Jim Ambrose -- photo taken from his web-site.

• Before his campaign to be elected to the Kettering School Board, I hadn’t met Jim Ambrose, but after meeting him, I decided to vote for him. I put a sign in my yard showing my support. As it turned out, the incumbents Jim Trent and Lori Simms were reelected.

By returning the two incumbents to the school board, at first look, it appears that Kettering voters expressed a strong allegiance to the status quo. However, the 11,564 votes (42% of the votes cast) to the challengers were significantly more than either incumbent received. Incumbent Jim Trent received 9191 votes (33.54% of votes cast) and incumbent Lori Simms received 6652 votes (24.27% of votes cast).  The election can be seen as a message from the voters that they prefer change. It’s just that the anti-status quo votes were evenly split between two challengers, Jim Ambrose and Frank Spolrich, diluting their impact.

In my note to Jim after the election, I suggested a study project concerning school transformation that he might consider participating in, and said, “I am disappointed, and surprised, that you didn’t win election to the Kettering School Board. If every Kettering voter had had a 90 minute conversation with you, over coffee, as I did, I’m sure the results would have been different. I think you have a lot to contribute and I hope in two years you may consider another attempt.”

Jim,

Here are some thoughts:

Though I ran for election to the Kettering School Board two years ago, for myself, I am not overly ambitious to become a board member. I am, however, keenly interested in helping to transform public education, and I think the place to start is here in my local community. Our task as interested citizens, in our local community, is to help the present board be as successful as possible. I believe you think that way as well. I’d like to suggest a way during these next two years we might work together.

16.6% of the voters, casting a ballot, left their vote for school board blank, not choosing even one of the four board candidates. It’s interesting to speculate why, having made the effort to cast a ballot, one in six voters showed no preference for any board candidate. By comparison, to determine if the .6 mill tax levy for Kettering schools should be renewed, only 1.5% of voters left their vote blank.

Two years ago, 25% of voters left their ballot blank for school board candidates, so this year’s 16.6% is actually an improvement. I’m thinking more voters made a choice this board election, as compared to last, because Jim Trent has such high name recognition. It’s a fair question: What percentage of voters have enough information to make informed choices?

In my prediction of your victory, I gave a lot of weight to the endorsement you received from the Kettering teachers’ union, the KEA, and I gave a lot of weight to the force of your personality and the overall quality of your campaign. I figured that many voters would be loyal to Trent, but I miscalculated the loyalty shown to Simms. Both incumbents, however, are attractive personalities and the attitude of Jim Trent, no doubt, resonated with many voters, when he said, “I believe I am making a difference. I would like to serve again, I love doing what I am doing and want to continue.”

For more voters than I realized, the idea of continuing the status quo is attractive as in, “Why try to fix what isn’t broken?”

My POV, coming from a 30 year teaching career, is that the system of public education, in fact, is broken and is in need of basic transformation, one that would establish a well defined aim / purpose and that would align resources and the organizational structure of the system to accomplish that aim. One goal of this transformation would be to redefine teacher professionalism and teacher opportunity. My thought is that teachers, individually, would become enthusiastic about such a vision of transformation, even if, initially, it might be opposed by state and national unions. Ideally, KEA would support interested teachers to help in the task of developing a vision of long term transformation.

One significant goal of transformation would be to decrease cost to taxpayers, but the defining goal would be to make a big leap in overall system quality. The idea would be to articulate a vision that would gain wide spread support within the community. Creating a core group of voters interested in transformation is the challenge and articulating a vision of change that would initially inspire such a group is the first task. In the campaign two years ago, I proclaimed that I intended on writing a book, and, since then, I revised the title — When Anna Is Nineteen: Public Education In Kettering, Ohio, In The Year 2030 — with the thought that topics developed in such a book could help generate public discussion and public support.

Doing the research needed to produce this book is an ambitious goal, and, had I been elected to the board two years ago, I would have attempted to find consensus among the other board members to organize a process of research and community involvement in thinking through the issues about the future. Regardless if I am on the board, or not, I’m thinking that this project should still be presented to the board as a proposal for their consideration. I think there would be a lot of community support for the notion that Kettering should be a leader in transforming public education.

Anyway, if this vague idea could come together as a community study, I hope you would consider becoming part of the process. I’ve enjoyed meeting you and hope we can create opportunities to work productively together.

Sincerely,  Mike Bock

Other posts concerning this topic:

• Bob Sommers — Ohio’s New Director Of 21St Century Education — Explains His Vision Of The Future, By Mike Bock, on April 6th, 2011
• 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
• Strickland Should Use Charter Schools To Help Fulfill His Promise: “Reform and Renew the System of Education Itself”, By Mike Bock, on November 13th, 2007

Currently, Ohio law prohibits any candidate whose age is more than 70 to seek election to a position of judge. Someone elected at age 70 would be age 76 by the end of his or her term. Issue 1 proposes to add five years to the mandatory retirement age and if Issue 1 passes, judges may seek election up to age 75. And, someone elected at age 75, who completes a full term of 6 years, will be age 81 by the end of his or her term.

The answer to the question, “How old is too old?” is different for each individual. The current law allows a judge to serve until age 76, and for some judges, that may be an age well past his or her capacity to do a competent job. But, many judges at age 76 are full of vitality, and many at age 81 would make great judges.

I’m voting “Yes” for Issue 1, because, the reality is that in Ohio judges are elected to their positions by the voting public. If there is a reason to believe a judge is serving incompetently, or a reason to believe that a judge should not be reelected, then this decision should be revealed and discussed as part of the election process. What is needed is a means to better inform the public about the work of judges, so the public can make more educated choices.

