Unequal Schools Threaten Future of U.S.

I spent some time researching my genealogy recently. I uncovered some notable ancestors, a number of quiet heroes and a few interesting characters. I learned several surprising things about the people who contributed to my being here. Discovering what many of them accomplished during their time made me realize I have a whole lot of catching up to do.

In one narrow aspect, this exploration confirmed what I already knew. I’m about as White as a person can be.

I’m not ashamed of my lack of color. I am proud of from whom and where I came. There are some brave slavery abolitionists inhabiting my line and I consider myself open-minded and free of racism. I have come to terms with my country’s checkered history pockmarked with racial inequality and would like to think I have helped the effort to stamp it out during my life. I have been willing to speak up against injustice – most of the time. Plus, I live in 2012, for God’s sake. Sure, racism still exists, but I convince myself the day is within reach when racial discrimination is something relegated to history books.

That’s why I winced when I heard Jada Williams read her essay. The 13-year-old from Rochester, New York had written a book report on The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass in which she had the temerity to say little had change from the days of slavery – “just different people, different era” and “the same old discrimination still resides in the hearts of the white man.” Who does this girl think she is?

Williams said this about her mostly White teachers; “they are in a position of power to dictate what I can, cannot, and will learn, only desiring that I may get bored because of the inconsistency and the mismanagement of the classroom.”

My knee jerk reaction was to dismiss Williams as a hothead quick to play the race card, but something nagged me and I listened to her read her essay again. It is well written, but it has the undeniable voice of a 13-year-old, albeit a bright one. She has picked up some education along the way belying the charges she leveled at her school. Then I heard Williams say, “the reality of this is that most of my peers cannot read, and therefore comprehend the materials that have been provided.”

Aha! Surely she twisted a fact to make her point. Quick, to Google to prove she is exaggerating to dismiss her as nothing more than an overly excitable teen.

Unfortunately, old Whitie (me) finds a report about Rochester City School District, School 3 indicating that only 19 percent of the school’s eighth graders were proficient in language arts last year. A paltry 13 percent were proficient in math. Not only is Ms. Williams correct, I am beginning to think she underplayed the problem by saying most of her peers cannot read. She should have said nearly all of them.

A book about Frederick Douglass inspired Rochester, NY student Jada Williams to write a powerful essay.

Something is clearly wrong when a school has numbers like these. Freedom isn’t reaching its potential in a country where large segments of many communities are not learning, not gaining the tools essential for success, let alone, setting a course to self-reliance. Jada Williams knows this.

The Iowa General Assembly has spent much time this year debating education reform legislation and, save maybe a couple of those elected officials, none of them have made a better assessment of what is wrong in U.S. schools than this eighth grader did. As hard as it for me to admit, Ms. William’s jarring assertions are on target, but we should not stop there. Even in this day and age, race remains a factor, but socioeconomic differences play a role as well. The virulent, festering problem of inequality still threatens.

Much of what is said and written during the education reform debate involves testing and screening teachers. Ms. Williams, too, wants to make those who teach accountable, but she seems to know testing has little to do with the solution. America’s ailing schools will not be cured with more testing and additional rules that tie the hands of those professionals motivated to teach. We must establish a system that trains teaching professionals and lets them guide learning free from the micromanagement of elected officials.

We should heed the call of Jada Williams and fan a revolution. Until we change the culture of our schools and turn them from dismal factories processing children through a series of pass/fail assessments to places that inspire students to learn, Jada Williams, her classmates and countless American children will continue to suffer a clear and present life disadvantage.

Our best national investment is in the creation of schools that motivate the next generation of Americans to reach for a potential their ancestors never imagined. Perhaps the opening lines of our next national chapter on social justice and equality may begin with the words of a thirteen-year-old.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad’s Education Reforms, Social Promotion & My Big Mouth

Last night I joined 40 or so other Iowans in addressing the Iowa House on the topic of education reform. It is somewhat difficult to keep one’s remarks to under three minutes when speaking on such a broad topic.

As are many others, I am frustrated by the partisan gamesmanship played by many in elected office these days. I decided to take part of my allotted time to address this issue by urging House members to seek a higher and better course. Perhaps I wasted valuable time, but it felt good to look some of these people in the eye and say what I truly felt.

It was my intent to support Governor Branstad’s proposal to cease passing students to fourth grade who do not meet the minimum standards in reading and other areas. I have long opposed the process known as social promotion. However, making a student repeat the same grade without providing intensive instruction to get him on track may be no better than passing him along and hoping he catches up later.  It is one thing to hold a kid back and another to provide the support he needs to achieve.

