Waiting for Superman: Don’t

I saw the much-heralded documentary “Waiting for Superman” last week.  The movie opened in Kansas City only recently and I went with my book club that is focused specifically on reading books about education reform.  Because several of us, myself included, are board members of a fledgling charter school set to open in Kansas City in Fall 2011, we were particularly interested in the movie’s take on charter schools.

I was a bit surprised by the film, despite hearing quite a bit about it in advance.  On the one hand, I was fairly underwhelmed by the lack of in-depth discussion and simplistic take on education reform.  I expected more in a film described as a documentary, although I think that term is grossly overused.  For example, the narrator explains that an “effective” classroom teacher has been shown to cover 150% of the required curriculum in a school year, while an “ineffective” teacher only covers 50% of the curriculum.  However, there is no explanation of the characteristics of an “effective” teacher, how to identify them, recruit them, develop and retain them.  There is a lot of (much-deserved) criticism of teacher unions as part of the problem as they protect far too many poorly performing teachers and fight efforts to reward excellence in teaching.  During the grand call to action at the end of the movie, the statement in stark letters, “We know what works….” and lists “quality teachers” as if we somehow thought it would be possible otherwise.

Perhaps even documentaries now need to “sell” themselves via dramatic flourishes.  ”Waiting for Superman” follows now-former District of Columbia Superintendent of Schools Michelle Rhee as she departs the office late at night, carrying her open laptop down the hall and studying the screen while talking on her cell phone on the way to her car.  More shots of her in the car talking on one cell phone and going through messages on a second one.  There are a few short bites of an interview with her about the challenges she faced; however, I wanted much more.  The movie glamorizes Rhee and other reformers more than anything.  The narrator concludes that people are out there making changes that work, and you should, too.

Ultimately, that is the message of the movie.  My criticisms aside, I believe Davis Guggenheim intended it as a clarion call to action to take on what he believes (as do I) is one of the most critical challenges facing the United States.  In that sense, I joined that party years ago.  I have been focused on education as a civil rights issue since my college years and certainly in my professional life as an attorney.  I’m probably not his target audience because I’ve already bought in.

I should have been prepared for the emotional impact of the movie.  I knew of the storyline of the five children and their hopes for a better education tied up in lotteries.  I understand the process and even helped craft it for our charter school.  However, seeing these children wait with fear and hope really hit me in the gut.  Our school may very well have to turn away deserving little ones.  My tear ducts aren’t bashful, but I was especially taken aback at the reaction of the stoic guys in my book club.  Watching them sink in their seats, cough and even perhaps hide a tear or two in a theater full of sniffles was something.  We were supposed to get together over a glass of wine after the movie, but I had to leave as soon as it was over because I don’t typically like to show up in public with swollen raccoon eyes.  (I found out today that the rest of the group made an executive decision to not discuss the movie afterwards.)

What affected me most about the movie was viewing failing schools through Guggenheim’s eyes when he became a parent.  It changed his perspective.  He highlights these children, but also their parents.  He shows that many of these children do have loving, involved parents who want the best for their kids and who are willing to sacrifice for it.  He asks us to consider what our personal obligation is to these children.  We certainly prize individualism in this country, but the concept of “neighbor” and “community” runs deep in the American bloodstream, too.

Many anti-government activists and the voucher crowd have sold this movie as a political endorsement for blowing up traditional public schools.  The movie does NOT endorse this view, nor do I.  As president of a board that is building a charter school, I know first-hand it is extremely challenging and cannot be the only solution.  We must create the political will to move traditional public schools toward significant reform.   This, I think, is Guggenheim’s ultimate goal.  We must demand better for our children.  And it starts with us.  I am humbled to be a part of this challenge.

