Des Moines Schools' Doubling Down on IB comes with a High Price

I am not a trained educator. But, I have been an education advocate for more than 20 years and as a former Des Moines school board member, parent and businessman who has been involved in economic development issues for even longer, I know well how important it is to fund the diversity of programs required to advance students across the learning spectrum.

I am proud of the education my three children have received as students of Des Moines Public Schools. They have excelled in ways I could have never imagined thanks to the creative teachers and sound programming available in our schools. My oldest son will head off to the United States Naval Academy later this year. He will tell you, as will I, he earned this honor in large part because he was a student of the outstanding Des Moines Central Academy. Connor is only one of thousands of Central students who have been able to go on to great things because of this proven, award-winning program.

Des Moines Central Academy

Central Academy is a district-wide program that challenges students to achieve in a learning environment geared to their abilities. Central Academy allows the Des Moines Schools to offer advanced placement, language and other classes in a centralized location to students from across the district. It would not be financially feasible for Des Moines to provide a similar level of instruction and learning if it were to try to recreate these classes at individual high schools. A dismantling of Central Academy would mean students at some high schools would have better access to some classes than would others who live across town. Yet, Des Moines Schools is on the verge of pursuing a plan to do just that.

Des Moines Schools is taking steps to offer fewer of the classes that have made Central a national education model in an effort to bolster the International Baccalaureate (IB) program that has had difficulty gaining traction in our district. Des Moines has struggled to recruit enough high school students to the IB program to justify the millions of dollars the district has invested in IB. The superintendent is doubling down on IB by shrinking a Central Academy that is working well so the district will have space and resources to gamble on the program that has yet to take hold in Des Moines.

Such thinking is wrongheaded.

Today, Des Moines Schools officials quietly started spreading the word Central Academy classes such as Environmental Science, US Government, and Statistics would be replaced with IB geared classes like Microeconomics, Computer Science, Art History and Spanish Literature. This is much more than a minor change in class offerings. If this plan is implemented, it will represent a significant departure in Central Academy’s focus and will result in a loss of accessibility to a core group of Advanced Placement courses for a majority of Des Moines high school students.

Few educators will argue against the merits of a well-run IB program. Its curriculum is also proven and many students across the globe have benefitted from it. But, the choice between IB and Central Academy is a false one. Building a successful IB program should not and must not come at the expense of Central Academy, a program that has a long track record of achievement.

The mission of Des Moines School is to create programs for students in every corner of the district. If the Des Moines School Board takes Central Academy apart in an effort to prop up its latest project of the moment, IB, the people of Des Moines will lose because our district will give up something remarkable in the process. Someday the Des Moines IB program may reach the student levels the District has promised it would, but if it does so at the price of Central Academy, Des Moines will be much the less for it.

###

Added 2:10 p.m., 1/31/2014
Because blogs are living documents capable of being commented upon and, one could hope, evolving, I would like to update this piece based on some conversations I have had with others.

One teacher friend of mind pointed out "Every (DMPS) high school is offering AP Env. Sci. and Gov. and, in most cases, have more than one section of them! I can't speak to AP Statistics, but I know we have it at North (with multiple sections again). So it seems as if DMPS is trying to eliminate duplicate offerings, not trying to dismantle Central Academy. Many classes will still need to be offered there because they are not offered at the comprehensive high schools."

My friend raises a interesting point and one that forces me to consider one of my previous assumptions about accessibility to AP classes. If the classes being cut from Central are being made available at the individual high schools to the standards they have been offered at Central, I could see why DMPS may want to eliminate them at Central. But, we should not lose sight of the second piece of my statement, these classes have to meet the same standard they do at Central.

To that point, a student friend of mine chimed in with "At Central Academy the quality of education, teacher involvement, & peer competition is irreplaceable at a home school for those students who do want to get the best education the public school system can offer."

I thank these two friends and others who have challenged me on this piece, what I seek passionately (perhaps, too passionately at times) to protect at Central Academy is not any individual course offering or group of courses. I fight for the all too uncommon atmosphere Central Academy creates that helps students from across our district to highly achieve. If classes are being moved to home high schools to make room for IB or some other program and the classes fall even slightly short of the standard at which they have been taught at Central Academy, our district loses something valuable.

###

Added 10:30 a.m., 2/1/2014
I have had the opportunity to talk to many teachers, students, district personnel and one school board member about this issue during the last 24 hours. The DMPS officials assure me this change has nothing to do with downgrading AP standards. The AP classes offered at the individual high schools will meet or exceed the standards set at Central. If true, this is welcome news. Time will tell, but I must say I am assured by their confidence and willingness to talk this through.

Let me end with something I believe strongly. It is crucial DMPS preserve and bolster Central Academy. It is a proven entity that has helped thousands of students achieve great things over the years. One glaring fault of Central is that there remain students in our district who do not take advantage of the programs offered at Central. However, this problem cannot be solved by offering a handful of classes in our individual high schools. Central offers a learning environment and camaraderie that, without exaggeration, changes the trajectory of many learners. The goal should be to grow this unique program by increasing the diversity of its student body, not break it apart and sending its pieces back to individual schools.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Make Some Noise this Veterans’ Day

“The sound of a kiss is not so loud as that of a cannon, but its echo lasts a great deal longer.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Standing in a cemetery on Veterans’ or Memorial Day can put a person at the center of one of those great spiritual paradoxes. One feels simultaneously distant from and, yet, close to God. The peaceful flutter of American flags couldn’t be more different from the ear splitting clatter that most likely was the last thing some heroes who are remembered here heard, but yet this tranquility seems a fitting honor for those who gave their all for something greater than any one person can be.

Respect and honor should not always be a silent display.

On this Veterans’ Day in giving thanks for those who served, let us show our gratitude by using one of our uniquely endowed gifts, our voice.

God gave us a voice so we might strengthen the human bond and do good here on earth. There is no greater good than standing up for those who have lost their voice or whose voices get drowned out by the clangor of nonsense we people sometimes foolishly produce.

Let us find the strength, courage and fortitude to use our voices to advocate for those who have stood up for us in battlefields distant and near. Let us blend our voices so they forever echo like that kiss of which Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke.

Many veterans find it difficult to silence the terrible rumbling sounds of conflict the rest of us cannot hear. Too often the cries of these veterans go unnoticed. Let us raise our voices to make a thunderous noise, a call for help to quiet the demons which torment so many of our veterans long after they return home.

For if we do so, we may just find God is not so distant after all.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Diebel/Moore Race Exposes what is Broken

Iowans may disagree on the harm caused by the recent political meltdown in Washington, the government’s invasion of privacy in the name of terror, or the tossing of Iowa Supreme Court Justices from office over the marriage ruling; but most will agree our political process is broken. Candidates and officeholders are quick to twist facts and grandstand, and are too often unwilling or unprepared to offer ideas on how to solve the problems our country, state and communities face. They do the first to win votes and are scared to do the second for fear their plans may not be immediately popular.

The Des Moines City Council race provides a poignant example of what is wrong in modern politics as well as an answer to how we voters can begin to fix that which is not working.

