The conference also served as a changing of the guard as Dr. Howard Fuller retired from the Board Chairmanship and Washington, D.C. reform activist Kevin Chavous moved into the Board Chair. Also, it was the first symposium for new BAEO President Kenneth Campbell. He was selected to follow Gerrard Robinson, who was appointed the Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Virginia. One of the sessions at the conference featured both new leaders where they discussed their vision for the organization. The main topic was the expansion of BAEO, which will focus on a strategy of expanding into southern states where many African Americans are without education options. Both also made a commitment to increasing membership in the urban areas where BAEO currently has chapters.

While the scorecards and comments for each state’s application will not be available until April, not placing in the top 16 out of 41 applications is a clear sign that Missouri’s application did not go far enough toward implementing quality reforms. Noticeably absent from Missouri’s application was a push for expanding charter schools outside of the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts. While leaving charter expansion out of the application may not have been the “determining factor” in not making the finalists, ten states that were among the finalists moved to lift or raise caps on charters, or had strong charter laws already in place. Also, missing from Missouri’s application was teacher tenure reform, the main reason the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did not award Missouri a $250,000 grant to help with the application process.

Missouri’s limitations on charters, allowing them only in the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts, is clearly an artificial cap that Secretary Duncan has repeatedly said would put a state at a disadvantage for winning the much needed funding. State Senator Scott Rupp and State Representative Scott Dieckhaus have sponsored legislation that would significantly expand charter schools throughout the state. These bills have yet to receive hearings in committee, but discussion on these bills will likely now be held by the Education Committees in both chambers when they return from Spring Break.

Missouri Education Commissioner, Dr. Chris NiCastro, has already stated that the state will apply for round two of the program. Those applications are due June 1st and winners will be announced in September.

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

One of the most glaring issues I see just walking down the hallways at my school is just how many students are disorganized! Students will be carrying towers of books with random papers dangling precariously from every corner; their lockers will be endless pits of overdue library books, missing assignments, and stale Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. While I’m sure this condition is common among all adolescents in the United States, I think there is something to be said about making sure these students aren’t just being disorganized by “choice.” As a teacher, I feel that it is my responsibility as a role model to make sure my students know how to keep their folders organized and how to use a planner. I spent time last semester setting up individual class folders with a few of my students; I also take time during every class period to make sure they write their homework in their planners for the night. Writing homework in their planners, however, is just one piece of getting these kids more organized. I also need to teach them to check their planners as they pack up their lockers and when they are at home. Finally, getting my students organized isn’t just a one-time activity—it’s an ongoing process that needs to be reinforced and revamped over time.

I also notice that many students do not know what a teacher means when we say go home and “study” for a test or quiz. I know I need to do a better job demystifying what exactly “studying” is and how my students can do it effectively. If I think about how many of my students have a long history of struggling in school, I can’t assume that they know what kinds of studying works best for them. I know that when I was in college, I had to make flashcards for myself or use obscene amounts of highlighter to go over my notes. Now that I’ve graduated from college and am pursuing a graduate degree, I know that I still find myself wishing I could learn through osmosis; nevertheless, I can certainly use my own experiences and frustrations in trying to “study” for an exam and give my students more explicit instruction in what studying involves. I want to make it my goal to do more than just hand out a study guide and expect my students to go over it on their own. I want to find out more about what study habits will work for my individual students and try to talk with them individually.

While it’s no easy task to take on a disorganized student with poor study habits, I think it is well worth the effort—especially considering all that is at stake. By directly teaching our kids good study habits and organizational skills, we are setting them up for success far beyond the classroom. Furthermore, if we involve their parents and family members, we can develop a fully functional support system for a student. For example, at my school the seventh grade piloted a program called “AVID”—or Advancement through Individual Determination, and it is essentially a program designed to teach students study skills, organizational skills, and how to be a good citizen. I know one seventh grade teacher who is taking her AVID students’ organizational skills to a new level and is currently planning an end-of-year community service project. I think that my school is incredibly fortunate to have access to such a program that is not only teaching our students to be organized, but gives them opportunities to see how being organized is beneficial outside of school.

Our students have plenty of work ahead of them between figuring out how to improve their reading scores, their math abilities, and their knowledge in other core content areas. However, I sincerely believe that by concentrating our efforts in teaching study and organization skills, we teachers can truly impact our students’ achievement, both inside and outside of the classroom.

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.

My principal began our technology meeting by stating how, while she appreciates our efforts to stand up in front of our classes every day for seventy minutes and talk at our students, eventually this teaching method leads to burn out. She brought technology in as a way to put teachers in the role of a facilitator, not a director, and thus give us more energy to focus on other important things going on in our classroom. For instance, she gave an example of how she created stations in her room using a listening center in order to have time to work with a small group of struggling readers. In her days as a teacher, my principal used the oldest of VHS tapes and the most stubborn of computers to enhance her lessons. As I listened to my principal, I began to think of how the young, new teachers at our school have more experience using technology in their personal lives than in the classroom. I also thought of how if our nation wants to attract more high quality, young teachers into our schools for the long-term, then perhaps more access to technology could be a piece of the puzzle.

This is not to say that teachers aren’t already purposeful in how they use technology. In fact, I know of many teachers within our school make use of technology in interesting and relevant ways. For example, a seventh grade communication arts teacher regularly uses an LCD projector to show his lessons as Power Point presentations. This kind of multimedia presentation not only helps him to stay focused on a lesson objective, but it also helps to keep students engaged. He was able to upload a video of the Hindenburg zeppelin exploding directly into his Power Point and immediately provide the students a context for the story they were about to read. Also, I know a fifth grade teacher who created a blog for her students to use as they participated in an independent reading group about the book Holes by Louis Sachar. This teacher posted weekly prompts for the students to respond to and gave them time in class to visit the blog. What I can imagine, however, is how transformative an impact more updated technology like Smart Boards, laptops, and LCD projectors can have on students and teachers.