 

Don’t Even Think About Skipping November

I have never understood why any committed citizen activist would stay home on election day.  I’m talking about the ones who spend hours phone banking, door-to-door and fundraising.  Or the ones who are not party loyalists but who pour their hearts into a single issue of concern.  Quite frequently the ones who threaten to stay home are the ones on the ideological extremes of the political spectrum, either left or right.  Take the current verbal sparring between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and the “professional left,” as he described it.  Gibbs criticized the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, many of whom are frustrated with Obama, as unrealistic in wishing for Canadian-style health care and eliminating the Pentagon.   Some shot back, demanding his resignation.  Pundits obsessed that an already unenthusiastic Democratic base will be even less inspired to vote in November.

Conservatives have these squabbles, too, of course.  The rise of the Tea Party movement has given the Republicans a powerful advantage in voter enthusiasm, but not without headaches.  Many tea party activists bucked the party’s chosen candidates during the August primary, supporting candidates they believed were more fiscally conservative but perhaps also less electable in the general election.  Here in Missouri, 28 local tea party groups supported Republican State Representative Chuck Purgason in the primary over U. S. Congressional Representative Roy Blunt.  Blunt won handily, but some have speculated that Purgason himself never meant to seriously challenge Blunt, instead running to make a point about Blunt’s past support of TARP and other government spending.  Others say it is simply evidence that the Tea Party is the thinly-disguised uber-conservative wing of an increasingly conservative Republican Party.

There is an inherent tension between the activist extremes of the parties, who want a more ideologically pure candidate who will “stand up for your [progressive/conservative] values,” and the broader population, which professes to be more interested in our leaders working through their differences to “get things done,” even if that means compromising on key issues such as health care, financial reform and immigration.   The latter are not as focused on the day-by-day political intrigue and are easily turned off by the focus on purity over problem-solving.  However, as we all witnessed during the long and tiring health care reform debate, the process of compromise is ugly and hard.  You can either please the relatively small but intensely dedicated foot soldiers in the base, or the larger, more moderate voting pool, which may decide that a stop at the dry cleaners is more important than the polling station.

Which brings me back to why we don’t vote on election day.  It’s pathetic.  Whatever excuse you have is not good enough.  When I lived in Texas, we had early voting and you could vote at the grocery store, mall and other places in the weeks leading up to the election.  (Similar measures have been introduced in the Missouri General Assembly but have yet to pass.)  Here in Missouri if you think you’ll be unable to vote on election day, you can vote early in person in selected locations.  There’s absentee balloting, and really, the polls open at 6am and close at 7am.  My husband flew to Houston and back on August 3 and still made it to his polling place to vote when he got home.

Don’t even think about skipping November.

When Christians Get It Wrong

The title of this post is the title of my pastor’s new book, released earlier this week.  Reverend Adam Hamilton is the Senior Pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas, and while I’m loathe to admit that any wisdom comes out of that state (M-I-Z!), I am compelled to share his message.  Reverend Hamilton’s book is based on a sermon series he delivered earlier this year about young Americans who are leaving the faith and how we can stem the tide by sharing the message of Christianity in a loving way.  Reverend Hamilton does not water down Christ’s message, but he does remind those of us who are Christian that we have a powerful role to play in representing Him on Earth.  If we are judgmental, hostile, and dismissive of others, we do nothing to advance his Kingdom.  While he acknowledges the ideological divides within various denominations and even congregations, Reverend Hamilton’s message is not about doctrine but about how we present it to others and live our daily lives.

Reverend Hamilton is now making the case for all Christians to do our very best to represent the faith well.  He is quick to point out that humans we will all fail and that he does so every day.  Listening to Rev. Hamilton field calls from people who are angry about what they see as a progressive agenda bent on destroying Christianity and Christian values, I was inspired by his willingness to listen, his acknowledgment of their concerns, his kindness, his agreement in some cases with the points made and his ability to gently highlight information or experience that contradicted the caller’s view.  I strongly recommend checking out the book as well as reading his Washington Post op-ed and appearance on the Darla Jaye Show on 980 KMBZ.  He’ll also be on the Chris Stigall Show on 710 AM KCMO tomorrow morning from 7 to 8 am.  You can also listen to Reverend Hamilton’s sermons live on Sunday mornings at 10:45 AM and 5pm CDT.

