National School Choice Week is right around the corner! From January 22 to January 28, the entire nation gets the opportunity to celebrate – and learn more about – educational choice and high-quality options for our students. Although this is only the second annual National School Choice Week, more than 200 organizations have already signed up to host events ranging from 5K races to information sessions to movie nights. Here at the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri, we have been hard at work planning activities for National School Choice Week. Be sure to check our website in the coming days for details and to learn how you can get involved. We are proud to be part of the education reform movement that is making great opportunities available to students throughout the state and around the nation. Visit the official National School Choice Week website to learn more.

As I sit here on the train heading for Kansas City, I have had the opportunity to read several articles on the state of education in America. The one I have chosen to share today concerns a topic that is all too real for many students across the country. At the end of the 2011-2012 school year, two schools in St.Louis opened by Imagine Schools, Inc. will be shutting their doors. On December 22, the California Charter School Association called for the closing of ten charter schools due to academic underperformance. The article goes on to discuss the need for accountability. The charter school movement is strong throughout the nation, with new and innovative schools popping up all the time. The time is now for parents and teachers to say we will not accept anything less than the very best education options. Regardless of the school type, if you’re not educating our kids at a high level, it’s time for you to find something else to do. For too long people have been misinformed and manipulated into believing shiny lights and bells and whistles make a great school. Who cares if you have the biggest library if the kids in the school can’t read? I again encourage parents, grandparents and anyone who has a vested interst in the success of our youth, academically and beyond: Do some research; go visit a school. And then share what you’ve learned with a neighbor or other community member. It could be your insight that makes the difference.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting concerning the state of the Kansas City Public Schools. This meeting was the final in a series of four town hall meetings held in response to the pending loss of accreditation on January 1, 2012. The meeting was held by the District Advisory Committee’s Parent Advocacy Task Force. The presentation, which can be found on the group’s website at www.kcmodistrictadvisory.com, included data from the Department of Secondary and Elementary Education and spurred intense conversation about the future of the Kansas City Schools. I could go on and on about the logistical discussions, but more important than those were the people who came out. The crowd was diverse in every sense of the word. Attendees included teachers, union members, parents, grandparents and concerned community members. They shared stories during breakout sessions. Many of those in attendance were once students in the district and spoke both fondly and sadly of the school system that they knew so well. I spoke to a teacher who, upon learning that I was from St. Louis, discussed with me the similarities between the two districts. She was quite knowledgeable about our district and even had some thoughts on schools outside the Kansas City and St. Louis Public Schools. In my next breakout group, we discussed the high poverty rate of the students in the Kansas City School District and how their specific needs were (or were not) being met. I reminded the group that we don’t have to end poverty to educate our kids; we need to educate our kids to end poverty. The best part of the day came after the meeting was over. I had the chance to speak one-on-one with a couple of parents. Once I had explained why I traveled all the way from St. Louis for a meeting in Kansas City, one mom explained to me her distress about the system and how she understands the importance of high quality education options for her kids. She went on to share that she grew up in poverty and, had it not been for a teacher who cared, she would not have gone on to college. The mom also told me she is considering moving to the East Coast if she cannot find a quality education option for her child. There is no doubt in my mind that this trip was not in vain. I know there are informed and engaged people who want nothing but the best education for the students of Kansas City.

The four types of districts included on this map are as follows:

Accredited	Classification Held Over Until Next Year	Provisionally Accredited	Unaccredited
Districts that remain fully accredited, but who have low Annual Performance Report scores.	Districts that the State Board of Education is concerned about, and will review again in another year.	Districts that the State Board of Education is monitoring closely because they have been underperforming for a number of years.	Districts that have performed poorly for a number of years and have consistently failed to meet goals set out by the State Board of Education.

Districts:

Accredited

Classification held over until next year

Provisionally Accredited

Unaccredited

This map highlights the fact that failing school districts are not only a problem in Missouri’s urban centers, but that they are present all over the state of Missouri. Because of this reality, the Revised Missouri Statute 161.137 will soon affect districts in all corners of Missouri. This statute says that children in unaccredited districts have the right to transfer to a neighboring accredited district at the expense of the unaccredited district.

The Federal Department of Education announced this Fall that they would offer waivers to states that were able to  meet several requirements. (Those requirements are outlined here). DESE has put the first draft of its Waiver Request online (you can read the draft here) and is seeking comments from parents, elected officials, educators, concerned citizens, and non-profit leaders.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri submitted its comments, which are copied below, this afternoon. It is important that DESE hear from people across Missouri about the waiver. I hope that you will take some time to read the Waiver request and submit your comments.

December 14, 2011

Commissioner Chris Nicastro
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
205 Jefferson St
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Commissioner Nicastro

I would like to thank the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for giving the public a chance to comment on DESE’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waiver Request. It is commendable that Commissioner Nicastro and the DESE staff invest so much time in listening to the voices of parents, educators, elected officials, and non-profits dedicated to improving education for all Missouri’s children.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri (CEAM) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support policies that encourage access to high quality educational options for all Missouri students, including those who do not succeed in a traditional academic setting. As such, we appreciate DESE’s willingness, through the request for an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver from the Federal Department of Education, to work with individual school districts to ensure the policies that govern Missouri’s schools are not only flexible enough to meet the needs of districts across our geographically and demographically diverse state, but also maintain high standards and hold teachers, administrators, and school boards accountable for achieving high student outcomes.

While we are pleased that DESE is using the opportunity to apply for an ESEA Waiver to look at its own accountability standards and to alter some of its current practices in an effort to align itself with best practice and research, CEAM has a few concerns about the draft waiver. These concerns are detailed below:

1. Student Growth Model

CEAM appreciates DESE’s willingness to think critically about the best way to include student growth data in the Annual Performance Reports for each of Missouri’s 522 school districts. We have been closely watching as DESE decides between the MU Value Added Growth Model and the Student Growth Percentiles Model.

Our research indicates that the MU Value Added Growth Model (MU Model) is far superior to the Student Growth Percentiles (SGP). The MU Model is much more accurate and gives a more fair and balanced view of what is happening  at both the district and building level. The SGP is untested in other states/districts, and the methodology behind this model has been called into question by many respected academics. As such, CEAM believes DESE will not be able to use the results generated from the SGP to make determinations about the accreditation status of districts, the performance of individual buildings, or the effectiveness of teachers. For the ESEA Waiver to be effective in Missouri, CEAM feels as though DESE has no choice but to ensure the MU Model is the Missouri model for measuring student growth.

2. Subgroup Reporting

While the draft ESEA Waiver Request does mention that there will be subgroup reporting, there is no mention of what subgroups will be monitored and how that information will be used. CEAM feels that DESE needs to ensure districts are still responsible for reporting the achievement levels of all subgroups required under the current ESEA law. Additionally, DESE should state in the Waiver Request that districts will not only be held accountable for all student achievement, but that they also will be held accountable for closing the achievement gap between white and minority students as well as between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students.

3. Last in—First out

The Draft Waiver mentions Missouri’s antiquated Last in—First out policy, which is currently required by the Revised Missouri Statute 168.122. CEAM understands DESE is required to comply with current Missouri law. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that this current law is not good for children. CEAM suggests that DESE add repealing this statute to its legislative priorities for the 2012 session and include this and other legislative priorities in the draft Waiver Request.

Thank you for considering our concerns. If you would like to discuss them further, you can reach me at 314-809-5042 or kcasas@childrenseducationalliance-mo.org.

Sincerely,

Katherine Casas
State Director
Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

I was disgusted the other day when the whole state of Missouri fixed its attention on Albert Pujols’ decision to leave the Saint Louis Cardinals. I was disgusted because at the same the twitterverse, ESPN, StLToday.com, and a dozen or more other media were focused on Albert’s decision, I was focused on the fact that Missouri Statutes still require indefinite contracts and Last In First Out policies for Missouri’s teachers.

I realized that while Missouri was busy discussing the difference between Albert’s $254 million contract with the Angels and whatever the Cardinals offered him, our highest quality teachers don’t get to negotiate a higher salary as an incentive to go to and remain in a high needs school (much like Albert did with the Angels).

I also felt my blood pressure rising when Albert’s decision reminded me of the unfair hiring practices in our public schools. Not only do our schools’ leaders not get to say how much they are going to pay a teacher, they don’t even get to choose who their teachers are. While Albert’s agents and the team managers were busily negotiating his new contract, many of Missouri’s students were sitting in classrooms where the antiquated last in first out policies had left them with an inferior teacher. (Learn more about Last In First Out here)

I hope that after reading this, you too think that the fact we put more stock in the quality of our baseball players than we do in the quality of our teacher is unacceptable and will act on it by signing up here to learn how to help CEAM educate all Missourians about fixing this broken system.