Given that so many of our students can text faster than they can read, and that teachers are often found carrying a Blackberry alongside their lesson plans, it makes sense to have the latest and greatest technologies within our schools. If you already incorporate blogs, Facebook, and webcams into your daily routine, it’s not very encouraging to then have to deal with VHS tapes from the ‘80s and chalkboards from the ‘70s. Perhaps one reason the technology is being underused at our schools is because it is outdated and inaccessible to today’s generation of teachers and students; then again, perhaps it is not being used because teachers aren’t sure of how to effectively incorporate it into their lesson plans and it is so expensive. Regardless of the reason for underused technology, I am confident that if our schools had access to upgraded technology and ongoing support in how to use it, then student learning and teacher satisfaction will undoubtedly increase.

For more information about promoting the use of technology in education, I found an interesting site through the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL).

]]> http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/teachers-blog/putting-technology-to-use/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/main/center-disease-control-study-shows http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/main/center-disease-control-study-shows#comments Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:04:09 +0000 doroian http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/?p=1236 On December 18, 2009, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released their national autism prevalence report. The most important and shocking fact confirmed in the report is that the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in the United States is now 1 percent of the population, or one in 110 of children 8 years of age in 2006, a 57 percent increase in 4 years. The Autism Society of America has been talking about this increase in the prevalence of autism for years, but it is only now, for the first time ever, that the government is also acknowledging the real increase in autism and validating the impact this condition has on individuals, families and their communities.

Early identification and intervention is of critical importance, because autism symptoms are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, and therefore the continued lag in identification needs to be addressed as a public health concern so that children in the U.S. receive optimal early intervention services. Children in 2006 were being diagnosed only five months earlier on average than those in 2002, thus still missing the critical years of early intervention. Increases in prevalence among minority population were significant, with a 91 percent increase in Hispanic children and 41 percent in black non-Hispanic. There was a 55 percent increase in White non-Hispanic. Also, prevalence in boys was found to be 4.5 times higher in males than females. The report states one in 70 boys and one in 315 females have autism. The increasing numbers have long-term economic costs to the country, as autism is a chronic medical condition affecting people across the lifespan.

The Autism Society calls on the U.S. government to address the pressing need for community-based services to ensure a better quality of life for people with autism and their families and to increase funding for research into what factors put people at risk and treatments that will mitigate the severest medical symptoms affecting people with this chronic medical condition. Lee Grossman, Autism Society President and CEO has wondered about the government’s response time to this important problem: “The question still remains: How bad does it have to get before families receive appropriate lifespan services?”

The community members who attended our holiday party included the Saint Louis mayor, Francis Slay, as well as our superintendent of school, Dr. Kelvin Adams, as well as the CEO of Build-A-Bear workshops, Maxine Clark (who also happens to be our sitting executive of the Teach For America-St. Louis board of directors). They all shared their firm support of what we are doing in our classroom, as well as our long-term vision as an organization—that “one day, all children will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.” These community leaders, as well as other private individual Teach For America supporters, all make regular visits to our classrooms and help out with classroom projects as needed. For example, my friend who teaches fourth grade enlisted the help of one of our community sponsors to help convert an old balcony at her school into a new learning patio. This community sponsor put her in touch with an architect, as well as other funding sources that will be able to make my friend’s school project a reality. Another friend of mine, who teaches the fifth grade, got her sponsor to help fund a school bus to take her students to the Junior Achievement Biztown in nearby Chesterfield. It is truly remarkable to realize how much schools benefit from such steadfast support of its community members.

As I think more about how much our schools, and the Teach For America organization, rely on the support of local communities, I realize how critical it is that more community members find their way into our classrooms. Much like Teach For America brings a group of predominantly young college graduates into struggling school districts and makes the educational inequalities all the more apparent to us, we need to get more community members into our schools so they too can share in the successes and struggles of their schools. I think it is far too easy for all of us to fall into the trap of thinking that the students in the inner city schools are “someone else’s child,” or that public schools aren’t our problem because our student goes to a private school in the county. The bottom line is that these children, my students, are all of our responsibilities and it is our duty to make sure we support their education as much as possible. Therefore, it is imperative that more community members come into our schools, realize the inequalities that exist, and then become inspired to make the change that so many of our Saint Louis sponsors and leaders are working towards.

In addition to all of this, it is by no means only the community’s responsibility to come into the schools and work to create change. I know all schools can do a better job of opening their doors to the community and facilitating increased involvement, whether that is by advertising school events to the public, or simply by hosting an open house night for everyone to attend—and not just parents and students. I think it would be great to have more programs in Saint Louis like Ready Readers who recruit local community members to go read once a week for a year in area classrooms. This kind of long-term investment is what it will take to cultivate relationships between communities and schools, as well as promote academic performance in some of our lowest performing districts. Given all the community involvement that I have seen already within Teach For America classrooms, as well as other community organizations, I am confident that we will be able to continue fostering such relationships. Our students deserve it, our future demands it.

My first visit of the day was to a middle school on the north side of Saint Louis. I observed a fellow Teach For America corps member teaching a low level reading class using Louis Sachar’s Sideways Stories from Wayside School. Her students were using a graphic organizer to both check their comprehension and visualize what they read. In addition to this purposeful graphic organizer, the students had access to “visiting books” from the local libraries. This teacher checked out titles ranging from When a Mouse Eats a Cookie to Stellaluna so that her lower level readers could practice skills with accessible books. I saw how excitedly her students grabbed these picture books from her shelves and I knew this was a strategy I wanted to adopt in my own classroom. By bringing visiting books to my students, I will not only help them to build their literacy skills, but also help develop their love of reading.

