The educational extreme makeover our schools need is not going to result from any one, single solution.   Just as certain, the solutions will come from a variety of sources that will include parents, educators, business and civic leaders, and ordinary concerned citizens and stakeholders.

Most importantly, the process will require that we all keep clear heads and open minds.  That isn’t always easy because education reform efforts naturally draw about the broadest spectrum of people because the issue has such a far reach.  We care about education because we recognize the profound impact it has on a person’s life and, in turn, society.

Comedian Bill Cosby recently spoke out on the subject of education reform during a teleconference as part of School Choice Week.  Cosby made a point of talking about his sixth grade experience that featured a firm and loving teacher who Cosby credits with saving his academic life.  According to Cosby, his sixth grade teacher’s diligence and guidance helped him stick to his studies and go from poor performance to straight A’s.

Cosby also addressed an important myth of American education saying, “Cuts, cuts, cuts, that is what we hear, but education is not a thing that big bucks happens to be the answer [to]. The answer is — with education comes teaching children to respect and love questions, looking for the answer, reading,” he said, explaining that these responsibilities fall on the parents, teachers, and school officials.

Cosby’s sentiment on spending is supported by education research that shows while inflation-adjusted, per student spending has double over the last 40 years, student test scores have remained flat during that same period.

You can read more about Cosby’s remarks on the School Choice Week conference call here.

Want to RSVP, get more details or become a sponsor?

Contact Peter Franzen
at 314-454-6544 or by email at pfranzen@childrenseducationalliance-mo.org

I want my child to transfer to a neighboring accredited district…

If you are a resident of an unaccredited school district, your child has the right to transfer to a school district in the county where you live or in a neighboring county. [167.131 statute].

While Missouri law grants you the right to transfer to a neighboring school, there are very few districts that are actually enrolling children from unaccredited districts. However, the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri has been working for many months with a team of lawyers, lawmakers, and education reform advocates to help families that are interested in exercising their rights. If you choose to try to register your child, CEAM is more than happy to offer you assistance. However, it is important to note that this process is likely to take more time than you might like. Additionally, it might require you to communicate regularly with lawmakers, the media, and other parents.

If you are still interested in pursuing your rights, please complete this survey.  CEAM will contact you with in 3 days of completing the survey.

Even if you don’t have children who you would like to have transferred you can still help children you are trapped in failed school districts. If you would like to help, but don’t have children, please fill out the following information. A CEAM employee will contact you within 72 hours.

Each link below will take you to the most recent version of each program/policy. As you will see many of have been updated since 1993, but are still very much relevant to today’s public education.

• Show-Me Standards
• Missouri’s Curriculum Framework
• Statewide Assessment
• Professional Development Standards
• Professional Standards for New Educators
• Technology Grants
• Missouri School Improvement Program

It states that children who live in an unaccredited school district have the right to transfer to a neighboring accredited one. Transportation and tuition are to be paid by the unaccredited district.

There are three unaccredited districts in Missouri.

Please see these district performance stats below:

As a contrast to the scores of unaccredited districts above, there is a sampling of the same of the stats for school districts families in failing districts are attempting to access:

Districts neighboring Riverview Gardens Public Schools and Saint Louis Public Schools

Districts neighboring Kansas City Missouri School District

So why are districts preventing transfers?

What they say…

This law is a violation of the Hancock amendment.

Why they are wrong…

The Hancock Amendment is an amendment in the Missouri Constitution that makes it illegal for the State Government to mandate a lower government, such as a school district, do something without the appropriate amount of money. The Children’s Education Alliance believes this is not a violation of this amendment because the statute clearly states that the failing district is responsible for paying the tuition to district of the parents’ choice.

What they say…

This law is impossible for us to comply with

Why they are wrong…

All this law requires the districts to do is educate children. They do this already for thousands of children, there is no reason to assume they couldn’t continue to do so for child who reside in an unaccredited district.

What they say…

If this law is enforced, our districts will be overcrowded

Why they are wrong…

Because all but one school district has refused to take transfer students, they are simply speculating about the number of children who would seek a transfer.

Below are samples letters to the editor. While you are welcome to send this letter exactly as written, you will be more likely to be published if you edit it, and send an original letter to the newspaper you read the most often.

For the best fit sample letter to the editor, click the category below that describes you.

Parent

Non-Parent 

Scholarship Tax Credits are currently not an option in Missouri.  Such a program would mean that the state would be relieved of the per student education appropriation for students receiving such scholarships and that families would have greater choice about the type of education a child receives. A family that would receive a scholarship tax credit could use it to attend a private, independent, or parochial school of their choice.

• http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12950
• http://www.federationforchildren.org/types-of-school-choice
• http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/school-choice-programs-in-america-the-facts

Statewide Inter-district Open Enrollment would allow students all over the state to choose a different school district. Most of Missouri’s school districts were created decades ago. Statewide Open Enrollment would allow children to ignore these antiquated lines and choose a district that will meet their unique needs.

• http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/report.aspx?id=268
• http://www.schoolchoicewi.org/data/k12/301.pdf

The difference between really great teachers and really poor teachers makes a tremendous impact on the life of a student.

A really poor teacher may only cover 50% of the required curriculum in a school year while a really great teacher can cover as much as 150% of the same curriculum.  A student who is unfortunate enough to be in classrooms with poor performing teachers two years in a row will be on an entirely different academic trajectory than his or her peers.

The idea of reforming or eliminating teacher tenure has naturally become a rallying point for teachers’ unions who depend on their membership for survival.  Teachers’ unions’ leadership claims that efforts to put power back in the hands of principals will be a bad thing.  The truth is that it will only be a bad thing for poor teachers and the argument fails to address the really critical question of whether or not it is bad for students.

I have witnessed some great teachers in my time.  I have watched caring adults who have a passion for imparting knowledge and always seem to find ways to engage students.  They are the teachers who often end up with some of the most challenging students because their peers are unable to handle those difficult students.  They are committed to helping students learn and they do whatever it takes.

However, in my many years of working with children in St. Louis I have also heard repeated stories about teachers who are marking time in the classroom with an attitude that approaches indifference toward students whom they see as uncooperative or unwilling to learn.  My work has taken me into the classroom where on at least two occasions I heard teachers tell their students, “I get paid whether you learn or not.”  And that same sentiment was shared more frequently in my presence among adults in private conversations.  Frustrated, burnt out, tired; teachers with that attitude are unhappy and unproductive in their classrooms and they are unable to educate their students.

