It is a pathetic charade of democracy when a community of 40,000 potential voters holds only one civic meeting during an entire election season — and that in a small room. In Kettering, last night, about 25 citizens showed up to the local library — mostly friends and relatives of the candidates — for the one and only public meeting where citizens could listen to candidates seeking election to the Kettering Board of Education.
The four candidates — Jim Ambrose, Lori Simms, Frank Spolrich and Jim Trent — seemed to sing in perfect harmony in their unison of praise for the Kettering schools, the Kettering community, the Kettering teachers. All four candidates seem pretty much in agreement about all matters relating to Kettering Schools. Jim Trent in his concluding remarks probably summarized a general agreement when he said he believed all the candidates would make good board members. He got a laugh when he added — but he would be better.
After several humdrum questions, the grandmotherly League of Women moderator, in charge of the meeting, started a question that, at last, perked my ears. The question concerned Issue 2 — the referendum on whether the SB5 legislation concerning government workers / collective bargaining should be affirmed. But I was flabbergasted that the moderator said, to the effect, “The question is not whether you oppose or support Issue 2, the question is, how do you see its outcome, either way, impacting the district?”
The question made no sense, but it did open the door for a candidate, who so desired, to take a stand. None did. But since all spoke strongly in favor of the status quo, they all indirectly indicated they preferred a “No” vote. I imagine the safe money is betting Kettering will vote “Yes” by a small margin, so it appears no board candidate is in synch with the public’s general thinking on this issue.
Frank Spolrich spoke, that regardless if SB5 is upheld, he would work to uphold Kettering’s long tradition of “respect and trust” between the board and the teachers. Lori Simms spoke of the wonderful teacher/board relationship and that, even if SB-5 becomes law, Kettering “won’t necessarily need to be effected.” Jim Ambrose said that SB-5 may be needed in other districts, but not in Kettering, that although he is the only candidate endorsed by the teachers’ union, the Kettering Education Association, he is nobody’s “rubber stamp.” He said his first priority always will be to do what is right for the community. Jim Trent, for whom Kettering’s “Trent Arena” is named, said to the moderator, “I’m glad you didn’t ask how I am going to vote.” To which the moderator responded, “It’s not my business.”
“Not my business?” Huh? Maybe such a direct question would be considered as rude or inappropriate — if a board candidate were a guest in the moderator’s home. But, certainly it is a fair and important question to ask candidates in a public forum. However a candidate might respond to a direct question of how he or she will vote on SB5 would give some valuable information to an undecided voter. A candidate could give a non-answer or say, “That’s none of your business.” But, however he or she chose to answer, something important would have been revealed about his or her point of view. The League does itself and the public a disservice by adhering to a standard of fuddy-duddyness that prohibits it from asking pointed questions of candidates.
Someone should have mentioned — but mum was the word — that, had SB5 been in effect, Kettering schools this year would have started one week earlier. The fact is, regardless that it was the superintendent’s recommendation to start earlier, the teachers’ union objected. The school calendar is a negotiated issue and the teachers’ union insisted that a calendar with a one week earlier start could not be implemented until the 2012 school year. The question of calendar, as many other issues, is determined via negotiations.
It’s a simple fact that SB5, if ratified, would give a school board a lot more authority. The fact that a teachers’ union makes an issue out of tweaking the school calendar speaks volumes. Imagine how a union might feel about truly central issues of pay and tenure. It seems certain, for example, that a teachers’ union would oppose giving discretion to administration, say, to rewarding a prized physics instructor with twice the pay of a kindergarten teacher — or vice versa, for that matter. Yes, as these candidates point out, there is now wonderful harmony between the board and the Kettering educational establishment — because nobody has dared to question how the $70 million yearly budget should be divvied up. And everyone has agreed to stand together in one united front to continually squeeze the public as needed.
After the lame SB5 discussion, the moderator asked how the candidates felt about the change in calendar for next year, not hinting this issue had anything to do with SB5, opening the door for someone to connect the dots. Of course, no candidate chose to do so. Again, there was a chorus of perfect unity about — in the face of the state’s test based evaluation system — the powerlessness of a board to exert any local control of the program of its local schools.