I continued my day with a stop at a middle school on the opposite end of the city. I observed a teacher who facilitates a Read 180 classroom, which is a research-based reading intervention program used by schools across the country. As I sat in on this second class, I saw that each student was invested in his or her own personal reading goal for the semester and had established specific page goals for his or her novel. Specifically, this teacher had them use post-it notes to set benchmarks for how many pages they will read by any given day. Once students finish a book, they add a link to their classroom book chain and complete a reader response form. I was amazed at how each student knew what they were supposed to be doing at all times during the classroom, including during independent reading time and transitions. This teacher also not only has clear expectations for what her students should be doing, but also makes sure that her students know how they are performing at all times. She established student-run tracking charts around the room to document the number of books they read, the number of computer-based assessments they completed, as well as how well each class did in terms of maintaining a positive learning environment. Overall, this teacher’s routines and procedures created a structured classroom where students could function independently and productively.

Finally, I ended my day by observing a fifth grade teacher at the newly opened KIPP: Inspire school close to the downtown. KIPP, if you haven’t heard of this charter school program yet, was founded by two Teach For America alums, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin, as a system of schools that would dramatically impact student achievement. To give you a brief idea of what KIPP schools are like, I looked up an article on the Washington Post website, which described the schools as such: “a system of 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. school days, mandatory summer school, calls to teachers at home with homework questions, visits to student homes, emphasis on character and behavior, principal power to hire and fire teachers, teacher cooperation and training and an elaborate system of student sanctions and rewards that produced in their first two schools in Houston and the South Bronx the highest test scores in their areas.” Needless to say, the kinds of teacher practices I saw taking place in KIPP: Inspire were regimented, yet purposeful and student-oriented. For example, the teacher I saw lead her students in clapping out the syllabication of words and setting aside significant portions of time for students to read independently. I was impressed at how clear expectations at KIPP creates a culture where students are genuinely invested in their learning and want to give their best effort.

At the end of this very long, but inspiring day, I came to a few general conclusions about what kind of spirit I want to maintain as a teacher in Saint Louis. First, all of us teachers want our students to be successful and we are willing to do whatever it takes to help them get there. Given this common denominator, I think we teachers should do more to collaborate and get out to see one another in our classrooms. It’d be helpful to share our resources and our gripes in order to establish more of a community of like-minded professionals. Furthermore, I think that all of our different teaching personalities makes it possible for us to approach our lessons and our challenges in novel ways. I know it was helpful for me to step outside of my own “box” of a classroom to see how different teachers tackled the same problems I was having on a daily basis. After seeing all the commitment, enthusiasm, and plain ol’ spirit I saw in Saint Louis last Tuesday, I am confident that we teachers are continuing to strive for excellence in student achievement.

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!

I have been thinking a lot about malleable intelligence since I attended a unique professional development opportunity a week ago. I was invited to sit in on a creativity lecture at the National Association for Gifted Children conference held in downtown Saint Louis. The two speakers at this lecture were none other than Howard Gardner, the man who developed the theory of multiple intelligences, and Dean Keith Simonton, another researcher and scholar within the field of intelligence and creativity. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence is based on the belief that people have different intelligences that affect the way they learn and perceive the world. For example, someone with a verbal-linguistic intelligence have strong skills in using words and language. A person with a bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is able to learn better using movement and manipulatives.

During their talk, Gardner and Simonton discussed their research of “eminent creators,” otherwise known as incredibly creative individuals who made outstanding contributions to their field. All these creative people, like Freud, Einstein, Stravinsky, Picasso, and Gandhi, lived at about the same time and had enough biographical information available for both Gardner and Simonton to draw conclusions about their creative lives. Among the important similarities that Gardner and Simonton discovered were that eminent creators often experienced multiple failures in their lives and that they also had mentors and role models as young people. I was intrigued by the fact that some of history’s most creative and influential people were highly unsuccessful at first, yet persisted—undoubtedly without some help from their mentors and role models.

As I reflected on how Gardner’s and Simonton’s work affects my teaching, I realize how important it is to foster creativity in my own students. Each of my students has a unique set of intelligences that allows them to perform more successfully at some tasks than others. As their teacher, it is my responsibility to tap into their strengths and encourage them to work hard at developing their skills in order to enhance their academic performance. By building upon my students’ strengths, I can help them maintain focus on their long-term goals despite setbacks. Furthermore, much like the failures experienced by eminent creators in Gardner’s and Simonton’s research, my students can use their own intelligences and creativity to overcome obstacles. This persistence can be made easier if I can connect my students to mentors and role models within our community. Such connections are easily formed within my school between students and teachers, coaches, and administrators; however, I truly think that it is important for our students to have mentors within our greater communities to help guide them in pursuing their goals and enhancing their ability to work hard and get smarter, both creatively and intellectually.

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?

Just this past week, the hallway near our nurse’s office seemed to be like a hospital ward: many students hunched over on the bench, waiting to get permission to go home or to get a Tylenol. Teachers have been struck by the virus too—my friend who teaches fifth grade, in fact, succumbed to the flu last week and has been struggling to get back to 100% ever since. Hand-washing, hand sanitizing, and covering mouths during sneezes can only do so much. In fact, what I have come to realize is how the case of the flu this winter is indicative of a larger issue within my school and many other area public schools.

Within our own district, many nurses have been cut to part-time due to budget concerns. My school is fortunate in that we were able to retain our full time nurse, but she is one of the few remaining full time nurses in the entire district of approximately 25,000 students. Furthermore, my school—and several others—lack a comprehensive health curriculum for our students. No student is learning proper hygiene for avoiding the flu and they are certainly not learning about how to take care of themselves as developing adolescents. Our students spend their school days studying the core subjects of math, science, and communication arts to get ready for state standardized testing; however, they do not learn the basics of how to live a healthy lifestyle. Surely we could do more to give our students a well-rounded educational experience.

There is a critical need for health education in middle schools. Statistics show that 41% of eighth graders have had at least one alcoholic drink and 16.5% of eighth graders have tried marijuana at least once (Vatterott, Becoming a Middle Level Educator, 2007). These same studies also show that 24% of middle school students have had sex. If we are not providing our students with a health education that teaches them the dangers of smoking, drinking, and sex, then we are surely setting them up for an unhealthy lifestyle. While I am well aware that there are many demands placed on our schools, I am confident that the health and safety of our students should be a priority. We cannot educate our students if they are missing school due to preventative illnesses (like the flu or a cold) or to long-term conditions, like pregnancy, drug abuse, or alcoholism.