I may have fallen short in delivering my message about social promotion, at least I did for those who wrote the account for the Des Moines Register. The fault is mine - the pressure of the ticking three-minute clock did not help. Radio Iowa and the Quad City Times had a slightly different take on my comments. You can judge my remarks for yourself as I include below the notes I used last night when I spoke.

Notes for Iowa House Education Hearing, March 5, 2012
Governor Branstad articulated a vision for our schools and has done much to foster the debate about the best way forward. No other government program is as important to Iowa’s future as education. While I favor some of the Governor’s proposals, I am skeptical of others and I firmly object to a number of them; but he did what a governor is supposed to do. He focused the debate and brought a thorough proposal to the General Assembly for consideration. I thank Governor Branstad for that.

So, that brings us to the proverbial ball landing in your court. You write the rulebook by passing laws and you alone carry the checkbook to fund Iowa’s government. It is an arduous and, all-too-often, thankless task.

However, if a need for gratitude was what motivated you to stand for election, you are likely to be among the most disappointed people of all times. There are many differences between elected office and pee wee soccer – for one, only in the pee wees can every participant expect a trophy just for showing-up. Here you are expected to make the tough choices and you will often be widely criticized when you do. I know something about this as a former Des Moines School Board member.

The pervasive destructiveness of modern politics has driven too many of you into the bunkers of your party caucuses. The laser focus on trying to add to your party’s ranks in the next election is shallow and shortsighted. A successful democracy’s solutions are not found by producing a unified drumbeat to drown out the voices of other party, but by rising beyond the perceived comfort of those you agree and seeking common ground with those across the aisle – do that and great things can happen – do that and the petty politics perpetuated by your leaders will dissolve.

The education of Iowa’s schoolchildren is that common ground. For the sake of Iowa’s future, lay down your partisan banners and find areas in Branstad’s proposal on which you can agree.
I’ll mention two. The first is a minimum standard for elementary students – call it a ban on social promotion or retention for those who do not meet minimum achievement benchmarks. Too many students are pushed through and out of schools because programs are not designed to meet their needs. It is Iowa’s great shame. But, a law that only penalizes fails the student by making him repeat the classes and lessons that did not work for him the first time compounding the problem with humiliation and convincing the student he is a failure.

Pass a law to create and fund alternative programs that ensure struggling students get on-track to a successful future. The cookie-cutter style education systems in this state, most painfully obvious during the middle years, need to be scrapped in favor of programs that teach based on models designed to help each student find her individual success

Last, and most important, stop trying to micromanage the classroom. Treat teachers like the professionals they are. It’s OK for you to set standards for performance, but no law or rule or criteria can be written that will fit every school, every class and every teacher/student combination in our state. It is quite popular these days for legislatures to pass laws that sound good in a campaign stump speech. In reality, they bind professional teachers’ hands and make it harder for them to advance learning. Stop making teachers jump through standardized test hoops and start giving them the resources they need as professionals to do the critical job of educating.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important topic.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

What if the Democrats hide and nobody looks?

I kind of feel sorry for the Democrats in the Iowa House this morning. With a great flourish theyfled to an undisclosed location to protest two gun measures their Republican colleagues plan to debate today.

What if nobody looked for the hiding Democrats?

The House Democrats going into hiding is a little silly. Nobody needs to look for them. The Republicans hold a 60 to 40 seat majority and can debate these measure whether the Democrats are present or not.

One must assume the House Democrats borrowed this play from their Wisconsin colleagues’ 2011 playbook and are hoping to win similar praise for their courage. They shouldn’t get any credit.

The gun bills are questionable and those who oppose them should make their voices heard.  Now is not the time for game playing, Democrats.  Now is the time for reasoned debate.  Go back to work.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

It May be Time to Drug Test Legislators

State of Iowa Representatives Richard Arnold and Stewart Iverson proudly filed one of the first bills of the 2012 Iowa Legislative Session. They submitted a bill similar to others greeted with great fanfare in states like South Carolina, Kentucky, and Florida, and one in the U.S. House. Like those, their bill, House File 2038, establishes a requirement for random drug testing of any individual receiving unemployment compensation benefits in Iowa.

It is easy to understand why a politician who wants to be seen as strong on law and order would willingly hop on this bill’s bus. As long as he is willing to toss liberty to the curb on the way, that is. The Florida law was thrown out by a Federal Court for just that very reason.