The only other people who have permanent contracts are tenured university professors, the people for whom tenure was first developed.  At the university level, tenure is meant to protect professors from being unfairly terminated for their views.  At the public schools, though, it has become a force field that protects all teachers without distinctions for the quality of service they provide to students.

High quality teachers who are effective in the classroom do not need to fear tenure reform efforts.  They are needed by schools to effectively educate children which, in turn, produces higher performance measures which, in turn, helps secure funding and helps schools maintain their autonomy.  It is highly unlikely that a principal of a successful school will begin firing valuable, successful teachers over personal differences as some may argue.

All of us who work understand that our ability to do our jobs well is the fundamental measure of whether or not we keep them.  I understand that job protections for teachers were needed in the last century to protect the then predominately female teaching workforce from unfair treatment by men who only grudgingly even gave women the right to vote.  But, that’s not where we are anymore.   There are laws that protect all workers from discrimination and the idea that teachers need special agreements to do what everyone else does every day is not reasonable and not in the best interest of children.

Tenure reform is one of many things that needs to happen as we re-imagine what education in the United States will look like in the 21^st century.

Read more about tenure reform efforts in Missouri in this Post Dispatch article published Friday, January 20, 2012.

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

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

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

I once believed that if we eradicated poverty, we would solve the education crisis and achievement gap in the United States.  That was 20 years ago when I arrived in St. Louis a bright-eyed college graduate ready to change the world.

I’m still working to change the world, but my perspective on that has changed.  However my change of perspective does not require that I renounce all the good work I have done to impact the lives of young people in challenged communities, it is because of that work that my perspective has changed.

In keeping up on education reform across the country I receive daily Google Alerts of news stories.  One that showed up in my inbox this week was an op/ed from my home state of Oregon.  It mirrored my former thoughts completely.  In it the author asks the reader to pose five “whys” that he outlines in his piece.  The ultimate conclusion to his questions is why don’t we just put the effort into eliminating poverty because then we will fix education.

I beg to differ.

As my coworker, CEAM State Policy Director Kate Casas, always says, “you don’t have to eliminate poverty to educate children, you have to educate children to eliminate poverty.”  She is right.

First of all, one of those choices is practical while the other is completely unwieldy.  Education happens in a building where there are all sorts of ways to impact what goes on and how solutions are implemented.  On the other hand, poverty is a societal issue with a million different entrances and exits and causes and remedies.  I am not saying that eliminating poverty wouldn’t be a good thing, I am simply saying that we have far more potential control over what happens in our schools and far more opportunities to create change.

Evidence tells us that those of us who graduate from high school earn more money in our lifetimes.  Beyond that, those of us who attend college and graduate school fare even better.  So what we have to do is support existing effective schools and encourage the reform of underperforming schools.  Luckily, there are many examples of high poverty schools graduating high levels of minority and poor students for us to follow and replicate.

If you’re giving me a choice between eradicating poverty in the United States or educating children, I will take on the manageable challenge of educating children every time.  In no small part because those educated young people are our best hope for eradicating poverty.

Here’s an article about what high performing schools in high poverty and high minority areas have in common.

Four new charter schools opened this school year are providing parents with more educational options for their children.  The four schools are South City Prep, Jamaa Learning Center, Preclarus Mastery Academy, and Better Learning Communities all of which received the Mayor’s endorsement.

Better Learning Communities (BLC) was featured in a story on KWMU this week in which the station reports BLC is showing early signs of success with its literacy-based approach to learning.  Sponsored by the University of Missouri – Columbia, BLC is using a reading program called “leveled readers” published by Pioneer Valley Books.

According the story on KWMU.com, early signs of success include children engaged in learning who showcase their enhanced abilities in the home and steady progress working through the program’s reading levels.

The “apples to apples” comparison can begin next year when BLC adds a third grade for its current group of second graders.  The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP test) begins with the third grade and is administered in both traditional public schools and (also public) charter schools.

Read the KWMU story about Better Learning Communities here.

The concept of charter schools emerged in the 90’s as a way to put new educational methods and models into practice without the bureaucracy of the traditional public school system.  It sounds like a great idea, a more nimble and responsive environment for educating children.

Since then, around the country charter schools opened in some of the most challenged and under-performing districts, eventually including St. Louis and Kansas City.  A major problem however with Missouri charter school law is that there is no guidance for what to do with under-performing charter schools.  How much time should we give a new school to demonstrate that it can deliver a more effective model for educating children.

Case in point, Imagine Schools, Inc. is a national education management company operating charter schools around the country including six in St. Louis.  All six of the Imagine schools are performing worse than the St. Louis Public Schools on the Missouri Assessment Program test.  Far worse.

A few months ago Mayor Fancis Slay called for the local sponsor, Missouri Baptist University, to close the Imagine schools.  The mayor has no authority to close the schools on his own and it is unclear if the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has authority either.

Today, both the St. Louis Beacon and the Post Dispatch reported that Missouri Baptist University is planning to close the two Imagine schools deemed to be in the worst shape and has put the remaining four on notice that their charters will also be revoked if the schools are unable to make progress.

That’s a step in the right direction when it comes to high quality educational options because a choice between a low performing neighborhood public school and a low performing charter school isn’t much of choice at all.

Here’s the link to the Post Dispatch story by Elisa Crouch.

The Beacon’s Dale Singer also reported on the situation today.

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

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

Districts:

Accredited

Classification held over until next year

Provisionally Accredited

Unaccredited

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

As reported earlier this week on KSDK, the Innovative Concept Academy founded by Juvenile Court Judge Jimmie Edwards will be featured on NBC’s Today Show next Wednesday, December 21, 2011.

Judge Edwards established the unique school to address the needs of marginalized youth, many of who appeared before him in court.  As the school gains momentum it is receiving increasing national attention for the critical need it is addressing.  A few weeks ago Russ Mitchell of CBS News featured the school on the network’s evening news broadcast.