Oh, and for the record, I, like most people, am sorry to see Albert leave for Anaheim, but wish him well on the next phase of his career.

I know that many of you have, like me, been paying close attention to what is happening in the Kansas City Missouri School District. So when I read this article, I thought I should share it with you.

As the article states, Mayor Sly James has been tasked, by Chris Nicastro, Missouri’s Commissioner of the Department of Secondary and Elementary Education, to bring together parents, students, elected officials, and business and civic leaders, so they can develop a set of recommendations about the future of their District. In this article, Mayor James was quoted as saying, “We won’t get this chance again…This is it…We need to be focused on doing it right not doing it fast”.

While I do understand and respect the desire to find the right path forward for KCMSD, I would like to caution James and the other consensus builders that they should feel a heightened sense of urgency. They need to be moving fast and smart at the same time because everyday that they are focused on building a consensus about what to do and not actually doing anything, is another day that the status quo remains, which for kids in KCMSD means a school district that does not have the ability to provide an education.

The big item on the State Board of Education’s agenda at its meeting on December 1 and 2 was the future of KCMSD, which is scheduled to become unaccredited on January 1, 2012.

Many had speculated that Commissioner Chris Nicastro would recommend a change in the current governance structure of the District. However, Nicastro instead told the State Board that she was not going to make any recommendations at this time. She gave two reasons for this decision:

1. There has not been a clear consensus about the future of KCMSD from the Kansas City community. She feels that any effort to “fix” KCMSD through a change in governance has to come from those who live and work in the district in order for it to be effective. (You can see all 500+ comments from the public that lead her to this conclusion here)
2. Missouri State Statute provides for a two-year “transition” period before the State Board of Education can legally mandate any change in governance. (To see a full transcript of her remarks go here)

As a result of these two things, Nicastro suggested that Kansas City Mayor Sly James (who has also asked that governance of KCMSD be given to him) continue to convene all KCMSD stakeholders so they may quickly come to a consensus about the best way to get the district on the right track. (To read Mayor James’ letter to Nicastro asking for control of KMCSD, click here)

Additionally, Nicastro said the State Board and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education need to focus on changing the law that requires a two year transition period between the loss of accreditation and a any additional action related to governance by the State Board. She would like for the State Board to be able to set its own timeline for altering the governance of an unaccredited school.

Members of the State Board of Education commended Nicastro for not acting on emotion and showing real leadership in the face of mounting calls for to do something.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri agrees with Commissioner Nicastro that the citizens of Kansas City need to be focused on creating a solution to their abysmal public school system; however, we hope that she isn’t willing to wait two years, if consensus isn’t reached. The children of KCMSD have been failed by this system for decades and deserve the kind of leadership that is willing to make bold, even if unpopular, decisions.

Most of the attention the issue of education gets in Missouri is focused on Saint Louis and Kansas City Public Schools.  However, it is also important to note that students in other districts are struggling to access a high quality education as well. Therefore, when I came across this article, I thought it was important to share the struggles as well as some of the innovative solutions being proposed. I was most impressed by the willingness of the administration in the Mehlville school district to identify the problem and think outside the box to ensure that students are ready for high school. I can’t wait to see the results.

Missouri lawmakers are meeting to find a solution to the Missouri law that states students in unaccredited school districts can transfer to neighboring accredited school districts at the cost of the failing district.

This video features excerpts from the hearing in Saint Louis recently.

Today, our state faces many education problems. Schools are losing accreditation, and students are suffering. The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri (CEAM) believes all kids should have access to a high-quality education.

On November 17^th the Joint Interim Committee on School Accreditation convened to find solutions to Missouri’s problems. At issue was a current law that allows students in an unaccredited district to transfer to any adjacent accredited school district, at the cost of the failing district. This law is on the books . . . yet it is not being enforced.

This is not acceptable. The time to help our kids receive a great education is now. Join CEAM today and learn how you can help.

About a month ago the failure of Imagine Academies, a network of public charter schools in Saint Louis, was revealed in a very public way. It began with Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay telling KMOV that Imagine Academies had failed thousands of St. Louis children, and that it was time for Imagine to close and send the children elsewhere.   That was followed by a series of articles and stories in other St. Louis media and an opinion piece by Doug Thamen of the Missouri Public Charter School Association. All of these stories had the same message—stopped failing our children. Close Imagine Academies and send the students to higher performing schools.

The calls for Imagine’s closure reached a fever pitch last week when Elisa Crouch of the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch ran a series of scathing articles about the network of schools. The articles revealed Imagine’s involvement in shady real estate deals, kickbacks, and other financial mismanagement that has resulted in a lack of basic resources like text books and toilet paper for students at Imagines’ Schools. (To read the Post-Dispatch series of articles, see the links below)

Perhaps even worse than the financial situation the adults running Imagine have created, is the fact that Imagine knowingly and purposely misleads parents about the type and quality of education their children will receive when enrolled at their schools. The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri believes that a parent’s right to choose a school for their child is critical to the child’s academic success. At the same time, we know for parent choice to be successful there needs to be a high level of accountability and transparency coupled with proper oversight. This will help ensure parents are getting all the information they need to make the best decision for the children—this is not happening in Imagines’ schools.

It seems nearly impossible to find the silver lining in a story that begins with thousands of children being denied a quality education. However, I think education reformers should feel heartened that ardent charter school supporters like Mayor Slay, and Mr. Thamen are demanding that (for lack of a better term) one of their own be held accountable. They are putting children, not politics or ideology, first.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri agrees with Mayor Slay, Thamen, and all the others who are calling for the closing of all the Imagine schools in Saint Louis. When, they do close, there will be more than 3000 St. Louis children who find themselves with no school and, according to recent test scores, very far behind academically. There are several great options for children in Imagine. There are some high performing charter schools, a vast network of outstanding parochial schools, and a small handful traditional public schools that would be capable of taking more children and catching them up academically.

Even with all the options mentioned above, I’m fearful this will not be enough high quality seats to meet the need of all Imagine’s 3000+ students. For that reason CEAM is once again calling on traditional school superintendents, schools boards, and district officials to abide by the Revised Missouri Statute 161.137 that says children living in a failing district have the right to transfer to an accredited district in the same or adjoining county. If this were to happen immediately, children at Imagine would have a menu of options that would meet each child’s individual needs, which, after-all, is what we all want, right?

Related Articles:
Imagine Schools’ Real Estate Deals Fuel Company’s Growth
Charter Schools’ Rent
Imagine School’s Real Estate Deals
Imagine Opens School in Just 21 Days
Imagine Schools Executive Named in Contractor’s Bank Statements
Imagine Schools Places Top Executive on Leave
Children Deserve Better than Real Estate Scams Disguised as Education
A Pattern of Inattention
Parents Slow to Give Up on Struggling Imagine Schools

Chris Geden, Community Outreach Director, Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

As we here in Missouri wait for the outcome of our own “Parent Trigger” of sorts to play out in the Turner vs. Clayton Case, other states are busy trying to pass or implement a more traditional “Parent Trigger”.

I think Missouri’s education reformers could benefit from following the Parent Trigger and Parent Union stories from around the country. It might help us understand how to harness the power of parents to ensure policies that support kids are getting implemented here. The Parent Trigger started in California in 2010 and has swept to other cities and states around the country such as Texas and Mississippi while twenty other states are considering it. This powerful law allows parents to gather together as one powerful voice and force under-performing schools to take action to improve the quality of education provided to their students. The changes can include closing the school, replacing the teachers and principals and the parents having a say in staffing and budget concerns. The concept behind the parent trigger is really quite simple—the people who have the greatest vested interest in a high quality education (the parents) can use the power of this law, to get a seat at the bargaining table with unions and school officials. This simple concept that gave California and the others a Parent Trigger law is the same one that is driving the advocates and law-makers and most importantly parents who are pushing for the implementation and enforcement of the Revised Missouri Statute 161.137 of the Outstanding Schools Act of 1993. I hope Missourians who care about the future of our state, understand that this groundbreaking opportunity, much like the Parent Trigger in other states, will in the long run benefit the one who matters most….the children. To learn more go here.

Recently the staff from the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri traveled to San Francisco for the two day Excellence in Action Conference hosted by the Excellence in Education Foundation. From of the dozens of topics covered, four common themes that all education reformers should keep in mind emerged. Because Missouri is poised to make bold moves to improve the quality of education, I thought now would be a great time to share some of these themes with Missouri’s education reformers.

1. Don’t compromise if compromise means you are giving up what is best for kids

• Top reformers such as Tony Bennett from Indiana, Chris Cerf from New Jersey, and Tim Melton from Michigan all stressed that compromising with anti-reformers just to pass a weak piece of legislation will result in a failure for kids.