Rep. Arnold said upon filing his bill, “The working man, we`re all subject to drug testing and if they`re gonna take the hard earned person`s money and give it to someone on welfare, I think they ought to be tested the same way.”

Right on, right?

Well, perhaps, until you consider what Mr. Arnold said. I am trying to avoid highlighting the inherent us against them way he argues his case – the “we” who are working men are good and the “they” receiving unemployment benefits may be something less – but it is difficult.

So, I turn to one of Arnold’s colleagues, Representative Tyler Olson, who suggested a way to lessen the division by saying, “If the goal is make sure anyone who gets a public benefit takes a drug test, then we really need to do a lot of work on the bill to expand it to the Governor, to legislators, people that are using public roads and the bill doesn`t say that.”

Maybe Mr. Olson is on to something with his sarcasm. Arnold and Iverson may not have gone far enough. Why limit this to just those receiving unemployment benefits? Perhaps everyone who receives a check from the State of Iowa or takes advantage of its infrastructure in any way should be subject to random tests to ensure no potential beneficiary is breaking any law. If we do this maybe I could get over my silly little suggestion that Arnold is grandstanding on the backs of those who need assistance in terrible times and Iowa can become a leader in making sure all laws are followed.

“Is any portion of your health care paid for through Medicaid? Drug test line forms here.”


“Want to visit a State Park? The line to have your tax records reviewed to make sure you have not broken any tax laws is to the left.”


“Last year’s flooding damaged your farm and you are seeking state assistance? You better have a clean driving record.”


“Before you to vote on that bill, Senator, we need you to fill this little cup.”

It would be silly to require such tests for those who are law-abiding citizens, right? Exactly.

Randomly drug testing those who regularly drive semi trucks is not done to subject a group of people to an indignity because they are lucky to have a job and others have to take drug tests too. Members of that profession are put under this microscope because a person high on dope can do a whole lot of damage with an 80,000-pound vehicle.

Drug testing those receiving unemployment benefits would cost money Iowa does not have with little public benefit to show for the expense and would further empower an already too intrusive government.

Those receiving unemployment benefits are not “them,” Mr. Arnold. Unemployment benefits were established to help those Iowans out-of-work regain their footing. If you feel Iowa’s drug laws need to be strengthened, write a law to do so. If you think too many people are receiving unemployment benefits, do the same. But, please, do not try to wrap yourself in the cloak of law and order by instituting a law that does neither.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

How many Penn State, Iowa and UC Davis Scandals will it take?

The Penn State football scandal and the use of pepper spray by campus police at the University of California, Davis provide the latest evidence why school administrators should not oversee police functions.

Having university presidents in charge of campus police makes about as much sense as having pharmaceutical company CEOs in charge of the Food and Drug Administration.  The temptation to protect one’s own interests is far too great.

Time and again, university and college presidents bungle police oversight.  In the case of Penn State, the university police placed Penn State public relations ahead of justice when they looked the other way instead of investigating child sexual abuse charges that might taint their powerful cash cow of a football program.  At UC Davis, poor training and oversight allowed a thug with a badge to become the poster child for out-of control law enforcement.

Penn State and UC Davis are anything but isolated cases.  The misuse of power by university officials is almost routine at colleges and universities across the country.  As recently as 2008, University of Iowa officials interfered with a rape investigation which resulted in the dismissal of two officials and raised a legitimate question whether public safety or university prestige took precedence in UI police matters.

The rules governing law and order should not be different on the campus of a college or university than anywhere else.  Law enforcement needs to be separated from educational administration once and for all.

Whether a shower stall is located on what some may consider the hallowed ground of a university or at the local community center should make no difference to those investigating and/or prosecuting an alleged child rape.  Sadly, all-too-often educators at America’s colleges and universities get away with putting institutional protection above all else.

An elected mayor with ultimate oversight over a police department is accountable to his entire community while a college president is accountable only to a board of directors who are narrowly interested in the health and growth of the school.  Many times, the motivations of a mayor and a college president are dramatically different.

There are other reasons to take police functions out of the hands of university administrators.  Chief among them are improved training, coordination and budgetary efficiency.

Following a gunman’s rampage at Virginia Tech University that left 33 people dead in 2007, universities, law enforcement agencies, local governments and the public studied what went wrong and how best to manage community response in a time of crisis.  The findings: The lack of planning and coordination between law enforcement and public entities resulted in a loss of time and effectiveness during the emergency.  First responders need to work together.  If campus police need to check with a university president before working with outside law enforcement, bad things are likely to happen.

