Once SLPS lost its accreditation however, the parents then sued SLPS to pay the Clayton School district’s tuition fees, referring to Missouri Revised Statute 167.131 that requires an unaccredited school district to “pay the tuition of and provide transportation…for each pupil resident therein who attends an accredited school in another district of the same or an adjoining county.”

A critical point to note:  Prior to this case, the law has been interpreted such that a parent had the right to apply to another district once accreditation of the home school is lost, but the law did not require a neighboring district to accept out-of-district applicants.  A school could have empty seats in a classroom and still choose not to accept the students seeking the alternative to the failing district.  So, whereas the law guaranteed the right to access, the law did not guarantee admittance.

When the Saint Louis Public School district lost their accreditation, many parents applied to neighboring districts and were not accepted.  These families, many of whom are living at or below the federal poverty level, have very limited alternatives.  Most cannot afford to move to a better district, pay the tuition of a private school nor another accredited district’s school.

The Missouri Supreme Court decision could have huge impact on how the statute is now implemented.  Though four judges reversed the trial court’s decision, three judges only partially concurred.  The court’s opinion states that the language in Missouri statute 167.131.2 “gives a student the choice of an accredited school to attend, so long as that school is in another district in the same or an adjoining county, and requires the chosen school to accept the pupil.”  The analysis provided in the decision says the statute is “straightforward and unambiguous”.

The outcome of the current Supreme Court case, which is now returning to the lower court for review, remains to be seen.  The plaintiffs involved may not get their previous tuition covered because they enrolled their children under tuition agreements, not calling upon their rights in the Missouri Statute, and they did this prior to the loss of SLPS’ accreditation.

Assuredly, parents of more than 34,000 students in St. Louis City and Riverview Gardens public school districts, as well as thousands of parents in Missouri’s 9 partially accredited districts are encouraged by the Supreme Court’s affirmation of not only the right to apply, but the legal obligation of the neighboring district to accept the out-of-district students.

The key impact that Missourians will be watching as a result of this case is the possibility that the statute may grow some teeth and unaccredited districts may see a big increase in the exodus from their failing schools and they’ll get to foot the bill.  Much depends on the outcome of this case.

School superintendents around the state should consider some important education reform measures that have been successful in other states: state managed scholarship funds that have tax credit advantages for private contributors, open enrollment and charter school expansion. All three of these options would provide options for parents of students who are failing in poor performing, financially strapped school districts. If one thing seems clear, it is that the future of education in our state is on the precipice of some major changes. What is not clear is how willing school districts will be to adapt, and embrace, that change.

By Elisa Crouch St. Louis Post-Dispatch | Posted: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:09 pm

The Missouri Supreme Court issued an opinion today that affirms the rights of students in failing school districts to transfer to neighboring school districts without tuition.

But the implications of the ruling, and how it could affect thousands of kids attending unaccredited school districts such as St. Louis and Riverview Gardens, remains unclear.

Lawyers on both sides of the case are reviewing the decision. The court decision, meanwhile, is not a final action. Instead, the Supreme Court is sending back the case to a lower court for futher review.

Even so, a lawyer representing plantiffs in the case said the ruling is a victory for parents seeking to transfer from failing schools.

“Absent any legislative change in the future and as long as St. Louis Public Schools remains unaccredited, children who reside in the St. Louis School District will have the right to go to an accredited district and not pay for it, ” said Elkin Kistner, who represented the paintiffs.

In the case, a group of parents from St. Louis had transfered their children to Clayton Schools, where the parents were covering the cost of tuition.

But when St. Louis Public Schools lost its accreditation due to low academic performance, the parents argued in 2007 that the St. Louis schools should pick up the cost of tuition. The parents cited a state law that declares that unaccredited school districts are responsible for paying such tuition.

A circuit court ruled against the parents, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Today’s decision may not be much of a victory for those parents directly. The court ruled that because the parents had previously agreed to pay tuition on their own, they cannot now demand that the cost be covered by St. Louis Public Schools under the terms of the law.

But elsewhere in the ruling, the Supreme Court affirms the right of parents to transfer from unaccredited districts, with those districts having to pay the tuition at other schools. In the majority opinion was not signed by any single one of the four judges who issued it.

Judge Patricia Breckinridge and two other judges offered a dissenting opinion on the question of whether districts like Clayton are obligated to receive students who seek to leave unaccredited districts. She said state law gives receiving districts the discretion to turn such students away under certain circumstances.

But the majority ruled that they say no such flexibility under the law, which they describe as “straightforward and unambiguous.”

Chris Tennill, a spokesman for the Clayton district, said lawyers with the district are still reviewing the decision. He said he is unclear about the significance of the ruling, given that the matter is now being sent back to a lower court for further review.

But Jane Turner, the lead plaintiff in the case, said she believes the ruling will ultimately mean that she and other parents in failing school districts will not have to cover the cost of tuition to send their children to better schools.

“It is gratifiying that the high court in the state of Missouri said that my children and other children have a statutory right to attend Clayton schools with city schools’ loss of accreditation ,” she said.

View comments, related videos, and more

(Click here to see full article)

Jefferson City, Mo – infoZine – Commissioner of Education Chris L. Nicastro said that she will recommend that the State Board of Education take action in August to formally adopt a new set of “common core” academic standards which were released nationally.

The Common Core State Standards were officially released this morning by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards establish clear and consistent goals for learning that will prepare America’s children for success in college and work.

(Link here)

From the Columbia Daily Tribune:

Mike Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri, has been tapped to work with former President George W. Bush on education reform issues.

The George W. Bush Institute announced the appointment of Podgursky and two other fellows to support the institute’s educational reform mission. Also appointed were Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas and Matthew Springer of Vanderbilt University.