Social Safety Nets and our Sense of Community: A Both/And, Not Either/Or

These are tough economic times, and my family is extremely fortunate to have weathered the storm well.  We do what we can to help others, whether it is giving to food banks, donating clothes or personal networking on behalf of job searchers.  We’ve been there, we know it’s scary and we want to help.

Given these tough times and the upcoming Missouri ballot initiative seeking to repudiate the recent U. S. Affordable Health Care Act, I have been thinking a lot lately about government safety nets and why they particularly anger so many people to political action in this country.  I’ll outline several of the reasons I see in some upcoming blog posts, but the first argument goes something like this:  government safety nets undermine both our individual moral obligation to help others directly and our sense of community by taking care of each other.  We sacrifice these important roles when we simply write a check to Uncle Sam to take care of it, detaching ourselves from the social good of directly helping others.

But is this really the case?  The two assumptions in this argument are: 1) people currently provide this kind of help to others; and 2) they will not do so if government assistance were available.

While I love the idealized concept of communities pulling together to help each other get through tough times, I strongly question whether everyone who needs help will get it.  I grew up in a small Missouri farming town, the fourth generation of my family to live there.  It has been named an “All-American City” and has strong community tradition of church outreach and personal generosity.  However, there is a dark underbelly to this kind of help in that it really is not available to everybody.  For instance, many people who are not born and raised in the community feel like outsiders even though they’ve lived there for years.  A 1967 graduate of our local high school, who was from one of the few black families in town, went to Yale on scholarship and came back years later to give the high school commencement address.  Even though he found success in life, he recounted in his speech the unkindnesses of our community with just a hint of the bitterness he must have felt at the time.  Of course, we all are familiar with the sometimes not-so-subtle strings attached to aid from churches who ask that you attend worship service or Bible study to receive a free meal.

Some will simply argue that we cannot and should not provide a social safety net for all in terms of access to health care.  But the people who do profess some sort of moral obligation to help all others yet detest the Affordable Health Care Act passed this year often turn to this argument of a social safety net provided by individuals and communities.   Is that enough to meet the need?  Doubtful, because who and how we choose to help will inevitably leave out people we personally deem to be undeserving, with all of our personal prejudices as described above.  Moreover, how charitable and benevolent are we, really, if we stop giving because the government offers a program that can help meet the tremendous need?  I personally do not see this as an either/or contribution on my part, but a both/and.  Yes, some of us will pay more, although the Armageddon being predicted is beyond caricature at this point.  Isn’t paying for a program that administers the care we would provide in our communities on a macro level just a broader way of living out that mission?  Isn’t that why we sometimes opt to give money to a charity that meets the need based on its experience rather than run a soup kitchen out of our home?

I am grateful that President Obama’s health care reform passed, but I by no means see it as the end to my own personal mission to help others.  It is an extension of it.

When Politics is a Game, We All Lose

I have read countless articles and commentaries regarding the failure of the U. S. major media enterprises to cover the substantive side of politics. Talking about the “horse race” increases drama and ratings; Washington politics in particular has been described as “show business for ugly people.” The scandalous personal lives of our elected leaders are, literally, the subject of tabloid news headlines. Viewership of network news and circulation of newspapers are down while the blogosphere, now christened as “New Media,” continues to explode with content, much of it produced without adherence to traditional journalistic ethics and with a deeply partisan or ideological slant. Now more than ever, consumers of information face a challenge not in finding information, but in navigating the morass of news sources to find information that is truly relevant, substantive, and yes, that sometimes challenges their own viewpoint of important issues without attack or insult.

This blog is an effort to look at substantive issues in government and politics from a common sense perspective. When the talking heads with their marching orders to attack are the major source of information in our society, we all lose. We lose because those with whom we disagree are dehumanized and delegitimized and we no longer feel we have to listen or work with them. And the plain truth is that we do. We are one nation, and we must re-learn how to get along and solve problems. It’s not simple, but it is my hope that “Show-Me Perspective” will provide light rather than heat for your consideration.