The Iowa Board of Regents focused on part of the problem with campus police and spent much time debating whether campus security at Iowa’s three universities should carry guns.  While it was true that, without weapons, campus police generally had to wait for other law enforcement entities to respond before intervening in certain situations, the Regents and the State of Iowa failed to address how to significantly improve safety, the duplication of effort by multiple agencies and the saving of dollars.

The solution is to move police functions away from university administration and put it in the hands of a better-trained and well coordinated police force.

Public safety in university communities would improve if police were to serve beyond the confines of university property and without the interference of university administrators.  Universities could contract with municipal police in the communities where they are located and/or the State of Iowa could at long last gut its ever diminishing State Patrol and replace it with a single, effective state law enforcement entity that would include all university police functions.

Communication, training and coordination would improve under a new statewide force.  Problems and successes on one campus would be shared immediately throughout the system.  There would be additional significant safety and financial efficiencies to be gained.  When university populations decline during the summer and winter holidays, resources could be reallocated appropriately.  When a single university hosts a large event or faces a significant threat, resources could be shifted accordingly.  In short, Iowa would be better served by one force instead of a State Patrol and three university public safety units.

It does not make financial or, perhaps, common sense to continue to equip, maintain and administer separate bureaucracies at the State Patrol, University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.

Preventing another university cover-up like those at the University of Iowa and Penn State should be enough of a reason to get college administrators out of law enforcement.  The efficiency and improved security of a statewide force or turning responsibility over to local police are also compelling reasons to scrap campus security forces.

University presidents should concentrate on education, not deciding on when it is appropriate use pepper spray or allowing an institution’s image to factor into whether or not justice should be pursued.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register guest essay and a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Opportunity Lost – Branstad’s Nursing Home Kerfuffle

Sylvia Piper had an open letter published in the Des Moines Register and other Iowa papers recently.  She submitted it as head of Disability Rights Iowa, a privately run, federally funded advocacy agency.  Among other things, she wrote because of Governor Branstad’s “political choices, people are suffering and dying on a regular basis in Iowa’s nursing homes.”

Hers were harsh words, to say the least, and they upset a few people.  Branstad’s chief of staff, Jeff Boeyink was among them.  Boeyink was so upset he began a self-described “fact-finding” mission the very morning the letter appeared.

If you are hoping Boeyink wanted to get to the bottom of Piper’s accusations – to find out whether her statements were rooted in reality or political fiction – you are going to be sadly mistaken.  A guy in Boeyink’s position in 2011 wastes little time wading into the muck of public policy.  Job one is to protect yourself by silencing the critic.  Even if the claims are flimsy, responding will likely take investigation and that might occasionally reveal actual problems.  Such things are much easier handled without loudmouth detractors looking over your shoulder.  Boeyink did what political operatives do; he went after Disability Rights Iowa’s federal funding.

Lost in nursing home politics, nursing home residents

Boeyink did not succeed (yet) in pulling the group’s funding, but Piper has been fired and the group has disavowed her comments out of fear of backlash from the Governor.  Boeyink earned his pay.  That is if one holds a vastly different view of government service than do I, but I digress.

The morning Piper’s letter ran, Boeyink ripped off an Email to his counterpart in Congressman Tom Latham’s office, James Cartensen.  He sought a phone conference between Cartensen, Branstad’s general counsel and himself to discuss Piper’s group.  Cartensen agreed, but Boeyink’s use of his private email account to contact Cartensen caused Cartensen to suggest they use one number if the call was official and another if it was non-official.  Boeyink said since the topic was the group’s federal funding, he assumed it would be considered official.  That was a good decision by Boeyink.  (I plan to revisit his use of a private Gmail account in a later column.  In the meantime, the entire exchange can be found here.)

Boeyink, Cartensen and one of Cartensen’s colleagues continued to correspond through Boeyink’s Gmail address for two weeks.  They discussed Disability Rights Iowa’s nearly $400,000 annual federal funding, or ‘a good chunk of change’ in Cartensen’s words, and what options Branstad had ‘to move this function elsewhere.’  OK, Branstad should know his options, especially if he considers the advocacy group is not discharging its duties.

The problem?  In the weeks which have followed, in all of the news stories reporting comments made by Branstad’s staff about this, never once has a staffer suggested Disability Rights Iowa was not discharging its duties.  In fact, the Administration has hardly mentioned nursing home care at all during the fracas.