2. Be Bold

• The lawmakers, advocates and stakeholders are all in agreement that trying to tackle one education reform item at a time isn’t good enough. If it is good for kids, get it done—all of it.

3. Think about implementation

• All education reform laws have to be implementable and enforceable. When deciding which policies to support, the speakers at the conference said, look around, talk to reformers in other states. Learn from one another. If you pass a law that can’t be implemented, you have wasted your political capital.

4. Grassroots, grassroots, grassroots

• Engaging parents and other concerned citizens is essential! If you can’t get parents to the Capitol building to testify and you don’t have parent support for what you are doing, it wont be successful. No one cares about a child more than their parents. A parent’s passion and dedication cannot be matched, especially by a paid lobbyist. Find your grassroots early and engage them often.

Each  of these points can be applied to any education reform subject: teacher tenure reform, open enrollment, charter expansion, etc. I left the conference feeling energized and hopeful because I know the brilliant people working with us to improve the quality of education for children in Missouri are ready to embrace all of this advice and get big things done for kids.

I recently had the opportunity to attend the Missouri Charter Schools Associations Annual Conference. I was very impressed with the time and effort that went  into planning every detail  from the candy at the registration table to the flawless way they moved 200+ people around from one place to another. The attendee list reads like a Missouri education who’s who list.

The theme of the conference was Advancing Quality Education Because Every Child Can Succeed. While there were several opportunities to learn about charter school quality, sponsors, parent engagement, and advocacy; the topics that I really felt were the clear take away from each session and keynote were accountability and transparency. It was also apparent that these are trying for charter schools. That sentiment was underscored by Douglas Thaman, Executive Director of the Missouri Charter School Association’s speech, which can be read here

I left the conference with the strong sense that the leaders of Missouri’s Public Charter Schools are certainly up to the challenges that lie ahead of them. They are ready to embrace tougher accountability; they understand the need to be transparent with parents, media, and other stakeholders; and above all else they know they can’t give up the fight, because Missouri’s children need them to succeed.

As a result of the increased accountability, tougher standards and a focus on closing the achievement gap, The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri hopes the Missouri State Board of Education adopts the newly proposed Missouri School Improvement Program 5.

For the 4^th time since 1990, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will be updating the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP). The MSIP is the program used to grade Missouri’s schools as accredited, provisionally accredited and unaccredited. This most recent update is known as The MSIP 5

Each time the MSIP has been updated, DESE has raised the bar by making the standards more difficult and by challenging districts to ensure that each student has an opportunity to receive a high quality education—the MSIP 5 is no different.

As evidence that the bar needs to be raised on Missouri’s public school, there were over 300 school districts that were awarded a perfect score under MSIP 4; however, a report produced by ACT (the company that produces the college entrance exam) found that only 32% of Missouri’s graduates are prepared for college in Science and just 44% are prepared in Math. DESE recognizes a district that is preparing less than half of its students for college should not be receiving a perfect score on its annual report card. Therefore, through MSIP 5 DESE suggests addressing this issue by ensuring there are measures in place that will hold all districts accountable for providing adequate post-secondary preparation for all students.

To further strengthen the case that Missouri’s students need MSIP 5, the achievement gap in districts in all corners of the state remains persistently wide.  For example in the Columbia School District 66% of white students were reading at grade level in the 2010-2011 school year, but only 23% of African Americans were reading on grade level. Additionally, in Columbia, only 35% of African Americans scored proficient on the math assessment while 66% of white students.

History proves that the achievement gap can be closed by creating and maintaining high expectations and standards for all students. As a result, DESE has suggested that MSIP 5 hold districts accountable for not making significant progress toward closing the achievement gap. It will do so by requiring districts to continue reporting on the achievement of various groups of students, and by increasing the focus on college and career readiness for all students beginning at an early age.

Increases in accountability, strengthening of standards and focusing on closing of the widening achievement gap, all of which are included in the MSIP 5, are vital to Missouri’s ability to provide a world-class education to its citizens. For this reason, The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri has submitted comments to the State Board of Education urging it to adopt the MSIP 5. We hope that Missouri’s residents who are concerned about the future of our state and the education of their children will do the same. The comment period is open until November 1. Comments can be submitted via email (msip@dese.mo.gov),  online (https://www.research.net/s/desemsip5),  or by U.S. Postal Service at, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Attn: Margie Vandeven, assistant commissionerOffice of Quality Schools, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480.

Chris Geden, Community Outreach Director Children Education Alliance of Missouri

I recently attended the a Town Hall Meeting for the South Saint Louis 15th Ward Town Hall meeting. Alderwomen Jennifer Florida and Mayor Slay were there to listen to and respond to the concerns of people in the neighborhood. I go to meetings like this on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes people to try and derail what is supposed to be a an opportunity to have an open dialogue with elected officials and neighborhood leaders. You might expect that people would spend time complaining about trash bins, streets, or even crime, however, at this meeting and most community meetings in St. Louis, the topic that comes up the most is education. The concerns expressed by the constituents were legitimate and well thought out. While everyone had a slightly different take on the education in St. Louis, everyone’s comments boiled down to: “How can our kids be successful and our city move forward with out more high quality options?”.

Mayor Slay was very clear. He said it was unacceptable for anyone to provide anything less than the best possible education for the students of this city. The Mayor spoke for several minutes on the importance of having high quality education options. He also spoke about the Turner Case or the Outstanding Schools Act as it is also known as . The Mayor was crystal clear on the fact that he feels the law, which states if you live in an unaccredited district, you have the right to transfer to a neighboring accredited district at the expense of the failing district. While the meeting ended about eight thirty, several of the attendees had questions for me and the elected officials for another thirty minutes.  Nearly all the conversations after the meeting that I heard were about education. Each time I go to a meeting like this, I am reminded about how serious and real the lack of high quality educational options is to parents in Saint Louis and all over Missouri. I encourage you to attend your next neighborhood meeting, and listen as people share the comments and concerns about the status of education in and around your neighborhood.

Yesterday, the Joint Interim Committee on School Accreditation met for the first time. The Committee’s co-chairs, Senator Jane Cunningham and Representative Scott Diekhaus, opened the meeting by explaining the two goals of the committee were to: 1. Ensure that students rights under Missouri Revised Statute 161.137 are protected and 2. See if school districts’ concerns regarding this statute can be addressed.

While there were several lobbyists there to testify before the committee, the largest impact was made by a Saint Louis City firefighter named Andrew Hesse. Andrew explained to the committee that as a city employee he has to live in the City of Saint Louis where the public schools are unaccredited. Andrew told the committee that he loved being a firefighter and he enjoyed his St. Louis neighborhood and neighbors, but the cost of a private high school tuition was more than his family could afford. Andrew pleaded with the committee to either enforce the statute as it stands, or to come up with a solution that would ensure that he can do a great job in a city that needs him and that his children can get the quality education that they deserve.

As you can see from this article, Andrew made quite an impact on the committee and all the attendees of the hearing.  There will be two more hearings, one in Saint Louis and one in Kansas City. I suspect this is not the last you will hear of Andrew and his colleagues in the fire department so stay tuned.

I recently had the opportunity to attend the twenty–sixth annual Missouri Legislative Black Caucus, INC. Conference in Kansas City, Missouri. The theme of the Conference was Re-Weaving the Fabric of Family and Community to Close the Achievement Gaps for Our Children.

I have been to many conferences in my career. Some have focused on youth and some on community but I had never been to one like this that had a laser like focus on finding a solution to the problem of inadequate education for MO African American children. It goes without saying that right now there is a huge gap between the academic performance of our youth of color and their white counterparts. I have heard this several times over the years and have seen the statistics and the data. I have also seen the disparity in person in my time in schools all over the St. Louis Metro Region.

While talking about race and class is never any easy conversation to have, the reality of the situation is that we must have these conversations. Yes, there will be some discomfort but for the sake of our children we need to all be at the table with viable options for our youth.For this reason, I commend the Missouri Black Caucus for bringing together leaders from all over the state to have the conversation and begin finding solutions.

In an effort to continue this conversation, I am going to share some websites that will highlight just how critical closing the achievement gap really is.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/

By Chris Geden Community Outreach Director -Childrens Education Alliance of Missouri

Last night, at the Missouri History Museum, there was a round table discussion around the previously screened movie Waiting for Superman. There were about twenty people in attendance and at least twenty different opinions regarding American education and they way to reform it. Actually at times the conversation was so heated and diverse that, it felt like there where two hundred people in the room with differing ideas and perceptions about the state of education.

The crowd was diverse, there were teachers from public, private, and public charter as well as social workers and college students, education reformers, anti-reformers, and just interested citizens in attendance.  The discussion was supposed to be about the movie. However, I have learned that when you talk about education, especially education in failing school districts, everyone’s attention is quickly pulled straight to the real world examples of failure in their own backyard. The group, while having very different opinions and experiences, was able to meet in small groups to have passionate, honest, and at times heated, discussions.