Among the school’s many innovations is a chess salon funded by Rex & Jeanne Sinquefield.  Mr. Sinquefield is a chess enthusiast who founded the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis and the World Chess Hall of Fame.  Dr. Jeanne Sinquefield is major proponent of education innovation.

The Today Show coverage of the school will document a $100,000 gift give away from Walmart that is providing much needed equipment to the school.

Click here to view the KSDK story reported by Sharon Stevens.

Click here for an in depth feature of the academy and Judge Edwards in the St. Louis Beacon by Dale Singer from 12-18-11

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

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

December 14, 2011

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

Commissioner Nicastro

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

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

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

1. Student Growth Model

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

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

2. Subgroup Reporting

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

3. Last in—First out

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

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

Sincerely,

Katherine Casas
State Director
Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Brennan hosted the event at his popular wine shop on Maryland Avenue in the Central West End that bears his name.  Pizza from Pi was abundant thanks to a donation from the CWE location.  Purus Organic Wheat Vodka provided the featured drink of the evening.  Slay and Associates, a public relations firm, also sponsored the evening.  CEAM board member David Schmid and CEAM director of development Peter Franzen were both individual patrons.

About halfway through the two-hour, after work event guests watched a short video about CEAM and its work and met the CEAM staff.   In addition to sponsorships and tickets, a raffle helped raise additional funds for the organization.  Prizes included a PURUS mixology party for 10 at Brennan’s, Cardinals tickets and memorabilia, t-shirts from Style House STL and a one-month membership at the YMCA.

People in the young adult age group are starting families and making important decisions about where to live and those decisions impact our communities and our economies.  Young adults and young parents have a particularly urgent interest in education reform and CEAM hopes to build on this kick off to include more young adults in its activities.

For more information about the Young Friends Network contact Peter Franzen at 314-454-6544.

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

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

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

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

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

On a very cold and rainy Thursday, November 3, people from around the Metro area gathered to celebrate the groundbreaking for the new, expanded City Garden Montessori Charter School in the Botanical Heights Neighborhood. I was fortunate enough to be there. The energy and the excitement was nothing short of amazing, even with the unseasonably cold, wet weather, hundreds of people were there to listen to local dignitaries and to take tours of the new facility which is still under construction. This is what local dignitaries had to say.

While the groundbreaking itself was inspirational, the real work and fortitude were on display when the community, board of directors and school staff came together to fulfill the communities dream of having a great school for the children in Shaw and Forest Park South East.

“As the highest–performing charter school in St. Louis, and a track record of excellence and innovation, City Garden Montessori is proud to have grown from the connections between parents and community members seeking better educational experiences for St. Louis City children,” says Christie Huck, Executive Director of City Garden. “With the permanence of our new home, we will continue to envision more programming, more services, more community building, more award-winning education.”

“City Garden Montessori’s demonstrated success in student achievement can be traced to its grass-roots, community-driven culture of collaboration and accountability,” says Steve Sanchez, Saint Louis University’s Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and director of the University’s charter school sponsorship program.  “As the school’s sponsor, we’ve witnessed the dramatic educational impact of parents, teachers, administrators, and board members working together to advance only one agenda:  student learning.”

“I’ve long been a supporter of quality charter schools,” says Mayor Francis G. Slay. “City Garden Montessori has already created a community of dedicated educators and parents to help our City’s children achieve success. Now, with its new building, this school community will continue to serve our City’s children by giving them a quality education in a nurturing environment.”

When I talk with people about the nature of our work and the need to reform the way we educate our children in America, people often assume we are talking about a problem confined to the poorest communities in the urban core.  Why shouldn’t they?  Most of what we hear about failing schools reinforces that idea.

However research findings released this week in Education Next by noted education reform scholar Jay Greene and his co-author, Josh McGee, take a broader look at American education in a way that should make us all take notice.  Their Global Report Card on education places the United States solidly in the middle of the pack when compared to other developed countries in the story called “When the Best is Mediocre.”

Greene is known for his book Education Myths in which he calls into a question a number of commonly held beliefs about education in America.  For example, in his book Greene points out that while education spending has at least doubled in the last 40 years, student performance has flat-lined.  If there is a direct correlation between spending more money and improved student outcomes, he argues, student performance should also have increased over that same time period.

His latest research should be a wake up call for anyone who understands that today’s marketplace is global.  Looking at 2007 math scores (the latest year for which a broad pool of data was available) Greene found that only 820 out of the 13,636 districts examined had average student achievement that would be among the top third of student performance in other developed countries.  That means that 94% of al U.S. school districts have average math achievement below the 67^th percentile.

There are pockets of excellence as Greene and McGee point out in their research, but overall performance is disappointing by any standard.  Importantly, and to my original point, the issue of poor performance is as real in Beverly Hills as it is in Detroit.

Read the article here: http://educationnext.org/when-the-best-is-mediocre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thought of someone trying to improve the way a city or state’s educational system is run sounds admirable at best and hopeless at worst. However, there are people from all different walks of life who are trying to do just that, and succeeding. While a failing education system is a crisis effecting the whole country. The people who are most successful are starting on one city block, in one small community. They are testing research and best practices, hiring high quality staff, and achieving results that can be scaled city-wide, state-wide, and nation-wide. This article tells the tale of one such school. The Kauffman Charter School in Kansas City starts with children in fifth grade puts a laser-like focus on one thing, getting them to and through college.  If they are successful, there is no reason these techniques, skills, curriculum, professional development, and passion are replicated in every school in every city in Missouri.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri supports informed school choice. We feel strongly that charter schools not only allow parents to choose where their child goes to school, but forces the traditional public schools to reform, or face losing students. There is increasing demand around Missouri and the rest of the nation for high performing schools. Fortunately for parents and students, in many cases, the options parents are turning to are charter schools. But you don’t have to take my word for it, The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools completed this report called Charter Demographics Report that paints a very vivid picture of the demand for and success of charter schools in America.

Published Online: October 20, 2011

By Alyson Klein

After a long delay, the Senate education committee approved a bill Thursday night that would rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the measure is certain to encounter further debate on the Senate floor.

The bill, sponsored by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and its ranking Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, garnered support from all of the committee’s Democrats and three Republicans—Sen. Enzi, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

Sen. Harkin hopes to move the bill to the floor of the Senate before Thanksgiving, and he believes it’s “possible” that Congress could approve a rewritten version of the nation’s main education law before Christmas—in time to negate the need for the Obama administration’s waiver plan.