In the first Register news story about Piper’s letter, Governor Branstad’s spokesperson was quoted saying, “Gov. Branstad is proud of the work Rod Roberts (head of the department) has done to correct the mismanagement of the previous director at the Department of Inspections and Appeals.”  He went on to say budget problems had been rectified and inspections were ahead of schedule.  He bashed the previous administration, but said nothing about nursing home conditions.

Unsurprisingly, Democratic operatives took the reigns of the partisan bandwagonyesterday accusing Branstad of decreasing protections for Iowa’s seniors.  Branstad’s spokesman was undeterred.  He called the charges “a typical, baseless political attack from an opposing political party that ignores facts to instead lob up sophomoric and untrue allegations.”  Again saying nothing about what Branstad is doing to protect seniors.

Sylvia Piper lost because she allowed emotion to overshadow what might have been a reasoned argument about what the Governor of Iowa could do to protect Iowa’s nursing home population.

Governor Branstad lost when his staff decided to engage Piper on her turf.  Branstad is covered in the rancid mud of politics.  Had he ignored the incendiary aspects of Piper’s letter and focused on the few specific and quantifiable charges she leveled, Piper’s credibility would have been largely diminished.  Instead, Branstad’s staff ignored the message and went after the messenger.  They look petty.  Worse, the Branstad response gives credence to Piper’s charge the governor’s political agenda is more important to his team than protecting some of Iowa’s must vulnerable citizens.

Iowans lost the most in this sad exchange.

The best way for a governor to to silence his naysayers is to do the job he was elected to do, let his work and decisions define his ability to lead and leave the political mudslinging to those incapable or disinterested in making Iowa the great place candidates talk about on the campaign trail.  Doing otherwise will cause one to look as ‘sophomoric’ as those who let emotion cloud the issue in the first place.

Governor Branstad would be wise to take a good long look at how his administration communicates with the people they serve.  Before doing so, they may want to examine their priorities.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

It’s Time for Branstad to Lead

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, “the task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.”  There aren’t many leaders in Iowa these days.

The Iowa General Assembly remains deadlocked.  Budget negotiations have stalled because the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House and Governor Terry Branstad have put partisanship above leadership.  Meanwhile, school districts, local governments and the people of Iowa muster on under a governmental cloud of uncertainty.  A leader would have acted to prevent such gridlock.

Governor Branstad can end Iowa's budget impasse by choosing to lead. Register file photo.

One of the cruel ironies is Governor Branstad is unwilling to compromise on his proposal to replace Iowa’s annual budget process with a two-year budget cycle, because he wants schools and others to be able to better plan for the future.  Oddly, Branstad is making it impossible for others to plan by insisting on something he believes will make it easier for people to plan.

The two-year budget is worth pursuing aggressively, but Branstad is under the mistaken impression that stubbornness is akin to leadership.

Democrats say the major sticking points are a biennial budget gives a governor too much power and 0% allowable growth for public schools is unacceptable.  Governor Branstad has the ability to break the impasse, yet he is choosing to stand his partisan ground.

Governor, the time has come for you to act.  Acquiescing on one point in order to win an even more important one isn’t weakness; it is a show of strength by a leader who wants to move his people to that new and better place.

Governor Branstad and House Republicans should agree to the Democrats reasonable demand for 2% allowable growth for public education for the next two years and, in return for a two year budget, allow Democrats to put a few safeguards into the budget process to address their concerns about how such a budget might give a governor too much control.  The Legislature will still meet every year and should be allowed to make minor adjustments during the budget cycle.  A governor should not be allowed to alter a budget significantly during that time without legislative input.

By funding public education with a reasonable 2% allowable growth formula and reaching a compromise to enable Senate Democrats to approve the logical biennial budget process, Governor Branstad and the General Assembly will be seen as leaders and Iowa will be better for it.  If both continue to put partisanship ahead of progress, Iowans will lose.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad and Senate Democrats Opt for Threats Over Solutions

Governor Terry Branstad wants the State of Iowa to adopt a two year budget.  The Democrats in the Senate are against the idea and plan to send an annual budget to the Branstad instead.  If they do, Branstad has vowed to veto it.  The price for this political gridlock will be paid by school districts and countless state and local governments – Iowans will be the losers.  Both sides are so blinded by vitriolic political scorekeeping they are unable to see the opportunity of compromise sitting within comfortable reach.