Initially, the institute will work to find ways to improve the leadership of school principals and strengthen middle schools. Podgursky has studied teacher pay and retirement structures, school finance and school productivity.

According to the Kansas City Star, “The new agency would inherit the duties of the existing boards, although the Legislature will decide later on much of its power and specific responsibilities.”  Whereas increased efficiency and transparency and fluid transition is a tremendous potential outcome, let’s not put the ‘cart before the horse’ here.  We need more facts and solid grounding before we rush into such a drastic change.  It could be a great effort, but requires more answers before applying a solution.

An article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes Senate President Pro-Tem Charlie Shields saying that he filed this bill along with others intended to consolidate state services as ‘shell’ bills because of timing constraints with the intent to ‘fill in the blanks’ later.  We applaud our legislators for their efforts towards fiscal responsibility, but we have questions.

I am a Mother with children in our state’s public schools.  What parents want and need to know is really quite elementary:  How will this proposed merger improve our children’s academic outcomes?

Though many can support the idea of greater efficiencies in streamlined consolidation given the budget shortfall, we must invest the time to research the outcomes that our State School Board Association and others are concerned about.  It is a fair and justifiable imperative that we should know with great certainty how educational outcomes will be impacted as well as the economic effects.

One of the suggestions that is drawing much attention is a proposal to merge the Department of Higher Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Testimony in the committee hearing said that the merger could save $1 million. Senator Pearce reported that the committee supports the merger idea. The proposal is likely to save Missouri money, but will also align the government structure with the P-20 council, created in 2006, to focus on student learning from childhood through graduate school.

Other cost saving suggestions that the committee heard was an increase in virtual schools, implementing merit pay systems statewide, cutting money from the Regional Professional Development Centers and only allowing schools to accept 100% of the funding formula calculation. That proposal, according to Senate staff, would save the state $16.5 million.

The “reboot” meetings come on the same day that the Missouri House of Representatives voted to freeze spending on K-12 education. While education spending would remain the same from last year, the vote removes a $105 million increase that was scheduled to go into the phase in of the state’s funding formula. The measure came in the form of an amendment to the state’s budget bill, currently being debated by the full House. Amendment sponsor, Representative Maynard Wallace, told his colleagues that he didn’t want the state to promise schools money, then not give it to them. The state’s deteriorating budget situation has already caused a $43 million reduction in school funding for the remainder of the year.

The first study presented was a study of charter school achievement in the state, looking at value-added estimates of charter and non-charter public schools in Kansas City and St. Louis. The study measured growth of individual students’ standardized test scores from 2006 – 2009 and compared achievement growth of students in charter schools to students in traditional public schools in the Kansas City and St. Louis school districts. The study also compared these scores to all Missouri public school students. While the study, used a statistical model which controlled for grade and year indicators, prior test scores, and student characteristics, I do not think it eliminated the selective enrollment magnet schools. This is a key of any charter study since charters may not have selective enrollment. According to Missouri law, they must have lotteries to determine enrollment.

The study found, as do most studies of this type, that some charter public schools perform better than the district zone schools and some perform worse. The important part is that the poor performing charter schools close. Furthermore, families should have access to high quality charter schools and practices from these schools should be immolated by others.

Also studied by the Joint Education Committee was the issue of urban school governance, especially in Kansas City. The study looked at history and research on school board governance, a school governance workshop summary, the specifics of urban school governance in the Kansas City School District (KCMSD), and took testimony at public forum in Kansas City. The committee focused mostly on the comments at the public forum, saying that some wanted a state appointed board to take over the district, but most wanted the reforms to come from within the city. Everyone appeared to be complimentary of the new Superintendent that had been hired in July of 2009. Another pressing issue of the report was the fact that six members of the school board are elected by district and only three are elected at- large.

The final study reviewed was the most watched one in the interim, the open enrollment study. The study highlighted Missouri’s optional or conditional open enrollment laws and other states’ laws on open enrollment and their K-12 funding proportions. As part of the study, public hearings were also held in Jefferson City, Branson, and St. Louis.

Some of the highlights of the study included:

• 14 states have mandatory open enrollment laws.
• Most laws address special education, transportation, capacity, desegregation, funding, disciplinary issues, and competitive athletics.
• Missouri is one of 23 states with conditional or optional open enrollment.
• Missouri has a higher percentage of K-12 funding from local revenue than 13 of 14 open enrollment states.
• Participation in open enrollment in states with mandatory open enrollment ranges from 0.5% to 18.8%. (median 4.7%).

Full copies of the studies can be found on the Joint Education Committee’s Website

Adding additional pressure to give parents more options is the merging of the unaccredited Wellston and provisionally accredited Normandy school districts in St. Louis County. Riverview Gardens is also unaccredited and located in St. Louis County, and there are seven other provisionally accredited districts in the state. To say families in these districts need options besides their failing district schools is an understatement. There are also interesting concepts for charter schools coming from private schools that would like to charter so that parents of all income levels could have a chance to attend. One private French language immersion school in Columbia testified last legislative session for expansion so that they could change to a charter school.

One less discussed reason for allowing charter schools statewide is to reduce the number of consolidations in rural areas of the state. If a rural district is losing enrollment and considering consolidation, they would have the option to charter instead of families in the area losing a school close to home. That would also stem job losses of teachers in the proposed consolidated districts.

Regardless of the motivation, charter school expansion should be a top education priority for reformers in 2010. It will give parents and students more options in more areas of the state for their child to receive a quality education. The presence of charter public schools can also lead to better results from zone district schools as a result of competition or collaboration. The Children’s Education Alliance will continue to monitor charter school expansion in 2010 and continue to educate Missourians on how the expansion of quality charter public schools will give more options to families across Missouri.