From every angle Chris Diebel is a committed, hard-working, intelligent and caring person. A Hollywood screenwriter would be hard-pressed to find a better person to study as a model candidate for an at-large city council seat of a progressive American city. Diebel is confident and appeared well prepared when he entered the race a few short weeks ago. But, he quickly made a wrong turn. Instead of making the case for why it was his time to lead, he chose to dirty his opponent. To make things worse, Diebel’s false accusations showed he doesn’t understand the biggest issue facing the City of Des Moines.

Diebel sent voters two mailers attacking incumbent Skip Moore for the council’s failure to set aside money for an illegal utility franchise fee the courts have ordered the city repay. Diebel claimed his opponent, Skip Moore, “ignored orders to pay back illegal fees,” which is simply untrue. Diebel ignored the plainly obvious fact Moore was elected long after the City made the poor decision to charge the fee. Diebel ran a political play to convince voters to toss Moore out. Diebel should have made the case for why voters should vote him in.

Diebel made a poor choice to go negative and a reprehensible one to go negative with untruths.

I know Chris Diebel, like and respect him. However, this error in judgment should cost him this election. He is clearly not ready to lead, but this mistake should not disqualify him for future service. Des Moines needs people like Chris Diebel to create the vibrant city we know Des Moines can be. Yet, before he wins office, Diebel needs to earn the people’s trust. He has failed to do so this time around.

The first step to righting local, state and national politics will be taken when we elect candidates more committed to doing the job for those they serve than they are winning a position for themselves. Chris Diebel may be such a person, but his campaign tactics suggest otherwise. He was gaming to win votes because he wanted to win. That had more to do with what Chris Diebel wants than what Des Moines needs.

It is time we vote for the candidates best prepared to lead, not those who make us feel good or, worse, those who make their opponents out to be unworthy by slinging innuendo or misstating facts.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

An Apology Might Help, Congressman

I have been trying something different, silence. Well, not exactly silence, but I haven’t written about politics lately. Like many Americans, I am weary of the political banter, the finger-pointing, the name calling, the blame game. I thought some time away from the keyboard might improve my gloomy opinion of American political affairs. It didn’t, due mostly to this foolish government shutdown. But, it did allow me some time to consider my role in this mess.

First, allow me to apologize. I am sorry for those times I worried more about being seen as American than about shouldering my responsibility as one, and for those times when I raced to place blame when I should have set to help fix what was broken. There, that felt pretty good.

Don’t worry; I don’t suffer an illusion my voice has some unique and powerful effect on our country’s affairs. I am just another guy. However, my being only one of 320 million doesn’t mean I am not accountable in some small measure for where things stand. We all are. And, we can do something about it. As voters we have the capacity to change things at the polls.

Since long before the invention of the squawk box known as television, Americans have been suckers for silver-tongued politicians who promise more than can ever be delivered. We love tough guys. We reliably react to political attack ads and respond with great fervor when a candidate tells us in well-crafted, thoroughly focus-group-tested language exactly what we want to hear.

Longing for something better is part of the human spirit, but we deny the human intellect when we buy the rhetoric spewed by those more interested in getting the job than they are in doing the job.

Guilty. I have done this.

Too many of those holding elected office in this country today mistake sycophancy for patriotism. They spend their time playing to the cameras to impress party power brokers, corporate leaders, special interest groups, each other and the all too acquiescent electorate. This empowers the elected ones to spend more energy exacting revenge on political opponents than they do solving the shared problems of the people they were elected to serve.

Finding solutions and building a consensus to move forward is what leaders do. We haven’t too many of these. I could end this by saying the fault for this rests with Congress, the President or some group of “them” – that we are victims of a flawed system – but it does not and we are not.

Today’s political quagmire is our doing, yours and mine. We cannot blame some great and powerful “them,” for we are the ones who control our destiny. We elect the “them.”

Every time we recite the partisan hyperbole and poke our fingers in the direction of those of a different political stripe, we feed the monster that is destroying us.

It’s time to move this country forward again. We will do this when we muster the guts to elect people more committed to country than they are to themselves and their party.

Here is what I intend to consider before stepping into the voting booth next time:

1. Leadership over longevity – Our system is broken because entities like the House and Senate perpetuate rules that reward time in office over leadership potential. This destructive practice has placed power in the hands of an out-of-touch group of lawmakers. Term limits aren’t the answer, but voters should evaluate if the incumbent expended more effort perpetuating or ending gridlock. This year, more than ever, too few have been problem solvers.
2. My way may not be the best highway – I need to listen, really listen to what others are saying. The American system is weakened when personalities and basic ideological differences define the debate before it starts. I need to play a role in ensuring competing ideas are aired fairly and openly. And, most important, I need to keep my eye trained on the goal, which is a better tomorrow, not an election victory for my adopted team or candidate.
3. Statesmanship over gamesmanship – I want to encourage and support the candidacies of those who are interested in leading. These people will have flaws and will say things that make me uncomfortable at times. I can forgive them if they prove themselves to be committed to doing the best they can.
4. I will continue to speak up, but only if doing so is helping to move things forward.

Americans have and can do magnificent things when we come together as a people. For many, in and out of office, saying “I am sorry” may be a good place to start.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Des Moines Drug Bust worth the Price?

On July 13 Des Moines police seized 11 pounds of heroin and 3 pounds of methamphetamine after searching two vehicles at a convenience store on N.E. 14th Street just off of I-80. This one bust resulted in two arrests and accounted for more than 440 times as much heroin as was seized in Des Moines in all of 2012, more than 23 times as much as the state Division of Criminal Investigation took in during fiscal year 2013. To put this in perspective, the seized pure heroin bricks could have produced 16,000 doses or more, depending on how it was cut, and the street value of the drugs is estimated to be in excess of $1.3 million.

Des Moines police seized 11 pounds of heroin 

and 3 pounds of methamphetamine in the city’s 

largest heroin bust. / Rodney White/The Register

All police have said thus far is that the bust was the result of a tip. Chalk one up for the good guys. Two drug smugglers are headed to jail and a significant amount of drugs are off the street.

Nothing but good news here, right? Maybe, but new evidence today about how some police departments receive tips from a massive federal government data mining program might change your answer.

Can you hear me now?
According to a Reuters investigation published today, a growing number of drug arrests are the result of a secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration initiative that funnels information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records of Americans.

Here’s how this program works.

The Special Operations Division (SOD) of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) receives and analyses data collected by two dozen partner agencies including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. From time to time, while collecting information in an effort to thwart terrorism and bolster other national security initiatives, these agencies stumble across something outside of their purview, say a local drug matter. SOD passes the information on to local law enforcement with a strict directive the source of the information cannot be revealed.

By using something that has become known as parallel construction, local law enforcement make it look like good old fashioned police work produced the intelligence. In order to use the information, local law enforcement must keep the U.S. government’s role secret. They don’t lie, they just obscure the source of the data and how it was collected. An unnamed snitch on the street stands in for a multi-billion dollar, multi-government agency data mining effort.

The use of information surreptitiously collected by the federal government about and belonging to private citizens by local police to make routine drug busts and the subsequent cover-up by law enforcement to make these investigations appear home grown raises a myriad of constitutional questions.