Candidates for the General Assembly often campaign on a platform of making government work better for the people it is intended to serve.  Efficiently delivering the services people need and creating an environment to foster individual freedom and prosperity are at the center of most winning election efforts.  However, after taking their seats, most legislators generally spend their time dividing up the spoils of government and delivering symbolic oversized checks to prove their ability to bring money home.  There is precious little time to think deeply about government’s mission.

Pols Need to Cease Drawing Lines in the Sand and Start Finding Solutions

The annual squabble for funds makes for bad government because every year the partisan wrangling over appropriations dominates the debate, creates a climate of uncertainty overshadowing policy decisions and, most important, allows legislators to position themselves as champions who fought for their people when all they may have done was score a few bucks for a community center.

A longer budget setting process would allow government workers to spend more time doing the job of government and less trying to preserve their funding sources.  More important, the expanded budget process would allow lawmakers to take a longer view of what and how government should do and less on the political gamesmanship of budget gotcha. And, that is why they resist the idea.  It is much easier to have Kinko’s print big checks and pose for photos than it is to establish and advocate for ways to improve government.

Governor Branstad has been busy drawing lines in the sand since he returned to office.  Most of these lines involve spending.  For instance, Branstad decided early on that Iowa’s schools should not receive any new money this year.  Since then, state revenue predictions are up and the long-term economic picture has improved.  Yet, Branstad is trapped behind his hard-nosed 0% line.

A compromise on the two-year budget could provide a political escape route for both the Democrats and Branstad.  Branstad could claim a two-year budget provides him confidence to agree to a 2% increase for schools and Democrats could claim that locking in two years of 2% allowable growth for schools gives them confidence Iowa’s schools will continue to thrive.  Both sides could claim victory and Iowans would get progress instead of stalemate.

The budget compromise does not have to be limited to the length of the budget and school dollars, but they are good places to start.  Democrats and Republicans need to worry less about blocking the other side’s initiatives and more time finding ways to improve government.  Placing the budget on a longer cycle would provide an opportunity to do so.  Sure, a lot of the mystery and hysteria of the annual budget fight would dissipate, but we can find enough manufactured intrigue on reality TV these days. Let’s leave it there.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Open Letter to Gov. Branstad, re: School Lunch

Dear Governor Branstad:

You asked Iowans for help as you begin your term as Governor.  This is an excellent idea.  Iowans are innovative and willing to do the hard work needed to get the job done.  Recently I submitted the first of a few ideas I feel are worthy of your consideration as you put together the state budget and perfect your blueprint for governing in the years to come.  I share another today.

As a former school board member, I know as well as any that school districts do much more than maintain school buildings and hire teachers.  Public schools run bus networks, manage countless social service and health care programs, and direct massive food service operations.  Some of these services are directly linked to education and others are provided at school because it is the one place where the children in need of these services gather.  It is time to help educators focus on improving education by taking some of these non-instructional items off of their plate.  The pun is intended; let’s start by taking food service out of the hands of educators.

We probably agree it makes sense to feed kids at school.  For many students, the breakfasts and lunches they receive at school are the best meals they receive all week.  However, we must acknowledge that these meals still fall short of what they should be as evidenced by theUnited States Department of Agriculture’s announcement last month that it was raising the standards for school lunches nationwide.  (The fact it will take a decade to implement these standards, meaning that no student in the system today excluding First Graders and Kindergartners will benefit, is disappointing; but I digress.)

We can improve the quality of food served, reduce costs and free educators to do the job we most want them to do if feeding children becomes a service provided in school as opposed to one provided by the school.

Before going further with this proposal, allow me to suggest three guiding principles.  First, federal, state and local government food oversight provide plenty of food safety controls.  Second, school boards and district administrations should be given the ability to assert local control and oversight to ensure the needs of local communities are met.   Third, feeding kids nutritious and affordable meals is the goal – this is not about busting unions or a power grab by one entity or another.

Possible alternatives to school run lunch programs include combining oversight to an agency jointly managed by multiple school districts, and/or county and state agencies with food service needs; outsourcing to private entities that submit to stringent oversight; or seeking other private and or public cooperative efforts.

Admittedly, this idea will induce swift knee-jerk reactions by the self-interested, the entrenched and those fearful of change.  But, it is worth the time and effort to find a solution.  Iowa could save money, children could eat better and our schools could improve because school administrators will have more time to focus on educating.  It is worth the battle.