The item earning the most attention at the beginning of the session is the issue of open enrollment. Open enrollment is a policy that allows students to transfer to a school in a district outside of where the student lives, so long as the receiving district has the capacity for the student. This policy could be beneficial to parents seeking to move their child from a failing school district to a higher performing one. Many parents are also frustrated by being assigned to a school based on zone boundaries, often decades old, when they have a school in another district much closer to their home.

The Joint Committee on Education conducted a study on the issue in the interim session, hearing from parents and advocacy groups who were in favor of open enrollment and school administrators and teacher union representatives who were opposed. The main opposition was over one of the four areas of special education, transportation, funding and planning for capacity. But, the study released by the committee shows that almost all 14 states studied have policies that deal with these topics. Senator Rob Meyer has filed an open enrollment bill this session. The bill was referred to the Senate Education Committee but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The Children’s Education Alliance has previously discussed how open enrollment can benefit special needs students. In addition to being able to move their child to a district with better services, the parent would also be able to find a district that practices policies that a parent believes is best for their child. For example, I had a conversation recently with the organizer of an anti- seclusion website in Missouri, and she was very interested in open enrollment. She explained that she pulled her autistic child out of her zone district and is now homeschooling due to the district’s policies on seclusion and restraint. She also cited Missouri as being one of the few states that still allows districts to use corporal punishment on students. She would like to take part in this policy so she could look for a public school district close to her who has better policies on these issues.

But it remains to be seen if the late efforts can make up for a lack of early leadership and initiative on the issue. President Obama and Secretary Duncan formally announced the program on July 30, 2009, but Missouri did not decide to enter until November 13, 2009. There is no doubt that Missouri’s Education Commissioner and her staff worked hard to finalize the application in time for the January 19 deadline. But where were the calls from other education leaders to get in the race earlier? At least four states, Massachusetts, California, Nevada and Tennessee, called special legislative sessions, or made passing reform bills, to better compete for Race to the Top, the legislature’s first priority. There were no calls for a special legislative session in Missouri to work on legislation, such as charter school expansion, that would have made Missouri’s application more competitive.

The State Board also did not have Race to the Top on their formal agenda until December 18, only a month before the application was due. In this meeting the board members received a very broad overview of the state’s application and had to vote to approve it without even seeing the final application. The next state board meeting is scheduled for January 19^th, the date the application is due. Dr. Nicastro stated that the vague nature of the public briefing was due to keeping the application close to the vest so that ideas were not stolen by other states. Multiple members on the board did not like the fact that they had to approve the application without reviewing it. I would ask these board members why they did not push for earlier efforts on the program by the interim Commissioner Bert Schulte? Or why did they not reschedule their January meeting for an earlier date so that they could review the application? Instead, they will hear the details of the program on day two of the January meeting on January 20. The State Senate Education Committee will also hear details of the proposal that day as well.

With the long delay in beginning the Race to the Top competition it should come as no surprise that Missouri did not qualify for application help from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation gave 25 states $250,000 to help with the application. States receiving help from the Gates Foundation are seen as clear front runners in Round One. Two states, Maryland and Vermont, did not even bother to apply for Race to the Top after being rejected by the Gates Foundation.

Even if Missouri is not successful in winning a grant in Round One, there is still Round Two. Winners for Round One will be announced in April and those who do not receive a grant will receive feedback on why their application was rejected. Applications for Round Two are due in June of 2010. This gives Missouri the entire legislative session and four State Board of Education meetings to work on real education reforms that will make the state competitive in Round Two. No matter the results of round one of Race to the Top, let’s hope Missouri focuses on finishing the race strong with leadership at all levels of the state’s education stakeholders.

Last week, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education held a work session for stakeholders to discuss ideas in the applications for the Race to the Top grants. Dr. Nicastro stated in her opening remarks that the application process “must be about developing and implementing an innovative and bold plan for systemic educational reform in Missouri over the next decade.” Governor Jay Nixon also added that the status quo was not acceptable in applying for this program. “Don’t let the urge to protect the status quo, or the fear of change, prevent you from imagining a brilliant future.”

Now that the stage is set for reform, Missourians must make sure that these words translate into action. Our state’s application can be boosted by expanding charter schools to all areas of the state, developing data systems that link student performance with their teachers, and implementing systems, like merit pay, that are able to recruit and retain good teachers and administrators.

Even if Missouri does not win a grant in round one, we will learn valuable information for a round two application from the process. We can learn what reforms were made by grant winners and implement similar reforms prior to a round two application.

With cuts to the state’s budget, including education, likely to come in the near future, it is good to see Missouri taking this step to attempt to deliver as much education money to the children of the state as possible. Now we will see if the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education back up their application for Race to the Top with real reforms.

Note: You can submit your suggestions for Missouri’s Race to the Top application by clicking here!

There are few scholarship programs that exist for special needs students, especially if you are in a high school grade level. While there are financial assistance programs for early intervention of younger students, they are usually focused on a few specific disabilities and are limited in the scope of what the assistance will cover. The dollar amount of these programs is usually not enough for a parent to remove their child from a school district and place them in private services.

A common piece of advice that a parent receives is to call an IEP meeting to review their child’s goals and the progress toward those goals. The IEP is the Individualized Education Plan that is put together for a special needs student outlining goals for that individual student’s education, and how they will be met. Parents who call our office report their frustration with the IEP process. They state that no one in the meeting is on their side and education terms are not clearly defined. The overall feeling is that they are railroaded into the plans put together by the teachers or agencies in the meeting and have very little input. Meetings called by a parent to review a struggling student’s IEP often begins with a long delay in even holding the meeting and ends with the student’s little progress being excused away. The parent eventually gets tired of fighting this system and begins to seek a way to remove their child from the district that is failing them.