The topics in these small group discussions ranged from teacher tenure, parent involvement, and the achievement gap to the Outstanding Schools Act and school choice. The manner in which people interacted with each other on these hot button issues highlighted the frustration people feel as they try to get their voices heard. I have to admit I got a little agitated when people misrepresented the facts about school choice, teacher tenure, and the Outstanding Schools Act. However, once I was able to sit back and really listen I was able to understand and appreciate that everyone comes at education reform from a different experience and perspectives. I also realized last night that if progress is going to be made, more conversations like last night’s are going to have to happen.

All in all, I found the discussion very gratifying and it was rewarding. Hopefully I was able to give some anti-reformers some things to think about. I would have liked to have seen more people there of course but for what it was a great way to spend a Wednesday evening.

Since 2007, when Saint Louis Public Schools lost its accreditation, all discussion about the revised statute 161.137 of the Outstanding Schools Act of 1993 has focused on the Saint Louis region. As you might know, this statute states that children who live in an unaccredited school district have the right to transfer to an accredited district in the same or adjoining county and the tuition must be paid by the unaccredited district at no expense to the family.

To date, only two school districts, Saint Louis Public Schools and Riverview Gardens, both of which are in the St. Louis Metro Region, have lost their accreditation.   However, on August 19, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released the priminary Annual Performance Report (the measure the determines accreditation) results for all Missouri’s 522 school districts. While districts will have the opportunity to appeal these results, you can see from this map of districts currently in jeopardy of becoming unaccredited or provisionally accredited, the problem reaches far beyond the St. Louis Metro Region.

The map is important because it highlights the fact that there are children in all corners of Missouri who are recieving a substandard education. There is a law on the books in Missouri to ensure the children living in these districts are not trapped in failing schools, it just needs to be enforced.

With the 2011-2012 school year just underway around Missouri, the amount of education reform related news has significantly increased. As a result, I decided to post a few of this weeks’ hottest education-related stories rather than just one. There are likely others that could have made my list, but these are the ones that I heard the most chatter about, and the ones that I feel will most directly impact Missouri students:

Dr. Covington resigns as Kansas City Superintendent-As most stories that appeared about Dr. Covington’s resignation pointed out, this puts the Kansas City, Missouri School District in serious jeopardy of losing its accreditation and/or undergoing a state takeover. This article from Education Weekly does a great job of avoiding all the speculation and blame and focuses on the facts.

The Facebook Law- While I agree with many of my education reform colleagues that there are other, more significant, education issues that should be addressed in Missouri right now, it is obvious that the law banning teachers from online, private interaction with students has captured much of the state and nation’s attention. As a result, I couldn’t deny this as one of the week’s hottest stories. However, even with all the chatter on social media and on news sites around this law, it was hard to find a story that was unbiased. However, I think that Dale Singer of the Saint Louis Beacon did a good job of explaining the story. What this story by Singer doesn’t say, because it was just announced today, is that Governor Nixon has gone ahead and asked the General Assembly to fix this law in the Legislative Special Session that will be begin on September 6.

 The School Reform Deniers-Steven Brill, who first became famous among education reformers for writing this story in the New Yorker about the rubber rooms in New York City where bad teachers go when they can’t be fired, wrote an op-ed published by Reuters laying out his case for Education Reform. Since it was published, Reuters has had several prominent education reformers and some anti-reformers publish their responses. It has been fascinating to watch as people from all sides of the reform world engage in a very public debate. I encourage you to curl up with a good cup of coffee and your computer and read the back and forth that has unfolded as a result of Brill’s piece from last Sunday. Some of the stories are linked below (although you can find more if you Google), starting with Brill’s original piece.

1. Steven Brill
2. Michelle Rhee
3. Joel Klein
4. Randi Weingarten
5. Diane Ravitch

I would love to hear what you think about these stories or other of the week’s hottest stories. Let me know at @ceamofficial on Twitter.

The Kansas City Star published my op-ed in its opinion section this morning. The timing of its decision to run the op-ed was perfect since the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education release the preliminary Annual Performance Review (APR) results on Friday morning (click here for an explanation of APR). Although school districts have until September 2 to appeal the preliminary results, the low scores in about 24 Missouri Districts should cause residents in many of Missouri’s urban, rural and suburban districts pause, afterall, the APR scores are what the State Board of Education will use to determine whether a district is accredited, unaccredited, or provisionally accredited.

The first day of school, a time that has so much hope and promise, is almost here and thousands of children across the state are gearing up for another year of learning.

For those parent fortunate enough to have more than one choice for this child, I hope that the parents of these young people have researched their childs place of education ,have they asked all the right questions? Equally important have they been given factual answers.

I fear that many parents aren’t sure what questions to ask or what choices are available to them. In order to help them, on Tuesday night at 6:00 P.M  August 23, 2011 at South City Prep the Childrens Education Alliance of Missouri will  be screening a movie called the Lottery that details the journey of four families trying to find the best education for their children. It is without a doubt one of the most compelling education reform movies of the year. Following the screening we will here from a panel of local education experts.

Why would we bother to have a movie night surrounding education reform? I think there are many reasons for doing this. First, it will create a open and safe dialoge concerning parents’ right to choose the school that best fits their child’s needs. Second, we hope to let all the attendees know what options are available to them, and provide important information about making the best choice for their unique learner. Third, the experts will give details about the educational trends in our state and inform us of any major events that may affect our kids. Lastly the thought of a community learning together is awesome and by the way its FREE !

I live with my 17 month old daughter and husband in the Tower Grove East neighborhood of Saint Louis City. I love, love, love my neighborhood. The streets are lined with beautiful trees, I can walk to the park and a variety of restaurants, my mom lives around the corner and my sister and her husband just bought a house a few blocks away. The neighbors say “hi”, we mow each others’ lawns and we watch out for each others’ children. It is truly a fabulous place to live.

Most of the children I live near are going to private schools, a few are in the voluntary desegregation program, a couple are going to magnet schools, I know of two who are going to charter schools in other parts of the city, and a handful (a very small handful) are going to the Saint Louis Public neighborhood School, Shenandoah (full disclosure, I worked at Shenandoah as a fourth grade teacher for two years). None of these are bad options, and they very well may be the right options for the families that have chosen them. However, I couldn’t have been more excited when I heard that South City Prep, a new charter school that promises to prepare children for college, was moving to Tower Grove East. This will be an option for parents in my neighborhood and the surrounding ones who are desperate to find a school that will prepare their children for a happy fulfilling life in the 21^st century.

This story that aired on KWMU this week, and featured South City Prep, highlights the trials and tribulations that many families, including many of my neighbors, face when searching for a school for their children. It also points out that the charter school movement in St. Louis hasn’t gotten it 100% correct yet—a reality that I acknowledge. However, I would say, that the charter schools that have opened in the City since 2007 are on the right track while Saint Louis Public Schools are still struggling to make strides toward accreditation.  I do agree with SLPS superintendent, Dr. Adams’ statement in this story that charter schools, and public schools alike that aren’t performing should be shuttered. In fact, I actually believe charter schools should be held to a higher standard since their limited bureaucracy and ability to make quick decision/changes is one of the advantages of charters over traditional private schools.

 I know the leadership of South City Prep and I believe that they have an extraordinary amount knowledge, drive and dedication to creating a high quality neighborhood educational option. I am confident that they can make dreams come true for the families of Tower Grove East and our neighboring communities. I am also confident, however, that the leadership at South City Prep wouldn’t be surprised to hear that if they don’t make steady progress from year to year, or they fail to live up to their promise to my neighbors, I will be the first one in line asking for them to close. That being said, I can’t wait to see all the happy faces, full of promise, walking to school come Monday morning.

I couldn’t have been any prouder than I was on Tuesday August 2, 2011 of living in St.Louis . I spent some time meeting our neighbors across this city from North city to South city and many places in between while the events were vastly different from neighborhood to neighborhood the message couldn’t have been any clearer we want our streets and communities to be safe havens . Why were all these people out because it was National Night Out.  National Night Out is neighborhood block parties designed to: Heighten crime and drug prevention awareness;generate support for, and participation in, local anti-crime programs; strengthen neighborhood spirit and police-community partnerships; send a message to criminals letting them know that neighborhoods are organized and fighting back. Studies show that there is a connection with education and the crime rate take a look at this study from California the numbers are amazing .There are many problems in this country but if we take a closer look at the effect it has on our communities maybe education should be at the top of our to do list.

I have been a board member at the City Garden Montesorri school located near Tower Grove park for a little more than six months, but our relationship extends well over two years.  I was reading about the map scores in our area and was pleased to see City Garden with fifty-two percent of all students passing.