There are numerous opportunities worthy of exploration.  As Governor, you have the unique ability to facilitate, if not orchestrate, how Iowa’s schools could go about this.  This issue is larger than any school district.  School districts need to focus on the classroom and the state can help them do this by helping them take a step away from the kitchen.  The economies of scale and the statewide impact of how to best move forward should be led by Iowa’s chief executive.

Thanks for listening, Governor.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad Deserves Some Praise

I had the opportunity to get to know Terry Branstad pretty well in 1993 and 1994 when I put together his Made in Iowa tour for his last reelection campaign.  We took the Governor from one corner of Iowa to the other to celebrate the business, education and community success stories of Iowans.  It made for good political theater.  Personally, I learned a great deal about the man and the Governor as we logged many miles traveling across my new home state.  As I follow his return to public office, it occurs to me his pragmatic approach to problem solving hasn’t changed much over the years.

RODNEY WHITE/THE REGISTER

Governor Branstad will return to office this month.  Some will say Branstad has pandered to the right flank of the Republican Party to get the keys to Terrace Hill back.  I disagree.  The Branstad of 2011 is the same guy who bounced along in that Winnebago motorhome enthused about being governor in the early 90’s.  I oppose some of the current Branstad agenda, but I feel compelled to practice what I preach and praise the good in this space as I start the New Year.  Finding common ground and attempting to work together is all too uncommon in today’s politics.

Rethinking Iowa’s economic developmenteffort is necessary.  Branstad’s record of bringing business and government together to create jobs is solid.  He plans to create a new private-public partnership.  This is a good idea and I feel confident Branstad will make it happen.

Iowa sets its budget every year.   The last minute/clock ticking budget negotiations make it hard for local and state government leaders to plan and it is simply bad politics.  Branstad proposes the Legislature pass a two-year budget.  This is a very good idea.  As a former school board member, I am well aware of the annual scramble that occurs as the budget passes in the waning hours of the Session.  Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is justified in his concern that governors could abuse such a budget process.  Branstad has promised to work to alleviate these concerns and Gronstal should hold him to it.  The two-year budget will be a significant improvement over what Iowa does now and Iowans interested in better government should support this Branstad proposal.

Branstad has promised to review every executive order signed since the Erbe Administration.  This is an excellent idea.  Many of these orders should not be overturned or allowed to sunset, but every chief executive should do a regular review of executive orders, budgets, laws, policies and regulations.  This is what a good administrator does.

On a frigid day in 1994, I sat in a nearly as cold motorhome with Terry Branstad as the driver made slow progress on a snow swept NW Iowa highway.  We discussed the tedious process a governor must follow in making small and big decisions.  Branstad’s patience was evident.  I know there will be times in the coming four years when I will call him out for coming to the wrong conclusion or taking an action with which I will disagree.  As this new chapter begins, I have to say I see the same determined guy I saw back then.  That is a good.  I can handle that.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Des Moines School District Needs to Revamp its Budget

Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS) Superintendent Nancy Sebring sounded off here recently. In a piece oddly laced with gun references (statistics are like dueling pistols, returning fire, rifling through documents, etc.), she said Cityview had insulted teachers, diminished the considerable accomplishments of thousands of students and provided a disservice to the readers of this paper. Stinging words all. As a former school board member and father of three DMPS students, I want to join in her defense of our district. Great things happen here. However, Dr. Sebring missed Cityview’s point and an opportunity to strengthen public support for our schools.

Dr. Sebring was responding to the August 12 opinion piece, Save our Schools (from Microsoft). The techno-geeks at Cityview argued DMPS could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by replacing expensive Microsoft operating systems on DMPS computers with free Linux systems. Made sense to me, but I tend to tune-out when I hear “operating system.” It reminds me of what Daniel Rademeyer, the self appointed AV expert in high school, talked about when he cornered you in the lunchroom.

Dr. Sebring tuned out for another reason – she got angry. Cityview had asserted the DMPS budget uses “arcane language.” Sorry, Doctor, it does. Federal and state constraints sometimes require a certain structure, but there is more. DMPS resists a simpler budget. Such a document would make it easier for those not versed in school budget nuance to deconstruct it and, in turn, influence policy. There, I said it. A budget easy enough for Cityview to understand would mean more could comment on it and, dare I suggest it, make recommendations about how things might be done differently.

Dr. Sebring said Citview’s comments about the budget indicate, “1) that you don’t understand it, in which case you might have come to us for some explanation and 2) that we are deliberately obfuscating.” I love this bit of wordplay, for if the DMPS budget is so complicated it has to be explained, it is by definition something that obfuscates. (Obfuscate: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated. I was the self-appointed word geek in high school.)