There has been a rush by the federal government to collect data and information at home and abroad since 9/11. The government is using national security and our collective interest as Americans to slowly diminish what was once thought to be the hallmark of our nation, the rights of the individual. Personal information like phone records, emails and other correspondence, travel records and spending habits once thought to be private, at least until a crime was suspected, are now parsed by a massive information gathering network that is collecting data on all of us. No suspicion required – or is it something worse – now, we are all suspects.

We live in a world where countries like Germany scold the United States for trampling the rights of individuals. What bothers me is not the irony that Germany now drives on the high road we often traveled alone, but that we appear so willing to yield this road to others in the name of short sighted self protection.

It is time we Americans stop allowing fear to drive our national agenda. We are better than this. Yes, the 9/11 attacks scared us. And, it is reasonable to attempt to prevent future attacks and the loss of life they could bring. However, if we do so at the expense of basic individual rights, America will become something far less than it was intended to be. Our children will inherent a country devoid of the very qualities that made her great. We have a task even greater than protecting and defending our borders and the lives of Americans. Our greatest responsibility is to preserve and protect the American ideal.

The Des Moines police have not and are unlikely to release the details about the tip they received that led them to suspect the two individuals arrested in July were drug smugglers. Let me be clear, we don’t know if the July 13 Des Moines arrests came from SOD information, but the circumstances certainly fit the profile.

One thing is for certain, DMPD didn’t just happen on these bad guys. An officer at the convenience store there to pick up a hot dog didn’t spot 14 pounds of drugs sticking out a truck’s gas tank. Vital information led DMPD to the conduct this search. If DMPD obtained this information from SOD, we should be concerned. Are we Americans willing to pay the full price of repurposed information collected in the name of national security? Are a few drugs worth the loss of individual freedom? Let’s hope for all of us and our children, the answer is no.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Suicide, the Painful Discussion

Alexander Betts, Jr., a 16-year-old Southeast Polk High School student, ended his own life this week.

His mother says her son was a victim of bullying and she believes the hate her son endured led to his decision. His friends and family called him A.J. According to his mother, bullies called A.J. many other things related to his race and sexuality.

I do not have the capacity to understand what drives a person to commit suicide, let alone when the person is a teenager about to step off on the beginning of life’s journey. The act of ending one’s life is unreasonable, tragic and inconceivable from every angle. “It gets better” is more fact than slogan, but far too many young people in despair end things before they learn this for themselves.

The Des Moines Register reported A.J.’s death and in doing so reminded readers of the string of suicides at Southeast Polk High in 2008 and the suicides of other teens who had been the victims of bullying. The paper decided A.J.’s tragic death was newsworthy and based on the fact it was a most read story on the Register’s website, readers agreed.

I stumbled across some rumblings about the Register story on social media and on radio this morning. There were two things motivating the bloggers and talkers. The first is that some teens may see the media coverage as glorifying what A.J. did and this will drive a few of them to copy him. The second is that A.J.’s suicide was his dreadful choice and the mention of bullies and hate is only there to push a political agenda regarding homosexuality or some other supposedly political correct cause.

Allow me to address the copycat issue first. Unfortunately, there are heartbreaking cases of young people doing such a thing. This is precisely why communities and schools spring into action to provide counseling in the wake of such a tragedy. But, the argument we should downplay teen suicides so teens don’t jump off the Brooklyn Bridge en masse is silly on its face. The best way to solve a problem is to address it head-on, not sidestep what hurts in a hope a kid grows out of what troubles him. Discussing what is painful is hard, not doing so is just plain reckless.

Avoiding the discussion about how factors like bullying may have contributed to a death based on a Pollyanna hope teens (or is it all of us?) are better off not knowing is nothing short of irresponsible. We need to learn about what caused such calamity and take preventative action based on what we learn.

If those making the stay-silent argument do so because they think media attention glorifies what it is to be gay, I am not sure I have the patience to combat that level of crazy at the moment.

Generally, those who kill themselves have been driven into isolation because they believe their situation is unique. They believe no one has suffered as they have. They are at a dead end. By telling the stories of those who made the wrong choice and what drove them to it, we send a message to others facing the seemingly unbearable or insurmountable. Bullying has and, unfortunately, is likely to always exist in some form as long as people roam the earth. This does not mean we should accept it as OK and not try to stop it. Even more important, we need to let those who suffer at the hands and words of bullying creeps know we have their backs. There is a way out – one we can find together. Talking about A.J. and others who ended life because they suffered the rejection and ridicule of knuckleheads might help do this.

Those who commit suicide are both victim and perpetrator. Their action is not excused because they were bullied. They made a catastrophic choice and squandered the gift of life, but there is something to be learned by knowing how they ended up in this wrongheaded place. By talking about bullying we send a message this crime has no place in our society and another more powerful one that says suicide is unnecessary and wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there are some 38,000 suicides in the United States every year. Ten percent of these victims are young people. We need to conduct a meaningful discussion with our youth. Their future really is in their hands. The bullies win if we stay silent.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

It is time for Eric Holder to go, Mr. President

President Obama, it is time to replace Eric Holder. I know you have a lot on your mind these days, but the country can no longer afford to give Mr. Holder the benefit of the doubt. Give him his walking papers today.

Eric Holder’s tenure as Attorney General has been marked with moments of genuine leadership. However, those under his management have too often wielded a careless and heavy-hand in discharging their duties. The mission of the Department Justice should include the protection of freedom and the steadfast defense of individual rights. General Holder has been too willing to approve thuggery in the name of the war on terror or in a misguided belief sidestepping or operating in the grey area of the Constitution provides an affordable, quick route to solving crime.

Tying the hands of Lady Liberty may produce a short-term win occasionally, but these minor victories are not worth the long-term price.

The breaking scandal regarding the Department of Justice’s improper seizure of phone records relating to the AP and its employees proves one of two things; either Mr. Holder believes the Justice Department is above the laws it is empowered to enforce, or he has lost control of the Department he is supposed to oversee. Either way the President should release Mr. Holder from service immediately.

There will be watchdogs for the President’s political legacy who will argue firing Eric Holder will be viewed as a sign a weakness – a Holder departure will be blood in the water for the sharks in search of a feeding frenzy on what is wrong in the Administration. These watchdogs are wrong.

Decisive action by the President will show he might be ready to steer our country away from the destructive course it has been taking since 9/11, a course where government overreach has been generally accepted in an age of loosely organized terrorists. Sadly, this overreach has handed unintended victories to those out to destroy us. U.S. drone strikes may have resulted in the killing of a few enemies, but the loss of innocent lives have encouraged countless others to join the cause of those killed. The cost of an army of TSA agents working at our airports, the funding of multiple war fronts and the loss of certain freedoms once enjoyed by Americans has come with an incalculable financial and human price. And, these are only two examples of how we have lost and our enemies have won.

Firing Eric Holder will make a strong statement the President is interested in restoring a government that will once again fight to protect the liberty of the people as it abides by the laws of the people. Do this, Mr. President, and you will have dealt a blow to those out to destroy us by bolstering freedom, that which makes America great. The next step will be hiring an Attorney General who understands this new direction, something Mr. Holder does not.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Repugnant Stench of Politics in the Air following the Boston Bombings

Over the last few days I have been shocked/saddened/disgusted by statements and social media posts made by gun advocates who use the crazed stabbings at a Texas College and the Boston Marathon bombings to craft ineffectual political statements about gun rights.