I have worked closely with this school and know the time and effort that is put into all things City Garden. The staff  are all top notch educators and are there to teach.  From the very first time I stepped into the school I was impressed with the ease and poise with which administrators, teachers, parents and most importantly students conducted themselves from classrooms to board meetings I as an observer and participant could not be happier with the school and the people involved in the day to day.

Having said all that to ask this question why in the world aren’t we using this model of success across the city or better yet the state? We need to be more deliberate in the way we go about educating our young people . I am quite sure that there is a need and a desire by parents and teachers alike to put into practice what we know already works.  I will include a link to the schools website.

Back in 1993 Mel Carnahan and Missouri legislature produced what I believe is Missouri’s largest piece of education legislation in our history.  The Outstanding Schools Act overhauled and created much of what we take for granted in our state’s educational system today.

According to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s own website; “The passage of the Outstanding Schools Act in 1993 signaled Missouri’s commitment to a public school system that purposefully prepares young people for the 21st century and assures our state’s continued economic vitality.”

The 1993 legislation addressed or implemented such things as: The Show-Me Standards – a set of 73 rigorous standards, curriculum frameworks, a new statewide assessment, professional development for educators and professional standards for new educators.

While they were coming up with all these great standards, it must have occurred to someone along the way that there needed to be some sort of consequence for districts that failed to provide a meaningful education for students, so they included this provision, which is now at the center of much discussion and debate.  I thought you might like to read it for yourself:

District not accredited shall pay tuition and transportation, when–amount charged.

167.131. 1. The board of education of each district in this state that does not maintain an accredited school pursuant to the authority of the state board of education to classify schools as established in section 161.092 shall pay the tuition of and provide transportation consistent with the provisions of section 167.241 for each pupil resident therein who attends an accredited school in another district of the same or an adjoining county.

2. The rate of tuition to be charged by the district attended and paid by the sending district is the per pupil cost of maintaining the district’s grade level grouping which includes the school attended. The cost of maintaining a grade level grouping shall be determined by the board of education of the district but in no case shall it exceed all amounts spent for teachers’ wages, incidental purposes, debt service, maintenance and replacements. The term “debt service”, as used in this section, means expenditures for the retirement of bonded indebtedness and expenditures for interest on bonded indebtedness. Per pupil cost of the grade level grouping shall be determined by dividing the cost of maintaining the grade level grouping by the average daily pupil attendance. If there is disagreement as to the amount of tuition to be paid, the facts shall be submitted to the state board of education, and its decision in the matter shall be final. Subject to the limitations of this section, each pupil shall be free to attend the public school of his or her choice.

If you feel your child attending St. Louis Public Schools or River Gardens School District is not receiving a quality education in these unaccredited districts, the law is on YOUR side.

You can read this Missouri Revised Statute and the rest here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1670000131.htm

On Saturday, July 23, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board hit the nail on the head when it said:

For St. Louis and Missouri to thrive, support for education must be more than a political slogan. It must be the No. 1 goal of a coalition that includes Mr. Nixon, the Republicans who control the Legislature and the business community that has exerted pressure on those elected officials to call legislators back to Jefferson City.

I applaud the Post-Dispatches editorial board for recognizing there is no greater issue in the state of Missouri than education, and I hope that Missouri’s leaders are listening. (To  read the full editorial, click here).

Dale Singer’s July 19 article, “Second Court Ruling Says Suburban District Must Accept Saint Louis Student” in the Saint Louis Beacon details the law suit filed on behalf of one Saint Louis City resident who wants to enroll in Webster Groves High School because Saint Louis Public Schools is unaccredited. Unfortunately, the article fails to mention that this student already had the right, under current Missouri law, to do so at no cost to her or her family.

The Outstanding Schools Act of 1993, which states clearly and unambiguously that a student residing in an unaccredited school district has the right to enroll in a district in the same or adjoining county, was passed by the Democratic-Led General Assembly and signed into law by then Governor Mel Carnahan.

While I believe that any ruling that helps a child access a better education is a victory and should be told, the real story here is the fact that since 2007, accredited school districts in the Saint Louis region have failed to follow the law and have not been compelled by any state authority to do so.

I am hopeful for King-Willman’s future—as she will likely be able to attend the wildly successful Webster Groves High School. I also believe that any other student with the wherewithal to make it through a year-long court proceeding and is awarded the chance to have a great education; will also have a fabulous chance at success.  However, in order for the children who are in the most desperate need of an improved education to be given a chance at success, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or the Missouri General Assembly will have to mandate that districts implement this law and punish those districts that choose not to do so.

When you mention civil rights, many people immediately think about African Americans and women in our country.  Given a few more moments Hispanics and Gays would also come to mind.

By the time I was born, the Civil Rights Act was already signed and forced integration was underway and the Equal Rights Act was passed a few years later. As I was growing up in Oregon in the late 70’s and 80’s, migrant workers from Mexico and beyond were finally being heard.  In the past two decades progress was made in hate crimes and, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Defense Of Marriage Act aside, Gay rights have also made progress.  All these efforts were undertaken in the name of equality.

As we move into the second decade of the 21^st Century, one important issue is emerging from the shadows and taking center stage again in the struggle for equal civil rights.  Across the country despite all the time, effort and money that has been poured into our educational system, there remain huge gaps between African American and Caucasian students and between students attending poor districts and their middle class and wealthy counterparts.

It’s not the first time we have grappled with education as a civil right.  The last time, in the middle of the 20^th Century the inequities were as blatant as the racist attitudes that created them.  Today, though, things are less clear.  Well-intentioned people abound, but education is still not improving.  Something is stuck.

And in the 21^st Century version of this struggle the lines are increasingly drawn on class distinction over race distinctions.

I’m not a parent, but I was a child once.

I try to imagine what it would be like to send my child off to a school where I know he is not receiving the same quality education as children attending schools just miles away.  I would feel frustrated knowing that there are some other choices I might make, but also knowing that those choices are extremely limited.  I would want to do right by my child, but not having the resources to send my child to a high quality private school I have to wonder if anyone cares.

That’s what low-income parents face everyday.  Without the resources and without options, they have no choice but to send their children to the mandated public school.

We all accept that a good education is the basis for a successful future, so how can anyone be surprised that the cycle of poverty continues going strong in our country when high quality educational choices are not available to so many people?

By now, you may be aware that St. Louis is once again in the midst of deciding education as a civil right.  Now more than four years old, the Turner v. Clayton case is causing everyone in Missouri, and especially the St. Louis area, to think about what our rights are to a high quality education.

The next court date is set for September as the Turner v. Clayton case continues.  However even now there are resourceful parents trying to send their children to neighboring districts following the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling last fall as part of the Turner case that upheld a heretofore little known Missouri law that states children living in an unaccredited school district can attending a neighboring district at the expense of their home district.

Like so many times before, change will come from crisis.  Without impugning anyone, it is probably fair to say that with everything going on, it has been easy to ignore low-income families who do not have high quality educational choices.  Now, however, Missouri law and two, local unaccredited school districts are forcing the hand.

To give you a refresher on the Turner case, here’s a link to Dale Singer’s story from May 2011 in the St. Louis Beacon.  It’s a good read for background.

Lots of talk, little action on education by Missouri lawmakers

By Dale Singer, Beacon Staff

May 17, 2011

On the first business day after a legislative session that saw a lot of talk but a lot less action on bills concerning Missouri schools, the head of the House education committee found himself in a Washington, Mo., classroom.

After state Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington, spent Monday working as a substitute teacher in an industrial technology class — “not exactly my forte,” he said — he took time to talk about the bills that passed, the ones that stalled and the outlook for action next year.

On two of the issues with the highest profile — expanding charter schools beyond St. Louis and Kansas City to throughout the state and coming up with a fix for the “Turner case,” which provides options for students living in unaccredited school districts — Dieckhaus said good ideas were proposed, but various groups couldn’t put aside their differences to come up with an acceptable compromise.

But in Jefferson City, issues often move forward by inches until they cross the finish line, and on charter schools, Dieckhaus (right) wasn’t ready to give this session’s outcome a flunking grade.

“To focus on the bill’s failure is the wrong way to look at it,” he said. “We hadn’t passed a charter bill out of the Missouri House since charters were authorized in the ’90s. It really shows we’re making progress on the issue, and it’s something we could run all the way through the process next year.”

State Sen. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg, Dieckhaus’ counterpart in the Senate, noted that two education bills were sent to Gov. Jay Nixon for his signature.

One, SB54, deemed the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act, provides greater protection for children who allege sexual abuse by a teacher or other school employee. The other, SB81, bolsters fine arts education.

And he shares the optimistic view that issues that did not make it out of the General Assembly this time around may win final passage in the future.