Even though I’d almost not remember the awkward health classes from my middle school years, I know I at least received a foundation for understanding all the changes my body was going through. I also learned the monotonous lessons about hand-washing, getting a good night’s sleep, and how to count my heartbeats. It is a terrible loss to think of how we are creating a generation of students who are not learning about what it takes to lead a healthy lifestyle. The consequence of not having health education in our schools will cost us as a nation, and unfortunately, this impact may not felt for a couple more decades.

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.

One of my early experiences with this teacher action-student action framework came in my first year of teaching. Just last year, I was working hard at creating meaningful lesson plans for my students. I would spend so much time planning, but I wouldn’t think about what I wanted my students to be doing during my lesson. I didn’t think about how I was going to give directions, or what my students were going to be doing while I was teaching. These small lapses in my thought-process ended up severely impacting my students’ achievement: for example, since I did not clarify what papers they needed to have on their desks, my students were left with piles of handouts in midst of their note-taking sheets. I would then get frustrated because they weren’t keeping up with my notes. Now, as I reflect upon my teaching practice, I realize how crucial it is that I make this expectation clear at the start of my lesson if I want significant learning to occur. Even though my students are in the seventh and eighth grades, they still benefit from receive explicit, step-by-step directions.

The way in which teacher actions affect student actions translates into more than just lesson plans. Over the course of my first year of teaching, I also learned how my attitude, behavior, and interactions influence my students as well. While this realization might seem obvious, I couldn’t believe how profoundly it affected my approach to teaching. For example, last year if my students misbehaved during class, my gut reaction was to raise my voice and blame specific individuals for causing the disturbance. As a result of my actions, my students’ misbehaviors often escalated so that they either shut down and refused to do any more work for me, or they simply responded by raising their own voices. This destructive spiral caused me and my students unnecessary stress and negatively impacted the quality of our learning time. Once I made the conscious choice to lower my voice and speak to students individually about their misbehaviors, I saw my students’ actions improve.

I am able to continue acting positively in regard to misbehaviors by adopting components of the “Love and Logic” approach, developed by Jim Fay and Foster W. Cline, M.D. This approach was developed to help give students choices, while also helping teachers stay in control. Teachers give students the opportunity to develop their own consequences, which–believe it or not–actually is effective. My friend, who teaches 5th grade, uses Love and Logic in her classroom, had a pair of fighting students give themselves lunch and recess detention as their punishment. She has done a lot to help me work through different classroom management scenarios and how Love and Logic might help me resolve such situations. If you are interested in finding out more about this approach to dealing with students, I recommend you read a few Love and Logic articles on their website.

This link will provide you with a few sample articles full of Love and Logic strategies. If these articles pique your interest further, then you can also find plenty of books on Love and Logic by Fay and Cline online. As you peruse these links, I hope you’ll better be able to see the clear connection that exists between teacher actions and student actions. The more explicit and deliberate we teachers can be in conveying our expectations to our students, the more we can impact student achievement.

I believe that my school puts a lot of energy into giving our students opportunities to get involved outside of our school building. In fact, this year is one of the first times we have required that our eighth grade students complete 20 community service hours before eighth grade promotion. Students are able to complete their hours by participating in several events that we organize throughout the school year—or by seeking opportunities outside of what we offer. For example, this past weekend we organized a group of students to participate in a 5K run/walk to benefit a local community health insurance program. We had almost a dozen eighth graders sign up and train with us over two weeks before the race; furthermore, we were able to secure “sponsors” from different staff members so that our students could participate free of charge and contribute donations to the cause. Despite the cold temperatures and early start time, we had students successfully complete the race and earn medals in their 14 and under age group. This race was a great way for our students to overcome a personal challenge while also seeing how their efforts make a difference in our community.

Our school’s dedication to community service is also seen in our celebration of “Make a Difference Day,” which will be on Thursday October 22^nd of this year. Each grade level will be out of the building that day and performing community service. For example, last year we had students paint a mural in a worn down pedestrian tunnel under a nearby highway. We also had our special education students visit nursing homes to perform songs and skits for the residents. Last year’s seventh graders created posters to organize a “Candy for Soldiers” campaign around our school, in which we collected hard nonperishable candies to send overseas to our military. It was inspiring to see our entire student body engaged in community service that day, and I look forward to seeing that same dedication from our students this year. Although we are still deciding which community service opportunities we will participate in, I know that our students will be meaningful involved somewhere in Saint Louis.

After thinking about how community service works in my school, I realize that our students need help seeking out the kinds of meaningful service opportunities that inspire them to be lifelong volunteers. In today’s world of Blackberry Storms, IPod touches, Bebo, Facebook, and countless other forms of technology and media, it is important that we teachers are innovative in getting students involved. We need to find creative ways to get our students “hooked” on giving back. I think what made our 5K run/walk so successful is that it was a different form of community service than our students were used to. They had a chance to use their athletic talents as young people to raise money and awareness for a community issue. Last year’s Make a Difference Day activities also drew upon our students’ strengths: that mural under the highway, for instance, allowed many of our artistic students to showcase their skills in a new way. I believe that if we can continue to get this generation of young people involved in such new and exciting ways, we can definitely recreate the culture of community service that existed several decades ago.

If you are interested in finding community service projects for adolescents, please check out these websites for more information: www.dosomething.org and www.volunteermatch.org. Both of these organizations are dedicated to getting more of our students involved in giving back to their communities.