Below is the response I provided one Facebook friend who posted the picture shown to the right.

“Really? This is an abhorrent post. Standing on the backs of the Boston Marathon victims to make a political statement is shameful. Beyond that, it hurts the very cause you are trying to further. Freedom is not purchased by divisive statements that say we (gun owners, in this case) should be left alone because some other weapon (bombs, here) are equally bad, or worse.

Freedom thrives when we come together to stop those out to destroy us. After 9/11, there were many who rushed to condemn a religion and a host of others who threw freedom under the bus in the name of public safety. As a result, we have made tragic little headway in stamping out the threat of international terror. We have spent a lot of money and sacrificed many lives on war, but we have made little progress improving our relations in the world or making our country safer.

Using the Boston tragedy to further the politics of guns does nothing but weaken our collective resolve to eradicate the most malevolent threats we face, be they internal or external. Posts like the one on your page and similar arguments made elsewhere, help terror succeed because the attention paid to the political division among us distracts us from the more important task of stamping out our enemies.

Forgive me this rant. I respect what you are trying to further with this re-post. I am interested in what gun advocates have to say, but must object when they make their case in such a disrespectful and counterproductive way. There is too much at stake in this country. Let’s come together in the wake of this tragedy instead of standing on the backs of victims by wasting time making political hay.

Let us honor those lost and wounded by searching for solutions together.”

###

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

Timing, the Supreme Court and Equality

Today could present an odd moment for United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Yesterday as the Court began hearing oral arguments on the first of two cases involving marriage, Justice Alito said “same sex marriage is newer than cellphones and the Internet,”

Today the Court hears the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years, Thea Spyer, died in 2009.

I don’t expect Justice Alito to know the year the first network to independent computer network launched was 1969, four years after Ms. Windsor and Ms. Spyer became partners. Or for him to know off the top of his head that Motorola introduced the first handheld mobile phone in 1973. I would, however, hope Justice Alito and his eight colleagues know gay people have been around, well, since people were invented.

Timing was on Justice Antonin Scalia’s mind, too.

Justice Scalia stated during the oral arguments “I’m curious, when -when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”

An attorney arguing for same sex marriage responded with rhetorical questions, “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.”

Justice Scalia answered, “It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true.”

There you have it, really. While Justice Scalia raises an interesting, albeit painful, question, he also answers it. Thankfully, our country reached the right decisions on these matters, even though it took too long to do so. Call it evolution, or timing. It doesn’t matter.

For a country where slavery was once legal, where schools were segregated, where women were denied the right to vote and the list of legalized inequality is long; when should the Court rule a law falls short of what is set forth in the Constitution is not a new question.

The answer is simple; the moment we are able to strip away long-held prejudices and recognize a law is unequal. When it comes to to the limitation of legal marriage, that moment has arrived. The question is not one of religion, past practice or timing. It is about equality.

Justice Alito’s statement is wrong and Justice Scalia is focusing on timing when he should be focusing on the rights of individuals.

Cell phones and the legal contracts involving the purchase and operation of them are fairly new. The act of people choosing to pair and spend their lives together is anything but new, and the time has at long last arrived for the Court to evaluate equality when it comes to who can enter the legal contract of marriage.

The concept of human equality is significantly older than the Internet, and while we have had a little trouble living up to the ideal of equality in this country, the new thing before the court is not marriage but whether couples of the same sex will receive the same legal protection those of opposite sex receive when they marry/couple/partner.

Henry David Thoreau said ”It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” There have been many laws made and observed in this country that over time have been struck down because they violated an inalienable right. The time to strike laws limiting legal marriage to the opposite sex is now.

###

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

Des Moines School Board’s Illegal Superintendent Contract

When the Des Moines School Board began the search for a new superintendent last May, district spokesperson Phil Roeder advised the board it should present a united front to the public and applicants. Only the board president should speak to the media, he urged. He told them to keep things behind closed doors – all bold and robust board conversations should be held internally. They took that part of Roeder’s message to heart.

While the board was unable to present a united front about the person finally selected, they were and remain unified in their commitment to keeping their deliberations and the selection process a secret.

Board member Teree Caldwell-Johnson is so steadfast about keeping things from the public she refuses to explain her vote on new superintendent Tom Ahart’s contract. She didn’t speak during the public meeting at which the vote was taken and when asked afterward about why she voted “no” and her thoughts on the selection process, Caldwell-Johnson offered one of the strangest responses from a public official I have ever heard; “I’m not really at liberty to discuss (my vote) with you. I had my conversation with Mr. Ahart about why I voted the way I did. That’s who I needed to share that information with, not the media.”

No, Ms. Caldwell-Johnson, you represent the people of Des Moines. You owe them an explanation even more than the one you thought you owed Mr. Ahart.

The board’s shameful unwillingness to include the public in the selection of the highest paid superintendent Des Moines has ever had ($260,000 plus an impressive benefits package) should trouble Mr. Ahart’s supporters and detractors alike. The Des Moines School Board failed to meet even the bare minimum legal requirements in the selection of Ahart, the sole internal candidate.

Last week, board president Dick Murphy and three other board members held a news conference to announce the selection of Mr. Ahart and release final details about his contract including his salary. The board had never met in public to discuss, let alone vote on any of this. Since Mr. Ahart’s selection as superintendent and details about his contract weren’t discussed and decided in public, that leaves only one other option. His selection and the details of his contract were discussed and decided upon illegally.

The Des Moines School Board not only abused the intent of Iowa’s public meeting law, they flagrantly broke it.

When addressing the board last May, Mr. Roeder said, “There’s nobody going to tell you this time around that you’re doing it right or wrong. It’s self policing.”

It appears the school board believes self-policing and complete disregard of the public process are one and the same. Oh, and I’m here to tell you what the school board did was wrong.

The Des Moines School Board violated the law when they made a decision in private about who to hire as superintendent and what to pay him. Mr. Ahart should refuse to sign the contract. If the contract is executed, it should be struck down by the Court as illegal.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register print edition essay.
It is similar to the Iowa Watchdog piece posted the same day. 

Marco Rubio Aims, Misses

Senator Marco Rubio and I are about the same age. He grew up in Miami and I in Tampa. However, it is his self-professed interest in improving his community, state, country and the world that makes me root for him. This son of Cuban immigrants and darling of the Tea Party has articulated a willingness to search for solutions to vexing issues like immigration and healthcare. He is capable of forwarding a G.O.P. vision and was the obvious choice to present the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last night.

In the days leading up to the speech, the Republican media machine made much of the powerful voice this new leader is bringing to the debate. Care was taken to select the right Rubio family photos to grace the table in the grand window of the Speaker of the House’s conference room where Senator Rubio would speak. Rubio was poised to connect with Americans.

Instead, Senator Rubio continued a long bi-partisan tradition of making the response to the State of the Union the most awkward political moment of the year. Like many who have given the speech before, Rubio resembled an earnest member of the high school debate team trying to manufacture passion for a topic he was randomly assigned moments before taking the microphone.