“We found out some things that would work,” Pearce ( left) said, “and we found out some things that would not work. When it comes to education, people are not bashful. We hear from a lot of folks back home. I have to look at policies that affect everybody, and it’s not an easy task at times.”

CHARTER SCHOOLS

From the start of Missouri’s venture into charter schools — publicly funded schools that operate independently of any district and are not subject to a district’s policies and procedures — they have been allowed only in St. Louis and Kansas City. Going into the legislative session, there was a lot of talk about expanding them statewide.

Coupled with the talk of expansion was a call for more accountability for charters. Some have gone under because of poor financial management, and few have shown markedly better student achievement. The charter bill that got the most attention was HB473, sponsored by Rep. Tishaura Jones, D-St. Louis. It passed in the House in late April, 86-70, but got caught in the crush of legislation at the end of the session and was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.

Pearce said the bill appealed to a lot of people, despite its failure to win final approval.

“There were some things we could all agree on,” he said. “One, there needs to be more accountability with our charter schools. Some have done a fantastic job, others have not been as good. This was a positive step. There probably is some need for some expansion.

“For the most part, in outstate Missouri, this was really a non-issue because they have not had charters, and there’s not really a compelling need for them. Those who are really involved in the educational community have seen some of the problems they have had and say, ‘We really don’t need that.’”

Adds Dieckhaus:

“The bill got over to the Senate side late, but ultimately we had a couple of differing viewpoints as to what needed to be included. We just ran out of time. But I think a lot of legislators who voted ‘no’ this time around are willing to take another look at the issue. I think there’s a fear of the unknown — not necessarily a fear of charter schools but a question of how they would affect individual districts.”

Amber Simpson, head of the board of the Missouri Charter Public School Association, considers the debate “an ongoing exercise. We just need to keep on doing what we’ve been doing and continue to build relationships with stakeholders in the community.”

She, too, cited competition from other bills, like local control of the St. Louis police force, as one reason the charter bill stalled, even though there was more legislative support than backers have seen in the past.

“It’s really working from an educational perspective,” Simpson said, “that we are public schools and we exist because the public is asking for more options.”

Joe Knodell of the Missouri Education Reform Council said he thought some opposition came from teachers unions and others who thought an expansion of charters would take some of their power away. He also sees an element of “the fear of the unknown” in parts of the state, even in regions where charters are unlikely to take root.

“We support charter school expansion statewide,” he said. “But you had people watering it down from what we would have liked to see. We would like to see local districts allowed to form their own charter schools or make their own schools into charter-like schools.”

Knodell said he also saw the expansion of charters as part of the fix for another knotty education problem in Missouri — the Turner case.

UNACCREDITED DISTRICTS, LEGAL REMEDIES

Widespread talk of the Turner case began last summer, when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that students who live in a district whose schools are unaccredited, like St. Louis or Riverview Gardens, have the legal right to transfer to accredited schools in the same or an adjacent county. The sending district must pay the tuition, the court said, and the receiving district must accept the students.

(Read more from the Beacon about the case here.)

But the high court also sent the case back to St. Louis County Circuit Court, where it began with a suit filed by families whose students had transferred to the Clayton school district. There, a judge put off new action until May 31, apparently expecting the legislature to come up with a fix.

Despite a lot of talk about the issue and legislation that was filed as HB763, which would have given receiving districts more discretion on what students would have to be accepted, the bill did not pass.

Its sponsor, state Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, said he wanted to make sure that students who live in failing school districts have more options, but he also wanted to give more leeway to the receiving districts. Coming up with an acceptable compromise proved impossible, he said.

Now, Stream (right) added, “we don’t know what’s going to happen. There are different opinions. Some think the court will say that since the legislature didn’t do it, we’re going to crack down and say to students in the city that they’re allowed to go to any county district and the city school district will have to pay for it. That will really hurt county districts.

“Others think the court wasn’t as clear on that as they were on other parts of its ruling, and they think the lower court isn’t as inclined to be that hard on county districts, which aren’t at fault. They may come up with their own solution.”

Knodell’s group pushed for a solution that let students in unaccredited districts transfer to county districts. He said the bill did not fail from a lack of trying.

“I’ll give everybody an ‘A’ for effort,” he said. “We met with several organizations, but we never could come to an agreement about what needs to be done. So it looks like it’s back in the court’s court.”

The state school board, which meets in Jefferson City this week, has no power to act on its own, but Turner is expected to be a topic of discussion. Meanwhile, only two students remain in the Clayton schools from families who were the original plaintiffs. They will remain in the district this fall, said Clayton spokesman Chris Tennill.

“We have a pretty good track record in the three years that this has been going on,” he said, “so that we can work things out that the kids’ education is not impacted by the disagreement that the grownups are having.”

I was hoping to see what she thought about the legions of poor children who KIPP, YES Prep, St. Louis Language Immersion School, City Academy, Loyola Academy, Achievement First, SEED, and the many other schools in Missouri and around the country that are managing to educate at rates equal to or greater than their more affluent counterparts. I thought perhaps sharing stories about the many children who I taught during my years in the classroom who were as low income as children in America generally get, but who were still achieving at exceptionally high levels, might take her back to 2002 when she knew it was possible. But alas, the Old Ravitch was no where to be found. Instead all I got were responses about teachers not being able to do their job because poor kids had too many other problems.

The “poor kids excuse” isn’t the only one that Ravitch and the other anti-school reformers use, just the one that irritates me the most. As Jonathon Alter points out in his June 3 article on Bloomberg News, the anti-reformers, currently led by Ravitch, offer excuse after excuse as to why poor children are failing. You can read his excellent list of the anti-reformers excuses here for yourself as well has his points debunking them. However, if you are looking for a list of solutions from Ravitch and those who still have the stomach to “follow” her, you wont find them.

In OPINION SHAPER’s entry by Carl Peterson on 6.5.11, the question is asked, “Is public education dead?”

Mr. Peterson states that Missouri education legislation (since 2002) is “saddled with school choice”, the implication being that choice is a bad thing. As a parent, wouldn’t you think that a choice of educational options was a bad thing? [NOTE: I will not address his comment on vouchers in Missouri as they are unconstitutional in this state.] By now, we know that we all learn differently, which is to say that we do not all learn the same way. So, why do we still cling to an archaic system? The ‘One-size-fits-all traditional public school model?

His opinion is that it’s a bad development that children, who are now trapped in unaccredited school districts, can now cross a border into a neighboring accredited district and attain access to a proper education. Why is this bad? Who is it bad for? It is certainly NOT bad for the children. Should not children be the focus and barometer by which we guide our ship?

I appreciate Mr. Peterson’s concern that we need to improve the schools we have and support them. The argument that the children who do not cross the border, for whatever reason, are left behind and will suffer is worthy of consideration, however, those who avail themselves of an immediate solution will benefit IMMEDIATELY. This is GOOD.

He argues that charter schools are a false hope for at-risk children and that charters do not accept the hardest to teach and the most disruptive. Not true. Some specify exactly these demographics. In fact, the best charter schools in the country rank at the top level as the top traditional schools. Just because not all charters are up to the level they need to be does not mean that we should shut them all down. Instead, we need to hold them accountable to the same standards, as our Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has called for. He also calls for charters to specialize in serving the most under-served: those with learning disabilities and those who are at-risk and who cannot be educated in the traditional public school environment. These are the children Mr. Peterson expresses concern about, rightly so. So, we should learn from examples in other cities and states that have guided at-risk students to academic attainment, in spite of their home environment, their financial disparity, etc.

I challenge his allegation that the real problem is that the charter-school/voucher debate has distracted us all from solving the real problems in education. I would suggest quite the opposite. I suggest that the failure over the last 3 decades, while doubling what we spend, to improve public education brought about the search for alternatives. Among the options discussed, and tested, across the country are not only charter schools and vouchers (though vouchers are unconstitutional in MO), but performance pay, transparency, professional development, virtual learning/education, home-schooling, open enrollment, and of course teacher tenure, to name a few options we have to work with.

Mr. Peterson’s fear that now “…St. Charles County public schools must receive students from unaccredited districts from St. Louis County,” reflects the concerns of other area counties as well: that their schools will be absolutely overflowing with transfer students. This fear fails to take into account the fact that most parents, and their children, would prefer to remain in their own community. We see that in other states when borders were opened for enrollment, there was approximately a 5% transfer (Arkansas). If there are good schools in a neighborhood, the schools will fill their seats. In the meanwhile, let the neighboring schools fill to capacity.

There is no “agenda is to raid the public treasure chest to fund…private schools.” Does Mr. Peterson recognize that the private schools are able to appropriately educate children often for LESS than what we spend on public schools? The cost per child in SLPS is almost double that of its private school counterparts in the same area. The public could actually cut costs by placing children in those schools….but again, vouchers are not constitutional in the state of Missouri…

We would all be better off by embracing those changes that have been vetted and shown success rather than all of us collectively screaming: “Before vouchers and charter schools kill public education, you will have to climb over my bloody, broken body.” I would suggest that solution borders on insanity.