The bill would change several aspects of the current ESEA, known, at least for now, as the No Child Left Behind Act.

It would scrap the accountability system at the heart of the nearly 10-year-old NCLB Act—adequate yearly progress, or AYP. Instead, it would place the federal focus on the lowest-performing schools, including high schools with high-drop rates. The measure would call on states to craft college-and-career standards, and it would streamline the Department of Education by consolidating 82 programs into around 40.

The measure would retain the NCLB law’s regime of testing in math and reading in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and it would continue to require states to disaggregate data by particular subgroups of students, including racial minorities.

But it would scrap the requirement that states set annual, measurable goals—a move that drew stringent opposition from the civil rights community, including disability advocacy groups who have long seen a champion in Sen. Harkin. In an interview after the markup, Sen. Harkin said that, ultimately, “we will not lose the support of disability groups.”

Changes Made

Several amendments to the Harkin-Enzi bill were floated during the two-day markup leading up to Thursday’s vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Among them, an approved amendment would let states submit their own ideas for turning around the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools.

That provision, sponsored by Sen. Alexander would retain the six turnaround models spelled out in the ESEA reauthorization bill introduced last week by Sens. Harkin and Enzi. The amendment would add a seventh option, allowing districts to come up with their own turnaround ideas, then submit them to the U.S. Secretary of Education for approval.

Speaking on the second day of the committee’s markup of the bill, Sen. Alexander said his amendment would allow states to come up with their own best interventions for the lowest-performing schools. He said his own home state, Tennessee, has an excellent new state schools chief and governor who may come up with their own ideas for low-performing schools.

When he was governor of Tennessee, Sen. Alexander said, “I never thought Washington was ahead of me.”

But seven Democrats on the committee—including Sen. Harkin and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.—voted against the amendment, which passed with unanimous support from Republican members.

“We are talking about the bottom 5 percent of schools,” said Sen. Bennet. “None of us send our children to those schools. None of us has grandchildren in those schools. … My hope is that whatever these models are, they are at least as robust as the ones that are contained in the legislation. Otherwise we’re going to have those children who are marooned in those 5 percent of schools, marooned in those schools for the rest of their K-12 education, for the rest of their lives.”

After the vote, a Senate GOP aide gave Mary Kusler, the manager of federal advocacy for the National Education Association, a congratulatory hug. The NEA put its political heft behind the provision.

Ms. Kusler was happy with the outcome. The NEA has not been a huge fan of the Obama administration’s turnaround models, in part because the union considers them a federal intrusion into what it sees as a state and local interest. And many of the existing models require the removal of teachers, or call for merit pay.

“We applaud the passage of Sen. Alexander’s amendment to add additional flexibility to the turnaround models in the bill,” she said in a statement. “If you want to make lasting, sustainable changes, you must engage all of the people who are involved—educators, parents, administrators, and community members.”

Amendments Accepted

Amendments from a number of senators were accepted during the markup:

• Sen. Alexander introduced an amendment, accepted on voice vote, that would allow students in the lowest 5 percent of schools to transfer to better-performing schools.
• An amendment sponsored by Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., would require that new principals coming into turnaround schools have a background in school improvement. Some Republicans voted against it, including Sen. Alexander, who said he thought that districts would already be planning to choose the best person.
• An amendment by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., would give states the option of using computer-adaptive tests for accountability purposes under the law. Sen. Franken said the tests are a big hit in his state and give teachers a right-now picture of how their students are doing.
• Another Franken amendment would provide competitive grants to recruit and train principals to lead turnaround schools.
• Sen. Bernie Sander, I-Vt., won approval for an amendment that would call for schools to do a better job tracking students’ movement from 8th grade to 9th grade.
• An amendment from Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., asks states to “cross-tabulate” existing student data to make it more clear how students in particular subgroups are doing.
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced an amendment to reauthorize the Educational Technology State Grants, which helps states design technology programs. The program lost its authorization in the 2011 continuing resolution, and was eliminated under the bill. The language would restore the program.
• Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., introduced an amendment that would create a “well-rounded education” fund. School districts could use the money to fund arts; civics and government; economics; environmental education; financial literacy; foreign languages; geography; health education; history; physical education; and social studies programs.
• Sen. Bennet put forth an amendment that would give states the option of holding their teacher training programs accountable for producing educators who demonstrate the ability to boost student achievement before they graduate. In exchange for their participation in the program, academies would be exempt from regulations that are “burdensome,” “input based,” and “unrelated to student achievement.

Amendments Turned Down

Other key amendments were rejected, including:

• An amendment by Sen. Sanders that would have only allowed teachers to be considered highly qualified if they had completed a state-approved traditional or alternative teacher preparation program, or passed a rigorous state-approved teacher performance assessment, and attained certification in their subject matter. Sen. Bennet argued the measure would deal a blow to Teach For America and other alternative certification programs.
• An amendment by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would have scrapped the authorization for the Promise Neighborhoods program, which helps communities create cradle-to-career services modeled on the Harlem Children’s Zone. Sen. Kirk said the program had only financed a handful of planning grants and the money would be better spent on special education.
• The markup got off to a rocky start after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., threw up hurdles, filing 74 amendments and using a rare procedural move to limit the time the committee could debate the bill. He and committee leaders reached an agreement that allowed things to move forward while assuring him of a hearing on the bill Nov. 8, before it goes to the Senate floor.
• Sen. Paul eventually agreed to scale his amendments back to just a handful, including one to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act. That amendment failed.

Amendments Withdrawn

The watch-word for this markup seems to be “withdrawn.” Democrats, in particular, seem to be introducing amendments that take a stand on a particular issue, and then pulling them back without a vote. It’s a way of planting a marker on policy without holding up the proceedings.