Many are making much of Rubio’s inelegant reach for a poorly placed and much needed bottle of water, but that very human moment was more endearing than problematic. Lack of substance was the issue. Rubio squandered an opportunity to convince Americans the Republican Party has a plan. This was a moment to inspire. He chose to be defensive.

Marco Rubio continued to follow the same strategy Republican nominee Mitt Romney used during last year’s unsuccessful campaign. He attacked the President for failing to lead. He criticized Obama for detrimental policies and for impeding progress. Yet, Rubio failed to demonstrate he and his party have a better plan for governing.

Senator Rubio took the hackneyed route, telling listeners the President believes the government doesn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough and the free enterprise economy is the source of America’s problems. Rubio insisted Obama wants more government and that the President attacks Republicans for trying to right-size a bloated bureaucracy

By the time Rubio got to the line “I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes,” I had nearly given up hope Rubio’s address would offer any substantive solutions.

The Senator did suggest more federal lands be opened for the exploration of coal, oil and natural gas and that the tax code should be simplified. He agreed with the President that the corporate tax rate should be lowered.

Senator Rubio sounded the pro-education trumpet by saying American schools should offer “more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training” and that school choice should be available for parents with children of all ages. He said college student aid shouldn’t “discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.” Yet, while he acknowledged many students leave college with massive debt, he only offered “We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they’re taking out.” Rubio provided nothing about how to reduce debt by making education more affordable or any details about what Congress would do to improve schools.

The Senator said Americans were heart broken by violent gun deaths, but that we cannot undermine the Second Amendment. And, America’s position of strength in the world depends on our ability to build a strong economy. But, Rubio didn't inspire, nor did he offer a plan to bolster America. He continued using broad political brush strokes saying, in effect, the President and Democrats are wrong, we Republicans are right.

Senator Rubio had one line I believe with which all Americans agree, “At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can’t or won’t make the right choices anymore.” Americans are tired of the game playing in Congress, and yet this member took his moment in the limelight to point a finger and blame instead of take responsibility and chart a new course.

Republicans can win again if they show they are capable of improving national security and helping more to realize the American dream. Doing this takes more than tearing down the other party. It takes vision and courage. Senator Rubio was unable on Tuesday to illustrate he possessed either.

###

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

Facts, Guns and Spin – What a Gun Control Advocate Learned Today

It all started with a statistic. While reporting on the senseless murder of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago, a NBC Nightly News reporter referred to a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence memo showing there had been over 200 violent gun acts in our country before 6:00 p.m. that day alone. Indignantly, albeit to myself, I said, “if the media would report statistics like that every day, we could get meaningful gun legislation passed in this country.”

However, statistics are fickle comrades. Just when you think you have uncovered the data needed to win an argument, your opponent co-opts the same fact and uses it to his advantage. Maybe, just maybe, this would be different.

Hadiya’s death and the Newtown tragedy are abominations that have, for good reason, fanned the flames of discord about guns in America. In full disclosure, I support measures that make it harder to obtain guns and the outlawing of some weapons, but don’t stop reading quite yet. I came across a few interesting additional facts as I researched the stat that stoked my outrage I think those on both sides of the debate should consider.

Let me start with the following found on the Brady Campaign website.

On an average day in America:

• 223 adults are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, and police intervention

• 47 children and teens are shot

• 87 people die from gun violence, 33 of them murdered

• 8 children and teens die from gun violence

• 183 people are shot, but survive their gun injuries

• 38 children and teens are shot, but survive their gun injuries

Painfully shocking, I know. Yet, one should not take these numbers alone. With the help of my friend Art Stanton, I found the National Vital Statistics Report, Preliminary 2011 Statistics from the CDC published October 2012 and calculated these others.

On an average day in America:

• There are 2 accidental gun discharge deaths

• There are 54 suicides by firearm and 50 suicides by other means (a total of 38,285 suicides per year!)

There are these other non-gun related tragedies

• 73 people die as a result of a fall

• 92 people die due to accidental poisoning

• 72 people die an alcohol related death

Then, this tidbit on FactCheck.org, “The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. And yet, gun crime has been declining in the U.S. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence – even as gun ownership increases.” Feeling my righteous anger receding, I thought of the precious lives lost in school and young Hadiya cut down in Chicago. There is something to be learned from these tragedies. They were unacceptable acts of murder all too easily brought about by people wielding weapons that cause instantaneous death. We should outlaw weaponry like assault rifles capable of mass destruction.

Freedom is not purchased with the lives of classrooms full of children. In the end, cold hard statistics reminded me of a human element that often goes unaddressed in the call for gun control. Gun violence is, well, violent. Images of schoolhouses on lockdown are easily captured and reported. All the while, so many other tragic deaths go unnoticed. I know why we (to be read I) make such noise about gun violence, but the perspective gained by considering additional facts helped me view the issue in a way I had not before. The media should report facts like those provided by the Brady Campaign as these figures help frame the debate, but such facts need to be presented in a way that provides the broader view. And, we need to seek it out when the media fails to do so.

If you are disappointed I am not closing this piece with a sweeping opinion about guns, I am sorry. My lonely point is there are plenty of facts out there to bolster both sides of the debate. It is time we starting looking for solutions to solve the problem, not the points required to win a political argument. Let’s agree to work together to stop madmen and reprobates before they act – making it a little harder for them to arm themselves is the reasonable place to start.

###

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

Put the Tissues Away. Closing Gateway School Makes Sense.

Des Moines School Board members may want to have tissues at the ready Tuesday night. Earnest well-coached middle school students and their sure-to-be-teary-eyed parents are planning to pack the meeting room in an effort to win at least four board member’s votes against the administration’s proposal to close the newly opened Gateway Secondary School housed at Central Campus. These families love the school. One can understand why they do. The 171 students who attend the shiny new Gateway enjoy the lowest student/teacher ratio in the district.

Board members should listen politely to the emotional pleas made by this acutely small minority of district parents and students, but they should base their decision on the facts. Closing Gateway is good for the district as a whole.

First, Gateway’s limited size means it costs over $700 more to educate a Gateway student than it does any other middle school student in the district. Second, Gateway was chartered to provide access to International Baccalaureate (IB) programming not available in neighborhood schools at the time. Making IB curriculum available at Brody Middle School solved that. With Merrill on the west, Meredith on the north, Goodrell on the east and now Brody on the south, middle school students in every corner of Des Moines have access to IB. Last, if the duplicative and tiny Gateway stays open, the district will be forced to spend more than $1.7 million to renovate space needed for vital Central Campus classes that could use the Gateway classrooms.

The District shouldn’t have opened Gateway in 2010. It did because doing so created the illusion of innovation and this helped to continue distracting the community from noticing school leaders lack the vision and courage to address our long festering middle school problem. Middle school is where the deficiencies of education come into bloom and most go perennially unaddressed. We can no longer avoid our failing middle schools. It is time for a comprehensive plan for educating students across the learning spectrum. To continue funding a token school serving 171 students would further hinder serious reform.

The former superintendent lobbied her school board heavily to approve the Gateway Secondary School in 2009. She was losing a battle to open a charter school she had promoted as groundbreaking – she eventually got the charter school, but that boondoggle has and can be discussed in another column. The superintendent needed a win and she pushed hard. The plans and rationale were scant for Gateway, but board members were told it was intended as an IB school and they quietly followed along as they usually did.