When a parent begins on this road, they quickly find that it is very difficult to move their child. In St. Louis and Kansas City, public charter schools may be one option. Unfortunately, there are no charter schools that focus only on special needs. The main roadblock to this is that, per Missouri’s charter school law, students must be admitted by a lottery process and not screened in any way before entry. It remain to be seen if a charter school in St. Louis or Kansas City built for special needs students would be successful solely based on the thought that only parents of special needs students would apply to a lottery for their school. According to the Center for Education Reform, there are 85 special needs charter schools in the country, mostly in Florida and Ohio. Even if these schools were to open in St. Louis and Kansas City and be successful, what option does a parent outside of those two districts have? Missouri is the only state in the country that has a geographic cap on charter schools. This cap limits charter schools to opening only inside of the St. Louis and Kansas City Public School districts. The schools can also only accept students who live in these districts.

Parents who call our office usually know that the law requires a free, appropriate public education to be afforded to their child. Therefore, they ask “can’t I just transfer my child to another district with better services?” The answer is unfortunately “no.” This ideal is called open enrollment and Missouri has yet to join the 40 other states in the country who have some form of open enrollment. Open enrollment simply allows parents to transfer their child to a school outside of their assigned district if the receiving district has room. For more on open enrollment, check out our previous post on how open enrollment would help special needs students.

Parents also call in and ask if there are special schools in their district only for special needs students. Twenty three districts contract with Special School District (SSD) of St. Louis County, who operates five special education schools. This leaves 500 districts in the state of Missouri without this option. Parents also report to us the difficulty of getting their child moved into SSD. One parent reported their child being suspended 11 times in the current school year before the district would discuss SSD as an option. According to the parent, this child was on an IEP the previous year and had far fewer behavioral incidents, but was removed from an IEP in the current school year, against the parent’s wishes.

The bottom line in all of these stories is that the parents of the 133,000 Missouri children with IEPs have very few options when they feel the assigned local district is not able to meet the needs of their child. Implementing real education reforms in Missouri will have a positive impact on special needs families. Open enrollment, charter school expansion and scholarship tax credit programs are all good ways to give parents options when their assigned local districts are not educating their children. Districts should look at this recent United Supreme Court case as evidence that the law gives parents great powers when seeking the appropriate education for their child. Districts should jump on board for reforms, or risk paying for children to go to specialized schools, even without their consent. Furthermore, having options will help these children on a path to become productive members of society. Isn’t that what everyone should be working toward?

In some cases, as Meta, MO mother Lois Wankum testified to the committee at their October 20th hearing, students are much closer to a school in an adjacent district than the one to which they are assigned. In other cases, parents are simply looking to remove their child from a failing school district and enroll them in ones that are better performing. For many special needs parents this policy could unlock the doors of educational opportunity for their child that is trapped in a district that does not have the appropriate services to help their child.

Open enrollment would allow for these parents, who often do not have the means to send their child to a private education service such as TouchPoint or Giant Steps, to move their child to a district that may have better services. For example, the Rockwood School District in suburban St. Louis County gave an excellent presentation on their special needs services at the St. Louis meeting of the Interim Committee on Autism Spectrum Disorders. At the same hearing a mother gave desperate testimony on how her autistic child was having many problems in his local school district and she could not afford to send her child to a specialized private school. “I am drowning here” was the phrase that she repeated over and over. Why should her head continue to be held under water by outdated school district lines? Why should these district lines trap her son in the boundaries of receiving an ineffective education instead of receiving a possible lifeline of intervention leading to a productive, healthy life?

A study in Minnesota, one of 25 states that have open enrollment, shows that “the families of special-needs students are increasingly using the open-enrollment option and are satisfied with their choices.” This same option could be a reality for the families of 133,000+ IEP students in the state of Missouri, should the state choose to allow this policy. These families are not concerned with outdated school boundaries, only with seeing that their child has the best possible education options, and thus the best chance for leading a productive life.

“…are attempting to read a separate funding requirement that would require the legislature to provide ‘adequate’ education funding in excess of the 25-percent requirement contained in section 3(b). Such language does not exist.”

The lower court decision upholding the funding formula was handed down in August 2007 by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan and was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. Those arguments began in Missouri Supreme Court in May of this year.

The ruling is a win for taxpayers who will not have to throw endless amounts of money at school districts with no accountability for results. Countless studies have been done to show that increased funding does not equal higher student achievement. For school districts, the ruling means that they can no longer use the excuse of what they deem “inadequate funding” to explain poor results.

Also, the Supreme Court has set an important precedent in that it did not usurp the legislature’s authority to set spending policy on education. This will make it less likely that the school districts will try to take the state to court over the new school funding formula which is in its fourth year of a seven year phase in. Supporters of the new formula say it sends billions more to local school districts and is geared more toward student achievement for increased funding.

After $6 million spent by the state and local districts in this trial we should all hope that the lessons were learned and that school districts realize that it is time for a new era in how they operate; that can be the only benefit to this trial. Missouri spends about $7000 per student in education. The amount spent on this trial could have gone to over 850 students. School funding must move toward student achievement and innovation. This is how we will make Missouri, and the United States, competitive again when it comes to education.

Despite working with Secretary Duncan to kick off this tour, teachers unions, as a whole, are swimming upstream against the education reform current set in motion by Secretary Duncan and President Barack Obama. The vast majority of the time they deliver scathing reviews of proposals to expand quality charter schools, implement merit pay systems for teachers and increasing teacher quality by allowing professionals alternative routes to teaching through programs like Teach for America. The nation’s largest techers union, the National Educaion Association (NEA), is now even slamming President Obama’s $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund. The fund, launched in July, will be divided among states showing pushes toward education reform. Locally, St. Louis’ AFT 420 supported the St. Louis Public School District’s policy of prohibiting charter schools to purchase closed, vacant buildings. This outrageous policy was lifted in July after a mass community outcry.