The administrator in Dr. Sebring said the budget is “complex and every year’s final result is a jigsaw puzzle pieced together from an assortment of sources. That’s why we hold public forums and meetings with employee groups and create opportunities for explanation and input throughout the process.” I wish the teacher in Dr. Sebring would realize that if the community has to be taught every year how to read the budget, the problem may not be that the community cannot learn, but that there is something wrong with the way the budget is written.

I have reviewed many a DMPS budget. Funding sources for public education come with restrictions. One tax levy can only be used for instruction. The Physical Plant and Equipment Levy voters are considering renewing as this paper is printed is exclusively used for building repairs and equipment. Yet another is dedicated to playgrounds, community education and middle school athletics. Sales tax revenue is dedicated solely to construction costs. The funding sources are too numerous to mention, but Cityview’s point should not be lost. While DMPS revenues come from diverse sources, its expenditures are focused on a few things, most involving education.

If DMPS made the budget easier to understand, taxpayers might see more clearly the noble efforts made to protect and improve our schools and the superintendent may never again have to rap the Cityview troublemakers on the knuckles for mouthing off after class.

Dr. Sebring rightfully points out that DMPS has pioneered excellent programs that inspire and educate students across the academic spectrum. I share her pride in what is being done well here. But, things are far from perfect.

I can imagine it is difficult for Dr. Sebring and her colleagues to hear criticism about what isn’t working in tough economic times that strip school budgets. However, I caution them to not jump to the conclusion that all those who criticize are out to get them. Every so often an idea like switching computer operating systems makes sense. The superintendent should invite discussion instead of chastising those who raise their hands. She never addressed the Linux idea, but defensively invited Cityview to visit DMPS schoolhouses so they could learn a thing or two about what goes on there. The Microsoft vs. Linux question does not require a lecture, just an answer.

This entry was first published as a guest column in Des Moines Cityview.

Tuesday’s School Levy Vote and a Call for a New Budget Document

On Tuesday, September 14, Des Moines voters will have the opportunity to vote on whether to renew the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) imposed by the Des Moines Public School District (DMPS). PPEL raises nearly $4.5 million dollars to fix buildings and buy certain equipment. The levy is set to expire June 2011 and, should voters approve the ballot measure, it will be renewed for ten years. I plan to vote “yes” to renew and I have asked others to do the same, but in explaining the importance of PPEL, I have been reminded how confusing the DMPS budget is. It doesn’t have to be this way.

As a former school board member, I have reviewed a number of DMPS budgets. I know how frustrating the document can be. Many of the numerous funding sources for public education come with restrictions. The Instructional Support Levy is restricted to instructional purposes like elementary counseling, class-size reduction, and reading, writing, and math recovery. Yet another levy is dedicated to playgrounds, community education and middle school athletics. And, the sales tax revenue is dedicated solely to construction costs. These sources and PPEL represent only a few of the funding sources that finance our schools. This dizzying array of sources and the rules which restrict them make the budget anything but simple, but the document does not have to be as complicated as it is currently.

Superintendent Nancy Sebring recently said in Cityview that the budget is “complex and every year’s final result is a jigsaw puzzle pieced together from an assortment of sources. That’s why we hold public forums and meetings with employee groups and create opportunities for explanation and input throughout the process.” I would urge her to consider that the problem is the budget document itself. There is a better way to write it.

This year’s budget can be found here. Its eighty-one pages provide the information that is legally required of a school budget, but it is difficult for most people to get their arms around. It would make far more sense to create a section for each funding source that provides all information relating to that source.

The Instructional Support Levy and every other source would have its own section. The section would include: when the source was first approved, by what entity (state, federal, vote of the people, etc.), when it was renewed, how it was renewed, when it is set to expire/renew, the amount of revenue it creates, and how that revenue will be specifically spent. Links to additional information such as the Iowa Statute that established the source, vote totals when it was approved, information for specific expenditures, etc. would all be provided in each section. Each section’s total revenue and total expenditure would be carried through to the broader budget document so readers could follow a clear trail from the source to the overall budget and back. This would take much of the mystery out of what is now a baffling document.

Before the next budget season commences, the School Board and Dr. Sebring need to dedicate themselves to making the budget easier to understand. If they do, DMPS will spend less time explaining the budget and more time gaining consensus about how to move forward as a community to protect and improve our schools.

(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.