I felt the desire to write about the challenge of matching students with texts this week after a conversation I had with an 8th grade male student, Nick. To give you a little background on this student, Nick is an avid reader and enjoys reading science fiction and fantasies. I built a good relationship with him last year because I had the first three books of the Artemis Fowl series and I allowed him to borrow each book for as long as he wanted. This particular series of books is popular among boy readers because it offers a suspenseful plot that incorporates a devious young boy, Artemis, whose sole occupation is plotting extravagant criminal activities. Anyway, Nick came to me during passing period to see if I had any extra copies of the first Artemis Fowl book. He told me that he had two other friends who were interested in reading the book with him during the school day. When I first heard Nick’s idea, I was obviously thrilled. Here I had an 8th grade boy who wanted to start a book club of sorts with his peers!

It is a well-known fact, among teachers and researchers, that adolescent boys are most at-risk of falling behind academically. I have seen this occur in my own classroom, as I have an entire class of boys who are at least three years behind in reading levels. I immediately told Nick that I had an extra copy of Artemis Fowl and that I would talk to his advisory teacher to see if we could have the boys meet in my room once a week. Nick was so excited about our plan that he brought his two friends–with the Artemis Fowl book in tow–to my room at the end of the day. Within a few minutes, I had a group of boys reading aloud to each other and giving different voices to each character. What was unique about this set-up is that Nick, the avid reader, was actively supporting and encouraging his friends who are lower level readers.

While it is not always possible to bring a group of self-motivated boys together to read a story, I do think that my conversation with Nick reveals a few important points. First, it is important for us teachers to offer an array of books; kids need to feel empowered to choose a book that is interesting to them. Next, it is essential that these kids feel successful while reading the book on their own. For instance, when Nick read Artemis Fowl aloud with his friends, he used his skills as a fluent reader to help his peers sound out difficult words and add expression to their voices. Even though Nick’s friends are considered to be struggling readers, they felt successful because a peer was showing them “the ropes” of reading, so to say. I hope to continue to facilitate Nick and his friends reading of Artemis Fowl this quarter, and plan to post updates on how this group of boys progresses. If all goes well, I would like to implement a similar peer reading group among my own struggling readers!

While the soda versus pop (versus Coke) question is a relatively inoffensive–and entertaining–debate to bring up in mixed company, it illustrates a greater point about education in the United States. Not surprisingly, just as different regions have different names for pop and soda, students in our public school system have different cultural backgrounds and experiences. For example, I grew up in a rural suburban district where we would regularly see tractors driving down the street on our way to school. While I did not grow up on a farm, I had had enough exposure to rural life that I knew what a combine was when I saw it. This upbringing defined the way I understood the world and gave me a reference point for later in life when, for instance, I would be asked to differentiate between soybeans and winter wheat in cornfields on I-70 in Illinois. In other words, by living in this particular context, I learned to think of the world in particular ways. Similarly, my students live in a context that affects the way they think about the world, which in turn, influences their learning.

Most of my seventh and eighth grade students have lived in the city for their entire lives; very few of them have even traveled outside of the city limits. My students understand how to navigate an urban bus system, even though they may not know what a John Deere tractor is. Their cultural background and experience of being African-American in an urban community, however, is not always reflected in the classroom. For example, in a story my eighth graders are reading this week in communication arts, they are learning about a young boy on a farm who befriends a snake. The young boy describes how he keeps his snake in the “corn crib” next to the “hay loft.” When the snake escapes and finds his way through the “feed box” and into the horse “stall.” Even though this story is written on a third grade level, many of my students struggle to comprehend what is happening in the story. It is hard for them to visualize the snake being put into a “corn crib” until they see the picture in the literature book and understand what a corn crib is used for. My students cannot fathom the size of a hay loft or the purpose of a horse stall, as their understanding of the world is based on a very different experience. As a teacher, it is one of my greatest challenges to make sure that my students are able to read and comprehend a story like this one that is full of unfamiliar cultural references and experiences.

This challenge of bridging cultural backgrounds begins with the literature and assessment items that I find in state curriculum and on standardized tests. While new literature textbooks are becoming increasingly more multicultural and inclusive, I believe there still is room to make these stories more accessible to our students. An accessible story means that my students will identify with the characters and situations in meaningful ways; by making these meaningful connections, my students will feel more compelled to read on a regular basis, thus building their comprehension and fluency. If my students get too bogged down with understanding what a “corn crib” or horse “stall” is, then there is a risk that they will lose out on an opportunity to improve their comprehension. Furthermore, given that the average grade level reading ability for the sixth grade class at my school is the fourth grade, it is critical that my students are reading regularly with texts that they can relate to. If a student finds a story that relates to their life, then we are helping to instill a love of reading that will help them reach success beyond the four walls of our classroom.

In addition to the cultural bias found in textbooks, I also find it challenging to prepare my students for standardized tests that similarly lack impartiality. The most poignant example that comes to mind was on a recent Missouri standardized test, in which an entire reading selection was based on a farm silo. For the middle school students who completed this section at my school, I am sure very few of them comprehended the meaning of “silo.” My students have had no reason to know what a silo is, yet this lack of knowledge puts them at a disadvantage of test day. It seems unfair to test a child’s ability to read and comprehend while using a story about a silo when that child has lived in a city his or her entire life. It is clear that students are being tested on more than just their knowledge of literary concepts; they must be familiar with dominant culture that extends far beyond their practical experience. A child may be an excellent student, but if the test relies on experiences from this dominant culture, then he or she is not being set up for success. Our students deserve to have their abilities assessed using reading passages that are accessible and related to their life experience; only then can we have an unbiased measure of their ability to learn and our ability, as teachers, to educate.

I first heard about Teach For America while I was a junior at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, and I joined the corps right after I graduated in 2008. I live and work with fellow corps members who hail from around the country: Texas, Ohio, California, Florida, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, and several native Saint Louisans, just to name a few. Even though our backgrounds are diverse, we are united with a common mission to end educational inequality by providing a quality education to all our students.