As Secretary Duncan stated in his visit yesterday “we are looking for those willing to challenge the status quo.” So are the children of Missouri who are increasingly falling behind as a result of the status quo being maintained. No longer can it be acceptable for the focus of school districts and teachers unions to be the adults working in the building and not the students being educated inside. No one needs to look further than the AFT and NEA’s recent campaign in support of President Obama’s healthcare plan to see who their focus is.

At the Lexington Elementary event yesterday, Weingarten stated support for reforms that were “good for students and fair to teachers.” Why is the caveat necessary? If it’s good for students shouldn’t that be the end of the debate? Hopefully, despite some small moves toward reforms and collaboration on issues outside of education, President Obama and Secretary Duncan will continue their leadership in reforming education in America. Implementing reforms that are focused on student achievement will begin the turnaround of American education.

While all interested parties in applying for these dollars are still reviewing the requirements and procedures, one thing is clear. States who are interested in implementing reforms that work for children are going to be at a major competitive advantage to receive funds. Secretary Duncan has repeatedly stated that lifting caps on charter schools is one example of necessary reforms. He has also stood toe- to- toe with the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association and promoted real merit pay systems that attract and retain quality teachers.

On a recent webinar, in which I participated and tweeted during, that went into great detail on the funds and the criteria for applying, two criteria were specifically highlighted and broken down into two components. The first component was labeled State Reform Conditions, defined by the moderator as “what have you done?” The second component was labeled Reform Plan and defined as “what are you planning to do?” The Power Point presentation delivered by the moderator also specifically listed two of the three purposes of the program as “driving education reform” and increasing transparency.”

All of these programs seem to be on the right track by requiring reforms that benefit students and their families which begs the question, is Missouri ready to run the Race to the Top? While Missouri has already received $505 million in stimulus funds to stabilize the state’s education budget, much more is available and the receipt of these funds were based on promises of reform. Currently, the state barely hits on some of the major reforms that President Obama and Secretary Duncan have stressed in order to have an advantage when applying for the funds. The only semblance of a merit pay program that the state legislature has passed was in Senate Bill 291 during the 2009 session, but it is limited to only the St. Louis Public School district and still must be funded by the 2010 budget. The Ladue School District is the only district in the state that has self implemented a performance pay system.

Furthermore, the state has imposed geographic caps on charter public schools, considered an “artificial cap,” which Secretary Duncan has spoken negatively about. Present legislation authorizing charter public schools limits them to the St. Louis and Kansas City Public School Districts. This is despite the fact that some districts, like Riverview Gardens, near these two districts are failing and unaccredited or provisionally accredited. Residents in other Missouri cities, like Columbia, in the state are also calling for charter public schools in their communities.

Parents and families in Missouri can only hope that the state will heed President Obama and Secretary Duncan’s warnings about stimulus money being tied to reforms. This would require the state to make significant reforms as soon as possible. Expanding merit pay programs and lifting caps on charter schools is a start. Also, looking to other states for successful, new ideas that have been praised by President Obama and Secretary Duncan is a must. One example of this is in Florida where they have launched a system for data collection that tracks performance by student and ties that performance to a teacher. Obama and Duncan have been so impressed by the system, that they invited Flordia Education Commissioner Eric Smith to speak at the Race to the Top unveiling.

To let this grand opportunity for education reform in Missouri pass would do a great disservice to Missouri families and children. Let’s hope that education reform in Missouri wins the day and that the state earns our fair share of Race to the Top funds as a result. It is a race Missouri’s students can’t afford to lose.

The bill marked one of the first and most significant state actions in support for merit pay in the U.S. by establishing the Teacher Choice Compensation Package for the St. Louis City School District. This will allow for teachers to choose performance-based salary stipends instead of tenure, with the possibility of up to $15,000 for entering the program.

Another highlight is the requirement of educational research to be conducted by the Joint Committee on Education by the end of the year. These studies will include the issue of open enrollment and a comprehensive examination of public charter-to-public district school student achievement.

In the area of special education, a bill of rights for the parents of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) was established. This requires the department to publish a guide in clear concise language that includes, but is not limited to, the parents’ rights to participate in meetings, to obtain copies of records, to have an advocate present and to receive a nonexclusive list of services to which a child may be entitled.

“This bill includes several important provisions to move education reform forward in Missouri,” said the State Direction of the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri, Earl Simms. “The winners today are the children of the state.”

Senators Rob Mayer, Jeff Smith, Jane Cunningham, Charlie Shields and Kevin Engler, along with House Majority Floor Leader Steve Tilley and Representatives Tim Jones and Mike Parson all played a vital role in the passage of this legislation.

Other Provisions of the Bill Includes Legislation That:

• Requires DESE to post free electronic records of all meeting notices and results, providing greater transparency.
• Supports school choice for foster children and by allowing all districts the opportunity to provide virtual learning with state funding.
• Requires public schools to develop teaching standards by June 30, 2010.
• Grants local school boards control of school week format, which allows for the possibility of four-day school weeks. This option is desired by many rural districts that seek more flexibility, lower transportation costs and the ability to implement innovative ideas.
• Improves urban charter school accountability measures.
• Establishes the Missouri Senior Cadet Program to enable twelfth graders in public school to mentor kindergarten through eighth grade students.
• Establishes the P-20 Council as a private not-for-profit corporation to coordinate the preparation of students for entering the workforce.
• Creates physical education standards for elementary schools, including physical activity for an average of 30 minutes per day.

“I strongly believe the children of St. Louis city, especially those from low-income families, deserve an opportunity for the best quality education regardless of the cost,” said Short. “I look forward to continuing the 19-year tradition of the Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation by helping families grow and change through education for generations to come.”

The Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation was founded in 1990 as a 501 (c) (3) organization by a concerned group of local corporate and civic leaders. The Foundation provides needs based tuition assistance scholarships to economically disadvantaged children throughout the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Since its inception, the Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation has raised more than $25 million for tuition assistance in the form of grants and scholarships for children to attend the private or parochial school of their choice in the city of St. Louis.

Kevin Short has been a member of the Board of Education for the Archdiocese of St. Louis since 1985, a member of the SLATA negotiating team since 1986, a member of the St. Roch School Board since 1990, Chair of the Parish Teacher Committee since 1998, and a member of the Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation Board since 2006.

Short is also the Managing Partner and CEO of Clayton Capital Partners, a St. Louis-based investment banking firm specializing in merger and acquisition advisement. In 2007, Thomson Financial, FactSetMergerstat and Investment Dealers’ Digest all ranked Clayton Capital Partners as a top U.S M&A firm. Short is the co-author of Cash Out Move on: Get Top Dollar – And More – Selling Your Business (Business Enterprise Institute, Inc. 2008).

Often people only think of these caps as a limit on the number of charter schools that can open in a state, but Missouri also has caps that are not often thought of. Unfortunately, Missouri has placed geographical caps on where charter schools can open. Currently charter schools can only operate inside of the St. Louis and Kansas City Public School districts. These caps deny parents and students in the rest of the state educational choice. Families in Riverview Gardens and Wellston are trapped in unaccredited districts and groups in Columbia and Springfield who wish to open charters are shut out.

Also, caps are placed on who can charter a school. Everyone wants sponsors who are accountable and hold their schools to high quality standards, but why only let universities sponsor schools? This policy leaves out some of the best community institutions and companies in our state, like the Missouri Botanical Garden or businesses, like Edward Jones, who could sponsor schools centered around knowledge in their respective fields. Early exposure to high quality institutions and businesses could promote students to seek careers in these areas and drive them to gear their education toward the goal of working at one of these institutions, or in a related area.

Despite these caps on public charter schools, progress has been made toward bringing Missouri education stimulus money. Last week Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed on to Memorandum of Agreement to show support for Secretary Duncan’s Common Core State Standards Initiative. This initiative seeks to set a common core of state standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. The agreement still needs Missouri’s Education Commissioner to sign on and this position has been vacant since the death of Kent King last winter. While, the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s new Commissioner signing onto the agreement would be a step forward, it is a baby step toward receiving much needed stimulus funds that would benefit all Missouri public schools.

Officials in all elected and appointed offices Missouri should embrace a full package of education reforms promoted by President Obama and his Education Secretary not only to make the state competitive when applying for stimulus money, but for the advances that it will make for Missouri children and families. This means that the legislature should step up in the 2010 session and lift caps on charter schools and create, and fund, merit programs for districts in the state in addition to St. Louis. This also means that local districts must make policies that reflect nationally supported reforms. De facto impediments to charter school expansion, like St. Louis Public Schools’ deed restrictions, must be removed as scheduled on June 30 and no other restrictive policies be put in it’s place. As Secretary Duncan stated in his speech last week at the National Charter Schools Conference, “the education reform movement is not a table where we just sit around and talk. It’s a train that is leaving the station, gaining speed, momentum and direction. It’s time for everyone, everywhere to get on board.”

]]> http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/news/charter-school-scholar-caroline http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/news/charter-school-scholar-caroline#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:38:26 +0000 esimms http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/?p=472 Noted charter school scholar Caroline Hoxby will present at St. Louis University on The Promise of Charter Schools. The presentation is the fourth in a series on economic policy presented by the Show Me Institute and the John Cook School of Business at SLU. The presentation will take place John Cook School of Business Anheuser-Busch Auditorium at 3674 Lindell Boulevard at Spring Avenue. A reception will begin at 5:30pm with the presentation following at 6:00pm.

TFA Founder Wendy Kopp, Rex Sinquefield, Rachel Keller Brown and Laura Slay

Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri State Coordinator Earl Simms told the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s David Hunn, “this is a win for families in St. Louis who are seeking better education options for their children and for all of the taxpayers in the city who paid for these buildings. These buildings can now be sold to organizations seeking to open public charter schools. That not only gives more education options to parents, but the sale of these buildings will also provide more dollars to educate the district’s students.”

Sadly, the St. Louis Public Schools will not place the policy in effect until June 30th. This could mean some charters seeking buildings to house their schools for next school year may be delayed. CEAM will continue to monitor the situation to make sure SLPS follows through with the Board’s vote.

On Friday, April 17th, there will be a march of concerned citizens to call attention to the issue of urban education. The march will be led by Rev. Horace Sheffield and DFER chairman Kevin Chavous and include many of the panelists above.

The march begins at St. Louis City Hall at 10:00 AM and proceeds to the offices of

St. Louis Public Schools.

Direct any questions to DFER-Midwest Director Rodney Hubbard at (314) 402-2517

Plaintiff Rex Sinquefield stated that “these deed restrictions do nothing to help the poor and under served children of the City of Saint Louis. In addition to denying young people an important educational opportunity, they contribute to the economic instability of our neighborhoods and create a dangerous situation for families. Clearly, this decision by the SAB is short-sighted, and they should completely rescind this egregious disregard for Saint Louis children and the taxpayers who paid for these structures.”

This is a policy that CEAM has worked tirelessly to reverse in order to provide children in the City of St. Louis with the best educational opportunities possible, including the expansion of charter public schools.

The Missouri State Legislature has also become involved in the issue. State Senator Jim Lembke has filed Seante Bill 439 that would prohibit this policy. Senator Lembke held a press conference on Monday to promote his bill.