Fast-forward to today and we find a middle school serving less than 200 students while the others in Des Moines serve nearly 700. Worse, Gateway is off course. Students take high school classes like fashion design because funding isn’t available to offer the intended more appropriate middle years IB curriculum. That should be reason enough for the board to push to close the school.

Gateway costs more to operate than other schools. It is a duplication of existing neighborhood schools. It uses space needed for Central Campus classes attended by high school students throughout the district. And, Gateway has failed to meet its stated mission.

There will be 150 or so severely disappointed families should the school board accept the administration’s wise proposal to close Gateway, but it is in the best interest of the community and the families of the other 32,000 Des Moines students to let this pet project fade away.

Four years ago an administration disinterested in data and sound planning bamboozled the school board into voting for the Gateway School. On Tuesday, a different administration will present a well-thought and documented argument to close that same school. Here’s hoping the school board has the courage to make a decision based on facts and reason while seated in a room packed with people clutching tissues.

###

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

Speaker Boehner Should Go

The new Congress will convene today. But, look for nothing to change in the house of “no.” While the 113th Congress has a freshman class of nearly 100, these new recruits will help elect the same group that held positions of power in the dysfunctional 112th. This recycling of ineffectual leaders will likely be the 113th Congress’ first mistake.

I think John Boehner is a smart guy. In fact, two years ago I wrote this hopeful notion, “The negative personal attacks that have infested U.S. politics must come to an end. We can disagree, but to move forward as a nation, civility must return to our political debate. Speaker designee Boehner has the chance to make the first step. He does not have to compromise his beliefs and shouldn’t. Hopefully, he will see the best way to forward his agenda is to treat those who oppose him as equals and, in doing so, find a way to end the gridlock plaguing Washington, for it holds our national future hostage.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Boehner didn’t move an agenda forward, thus ensuring the hostage siege continued. He simply stood in the way of progress as our nation faced unparalleled national security and economic threats and a growing number of Americans were unable to make ends meet in a poor economy. Speaker Boehner has failed the leadership test.

Evidence as to why the Speaker should be replaced was in full display over the last few days as he was unable to secure enough Republican votes to pass his Plan B to avert the fiscal cliff. The Speaker couldn’t muster the votes to support his back-up plan and Boehner’s primary plan never materialized either. It’s not entirely Mr. Boehner’s fault. He was tasked with trying to lead a party divided. However, when a person in power can’t lead, he should be shown the door.

The loss of six Republican House seats in the 2012 election may be one sign of American’s dissatisfaction with what has been described as the least productive Congress in modern history. For the last four years, Boehner and the other GOP leaders in Congress have spent most of their time complaining about the President and very little time offering anything of substance as an alternative. If the Republicans in Congress were serious about moving the United States forward, they would dump the Boehner team and elect people interested in an agenda of substance instead of one of obstruction.

Harry Truman said “Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

Skillful leaders will be required if the 113th Congress wants to change things for the better. By not replacing Speaker Boehner, Congress appears poised to repeat the same dismal history witnessed over the last two years.

###

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

Cedar Falls’ Bold Stand on Health Care

The City of Cedar Falls faces a tough budget challenge and, according to City Attorney Tom Meyer, Cedar Falls has to “make difficult decisions that impact our employees due to the changes in the new health care laws.” Decision one for Cedar Falls was to limit to 29 the average number of hours worked per week by approximately 59 current part-time employees in 2013 to ensure the City doesn't have to pay up to $850,000 in health insurance costs when those laws take effect in 2014. A difficult decision for city officials, indeed, but Cedar Falls can and should do more.

The folks at Cedar Falls City Hall are not doing all they can to safeguard the public purse and we should tell them we Iowans stand behind them as they take the next brave step.

First, let’s give credit where credit is due. Cedar Falls leaders deserve praise for standing up to the draconian health care law President Obama and his cronies forced down the throats of the American people. This law passed under the cover of darkness has yet to survive the appropriate legal challenges or a thorough test by the electorate. OK, so Congress passed the law after a long and open debate and that law survived numerous court cases that were affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. But, are we to think the voters were actually paying enough attention during the recent campaign to understand reelecting the President and leaving Congress virtually unchanged would ensure the law would take effect? Well, that’s beside the point.

Good for Cedar Falls for taking tough action and for squarely placing the blame for cutting worker earnings where that blame belongs, on somebody else’s doorstep.

The Cedar Falls visionaries recognize their decision has a downside. They admit reducing the number of hours some 59 city workers will work next year will mean those workers and their families will have a little less walking around money, but that is the price the City is willing to pay. The City cannot be forced to help these folks obtain the same health care coverage it provides its more deserving full-time workers. And, that’s where the answer lies.

If health insurance is too expensive for some workers, maybe it is just too expensive for all.

According to the City of Cedar Falls fiscal year 2011 budget, when fully staffed Cedar Falls has some 215 full time employees. Cedar Falls should make all of its positions part time. This would eliminate 100% of its health insurance costs. If providing health insurance coverage for 59 workers has a potential cost of $850,000 as Meyer explained, eliminating coverage for 215 employees would potentially save the City a whopping $3,097,000.

Cedar Falls could balance its budget easily and place more than blame on somebody else’s doorstep. Cedar Falls could place the entire burden of health care insurance there as well. Since he understands the issue so well, I am confident the City Attorney will be the first to step-up to volunteer to hand back his city provided health insurance.

OK, enough sarcasm. America’s health care system is failing due in large part to the fact access to health coverage is unequal. Some workers get coverage and some don’t. In the end, we all end up paying too much. The health care law was designed to begin to fix that problem and get a handle on costs.

Cedar Falls has to balance its budget, but it is shameful that in doing so, it is denying workers the ability to earn health care coverage. By limiting hours for part time workers, Cedar Falls is telling a group of workers they are not worthy of the valuable health care coverage those making the decisions already enjoy. Bold leadership doesn't exist in Cedar Falls these days.

###

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

Tokenism is Strangling the GOP

Some Republicans do not understand their failure to organize and relate to voters had as much to do with the GOP’s loss as did anything their opponents did to win. It can be hard to digest the fact one’s own shortcomings are to blame while the bitter taste of defeat is still fresh, but Republicans would be wise to choke down a sizeable helping of self-evaluation before leaving this table. If they want things to change, Republicans must fix what is broken within their party.

Governor Terry Branstad isn’t looking inward, he is lashing out. In a Register interview last week, he said this, “If you really analyze this, it’s a tribute to the community organizer and campaigner-in-chief. He had a terrible record, he knew he couldn’t run on it, and they ran a very effective campaign, really. If you look at the nuts and bolts, they didn’t win this on issues. They spent the entire year in advance trying to make Mitt Romney this ogre and somebody that people wouldn’t trust.”

With a straight face, Governor Branstad says President Obama didn’t win on issues and then concludes, “If Romney had won, I think there would have been a mandate for change.”

‘If my guy wins, the electorate supports our agenda – if the other guy wins, the voters got duped’ is not intellectually honest. Believing what they wanted to believe while ignoring all evidence to the contrary led many Republicans to predict a landslide victory. Similar election results will happen again unless Republicans cease the self-comforting spin. It may be hard to swallow, but Republicans lost, in part, because voters did not agree with them.