I grew up in Holmen, Wisconsin, just ten minutes north of La Crosse and about seven hours north of Saint Louis along the Mississippi. When I’m not teaching or writing, I enjoy cheering for the Badgers’ football and basketball teams, running, and exploring all that the city of Saint Louis has to offer. I hope you will continue to check back to our columns and learn more about what is happening in education!

www.teachforamerica.org

The main subplot inside of the fight to save the program is a fight to restore scholarships for 216 students who were given scholarships through the program, then had them rescinded after Congress defunded the program. The Washington, D.C. chapter of the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) has created the website www.savethe216.com dedicated to the issue. The rally drew notable figures in politics and education such as House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, D.C. Council member Marion Barry, Ward 8 Democrat, Pennsylvania State Senator Anthony H. Williams, a Democrat, and nationally noted education reform author and activist Kevin Chavous.

CEAM has previously blogged about why Missouri should care about this fight in Washington, D.C. and the benefits of the program to the students. This program, and other efforts in Washington, D.C., has been the epicenter of the education reform and school choice movement in recent history.

Supporters of this program have held multiple rallies at the Capitol and in front of the Department of Education. So far the group has had no response from the Obama administration, according to a quote from Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director for D.C. Parents for School Choice, in today’s Washington Times.

“We’ve had no response from Secretary [Duncan] at all.” “The president said in May he would make sure the kids would be protected, but that, of course, has not been the case. The message to me implies that they don’t have any intentions of dealing with this program. It’s really confusing.”

If the Obama administration and Congress continues course and ends the program, expect the rallies and protests to continue. This program has proven to increase test scores and parent satisfaction with the program is high. It is a travesty, especially for the 216 students who had their opportunity taken away, for this program to be ended. The administration and Congress must put kids’ interests first and continue this program.

It may seem like a far-off problem: students in Washington D.C. public schools losing scholarship funds seems like small potatoes when Missouri has enough education challenges to concern itself with. But there are several reasons why this issue is important to watch:

We live in a mobile society. The problems of the District of Columbia don’t stay isolated within district boundaries: children who drop out are more likely to be convicted of a crime and more likely to go through periods of unemployed. The reverse is also true: everyone benefits from a graduate. High school graduates will earn more, enjoy more security, and contribute more to society and the economy. D.C. grads that come to work in Missouri will provide higher tax receipts and be more productive than their counterparts who didn’t graduate.

According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, the lifetime economic loss from class of ’07 students who dropped out is a staggering $329 billion. High School dropouts are 3.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than graduates. The American Youth Policy Forum states that even graduating 1% more men aged 20-60 would save the U.S. $1.4 billion a year in reduced costs associated with crime. High School dropouts contribute half as much in state and federal taxes as graduates. Victor Hugo said, “Whenever you close a school, you open a prison,” but it seems that the reality is far worse than even that desperate scenario.

On the other hand, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship is responsible for significant gains in reading levels. Voucher recipients across the country are testing better, making more significant gains than public school counterparts, and a report by John Robert Warren at the University of Minnesota showed that the proportion of voucher students in Milwaukee graduating rose from 62 to 85 percent from 2003 to 2007, compared to public school graduation rates increasing from 49 to 58 percent.

D.C. Scholarships are a shining example of the education reform states are being asked to pursue: a tested, successful innovation that was able to show student gains for a fraction of the cost of per-pupil spending in the public district. It’s also the school district at the heart of our federal government: as we’re looking to D.C. for leadership, we’d hope to see successful reforms emanating from D.C. Instead, Congress has pulled funding pending reauthorization.

Missouri can’t operate in a bubble when it comes to education reform, but instead needs to look at successful programs from D.C. and elsewhere, to share data, successes, failures and results reciprocally, and states need a culture of leadership that supports innovations that make strides in student success.

From Cato@Liberty

Federal studies show that the benefits shown by students in the D.C. Scholarship program are accomplished for a fourth of the cost of per-pupil spending in public education. The average tuition at the schools scholarship recipients chose to attend is $6,620. That is ONE QUARTER what the District of Columbia spends per pupil on education: a staggering $26,555.

Michael Steele on MSNBC Harball with Chris Matthews fights to preserve the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program:

“…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.

Unfortunately, some districts have resorted to filing lawsuits to try to obtain more money instead of bringing new ideas to their funding streams. You need not look outside of the state’s borders to find two cases where districts have lost initial rounds of lawsuits attempting to increase funding through the courts. Two entities representing multiple school districts have sued the State of Missouri contending that the state’s funding formula is inadequate. The districts lost the suit at the trial level and have appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. According to the Columbia Missourian “The long-running lawsuit has cost more than $5 million in public funds, with the state spending $2 million to defend the law and the various school groups spending well over $3 million to challenge it.”

A more recent failed attempt to stop funding losses through the courts was in Jackson County, MO where 11 school districts sued the county over property tax assessments. The lawsuit was dismissed and one participating district Superintendent has stated “right now the lawsuit is pretty much done.”

So now that it seems clear that the traditional ways of school funding are no longer working, what are some of the solutions? Working with private foundations is one option that seems to be developing. In Tampa, FL one school district has been asked by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to submit a proposal to execute a program designed to increase teacher effectiveness. According to the linked story, “districts in Memphis, Omaha, and Pittsburgh received similar requests, along with a group of Los Angeles charter schools.” Public school partnerships with private foundations have also had remarkable success in Chattanooga, TN, where scores at targeted schools out gained 90% of other Tennessee schools.

School partnerships with local businesses are also a growing trend and one that should be heavily considered. Denver Public Schools started the School Partners Program with the help of Qwest Communications and have now moved the program into the school district’s offices full time. The School Partners Program has expanded from 20 schools in its first year to 61 as of last November. About 50 businesses are involved, some of which partner with more than one school.

School funding is just one area where reform and innovative approaches like these are sure to continue to grow. School districts must look to these opportunities and partnerships in order to thrive, and possibly even survive. Failing to actively seek out funding and resources outside of the government and taxes is a formula for failure resulting in children being left behind.