The bill passed after much debate and an amendment was adopted to limit who could sponsor charter schools in provisionally accredited districts.  The bill expands sponsorship in unaccredited districts and allows school boards only in fully accredited districts to sponsor charter schools.

The bill also greatly increases the accountability standards on charter schools as well.  Provisions in HB 473 allow the State Board of Education to close a school and suspend a sponsor for poor performance or financial management.  Sponsors must also apply to be allowed to open a charter school and all current sponsors must reapply.  Reporting requirements on student performance and financial management were also increased.

The bill must still pass one more procedural vote, called “third reading”, before moving to the Senate for consideration.  This vote could take place as early as Tuesday.

Also, in the House Education Committee, two Senate Bills were loaded up with amendments and voted out the the House floor for consideration.  These moves are typical toward the end of the legislative session.  The heavily amended bills are called omnibus bills.

Included in the two omnibus bills are provisions to replace teacher tenure with multi-year contracts and increase options for virtual schooling across the state.  The  bills would also create mechanisms for student choice and transfers, both in the unaccredited district and outside of the district,  as a result of the Turner v. Clayton Missouri Supreme Court opinion.

These bills now move to the House floor for debate.

The education debate pivots on the individual right of each child to access appropriate high-quality education.  We, as a people and as a nation set this as a national value and inarguable right.  Regardless of budget cuts, teacher lay-offs and all the other administrative and educational issues, the fact remains that there is a strong correlation between lack of educational attainment and the likelihood of incarceration.  In one state, almost 70% of inmates do not have a high school diploma.

To accomplish our goal of providing each child a high-quality and appropriate education, it is critical to recognize that all children do not excel in typical classroom environments and it is our imperative to provide sufficient options to parents who CEAM believes should be empowered to make the best choice about for their child’s academic future.

Here are a few recent headlines highlighting current efforts at reform in Missouri’s education:

• School districts look to legislature for help on unaccredited districts in Missouri.
• Missouri garners national attention with legislative activity over charter school expansion and governance.

A bill reforming the teacher tenure system in Missouri passed out of the Senate General Laws Committee this week.  The bill, similar to the one stalled in the House Education Committee, would end automatic teacher tenure after five years on the job and replace it with multi- year contracts capped at three years.

Also, bills using school choice as a solution to the Turner v. Clayton case are being heard in the House Education committee.  Although remanded to lower court, the Missouri Supreme Court was clear in their opinion in the case that students in unaccredited districts have the right to transfer to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county.  The unaccredited district must pay the tuition and transportation costs for the student to attend the accredited district.

A bill setting up parameters for students to transfer to accredited school districts under the ruling was heard in the House Education Committee.  The bill would set a process for students in unaccredited districts to apply for transfers.  The bill also sets parameters for the receiving districts to accept students based on how many available seats they have.  In hearing testimony it was estimated that the neighboring districts could accommodate 1,400 children.

Also, in the House Education Committee, a bill more focused on providing more options in the city for children was heard.  This bill also sets up a mechanism for intra-district transfers, but in addition includes a voucher program and provisions allowing an accredited district to operate a charter school in an unaccredited district.

The 2011 legislative session ends on May 13.

The compromise amendment was crafted after discussions with multiple stakeholder groups both in the education establishment and the education reform movement.  The main points of the bill, should the amendment be adopted, are as follows:

• Charter schools would be allowed in unaccredited districts under the committee substitute provisions of HB 473, expanding sponsorship to non- profits, community colleges and the newly created Missouri Charter Public School Commission.
• Charter schools could open in provisionally accredited districts after the district is labeled provisionally accredited for three years.  Charter schools in these districts would only be sponsored by “quality sponsors”, as defined by a rule of the State Board of Education, or by the school boards in the district.
• In fully accredited districts only the school boards of the district could sponsor charter schools
• All accountability measures from the committee substitute for HB 473 remain in place.  These measures include a provision allowing the State Board of Education to close a poor performing charter school and a requirement that sponsors apply to the state board to be allowed to sponsor a charter school.

Legislation that would allow charter schools to be sponsored by any school board in the state was also debated, and held over, on the floor of the State Senate last week as well.  This bill increases some reporting requirements on charters and does not increase the scope of who can sponsor a charter school outside of the local district’s school board.  An amendment to the bill that would allow the Mayor of St. Louis to sponsor charter schools was offered by Senator Jim Lembke, but then withdrawn after it was clear that it would be filibustered.

Both bills are still on the legislative calendars in both chambers and could be brought back up for discussion any time the chambers are in session.

• expanding charter schools statewide from the present areas of Kansas City and St. Louis;
• creating a statewide authority to approve and oversee public charter schools;
• clarifying criteria by which the State Board of Education can hold such authorities accountable for performance;
• providing adequate resources for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to support its charter school responsibilities;
• closing chronically low-performing charter schools by creating standards of academic performance;
• equalizing resources between charter and other public schools by making charters eligible for all state-funding streams.

Leaders and educators around the country, including President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, have voiced support for the charter school concept, which is designed to provide parents with the best options available for the proper education of their children.  As legislators in various states recognize how charter schools elevate public school education, the goal of helping individual parents and students receive optimal education can be better achieved.

This is a significant problem.  In the St. Louis metropolitan area, the numbers are even starker, with more than 3,000 of the 7,067 graduates who enrolled in state-funded schools needing to ‘catch up’ academically with their fellow students.

Much of this has to do with the concept of ‘social promotion,’ by which students are passed on to the next grade in order to keep them ‘on track’ with their colleagues, regardless of whether they actually comprehend what is being taught in classes for their grade.

This is a comparatively new phenomenon in American educational history, following in the wake of the federal “No Child Left Behind” edict of the past decade.  Unfortunately, a child not adequately prepared to advance to the next grade will suffer consequences down the road when he or she enters the job market as an adult.  In our increasingly competitive global marketplace, such ‘social promotions’ amount to demotions for the children and, ultimately, for our society.

To fully realize the potential of each child, it is imperative that every student advance at a pace appropriate for his or her skill level.  To ignore this reality is to ignore the ultimate results.

The best teachers have an innate ability to motivate and guide students in the classroom and to mold their behavior for future success in many walks of life.  By their example and their work ethic they justly retain their jobs year after year.  The practice of awarding teachers lifetime job security through tenure, however, makes no more sense than it would in the private sector.

Many other states, such as Florida, Idaho, Indiana, New Jersey and Nevada, are moving toward rewarding a teacher tenure based on student performance or even phasing tenure out altogether.  Following President Obama’s exhortation in 2010 to measure and reward effective teaching, a challenge he reiterated in his 2011 State of the Union address, anti-tenure bills are being addressed in numerous states in an attempt to examine the rationale behind tenure.

Tenure laws originated at the beginning of the 20^th century to protect teachers from favoritism or other prejudicial decisions.  While the concept of tenure was noble and guarded professional educators from discriminatory policies, like any long-standing policies it has become all too often lax in application for educators who don’t take the time to evaluate their personnel thoroughly.  Slipping student standards in the past few decades have reminded everyone of the importance of good teachers and, conversely, the damage that ineffectual teachers can wreak.

Tenure reform is designed to help reward superior teaching performance, provide better education for all students and emphasize the value of positive reinforcement for positive effort.  That’s a valuable lesson for everyone.

This week the committee continued hearings on school choice  minded bills by hearing a bill that would expand charter public schools statewide in Missouri.  The bill, sponsored by St. Louis City Representative Tishaura Jones, also expands the entities that can sponsor a school.  In addition, the legislation also increases accountability on charter schools, and their sponsors, by allowing the State Board of Education to close a school for poor performance.  The bill also creates a  state authorizing board to oversee schools and their sponsors.

A scholarship tax credit bill for children with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) was also heard this week by the committee.  The bill is almost identical to a bill filed during the 2008 legislative session and would allow for tax credits to businesses and individuals for donating to certain scholarship programs.  These scholarship programs would be administered by the Department of Economic Development and the scholarships would be open to anyone with an IEP.

Many states have scholarship tax credit programs which are used by parents who feel their current local district school is not meeting the needs of their child.  State Representative Dwight Scharnhorst is once again sponsoring the legislation.

The education reform train shows no signs of slowing down.  Next week the committee will likely hear legislation to reform the tenure and pay structure of teachers in the state of Missouri and bills to curb the practice of social promotion.