Governor Mitt Romney proved he is unwilling to accept why he lost. He told large donors participating in a campaign wrap-up call the Obama team bestowed “gifts” on loyal Democrat constituencies to sway the election.

“In each case, they (Democrats) were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Romney said. He went on to say while President Obama was, in effect buying votes, Mr. Romney was “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Romney refuses to admit his own message was the heart of the problem. He believes in himself and his message so completely, the only conclusion Romney draws is that voters rejected him because of some sleight of hand by the silver-tongued Obama.

By telling donors others are to blame without accepting any responsibility for his own actions, Governor Romney reminds me of the guy who tells his wife a tree fell on her truck, the truck he parked next to the tree he was about to cut down. The tree fell on the truck, but that does not make the incident the tree’s fault.

There is some hope. A few Republicans including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal appear to be looking the right direction. In response to Romney’s comments to donors, Jindal said this, “We have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote. … So I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think it’s absolutely wrong. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party, where we’re going as a party. That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election.”

Republicans need to develop a plan for leading and attracting new voters. This starts with constructing two essential components of a winning campaign, organization and message. Developing an effective organization and a motivational message requires an understanding of voters: the who, where, why and how elements of the electorate.

The Obama campaign redefined the mechanics of campaigning. Their ability to identify likely voters, to create and disseminate nearly individualized messages based on data collection and to get out the vote by making the most of today’s technology has set a new standard. They thought about how voters communicated, where they got information and what influenced their thinking. But, most important, they inspired voters to act. Inspiration is the magic ingredient of a winning campaign formula.

The Romneys and Branstads of the GOP are missing the point.

Women, Latinos, African Americans and others are not target groups to be purchased with what Romney describes as “gifts.” They are a part of a diverse electorate interested in ideas that will make the country, their communities and their families stronger.

If they wish to again connect with voters, Republicans must break free from those who think tokenism substitutes for inclusion.

###

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

The Register and Romney Sittin’ in a Tree

With the exception of the political punditry, most Americans are relieved the 2012 election is over. Understandably, the talking heads and opinion writers are toughing out the cold sweat of withdrawal by analyzing voting statistics, parsing speeches and speculating about the maneuvering to come. Pointing the finger of blame at those who lost and theorizing about devious plans the winners must have employed to dupe voters are popular detox treatment methods used by many of these addicts.

As a regular contributor to these pages, I am going to purge my system in another way. Since I have already written about how this election demonstrated the great need for campaign finance reform, the changing demographics of the electorate and why candidates from both parties should talk less and listen more to voters; I am going to turn my gaze away from the politicians and toward the media covering them.

The rise of the Internet and social media has sent news organizations like the Des Moines Register scrambling to hold together and rewrite a once solid business model. Selling newspapers and the ads inside was never easy, but the business of news coverage has never been harder than it is today. More and more people expect to get their news for free, on their schedule and in the format that they choose. Waiting for news to be delivered in the paper is something unfathomable to today’s smart phone toting, digital consumer. Providing a place of value for advertisers in a world of news on the run is a daunting challenge.

Knowing some about this changing environment and as an outsider who gets an occasional look inside the Des Moines Register’s newsroom, editorial offices and business operations, I remain intrigued by the Register’s decision to endorse Governor Mitt Romney in the final days of the race. I did not agree with the argument the Register made – it seemed to me they reversed course on much of which they have supported in recent years. But, I know those who made this decision. They are principled people who take editorial writing as seriously as they do investigative journalism.

That being said, one cannot deny the Romney endorsement turned the lights of the national media toward the Register. These lights would have never shone so brightly had the paper endorsed President Obama as most had expected. The editorial created a buzz that sells.

I am not suggesting the Register’s publisher and editor let marketing drive the endorsement. They are people of integrity. Beyond that, they are savvy enough to understand such gamesmanship would, in the long run, do more harm than good to the institution they pilot.

However, the impact of the Romney endorsement has been interesting and a little fun to watch. More than a few Republicans have long insinuated the Register was a Democrat biased institution. Many would call it the Red Star and take pride in cancelling subscriptions every time they felt trod upon. The Romney piece left them gobsmacked. One Romney supporter nearly hugged a Register reporter when she came to cover an event telling the reporter she finally felt as if the Register was again Iowa’s paper. The Register has even gained subscriptions in the days following the endorsement.

Meanwhile, a group of Democrats raised $15,000 to place a full page Register ad containing another paper’s endorsement of Obama. The irony of Democrats muttering about cancelling subscriptions while raising the equivalent of 125 yearly subscriptions to pay for an ad was kind of humorous.

Here’s my take away from all of this. There is much to learn from the 2012 campaign. First, we voters have the power to change the tenor of debate. Every time we react to a negative attack ad and ignore serious policy discussions, we make campaigns the shallow things we despise. When we rush to judge a person because of the party label she wears and overlook the ideas she espouses because of her party choice, we sell ourselves short. And, as important, we have the same power to control the media who report and comment on those running for office. We need to be equally careful about rushing to accuse them of bias. If we demand more, newspapers and other media outlets will rise to the call and in the process they will be profitable and healthy businesses.

Give candidates and the media your attention and, in doing so, hold them to a standard that helps chart a better course for our communities, state and country. Sure, we can gripe about the losers and accuse the winners. We can cancel subscriptions and yell about bias in the media. But, those things can be as childish and pointless as songs about kissing in trees. It is we who determine what sells and what doesn’t. We are the ones who must act. If we do not, when things go wrong, the blame will be ours.

I want an editorial board that calls it as they see it, not as I want them to call it. Even though the Romney piece made me cringe, it looks like they upheld their part of the bargain this time. I’m fine with that.

###

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

Which is Worse, Campaign 2012 or Hurricane Sandy?

The storms slamming the east coast are tragic, costly affairs that have and will continue to cause misery and suffering. With God’s grace, the communities in the wake of this storm will emerge safely from the wind, rain, floods and snow and lives will return to normal quickly. I do not want to minimize the human misery Sandy is bringing. My thoughts and prayers are with those living through it and those who have lost it all. However, Hurricane Sandy should serve as a powerful reminder. Life is fragile and, all too often, we spend too much of our mortal breathing moments focusing on the unimportant.

My Buddhist friends tell me a storm like Sandy is further evidence everything is connected – the good, the bad, today, yesterday, tomorrow, you, me, people we will never meet, animals, insects, earth, air, sea; you get the point. Standing witness to earth’s natural power does help one understand this. The Sandys force us to stop in our tracks and reflect. That is good. It is kind of a shame it takes devastation or calamity to force us to do something so simplistic and basic to life.

Campaign 2012 will be over next week. This race has been nasty and, in many ways, counterproductive to our national progress. We voters have allowed billion dollar campaign machines to divide by distracting us from that what binds the American people in the first place, a belief every person deserves freedom. We have focused on the negative, the accusations, and disagreements.

Here’s hoping when the political storm clears and media chatter returns to non-election year banter, Americans will think more about what unites, than what divides. We must replace choosing sides with working together to build something better.