The latest turn in the fight to save the program comes from a bipartisan group of Senators who have introduced the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act . The bill was introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), and John Ensign (R-NV) and would provide a 5-year reauthorization of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which allows low income D.C. children, particularly those attending failing public schools, to obtain a voucher to attend private schools in the area.

The program is wildly popular with participating students and their families. Approximately 2000 people attended a rally on May 6 supporting the program where students, and their parents, who have received scholarships from the program spoke out and pleaded that congress continue the program. Students participating in the program have also posted online videos asking President Obama to pressure Congress to keep funding for the program. Furthermore, a recent Department of Education study shows that the program is effective in helping students and that parents of these students are highly satisfied with the program.

The fate of extending this program remains to be seen. The current students in the program will be funded through high school, but the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act , or another fix, would have to pass for the program to be reauthorized. Let’s hope that students and their families in Washington, DC will continue to have options outside of the failing public school system.

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.

One of the ways we do this is by encouraging every Missourian to get involved – including business and civic leaders, because success in improving our educational system depends on every Missourian. And because every Missourian depends on that success for a brighter future.

Some of the important reform measures we’re working for are:

• increasing transparency and accountability in the education system
• increasing teacher merit pay
• improving the teacher certification process
• increasing parental choice
• expanding charter public schools
• increasing support of special needs education through scholarship and tax credit programs

Please browse our site. You’ll discover opinions and insights, news about what’s been happening lately in education and what’s soon to happen. You’ll also have the opportunity to contribute your own thoughts. Please do. Join us in putting kids first.

“Consistent with our decisions in [School Committee of] Burlington [v.Department of Education of Massachusetts] and [Florence County School District No. 4 v.] Carter,” Justice Stevens wrote, “we conclude that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for the cost of private special-education services when a school district fails to provide a [free, appropriate public education] and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school.”

The ramifications of this decision could be felt for years to come as parents now have a precedent at the highest court in the land forcing public schools to pay for a student to transfer to a private school when the parent alone felt the transfer was necessary. This case revolved around the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but could be a sign of what the future holds for education reform. If this case clearly stated that no longer do students with disabilities have to be trapped in schools that are failing to meet their educational needs, how long before the court sets the same precedent for ALL public school students?

Many of these families could be helped at no cost to the school districts if their state legislatures would pass legislation allowing for scholarship tax credit programs. A successful example of these programs can be found in Florida, andIndiana recently passed legislation creating a scholarship tax credit program. Sadly, the Missouri House of Representatives deafeated legislation creating a program targeted at special needs students during the 2008 session. The same bill was filed during the 2009 session, but was never voted on after a committee hearing.

Undoubtedly, the floodgates will open for families who, for years, have battled with their school district for their special needs child to receive a free, appropriate public education as prescribed by law. The challenge, and duty, now of everyone in the education reform movement is to make parents of special needs children aware of this Supreme Court decision. We can no longer allow for these children to be trapped in failing and inadequate school districts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]> http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/latest-education-reform-news/ny-times-article-highlights-women http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/latest-education-reform-news/ny-times-article-highlights-women#comments Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:23:21 +0000 esimms http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/?p=479 Women Bridging Gap in Science Opportunities

“The prospects for women who are scientists and engineers at major research universities have improved, although women continue to face inequalities in salary and access to some other resources, a panel of the National Research Council concludes in a new report.”

In recent years “men and women faculty in science, engineering and mathematics have enjoyed comparable opportunities,” the panel said in its report, released on Tuesday. It found that women who apply for university jobs and, once they have them, for promotion and tenure, are at least as likely to succeed as men. But compared with their numbers among new Ph.D.’s, women are still underrepresented in applicant pools, a puzzle that offers an opportunity for further research, the panel said.

The panel said one factor outshined all others in encouraging women to apply for jobs: having women on the committees appointed to fill them.

In another report this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the University of Wisconsin reviewed a variety of studies and concluded that the achievement gap between boys and girls in mathematics performance had narrowed to the vanishing point.

“U.S. girls have now reached parity with boys, even in high school and even for measures requiring complex problem solving,” the Wisconsin researchers said. Although girls are still underrepresented in the ranks of young math prodigies, they said, that gap is narrowing, which undermines claims that a greater prevalence of profound mathematical talent in males is biologically determined. The researchers said this and other phenomena “provide abundant evidence for the impact of sociocultural and other environmental factors on the development of mathematical skills and talent and the size, if any, of math gender gaps.”

The research council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, convened its expert panel at the request of Congress. The panel surveyed six disciplines — biology, chemistry, mathematics, civil and electrical engineering and physics — and based its analysis on interviews with faculty members at 89 institutions and data from federal agencies, professional societies and other sources.

The panel was led by Claude Canizares, a physicist who is vice president for research atM.I.T., and Dr. Sally Shaywitz of Yale Medical School, an expert on learning.

The Wisconsin researchers, Janet S. Hyde and Janet E. Mertz, studied data from 10 states collected in tests mandated by the No Child Left Behind legislation as well as data from theNational Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal testing program. Differences between girls’ and boys’ performance in the 10 states were “close to zero in all grades,” they said, even in high schools were gaps existed earlier. In the national assessment, they said, differences between girls’ and boys’ performance were “trivial.”

No scholarship tax credit programs exist in the state of Missouri, even for special needs students or students from poor families. Hopefully the continuing expansion of these programs in the country will cause Missouri to take another look at them as a means to help students from challenged backgrounds receive a quality education.

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.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On Tuesday President Obama sent a strong message to the country on education reform. In a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Obama outlined his policies for reforming education including charter school expansion and merit pay structures for teachers. Below are highlights of his speech.

One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools. And these are public schools founded by parents, teachers, and civic or community organizations with broad leeway to innovate…

But right now, there are many caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they’re preparing our students. That isn’t good for our children, our economy, or our country.

I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place.