Some of these amendments are likely to be offered when the full Senate debates the bill, which could happen before Christmas if leaders on the education committee have their way. Among the examples:

• An Alexander amendment that would have stripped the “highly qualified teacher” provisions out of the bill. The bill retains the idea that teachers must have a degree in the subject they teach, plus be state-certified. Sen. Alexander’s amendment would have let states decide who is highly qualified. He said he’d be bringing this one to the floor.
• An Alexander amendment that would have taken out language in the bill requiring that states make continuous improvement, and another that would have eliminated a proposed requirement that states develop a plan to address schools with persistent achievement gaps. He made it clear that both of those amendments will make a reappearance on the floor, and that he’d fight for them in a conference committee.
• A pair of amendments from Sen. Casey to improve early childhood education.
• An amendment by Sen. Hagan that would have called for extending learning time programs.
• A proposal from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to allow states wiggle room from the law’s testing mandates if appropriations aren’t kept at a certain level.
• Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., also introduced and then withdrew an amendment that would have scrapped the authorization for the Race to the Top program, President Barack Obama’s signature education initiative. He said he would offer the amendment on the Senate floor.

One last tidbit: The new name for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No Child Left Behind has become a toxic brand, so the committee is looking to get rid of the name and go back to the classic version.

You can read this article on Education Weekly here.

Vol. 31, Issue 09

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Be Bold

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

3. Think about implementation

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

4. Grassroots, grassroots, grassroots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Event Registration and Ticketing Powered by Event Espresso

Chris Geden, Community Outreach Director Children Education Alliance of Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education to anyone anywhere.

The Khan Academy provides 12 minute videos focused on math and science concepts. The concepts range in difficulty from simple addition and subtraction to very complex trigonometry and calculus.

It was started in 2009 when Salman Khan’s  niece needed some help with her math homework and asked her MIT and Harvard educated uncle. He uploaded a video he made for her onto YouTube. The video became almost an instant internet sensation. As a result Khan, who has no previous teaching experience, decided to quit his job and start Khan Academy He wanted to give people everywhere access to a high quality education. In just two years, Khan Academy’s viewership has grown to 2 million unique viewers a month.

According to Khan these viewers include: students who are trying to master a concept they didn’t grasp when their teachers taught it, teachers trying to engage students in a new and interesting way, adults preparing to go back to school, and people who love to learn.

Bill Gates, one of Khan Academy’s biggest donors, says that the Khan Academy is changing, for the better, how education is delivered and received. This is virtual education at its best.

To learn more about the amazing work being done at Khan Academies, listen to Salman Khna’s interview on NPR’s OnPoint. If you are interested in brushing up on your multiplication tables or learning about multiplying and dividing rational expression, you can visit the Khan Academy website.

If you were in charge of developing an economic recovery plan for an entire country, how would you go about doing it?

Certainly jobs come to mind.  Perhaps you would propose enacting an FDR-era Work Projects Administration.  Give everyone a job and stimulate the economy that way.

Or maybe you would decide that lowering taxes on the middle class would put more money in people’s hands and the country could spend its way back to health.  After all, you need money to buy goods and services that are the basis of people’s jobs.

Those are just some ideas you might consider, but they are not the ideas that one country placed at the center of its economic recovery plan forty years ago.  No, that distinction goes to our friends in Finland.

An article on Smithsonian.com about Finnish schools gives a great overview of what they are doing and why they think it is working.  For me, though, the real genius is that the Finns identified a robust, effective education system for its children as the key to economic recovery.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri supports public policies that encourage access to quality educational opportunities for all Missouri students.  We firmly believe that for Missouri to compete in the global marketplace, we must have an educated citizenry.

I encourage you to read the article and make up your own mind about the many ways in which the Finns have found educational success.  For me, the most fascinating aspect is in the inception of their reform efforts.  Seems like a brave notion to suggest that the path to economic prosperity should start with the education of children.  We all say that a good education is the key to a successful life, but the Finns really put that idea into action.

Read the article here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&story=fullstory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her new role, Casas is responsible for overseeing CEAM’s major, statewide education policy initiatives. She also will oversee managing the Financial Assistance and Parent Advocacy Training Program for families with children with special educational needs.

As community outreach director, Geden’s responsibilities include building awareness about CEAM’s mission and engaging parents and the broader community in reform efforts. Geden’s work centers on helping parents understand what options are working in other states, what policy changes could work in our state and what policy resources are available to aid them and their children.

“We are thrilled to add professionals with the caliber of expertise which Kate and Chris bring with them to our organization,” said Laura Slay, president and executive director of CEAM. “As CEAM moves forward with a series of significant programs designed to help students throughout Missouri achieve their full potential, it is vitally important for us to utilize the foresight and vision that both Kate and Chris bring to CEAM in these new and strategic roles.”

Casas has spent more than 10 years establishing strategies, policies and objectives aimed at improving the state of education not only for Missouri families but families nationwide. In 2005 she was accepted into Teach for America, a highly competitive national teaching program in at-risk urban school districts. As part of the Teach for America Corps in St. Louis, Kate structured reading and math growth programs. She also evaluated and diagnosed student performance to adjust instruction to meet students’ needs.

Casas also helped open the first Big Picture Elementary School, where she taught 4th grade as well as developing individualized learning plans with an emphasis on literacy. She has held additional positions with Urban Strategies, Inc. in St. Louis.

Kate holds a master’s degree in teaching from Webster University as well as a bachelor’s degree in communication with a minor in political science. She is an active member of the Educational Partnership Board, the Center of Creative Arts Junior Board and the Teach for America Political Working Group. She lives in the Tower Grove area of St. Louis with her husband and daughter.

Geden has worked for more than 14 years with youth in the St. Louis area. He has aided at-risk youth, many of whom suffered from abuse, trauma or mental illness. He also has provided direct services for middle schoolers, expanding operations from one school to four as Middle School Coordinator for the South City YMCA. In association with the St. Louis Dream Center, Chris helped to develop a successful middle-school sports program that grew to include more than 500 inner-city youths. The program spawned partnerships with the St. Louis Rams and St. Louis School District, leading to improved academic outcomes as well as character development.

Geden, who resides in south St. Louis, graduated from the Neighborhood Leadership Academy program offered to community leaders at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He has served on the board of directors for City Garden Montessori, the St. Louis Senior Center and Tower Grove Farmers Market. He also is the first person to win the YMCA’s mission advancement award, which honors an individual’s commitment to values, community, volunteerism and philanthropy.

I am a regular reader of the EduWonk blog. (If you don’t read it, you should start)!