Had I been a candidate this year and had been asked directly how I will vote on Issue 2, I would have said “No,” mainly because I am the Ward 4 leader for the Democratic Party, and I agree that the underlying reality concerning issue 2 is political. Yes, SB5 gives a local board more authority, but to hear these candidates they would never use the authority it would give. The fact is, a board already has a lot of authority that it never uses. Most boards, including Kettering’s, completely identify with the educational establishment, not the general public. A local board already has all the tools it needs to make the big transformation in public education that is needed. It doesn’t need more authority, it needs a different point of view. It needs some backbone. I am supporting Jim Ambrose in this election, with a sign in my yard, because I feel with Ambrose we have the best shot of the board gaining the type of leadership that is needed.
I recorded 20 minutes of the meeting on video, before my battery fizzled out. Now I am puzzling how to download the whole thing and make a You-tube. I need some new equipment, and some more technological brains, but hopefully in the next couple of days, I’ll get it figured out. I’ve become overly dependent on my computer whiz friend who now has moved to greener pastures in North Carolina. (Added note: See video here.)
I would have thought that the League ladies in charge would have been overjoyed with the possibility that their efforts might be broadcast to a larger audience. But, when I started fussing with my camera and tripod, before the start of the meeting, saying I hoped to make a You-tube, I found myself scolded by the elderly timekeeper that I must first get permission of all of the candidates. Of course they all agreed. I had no intention of not recording the event, regardless of whether they agreed, or not. But after the program I asked the timekeeper if she had ever bothered to research whether the public has a right to video a public meeting in a public space. And she said “No.” I suggested that before she challenge some other videographer at a similar public meeting, she should find out what the law says. Something I need to do myself.
This, below, I think bears repeating — from my March post: Ohio’s SB5 Provides The Greenspace Required For System Transformation — Needed: Profound Knowledge
Who controls the local system of public education?
SB5 shows a fork in the path, two roads diverging. We are on the wide and easy path of schooling and we deceive ourselves into thinking we have “excellent” schools because, according to a bureaucratic process, we are winners in the game of schooling. But SB5 opens the opportunity for local control to redefine the game. Here are our choices:
1. We stay on the path we are now: Public education accelerates its alignment with corporate interests and becomes ever more effective in serving its corporate overlords.
2. We take the road less traveled: Public education creates a transformed system, one whose purpose is defined as effective, self-actualized citizens, prepared and happy to advance the common good of our society.
Last summer, the Kettering school leadership studied an interesting new book, Frederick Hess’s, “Education Unbound: The Promise and Practice of Greenfield Schooling.” On the cover of the book is a picture of an open green field. Hess’s theme is that we must transform the system of education and that the first step is to clear out the bramble and debris and create green space for new development. I read the book and made this response: “To Bring Excellence To Public Education We Must First Engineer A Better System.”
SB5 clears out the bramble. The question is, what do we do with the “greenfield” it created. It seems to me, Hess wants to open public education to corporate America to use as a big profit opportunity.
My thought is that green space should be an opportunity for an engaged democracy to exert local control. In the book I am researching, “Public Education In Kettering Ohio In 2030,” I imagine that a prosperous community determines to take path #2, and successfully creates a system design that empowers their success.
I keep remembering W. Edwards Deming’s words, “Profound knowledge is required.”
The challenge for Peggy Lehner, my local state senator, recently designated chair of the Senate Education Committee, is to show leadership in bringing profound knowledge into this discussion about school reform. SB5 should energize discussions about the purpose of public education and about how the system of public education should best be designed to best accomplish that purpose. Questions Senator Lehner’s committee should investigate:
1. What is the aim of Ohio’s system of public education?
2. What are the possible system designs that a local district might implement that could accomplish this aim?
3. How should teacher professionalism be defined?
4. What is the system that would empower and reward ever more professional teachers?
5. What is a merit system that would work to make Ohio’s system of public education most effective
See:
