Showing posts with label Michael Gronstal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Gronstal. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

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.

Friday, January 13, 2012

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.