Last week, I came across this extremely useful article from Andrew Rotherman (lead writer for EduWonk, Co-founder and Partner at Bellweather Education Partners, and education reporter at Time Magazine). The article details the journey he and his wife took to find the right school for their daughter. It also gives five tips for picking a good school. The article is easy to understand and could be useful to any parent. Well any parent that lives in a place where good schools are readily accessible.

Although I found the article origionally on the EduWonk site, the entire article is actually at Time.com. While I plan on using this article and the data that will soon be available on DESE about Missouri Schools to help MO parents make good choices, for now, I just wanted to share the atricle for anyone who might be wondering, what kinds of things they should be considering when determining which school is right for their children.

“Corey has made improving educational opportunities for all children a priority in his life,” said Laura Slay, the organization’s president and executive director. “Through the years, he has worked to give parents access to that opportunity, in order that their children will reach their full potential. We are grateful for his expertise and are fortunate to have him on board with us.”

Mr. Quinn began his role as president of De La Salle Middle School in July 2008, but his first trip to the school was in 1998. As a first-year teacher at Rockhurst High School in Kansas City, Mr. Quinn and a team of students and teachers helped clear out the space that would eventually become home to De La Salle Middle School. Mr. Quinn spent six years teaching theology at Rockhurst, then joined the faculty at De Smet Jesuit High School in St. Louis County.

While serving at De Smet, Mr. Quinn earned his Masters in Catholic School Leadership at Saint Louis University and is now completing his doctorate in the same program.

When asked why he decided to make the switch from a large, suburban high school to a small, urban middle school, Mr. Quinn replied, “The Nativity Miguel model has fascinated me since its inception.Our school’s motto is ‘Love and Learn’, and I think that these two simple actions are inextricably and intertwined at De La Salle. It is truly a privilege to help guide this mission.”

Mr. Quinn resides in Tower Grove East with his wife, Amanda, and their three children.

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

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

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

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

As a Teach for America (TFA) Alum (StL-05 Corps Member), it does not surprise me that some of the brightest minds in the education community have recently found that TFA’s rigorous selection process translates into better outcomes for students. Having been close to the process, I know the amount of brain-power, time, and money TFA spends perfecting every single piece of every single thing they do. The most important of which is the recruiting and training of teachers.

I know this study will cause the leadership of TFA to re-examine (again) their selection and training process. As an organization they are constantly learning new things and applying evidenced based techniques to their repitoire so they can achieve their mission. However, I also hope it also leads to state departments of education and school districts learning some valuable lessons from TFA about the recruiting and training of teachers. At the very least, it should wake them up to the fact that simply getting a teaching certificate doesn’t mean you have all the qualities needed to be an effective teacher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How long are we going to accept the educational options being offered in urban and rural America? Are we so niave that we think it’s a problem that will fix itself?

Each year we send million of kids (some who have graduated and some who have dropped out) into the real world ill prepared and uneducated, then when they mess up, we blame them.However, before you point the blame at American youth, think about this–when in your lifetime have you raised concern and then DONE something about the lackluster performance of our education system?

Well, in case you need a little motivation here is a group of parents who put their children’s best interest above that of popular opinion.

The only way that change can occur in our failing educational institutions is for parents and communities to say” enough already–the status quo is unacceptable”. Parents need to join together and begin mobilizing, be willing to fight the systems that have caused this sickening trend. Parents need to understand the best way of educating our children is through choice. I have every right, as a parent, to decide where or how my children are educated. I feel that the kind of uprising we are seeing in Harlem needs to be going on all across the nation–parents banding together to force education reform for all our kids. Please check out the story and video linked above, they are both very powerful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of talk, little action on education by Missouri lawmakers

By Dale Singer, Beacon Staff

May 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHARTER SCHOOLS

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

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

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

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

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

Adds Dieckhaus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNACCREDITED DISTRICTS, LEGAL REMEDIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If our goal is to educate our children to the point of college readiness than how can we continue to pass our children on when they simply aren’t ready?

New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott wants to find out if his schools’ kids are making the grade. Good.

At the urging of Post columnist Michael Goodwin, Walcott Wednesday, launched a probe into how the City’ teachers grade and promote students in the city’s 1.1 million-pupil system.

As I have been following this article in the New York Post I am amazed and galled at the ease in which our educational system continues to fail our kids.

For example, one Manhattan high-school staffer told Goodwin that “teachers in [the] school are ‘encouraged’ to pass 80 percent of students, no matter their grades or attendance.” Another wrote that, “Our mandated passing rate is 60 percent.”

This is the kind of forward thinking that we need. Although NYC is hundreds of miles from Mo, it is vital for the future of education reform here, for us to stay engaged in what is happening in all corners of the country, And world for that matter.

A recent study showed that 43 percent of first-time freshmen entering Oklahoma colleges and universities from high schools in 2009 were not ready for college work and had to be remediated. We need to stop this trend now and be solution-oriented.  We have options tutors, after school programs and summer schools.

Here’s the complete opinion piece from the New York Post:

Whistleblowers wanted

Last Updated: 3:39 AM, July 8, 2011

Posted: July 08, 2011

Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott wants to find out if New York City kids are making the grade. Good.

At the urging of Post columnist Michael Goodwin, Walcott Wednesday launched a probe into grading and promotion in the city’s 1.1 million-pupil system.

The Department of Education nominally ended social promotion in 2004. But as Goodwin wrote, and school employees confirmed, the practice lingers.

One Manhattan high-school staffer told Goodwin that “teachers in [the] school are ‘encouraged’ to pass 80 percent of students, no matter their grades or attendance.” Another wrote that, “Our mandated passing rate is 60 percent.”

A Brooklyn high-school professional told Goodwin, “The administration allows students to run around, go to class for 5 minutes, and we must mark them present . . . We are also encouraged to change attendance of students marked absent up to 2 weeks earlier, looking for ‘proof’ they are absent. So teachers just give up and mark them present.”

It’s vital that Walcott ascertain whether these are just isolated cases or part of a larger pattern.

It’s true that city students have been doing somewhat better on state tests — and the city says that its graduation rates are up.

But Goodwin’s reporting calls even those meager gains into question.

Walcott seems sincere about wanting to get to the bottom of this. He’s invited more whistleblowers to e-mail him: DMWalcott@schools.nyc.gov.

If you know something, say something.