It looks as if this issue isn’t dying down anytime soon. As the community becomes more aware of this policy, the outcry will continue to grow.

“I realistically cannot send my boys to St. Louis city public schools,” she said. “We want to stay in the city. We love our home. It’s just the schools are the problem. It’s a constant conversation in our house of what we’re going to do.”

Families have been having similar conversations for years. A large number of them leave the city.

This will go on with SLPS as long as few alternatives exist in the City. The latest insanity with the Special Administrative Board of the SLPS that is getting a lot of media coverage is their policy of deed restricting closed school buildings so that no one can purchase the buildings and reopen them as public charter schools. More community organizations, such as The Landmarks Association of St. Louis and the American Institute of Architects St. Louis Chapter are jummping into the fray with statements on their websites opposing deed restrictions and more organizations may follow.

With policies such as these limiting parental choice outside of the unaccredited schools district, no wonder parents are leaving in droves.

The cheer leading for a lack of transparency didn’t end there. In addition, Patron Insights consultant Rick Nobles urged school leaders to be vague when trying to get voters to approve bond issues or tax increases. The report on Homeroom states Nobles suggested that “rather than telling district patrons that bond money would be used to add six classes, tell them the money would ease overcrowding. Patrons just don’t want to be beat over the head with details…” And to top it off the report also says that Nobles’ advised attendees “Don’t tell voters “it’s for the children,” he said. “That doesn’t pull heartstrings the way you think it will.”

WOW! Is there any wonder why voters rejected a 54- cent levy increase. When administrators and associated consultants have this approach to the communities that they are hired to serve we are all in trouble. It is time to wipe away this attitude in education and institute strong reforms now!

The avalance of anger at the Special Administrative Board for instituting this policy is continuing to grow and spread. The Children’s Education Alliance has produced a video highlighting the restrictions and the sentiment in the community. While SAB CEO Rick Sullivan has said the policy may be revisited, the Board still needs to hear from the community! Let’s keep up the pressure on the SAB and demand that these schools be available to be purchased by charter schools!

The Children’s Education Alliance video regarding the closings can be viewed on our YouTube channel.

A recently submitted OpEd on the issue by CEAM had been picked up in the St. Louis Beacon and online by Missouri Political News Service. CEAM has also produced a video highlighting what this policy does to communities and how community members react when learning about the policy. As awareness grows on this issue more resident will stand up and call on the SAB to lift the deed restrictions.

This ranking comes despite years of increased spending on education and the education establishment clamoring for more money. More money is not the answer. Reforms based on parental choice and increased accountability and transparency are the only ways to improve education in Missouri and the nation.

Missouri ranks 28th in National

Education Study as Students Fail Key Testing Measures

State legislative group targets new ways to fund education
given tough economic times and state budget woes

Jefferson City, MO—A majority of students in Missouri public schools failed to meet proficiency levels in fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics and reading, and SAT and ACT scores stagnated, despite decades-long increases in public spending, according to a new report by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Using nationally recognized test results, the ALEC Report Card on American Education ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia accordingly, one being the best and 51 the worst. Minnesota placed first in the unique ranking, Washington, D.C. last, and Missouri 28.

“Missouri students are barely above the national average in test scores, and they are well below national proficiency levels. This is unacceptable,” said Rep. Tim Jones (R-District 89). “The high cost and lackluster results of Missouri public education can be curbed by common-sense reforms rooted in accountability and choice. Such programs have proved cost-effective and successful in states across the country and popular among parents and students.”

The report also provides extensive data from 1987-88 to 2007-08 on state and federal funding, school resources, graduation rates, GED completion rates, and school-choice initiatives, including tax credit, scholarship, and charter school programs—alternatives to public education ALEC supports. With the federal administration expected to ramp up education spending through a host of new public programs, the evidence is undeniably clear: Further government funding does not produce corresponding results.

“If legislators are concerned about funding public education, not to worry,” said Jeff W. Reed, director of ALEC’s Education Task Force. “States across the country have proved that through education reforms rooted in freedom and accountability, more can be done with less. But it is up to state lawmakers to give parents and students the opportunity to choose what works best for them in securing a promising future.”

About ALEC

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,000 state legislative members from all 50 states, and 78 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. Its mission is to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government.

Academie Lafayette is a fabulous place for children and is an excellent example of what a charter school can be.

The conference will highlight diverse groups coming together to clearly state the case for statewide education reform in Missouri and discuss ways we can acheive education excellence for all children. Please check back her eon Wednesday for a full report on the conference.

Published: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:51pm CST

Original story at (http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/)

Saint Louis, MO, December 12, 2008 — A good time was had by nearly 400 guests and more than $50,000 was raised to benefit the St. Vincent Home for Children at the second annual St. Vincent Home for Children Benefit Christmas Party.

The event, which was held Thursday, December 11, at the Chase-Park Plaza Hotel was hosted by Missouri-focused philanthropists Rex Sinquefield and his wife, Dr. Jeanne Sinquefield, Travis Brown and Rachel Keller Brown of Pelopidas, LLC, an advocacy management company and Laura Slay, president of Slay & Associates, Inc., a marketing and public relations firm.

Rex Sinquefield has had close ties to the organization since he and his brother Jerry lived at St. Vincent’s in the 1950’s, after their family fell on hard financial times, following the passing of their father. St. Vincent’s, at that time, was a home for orphaned children.

During the evening’s program, Rex spoke of the fond memories of his experiences, “The love, attention and good guidance that we received from the sisters who ran St. Vincent’s and from our basketball coach Ron Holtman, made an indelible and very positive impression on us. Our teachers and coach Holtman, provided us with all the tools that we needed succeed as students, win the 1958 basketball championship and become successful adults.”