That’s why we’re creating new pathways to teaching and new incentives to bring teachers to schools where they’re needed most. That’s why we support offering extra pay to Americans who teach math and science to end a teacher shortage in those subjects.

“School buildings don’t belong to us. They don’t belong to the unions. School buildings belong to the community.”

This statement directly applies to the SLPS deed restrictions on closed school buildings. These deed restrictions must be lifted so that charter public schools have the opportunity to buy these buildings and reopen them as community schools. I wonder how AFT 420, local St. Louis teachers union and proponents of deed restrictions, will respond to this quote. I doubt this stong quote from Secretary Duncan will be repeated over a bullhorn to disrupt a press conference anytime soon.

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.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

“You tell me you love me but then you are choking me.” This is how one St. Louis resident described what the Special Administrative Board (SAB) of the St. Louis Public School District (SLPS) is doing by placing a 100 year deed restriction on the buildings of schools that have been closed by the SAB. Simply stated, the SAB has voted unanimously to not allow anyone who purchases the buildings to reopen the buildings as a school. This is an outrageous policy that has been adopted by the SAB since it first decided on closing schools in 2007. With the potential announcement for more closings soon, this is a policy that cannot continue. This policy indeed puts a chokehold on a community desperate for quality educational options for their children.

These school buildings were built with tax payer money for the express purpose of educating the children in the community. Keeping these buildings off limits to someone seeking to purchase the building, with the intent of opening a public charter or independent private school, defeats this purpose. Furthermore, to restrict the sale of these buildings to the most obvious buyer in the current economic climate makes no business sense. School districts are consistently saying that they need more money to operate but this policy is making a direct adverse impact on the funds available to the district for educating the children of St. Louis.

Many parents in the city lack the means to transport their children longer distances to a different school building. Those children who now walk to a school down the street in the neighborhood will now have to walk longer distances to a school outside of the neighborhood. And as State Representative TD El- Amin stated in a recent online video produced by CEAM on this topic, “there is gang activity and it is very territorial. That is something that people don’t consider.” Students will be afraid to cross into new neighborhoods, as they will be crossing into a gang territory that is outside of their neighborhood. Sadly, all of these factors may lead to an increase in St. Louis’ already high dropout rate.

In addition to the increased burden placed on the children in the communities the parents will suffer as well. Neighborhood schools are often a source of pride and stabilization in the community. These buildings will sit vacant and in a state of disrepair, further dragging down home values in already distressed communities in a very bad housing market.

The policy will also put St. Louis further behind other cities in the country and region when it comes to possible funds from President Obama’s proposed stimulus package. Part of this proposed plan is to give money to schools to upgrade their infrastructure and buildings. If these buildings are not being used as schools, then the city will miss out on money that could be used for better educational facilities for our children.

So you may wonder why the SAB would implement a policy that is so obviously wrong for the City of St. Louis. The answer is really in one word that defines the American spirit, competition. The SAB does not want to see more public charter schools or independent schools open in the City and succeed where they have failed. This selfish interest is the most outrageous component of this policy. The SAB should want that all children in the city to receive a good education, regardless of whether it is provided by SLPS or by a charter or private school.

The fact that the three members on the SAB have this much power to set our community so far behind is unacceptable. The board can easily reverse their decision but they must hear from the residents of the community. The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri is calling on the SAB to immediately lift the deed restrictions on current and future closed public school buildings. Residents of the City and the metro area should show the SAB that they are not willing to support this harmful policy.

Earl Simms, State Coordinator

Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

Friday, February 6 , 2009

“You tell me you love me but then you are choking me.” This is how one St. Louis resident described what the Special Administrative Board of the St. Louis Public School District is doing by placing a 100-year deed restriction on the school buildings it has closed.

Simply stated, the SAB has voted unanimously to not allow anyone who purchases the buildings to reopen the buildings as a school. This outrageous policy has been adopted by the SAB since it first decided to close schools in 2007. With the potential for more closings soon, people need to clearly say this is a policy that cannot continue. Such a restriction puts a chokehold on a community desperate for quality educational options for their children.

These school buildings were built with taxpayer money for the express purpose of educating the children in the community. Keeping these buildings off limits to someone who wants to purchase the building to open a public charter or independent private school denies that purpose.

Furthermore, it makes no sense in the current economic climate to refuse to deal with the most obvious prospective buyer of these buildings. School districts consistently say they need more money to operate, but this policy has a direct, adverse impact on funds available for educating the children of St. Louis.

Many parents in the city lack the means to transport their children longer distances. Those who now walk to a school down the street in the neighborhood will now have to walk farther.

And as state Rep. Talibdin El-Amin said in a recent online video our organization produced on this topic, “There is gang activity and it is very territorial. That is something that people don’t consider.”

Students will be afraid to cross into new neighborhoods, as they will be crossing into a different gang territory. Sadly, all of these factors may lead to an increase in St. Louis’ already high dropout rate.

In addition to the increased burden on the children, parents will suffer as well. Neighborhood schools are often a source of pride and stabilization in the community. These buildings will sit vacant and in disrepair, further dragging down home values in already distressed communities in a very bad housing market.

So why has the Special Administrative Board implemented a policy that is so obviously wrong for the city of St. Louis? The answer is in one word that defines the American spirit: competition.

The SAB does not want to see more public charter schools or independent schools open in the city and succeed where the traditional public schools have failed. This selfish interest is the most outrageous component of this policy. The SAB should want all children in the city to receive a good education, regardless of whether it is provided by the St. Louis Public Schools or by a charter or private school.

The fact that the three members of the SAB have this much power to set our community so far behind is unacceptable. The board can easily reverse its decision but they must hear from the residents of the community. The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri is calling on the SAB to immediately lift the deed restrictions on current and future closed public school buildings. Residents of the city and the rest of the area should show the SAB that they are not willing to support this harmful policy.

Proposal made by Mr. Klein and Mr. Sharpton in the Op-Ed include increased federal support of public charter schools, performance pay structures for teachers and national standards for testing student achievement.

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.