It’s for the children.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/whistleblowers_wanted_bSilGlnbgakFmOZS8sT9WL#ixzz1RpeBTEhV

A recent article from a parenting website about the testing scandal in the Atlanta public schools started with: “With the current push by many for merit pay for teachers based on test scores there may come an unintended consequence — widespread cheating.”

To my ears that sentence comes off sounding very passive when, in fact, the whole scam required the active participation of teachers and administrators; in this case, almost 200 of them.  A consequence is what follows an action or results from a situation.  Widespread cheating was a consequence of something, but I don’t think I would say it is the consequence of an increased interest in test scores.  More likely, it was the consequence of a failure to require transparency.

When a Facebook friend posted the Yahoo News version of the story on her page I commented with: “The old do as I say, not as I do routine.”

I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that cheating in an academic setting is the cardinal sin.  From the very first day we enter a Kindergarten classroom we are told to do our own work, keep our eyes on our own paper and to not give hints to others when they are asked a question.  We are not allowed to phone a friend, poll the class or eliminate half of the possible answers.  We are told to think for ourselves.  We’re told that when we take a test it tells us what we’ve learned and helps us understand what we need to study further.

All that seems to have been thrown out the window in Atlanta and presumably other schools in the country as at least a few other testing scandals were uncovered in June.  It seems that when test scores are used for measuring the effectiveness of institutions no one gets all that desperate.  But when you say that test scores will be used to measure the effectiveness of the person(s) a child has spent the last nine months learning from, things change.

In Atlanta, the prospect of using test scores to evaluate teacher effectiveness was so frightening that many district staff colluded to make themselves look better and ostensibly to stave off any threats to pay raises.  They’re not exactly being shining examples to their students and if there is a direct connection to be made between the reported scores and salary increases, they may have effectively defrauded the government by ensuring pay increases with their falsified scores.  Time will tell.

What all this really calls for in my opinion is greater transparency.

Transparency is one of the key values held by the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri and had it been practiced in Atlanta, this whole mess might have been avoided.  Educational attainment by students is a major, national issue that impacts our economy and security.  Operating schools under full transparency ensures that people understand how public money is being spent, how tests are being implemented and what the outcomes of those tests are.

Taxpayers and especially parents are best suited to demand educational transparency.  The incident in Atlanta makes one wonder what might be going on behind closed doors in Missouri. Making the system more transparent is the best way to know what is happening in all Missouri schools.

Here’s the story from www.imperfectparent.com

Atlanta teacher cheating scandal may be largest ever

Georgia governor reveals 178 teachers and principals accused of rigging test scores

With the current push by many for merit pay for teachers based on test scores there may come an unintended consequence — widespread cheating.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal revealed on Tuesday that 178 teachers and principals in the Atlanta school district have been accused of gaming test scores, casting a shadow over recent gains claimed by the city’s public schools. Eighty-two of the 178 educators have already confessed.

The governor’s report on the Atlanta Public Schools described a “widespread conspiracy” to rig scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) as well as taking measures against any teachers that would go against the policy, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which has been conducting a months long investigation of Atlanta schools. The CRCT was implemented by the state to assess student proficiency by first through eighth grade in the “Georgia Performance Standards” in reading, English/language arts and mathematics. Third through eighth grade students are also tested in science and social studies.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was reported as saying, “[The report] confirms our worst fears. There is no doubt that systemic cheating occurred on a widespread basis in the school system.”

A spokesman for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, Robert Schaeffer, points out that the Atlanta incident is far from isolated, and two to three other cheating scandals a week nationwide had been discovered during the month of June. Schaeffer says, “When test scores are all that matter, some educators feel pressured to get the scores they need by hook or by crook. The higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to manipulate, to cheat.”

The Georgia report not only details teacher and principal cheating, but also troubling indicators that the school district actively refused to address the cheating, with some district administrators even ordering principals not to respond to investigator requests, with one even saying employees should “tell investigators to ‘go to hell.’”

The report specifically called out Superintendent Beverly Hall, calling her actions “unconscionable”  and that “in many ways, the community was duped by Dr. Hall.”

Investigators added, “While the district had rampant cheating, community leaders were unaware of the misconduct in the district. She abused the trust they placed in her. Hall became a subject of adoration and made herself the focus rather than the children. Her image became more important than reality.”

This recent story appeared in Education Week and talks about the former principal of New York City PS69 who says he knew he had to “blow up” the old way of doing things in order to create a place where children would learn. It turns out he was right.

St. Louis and Riverview Gardens are both facing massive challenges. It seems likely that leaders who are willing to take risks will be the only one who stand a chance or reaping academic rewards for our children.

Taking Risks and Achieving Results
One principal recalls his N.Y.C. innovation journey
By Michelle R. Davis

When Alan D. Cohen was told his job was to improve a failing New York City school about to be taken over by the state for dismal test scores, it wasn’t hard for him to decide to revamp just about everything.

In 2003, Cohen became the principal of Public School 69 in the Bronx and essentially threw out the way the elementary school had operated. He replaced it with a new framework that included digital curriculum, an emphasis on pedagogy that came with a heavy investment in professional development and communication, a new audio-enhancing sound system and interactive whiteboards in classrooms. He also swapped out curricula based on whether they were shown to work and adopted a community-building and respect initiative.

It wasn’t a difficult decision to try something completely new, Cohen recalls. The school was failing its mostly disadvantaged students, and there was little risk to experimentation.

“It was a community school that was not a beacon of pride,” he says. “There was a sense of urgency.”

Within a few years, the school went from being labeled one of the worst schools in the district to ranking in the top 20 percent of public elementary schools in New York City.

PS 69 soared on its new methods, and Cohen continued to see rising test scores.For example, in 2004, 31 percent of 3rd graders were proficient in reading on state tests; by 2009, that number was close to 77 percent. Test scores in math followed a similar pattern. In 2004, 56 percent of 3rd graders were proficient in math, but by 2009, 96 percent were proficient.

Then, during the 2009-10 school year, the New York City schools chancellor’s office asked Cohen to join the district’s Innovation Zone, an initiative to test new and different ways for educating students and managing schools. PS 69 would pilot a new program aimed at providing more individualized instruction to students through blended learning, using online curriculum and instruction and face-to-face teaching.