Their well-founded fear is that hundreds, if not thousands, of children from the 2 nearby unaccredited school districts, St. Louis Public Schools and Riverview Gardens, will apply to their schools, and they will have no choice but to accept them.  So, among many solutions available, such as charter school expansion (including virtual charters and charters dedicated to special needs), open enrollment, virtual schooling, scholarship tax credits, to name a few options that could expand choice and parental options in the city and alleviate some of the demand that will assuredly flood the county if the courts uphold the decision, they want to go back and change the law so they are not legally obliged to accept any child outside their districts who applies.  Badda-bing~simple solution, eh?!

What is most concerning is that 10 other St. Louis county districts are facing accreditation problems as well.  Merely fortifying the borders of individual school districts will not improve St. Louis city and county’s development, nor does it improve our state.  Missourians would be best served by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality, appropriate and safe learning opportunities so they can achieve their maximum potential, regardless of zip code, race, socio-economic status and even, and especially, those with disabilities of many varied kinds.

Increasing the quality, quantity and access to appropriate educational environments will raise the tide of Missouri’s children and their futures.  Slamming the doors to access will surely sink the ship.

• Teacher pay for performance in Florida
• Indiana is drawing a line in the sand to see an end to social promotion in the classroom
• Teachers’ union considering sweeping reforms in Wisconsin
• What Tennessee has learned from Florida’s last decade of education reforms; this article refers to a newly released study “Lessons for Tennessee from Florida’s Education Revolution”.  Says Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the Foundation for Educational Choice:

“When true reform occurs and parents are given the freedom to choose the education that’s best for their children, students are able to break through every barrier and truly excel.”

Parents just want to see their children reach their full potential.  The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri believes that parents should be empowered with access to the best educational options for their child.  We also believe in parents’ ability, right and obligation to make these decisions, and that in the presence of quality options parents indeed make the best choices for their children.

There has been much discussion of the Turner v. Clayton school district case reviewed by the Missouri Supreme Court last year.  While the judges handed the case back down to a lower court for further review, major discussions about the future viability of St. Louis Public Schools abound.

The decision of the court, as pointed out in “U-Turner: Proven systems to enable school reform are close to home,” states that the law, “in plain language,” does indeed allow those residing in unaccredited school districts in Missouri to attend a school of their choice in the same or an adjoining county.  Therefore, a mass exodus from the SLPS is conceivable if hundreds, or even thousands, of city residents enroll their children in schools outside of the district, calling on their statutory right, and sending the tuition bills to SLPS.

This situation begs the question, how can SLPS improve in the face of budget cut-backs if city residents call upon their statutory rights and simply leave, thus allowing the funding to follow those children to their schools of choice outside of the district?

The possibility exists that through innovative and proven reforms St. Louis Public Schools can offer solutions of school choice within their district and maintain their student population.  School choice options like open enrollment, charter school expansion, improved teacher quality through professional development and forms of merit pay that offer incentives to high-quality teachers to serve the urban core should all be on the table.  Kelvin Adams is already working toward district sponsored charter schools and he is expected to hold them highly accountable for their performance.

St. Louis city needs to aggressively pursue options that will keep students and families together in their community in Saint Louis.  If they do not, they will indeed see an exodus at the crossroad of school choice and the death of their communities.

Ohio, Indianapolis, Washington D.C., and many other states are contributing to what is being referred to by many as an education revolution through charter school expansion and development, professional development, virtual education options, open enrollment and so many more reform measures.  Teachers and administrators struggle to keep up with all the change.  With each success comes greater demand for reform and change.  It is a bit much for some [teachers/administrators] to handle, according to Mike Thomas in “Teacher merit pay: Show me the money!” But he also points out that even during this time of economic cutbacks that Florida has shown an upward trend in academic performance for the last decade they’ve been implementing reforms.  Thomas suggests that our education system could lose many teachers if our economy advances such that the country really increases jobs because of these changes, as they will be enticed by competitive salaries in the business world.  He also suggests that would be an exciting time to enter teaching, provided the profession is truly offered competitive wages in exchange for excellence.

So, what does that say to Missourians?   We must not fear change as it is truly the only constant.  Given we recognize that we must improve our academic attainment and outcomes for Missouri’s children, then change is necessary.  We can learn from the successes of other states who have initiated successful innovations already.  We are also poised to potentially join the leadership of the education reform movement, provided we actually do our home-work and study up.

I wonder how many St. Louisans know someone-a neighbor, a friend, a family member-doing just what this woman did?  This author knows more than one family who has lied about their zip code.  Fortunately,  my zip code is pretty good:  63144 is home to a very good school district and I have two children there.  It’s a good thing too, since I cannot afford the parochial school tuition or another private school option.  From the above referenced posting on MERR:

As Dan Domenech of the American Association of School Administrators told NPR last week, “The correlation between student achievement and Zip code is 100 percent. The quality of education you receive is entirely predictable based on where you live.” And where you live in America today depends largely on income and race.

Just as Rosa Parks refused to move her seat on the bus, Kelley Williams-Bolar would not take the public school offered to her zip code.  Rosa just wanted a ride on the bus.  Ms. Williams-Bolar just wanted her daughter’s to have the same opportunity as those residing in the zip code she lied about.

It’s great that people across our country are asking questions about education and that not only are more exposes and documentaries coming out BUT people are actually watching them.   Missouri legislators watched The Lottery last week.  The Cartel was screened last week in St. Louis, and Waiting for Superman is making the rounds too.  The St. Louis Beacon shares what people are saying about the issues discussed in the movies and how Missouri is impacted.

People should be outraged that an American Mother was jailed for choosing a better life for her kids.  Missouri needs to ensure that quality options exist for all Missouri children, regardless of the family zip code.  We are well past assigning seats in the back of the bus.

During the week, thousands of school choice organizations, teachers, students and leaders gathered across the country to build public support for school choice initiatives, bringing to light the need for more children in our country to benefit from the promise of educational freedom.

Did you know?

• Missouri is the only state with geographical restrictions on charter schools (charters schools are only allowed in Kansas City and St. Louis)
• 2 public school districts in Missouri have lost their accreditation: St. Louis Public Schools and Riverview Gardens.
• 10 school districts are only provisionally accredited (including the Kansas City public school district)

From National School Choice Week:

• Missouri does not have any private school choice programs.
• Only 75.3% of Missouri’s children graduate from high school. (America’s Promise Alliance)

“The additional Medicaid costs attributable to dropouts (compared to the cost if they had graduated high school) is $234 million per year, of which $90 million comes from Missouri general funds.” “A Missouri dropout is twice as likely to be incarcerated as a high school graduate.” (2006, Foundation For Educational Choice)

From “Waiting for Superman”, Social Action Campaign:

• Among 30 developed countries, the U.S. is ranked 25^th in math and 21^st in science.
• In 2010, 64% of schools in Missouri did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards.
• Only 25% of Missouri students who take the ACTs are prepared for college (based on ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks in English, Math, Reading and Science).
• In Missouri schools with the highest levels of poverty, teachers who are not considered highly qualified teach 16.5% of core classes, according to Missouri’s 2010 Public Schools Accountability report.  By comparison, in the schools with the lowest levels of poverty, only 6.5% of core classes are taught by teachers not considered highly qualified.

In Missouri, state legislators and education reform organizations introduced four pieces of legislation. The areas of focus are:

• Expanding charter schools
• Ending social promotion
• Creating a scholarship tax credit program for special needs children
• Reforming teacher tenure

This legislative session promises to be very active in the area of expanding high quality choices in education. As always, CEAM will work to keep you informed.

While success rates of charters are debated, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan calls upon the Charter School movement leadership to meet the scrutiny of the nation through self-governance and by establishing the very highest standards of excellence, and then holding themselves accountable to these standards.  He calls for charter schools to not tolerate poor performance amongst themselves as this does the most damage to their image and slows expansion and advancement.  See CEAM’s report from the National Charter School Association’s annual conference in Chicago this past spring.

Among his comments during his call to action to charter school leaders was that the best charter schools in the country also rank among the best in the nation.

Among concerns of opponents is the threat of privatization of education.  However, it is critical to understand that charter schools are public schools.  CEAM produced a video on how charters function, found in our media center (Academie Lafayette, in Kansas City).  The structure of a charter allows for greater autonomy and allows for school leadership to adapt more quickly to student needs, however they are expected to meet the same standard as their traditional public school alternative.  Those who sponsor charter schools have a great obligation to monitor the progress and success of the school as well.

Supporters of charter schools in Missouri suggest that because charter schools are only allowed in Kansas City or Saint Louis, the best operators of the highest performing charter schools cannot be attracted to Missouri.  Expansion of charters throughout the state would increase educational options for those seeking alternatives in our great state, and could potentially serve many who do not excel in typical classroom environments.

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/all-reform-news/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/news/charter-school-scholar-caroline http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/news/charter-school-scholar-caroline#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:38:26 +0000 admin 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.