public schools to private religious schools. If the Assembly thinks “excellent” districts would benefit from more competition, why does it not simply change the law and allow public charter schools to start new schools in “excellent” districts?
2. Your article failed to describe how nonpublic schools differ from public schools. In addition to religious training / indoctrination, private schools operate according to different standards concerning teacher certification and different standards concerning policies admitting and dismissing students. Private religious schools are empowered to treat both staff and students in ways that would be considered outrageous and unacceptable in the public sector. This freedom of religious schools, of course, is what appeals to many religious parents who seek such an environment for their children. But, it seems unreasonable that tax money should be coerced to support such schools. Private schools are free to choose or reject applicants to their school based on standards that would be deemed unfair in public schools. One amendment that was defeated in committee said: “No nonpublic school that receives payments from a parent or student who is paid a scholarship under the PACT scholarship program shall limit admission to students on the basis of intellectual ability, measure of achievement, or aptitude, disability, or athletic ability.”
3. I’m surprised that you did not report the fact that two local Dayton legislators serve on the House Education Committee and have cast votes in the committee concerning HB136. Republican Jim Butler voted “Yes” for the legislation and Democrat Clayton Luckie voted “No.” As you develop more in-depth reporting concerning HB136, I hope you will contact both of these legislators and ask them to go on record to defend their votes.

I think your readers will be well served, if you research these possible areas and write future articles concerning this important legislation. Thanks for your efforts.

Sincerely,  Mike Bock

• Kettering Treasurer Says Local Cost Of Voucher Plan, HB136, Is $2.5+ Million Yearly — 2+ Mills Of New Taxes, By Mike Bock, on September 30th, 2011
• Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law HB136 — Should Tax Money Be Used To Fund Religious Education?, By Mike Bock, on September 29th, 2011