Guests at the $50-per-person celebration were greeted with lavender colored Cosmopolitans, feasted on a vast selection of appetizers from Missouri-focused food stations and danced to music by Motown-sound band, Arvell & Company. Special recognition was given to three student residents of St. Vincent’s, now a 24-hour care and treatment center for youth with behavior disorders and other special needs. The students created Christmas-related artwork, which was used in the event invitation and displayed at the event.

Those in attendance included Mayor of the City of Saint. Louis, Francis G. Slay; former Saint Louis Rams football defensive stalwart Pastor Aeneas Williams and his wife, Tracy; KSDK’s Rene Knott and his wife Marla; Kevin Short of Clayton Capital Partners and his wife Patty; Bobby Kersee, Olympic gold-medalist trainer (representing Jackie-Joyner Kersee who was keynote speaker at a track conference in Las Vegas); St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley; John and Alison Ferring; Ellen Harschman, St. Louis University John Cook School of Business; Keith Kirk, Pelopidas; Nancy Rice; Robbyn Wahby of Mayor Slay’s office; John Chickey, board chairman St. Vincent Home for Children; Lee Ann Taylor, executive director of the organization; Larry LeGrand of Plancorp and his wife Dot; Alderman Lyda Krewson; incoming State Representative Tishaura Jones, Show-Me Institute’s executive vice president, Joe Haslag; Vince Mannino of RG Ross and his wife Patty; Jack Naudi, Slay and Associates; Earl Simms, Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri; and Tony Rich, Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis.

“The holiday season reminds us of how important community charity is to our most vulnerable, especially in challenging economic times. We are honored to host so many advocates that want to give something back,” said Travis Brown.

For this reason, i am proud to say that the Children’s Education Alliance attended the St. Vincent’s Annual Christmas Party. It was heartwarming to see the alumni of St. Vincent’s recount their stories and reminisce about their time at St. Vincent’s. This event raised money for the current residents of the home and I hope to have a full account soon of the amount of money raised so that St. Vincent’s can continue their mission of providing service to those in dire need of help.

Parents who live in Columbia have two choices: Send your kids to Columbia Public Schools or pay to educate them privately.

That’s not the case in Missouri’s largest urban areas. In St. Louis and Kansas City, parents can send their children to free public charter schools if district schools aren’t a good fit.

Charter schools are publicly funded buildings that are not under the umbrella of a traditional school district. Instead, they’re typically sponsored by a college or university and governed by the group that applies for the charter.

Some question whether the Missouri law allowing them to exist only in the urban areas is fair, especially in light of recent news that some students aren’t faring well in Columbia schools.

“We might need to start talking about it as an alternative,” state Rep. Ed Robb said. “It might be just what the doctor ordered for Columbia.”

Robb had planned to sponsor legislation to expand charter school options in Missouri but was defeated by Democrat Chris Kelly in the Nov. 4 election.

Kelly said he is skeptical of a charter proposal, deeming it a “thinly disguised attack on the public school system.” Columbia might not have the same need for educational options as urban areas, Kelly said, because the schools here are strong. “It would be hard to say kids in Columbia, Mo., don’t get treated fairly in terms of educational opportunities,” he said.

But at least two private educators in town believe families need other alternatives. Myke Gemkow plans to open a private Montessori school for low-income children in the First Ward next fall and said he would “absolutely look into it” if a charter option were available.

And Joelle Quoirin supports expanding Missouri’s charter laws so she could open her French immersion preschool, La Petite Ecole, free of charge to elementary students. “I definitely think it’s very much unfair the way the statute reads now,” Quoirin said. “It isn’t to say that all charter schools are quality schools, but at least it gives parents options.”

Providing options is the goal, said Aaron North, executive director of the Missouri Charter Public School Association. “It’s about empowering parents,” he said. “Now if you live in certain areas and can’t afford to send your child to a private school, you have to go to the school to which you are assigned,” he said. The goal “is to allow access to the charter model to students and families who want it in Missouri. We don’t have designs on putting charter schools in communities if they don’t want them.”

Chief Academic Officer Sally Beth Lyon of Columbia Public Schools said she is not opposed to thinking outside the box to boost achievement but isn’t convinced charter schools are the right solution. “We don’t want to throw money at an experiment,” she said.

Research is mixed on whether charter schools do a better job educating children than public schools.

A 2006 study from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education found that students in traditional public schools do just as well or better than their charter or private school counterparts. But in 2004, a Harvard University researcher found that students in charter schools score significantly higher on reading and math tests than peers in traditional schools. And charter schools are among the top performing schools in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas when it comes to Missouri Assessment Program test scores.

Lyon also questioned how charter schools are accountable for the public funding they receive. Traditional schools rely on residents to approve board members and district ballot issues at the polls.

But if a charter school isn’t performing well, parents can simply remove their children, said former Sen. Franc Flotron, who now serves as a lobbyist for the charter school association.

“When it’s all said and done, we actually believe it’s a good thing that charter schools can go out of business,” Flotron said. “Obviously, that can be painful. Having that threat out there that you can go out of business really forces the rigor of how you operate your school. That’s something you don’t have in the traditional schools.”

Flotron said he will continue to lobby to expand charter school options in Missouri, but he also acknowledged it will be a tough sale. It took him eight years to pass the current charter law, and he said he could only get his proposal passed after agreeing to limit the schools to Kansas City and St. Louis.

“Having watched the Missouri General Assembly for 25 years now, day in and day out, I can say the public school establishment is one of the most powerful political influences in the state,” Flotron said. The traditional educational system “does not seem comfortable with the idea of parents deciding where their kids are going to go to school. Do I think that’s rational? No.”

By Jeanne Cairns Sinquefield, Ph.D.