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.

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.

A Prayer for Teachers

In light of the debate raging in Wisconsin and across the nation about collective bargaining and the pay and benefits of public workers, I took a moment today to remember one group of workers for whom I feel pretty strongly.  After some consideration I have decided to post here the personal piece I drafted for my Rotary Club – not to inflame the debate, but to reflect about the people who serve.

Once in a while the Rotary Club of Des Moines takes a questionable risk and asks me to give the invocation before our meeting.  Our speaker today was Sarah Brown Wessling, the 2010 National Teacher of the Year winner.  My prayer for teachers follows:

Today, let us pray for a group of people who make a difference every day, teachers.

As a teacher stands in the quiet hall unlocking her classroom door, may she find reassurance that her efforts this day will make a difference.  As she turns on the lights and straightens the desks, may she find the strength needed to face the exuberant and willful young people who look to her for guidance.

As their school buildings come to life with the rambunctious grace of children, may teachers find the courage needed to continue the daily struggle of unlocking the minds of those who are our greatest hope.

When a teacher stands feeling lost and alone in his overcrowded classroom, may he be reminded that learning brings people together and he has a talent, the noble gift to teach.  As a teacher does one of what seem to be a thousand tasks outside of his duties as an educator – nurturing, feeding, social work – may he know he is capable, trusted and vital.

After the teachers have left the schoolhouses, graded papers, planned the next day’s lessons and rested before they repeat all of these activities tomorrow, may we remember to pause and give thanks for the teachers.  Without them, the door to the future can never be unlocked.

###

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.