Elections – this one in particular – resemble hurricanes. They destroy and devastate until they run out of energy. But, much of what causes a hurricane is beyond our control. We can construct stronger buildings and fortify our coastlines, but beyond that, the best we can do is hunker down and wait a hurricane out.

Elections are an invention of man fueled by money. We have the ability to interrupt the campaign path of destruction by demanding candidates rise above the squabble. Candidates respond to voter reaction. It is time we voters tell candidates we expect ideas and integrity, not blame and marketing gimmicks. Most of all, we must cutoff the fuel source feeding this destruction by limiting campaign funding.

The American spirit will be evident as people from across the country selflessly step forward to help those trying to regain their footing after being knocked down by the storms. It will take an even larger and longer cooperative effort to bridge the partisan divide formed during campaign 2012. I would like to think Americans are up to the task.

###

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

Time to Walk away from the Boy Scouts

It is difficult to understand how anyone is still able to rationalize supporting the Boy Scouts of America. It must have to do with the fact being a “Boy Scout” is ingrained in the American lexicon as being honest, fair, trustworthy and all things good. Apparently, it is hard to discard such strong images despite irrefutable evidence the national Boy Scout organization is anything but those things.

Timeless Values Besmirched?

It is time, once and for all, for parents, churches, community groups and supporters of the national Boy Scouts to cease supporting the discriminatory and often backwards policies and practices of the national Boy Scout organization.

The Boy Scouts of America has for years unashamedly prevented gay and lesbian adults from participating as scout leaders and parent advisors. They have relentlessly fought to remove capable, trusted people who are fully committed to the principles espoused in the Boy Scout handbook from being involved in adult leadership roles based on a bigoted belief sexual orientation qualifies some and disqualifies others. And, the Boy Scouts’ discriminatory practice doesn't stop at adults. Just this month a model Boy Scout in California was denied the organization’s top award of Eagle Scout simply because he was gay.

Now comes another bizarre twist to the Boy Scout saga. Yesterday a court in Oregon ordered the release of decades of documents compiled by the Boy Scouts dubbed the perversion files. In numerous instances child molesters were kept hidden from law enforcement with no regard for their victims. Some of these deviants were chased from Boy Scout positions. Many were not. Most important, the Boy Scouts helped ensure few offenders ever faced justice for their crimes against children. All of this was done to protect the Boy Scout organization’s image, not the rights of the children they supposedly were there to serve.

Many boys have become upstanding men with the help of their Boy Scout experience. The Boy Scout credo, their leaders, fellow Scouts and lessons learned scouting have served them well. It would be a shame to entirely scrap what remains a wholesome and positive force in thousands of people’s lives. Many parents and community organizations supporting local Boy Scout troops say they disagree with the national organization’s behavior. They insist they are trying to change Scouting from within. They say their troops operate independent of the the national organization’s policies and practices. They would never discriminate. But, this rings hollow as long as dues are paid to support a national organization that does.

Yes, the files released yesterday ended in 1985, but before you dismiss what is contained in them as yesterday’s news consider for how long and how zealously the Boys Scouts fought to keep the files a secret while victims quietly suffered. Think about the yet-to-be-released files that were not included in the Oregon court matter. And, do not forget the organization’s discrimination based on sexual orientation continues today in earnest and unabashedly in the open.

The time has come for those who disagree with the Boy Scouts of America to walk away. Stop supporting an institution that supports bigotry and puts children at risk. Churches, public schools and other community groups housing local troops should cease doing so as long as any dues are paid from that local group to a larger group that openly discriminates as do the Boy Scouts. The change Scouting from within experiment has failed. Local Scouting troops should take a stand by permanently and completely severing ties with the national organization. These troops can then band together to start a new Boy Scouts of America, one that does more than pay lip service to the credo by insisting all involved actually practice it.

Cutting off all funding and support for the national Boy Scouts organization is the only way to make being a Boy Scout mean what we would like it to mean again.

###

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

Education Reform Starts with Teachers

The Iowa Task Force on Teacher Leadership and Compensation released a $150 million school improvement proposal Thursday. It’s an easy twenty-six page read which includes this prelude to the task force’s six goals:

“If we effectively compensate teachers; recruit and promote excellent teachers and provide support as they collaborate reflectively to refine their practice; create the political will and understanding necessary to remake the status of the teaching profession; give highly effective teachers opportunities to grow, refine, and share their expertise; and develop a clear system with quality implementation, then… student learning will increase, student outcomes will improve, and students will be prepared to succeed in a globally competitive environment.”

One might take issue with the statement’s structure, but it is hard to argue with its premise. Paying teachers more, recruiting high achievers, and improving collaboration and mentoring are worthwhile endeavors. They are hardly groundbreaking concepts. Teachers and non-teachers alike have been advocating these since about the time the first school was built.

The task force’s proposal should be supported, but let’s recognize the document for what it is. It is the latest in a long line of political manifestos written to give politicians an air of being concerned about education. And, it is substantially less than a blueprint for meaningful reform.

Most teachers do not get paid enough. However, it is important to address one undeniable fact before going further. The recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest into the field of education has less to do with salaries than it does with how teachers are treated. For starters, school districts have been firing teachers by the truckload in recent years to balance budgets. We lack the political will to keep education from the chopping block. Many of the very brilliant young people the task force says it seeks became trained educators in recent years only to be severed from the teaching profession by a blunt yet ruthless budget ax.

While the Task Force’s proposals have some merits, Iowa could make significant and more immediate gains if it took the $150 million proposed by this commission and used it to begin restoring the hundreds of teaching positions lost in recent years. Raising the starting pay of teachers is the right thing to do, but it will mean nothing if school districts have to fire teachers a few years down the road because coffers again run empty. We must restore schools and commit to innovation simultaneously.

Collaboration, mentoring, support and continuing education are as important to educators as they are in any profession. However, as long as activities meant to improve education result in teachers spending less time with students, they will bear insufficient fruit. In Des Moines the demand for teacher collaboration has resulted in a silly calendar structure that releases students from class ninety minutes early every Wednesday. These shortened days have an atmosphere of something much less than an actual learning day even before the dismissal bell rings, which leads many kids to call them ‘do-nothing-Wednesdays.’

The 180 day school calendar drives decisions. This has to stop. The better way to get teachers time for collaboration, mentoring and support is to start treating and paying teachers like the professionals we want them to be. Teaching is not a clock punching, do-the-time job. It is the craft of gifted people. Before we begin talk about lengthening the school year, which has merit, we need to lengthen the teacher contract year. A school day should mean students are in class learning. Do-nothing-Wednesdays and frequent teacher days need to end. This change in thinking has to start with teachers themselves and the unions representing them.

OK, I sense I have raised the ire of many teachers with my last comments. Let me clarify, teachers are among the hardest working people I know. They spend long hours at school and many more after grading and preparing lessons. I do not mean to diminish their effort in any conceivable way. On the contrary, teachers need to be paid and treated in a manner that will compel them to cease nitpicking about the calendar and the clock.

Recommendations from any and every education task force will only serve as talking points unless we recognize education reform means committing to spending money to provide teachers the tools, resources, support and ongoing training they need to do the job. This will require more than a onetime expenditure – it means a long-time ironclad commitment to spending.

###

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