The bigger question that Issue 1 raises is: Does our curent system of choosing judges make sense? Should the selection of judges be determined by an uninformed and incompetent public? In my view, we need to brainstorm to find a better system. As it is, the public has little information with which to evaluate judges or candidates seeking to be elected to the position of judge. We need a system that will give the public better information — maybe a system of peer review, or a system of citizen nonpartisan panels empowered to make evaluations. We need to look at the big picture and brainstorm meaningful systemic change that will improve the quality of our judges, regardless of age.

From an article By MARC KOVAC

The Ohio State Bar Association also has endorsed the Issue 1. In a released statement, the group’s president, Carol Seubert Marx, said “The times have changed, life expectancy has changed and expectations of life in the workforce have changed. Extending the age limit to 75 would allow for more experienced judges to stay on the bench and benefit the judiciary.”

She added, “So what happens if Issue 1 fails? Up to 10 percent of Ohio’s judges could be forced to retire in the next six years resulting in the loss of tremendous judicial experience in Ohio’s courtrooms.”

But opponents of Issue 1 question the value of extending the age limit.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association is urging a “no” vote on the issue, saying that the wording of it could allow judges to serve until they are 82 years old or older.

“The provision would allow for judges serving into their eighties,” John Murphy, executive director of the prosecutors association, said in a released statement. “While some senior judges are valued and effective, it is not the case with all. The potential for limits to an elderly judge’s schedule and capacity is not good for an active courtroom.”

He added, “Ohio prosecutors think the current age limit is appropriate and should be retained, even if it keeps some capable, experienced candidates off the bench. In our experience, many prosecutors have practiced before older judges who should not have been serving.”

The Democratic Party, which also opposes, questioned the politics behind the move.

According to a released statement from the group’s executive committee, “This extension would increase the length of service for individuals already entrenched on the bench. Moreover, State Issue 1 is likely to perpetuate a 6-to-1 Republican imbalance on the Ohio Supreme Court and similar imbalances on lower courts.”

I’ve changed my mind. In Kettering Ward 4, until just the last couple of days, I was set to vote for the long serving incumbent, Bruce Duke, to return to the Kettering City Council. But, now, I’ve decided to vote for the challenger, Lisa Crosley. What pushed me to this decision was Duke’s refusal to respond to Mrs. Crosley’s eight point plan. Frankly, his refusal left me flabbergasted.

Yes, I know that Mrs. Crosley is aligned with the Dayton Tea Party. As the elected Democratic Party Ward 4 leader, and Vice President of the South of Dayton Democratic Club, my fellow Democrats, I realize, generally, expect me to oppose the growth of Tea Partyism here in Kettering, and will probably be surprised that I’m voting for Mrs. Crosley. But, I hope they will hear me out.

Two years ago, I sought election to the Kettering School Board. My basic premise then, as now: We need to return to the notion that a local system of public education should be under local control. We need a school board that will have some gumption to show leadership and represent the general community, not simply the educational establishment. We need a school board that will create a long term vision that will develop Kettering’s capacity for transforming public education.

We can’t get such a school board until we first of all get a vitalized and active citizenry that decides to work together as a meaningful community. Local control is only possible and only makes sense in the context of a vitalized community. We belong to our small groups within the community — churches, clubs, political parties — but we really don’t have a Kettering community. In this election season we had one public meeting of “Meet the Candidates,” attended almost entirely by friends and family members of the candidates, along with elected leaders. This election season is another missed opportunity: we’ve failed to have a community discussion about our public schools or our city government.

I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of Mrs. Crosley’s campaign materials.  I loved her headline, that she seeks to offer leadership focused on, “Thinking About Tomorrow.” Preparing her materials, I’m sure, was time consuming and expensive. Mrs. Crosley should be praised for her efforts, for her civic minded action and specific proposals. If our community had any vitality, these proposals would be discussed and analyzed by informed and active citizens.

Most Kettering campaigns simply involve yard signs and harmless slogans. I appreciate the fact that Mrs. Crosley is offering some substantial ideas. The point is not whether, or not, her proposals should be adopted. The point is, Mrs. Crosley’s campaign heralds this news: Someone cares enough about the future of Kettering to try to start a valuable and needed conversation. Someone cares enough to attempt to create dialogue, cares enough to attempt to create a community of people who will actually discuss ideas.

Mr. Duke’s regal response to me — “I choose not to discourse on a blog” — is baffling. If not on the internet, where does he propose to have discourse? My conclusion is that Mr. Duke is making a political calculation and believes that simply ignoring Mrs. Crosley is smart politics. But Kettering doesn’t need leadership built on “smart politics,” we needs leadership willing to do the hard work needed to build strong and thoughtful community. I see addressing Mrs. Crosley’s proposals as a way to begin a valuable discussion. Mr. Duke’s refusal to do so, I feel, deserves to be protested. So, he has lost my vote.

A victory for Mrs. Crosley, I believe, would inspire meaningful discussion in Kettering and from such discussion could arise a better and more connected community. Building a vitalized community of thoughtful citizens is the key to Kettering’s future. I’ve surprised myself. In Ward 4, I’ve decided a vote for Lisa Crosley for Kettering City Council as the best choice to help Kettering move forward.

From two years ago:

• Incumbents’ Refusal To Participate In Public Forum Reveals The Weak State Of Our Democracy, By Mike Bock, on October 29th, 2009
• At Kettering’s LWV Community Meeting, Incumbent School Board Members Defend “ZERO Tax Increase” Ad, By Mike Bock, on October 22nd, 2009
• The Kettering School Board Election Is A Contest Between Two Very Different Points Of View, By Mike Bock, on October 20th, 2009