Cohen agreed, even though he realized the transition could cause test scores to drop in the short term as students and teachers learned a new way of operating. But Cohen says he didn’t hesitate. Though what he had achieved was good, he felt the school could still be better.

“Once again, I blew up the model,” he says. “Everyone thought I was nuts, but I knew good wasn’t good enough.”

‘Why Take Risks?’

Cohen’s approach is a hallmark of innovative school leaders, says Christopher Dede, a professor of educational technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Others say, why rock the boat, why take risks?” Dede says. “But some educators look at today’s system and instead of seeing a system that is working fairly well, they see a system that is not working for a lot of kids.”

Cohen retired as the principal of PS 69 at the end of the 2009-10 school year and became a network leader for the school district’s Center for Education Innovation-Public Education Association, overseeing 32 city schools. For the upcoming school year, he took at job as a principal at a suburban New York City K-12 private school.

Cohen remains confident that his decision to push the envelope at PS 69 was the right one. His assistant principal is now the principal of the school and is implementing the new iZone initiative.

“They’re using the program and anxiously awaiting test results,” Cohen says. “They’re building the plane as they’re flying it, but they’re very optimistic.”

Vol. 04, Issue 03, Page 34

Though school districts are already empowered by the NCLB to shutter any failing schools, this legislation would empower parents with authority to act if their school board does not. Parents in California are pulling the trigger while other states such as New Jersey, West Virginia, Michigan, Georgia and Maine are considering passing their own ‘parent trigger’ laws, as noted in a recent Education Week article and this article which also indicates that parent empowerment legislation is pending in Indiana, Ohio and Illinois.

Parents in Buffalo, New York are advocating for ‘parent trigger’ laws because they “want a seat at the table”. But Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, fears that this legislation will be abused by those whose “sole mission is to open a charter school”. What’s the problem? When over 50% of parents at a school are dissatisfied, it is GOOD they can takes steps to force change. The law is designed to serve parents, not charter school operators. And conversion to a charter school is only one option, not the only solution. The above article wisely points out that charters cannot be the sole option afforded to parents. Charters can, however, be offered as one of numerous options that could serve parents to educate their children.

Otis Rolley, a Democratic challenger to Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, wants to give $10,000 education vouchers to students in the city’s worst-performing middle schools – vouchers that could be used at Baltimore’s Catholic and other nonpublic schools.

Speaking in a June 13 press conference outside public school headquarters in Baltimore, Rolley proposed closing the city’s five worst middle schools and giving enrolled students education vouchers. He estimated that the program would cost $25 million. Funding would be appropriated from the city schools’ budget, a step that would require state legislation.

“These vouchers are targeted, they are means tested and I believe they are necessary,” Rolley said. “I know some will argue that these opportunity scholarships or vouchers are an attack on our system of public education. My proposal is not an attack on public education. It’s a defense of our kids.”

Rolley emphasized that his plan is not a “wholesale voucher system,” but a way of responding to what he termed a “crisis.” Of the 82 city schools that have middle school grades, he said, only 30 made adequate yearly progress in 2010. As much as 60 percent of graduating seniors are not college ready or adequately prepared for the workforce, he said.

“One of the main reasons young families leave the city is that they don’t feel that the schools will provide their children with a quality education,” Rolley said.

Otis Rolley, a challenger to Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, proposes a voucher system June 13 for poor-performing middle schools in Baltimore. (CR Staff/George P. Matysek Jr.)

In connection with his voucher proposal, Rolley called for returning control of city schools to the mayor. He also proposed building or rehabilitating more than 50 schools in 10 years through public-private partnerships, and said he wanted to expand the number and quality of charter schools.

Pamela Sanders, principal of St. Ambrose School in Park Heights, said she was pleased to see the voucher issue raised in the mayor’s race. Last year, 13 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore closed – largely due to increased costs and declining enrollment.

“(Vouchers) could have a positive impact because one of the biggest reasons parents give for not attending Catholic schools is financial,” she said. “If people had an option of taking their voucher to a school like ours, it would be a tremendous help.”

Sanders expressed doubt, however, that a plan as ambitious as Rolley’s would get very far. Public school unions and others would oppose it, she said.

“It would be wonderful,” she said, “but we can’t even get BOAST passed.”

BOAST is a bill that would establish a business tax credit for businesses that donate to programs benefitting public and nonpublic school students and teachers in Maryland. Although supported by Gov. Martin J. O’Malley, BOAST has failed to clear the Maryland General Assembly.

Ellen Robertson, associate director for education with the Maryland Catholic Conference, said she welcomes anything that would help Catholic schools in the city. She noted, however, that she wants to see more details in the Rolley plan.

“Obviously, we’d love to see a statewide proposal,” Robertson said. “The needs exist in many, many areas of the state.”

Under Rolley’s proposal, vouchers could be used in any combination for tuition, meals, transportation and uniforms. Students not using the vouchers at a private or parochial school would be reassigned to a middle school that has reached or is on target to reach its adequate yearly progress.

Rolley noted that Catholic and other nonpublic schools all serve the children of Baltimore.

“All of these kids are our kids,” Rolley said. “All of these schools are our schools.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One aspect of the education reform movement that stands out to me is the number of creative solutions being offered in communities across the country. The fact that we are reexamining so much of what we thought we knew about education from school hours to school years, from curriculum to control, give me confidence that we are on the road toward improving educational outcomes for all children.

I came across this article recently about an adventurous model in virtual learning. Hawaii Tech Academy is located above a Kayak shop and only takes up about 10,000 square feet; not much space for a 1,000 strong student body. Their virtual learning model means that students only come to the school about twice a week on average for select classes and electives. During the rest of the week they work from home.

One student put it this way, “I really like this school because it’s challenging,” said Joelle Lee, a soft-spoken 7th grader with a flair for drawing. “You can work at your own pace. If you get it down in most schools, you have to wait for everyone else. This one, you learn it once and you get ahead and go on to the next thing.”

Among the values I learned in school, two that were highly valued in my character were creativity and independence. Hawaii Tech Academy seems to embody those values and is presenting one type of solution that could contribute to every child having access to a high quality education.

Posted: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 3:00 am

An evening of Kentucky Derby-inspired fun and fundraising generated $35,000 for the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri.

About 130 people decked out in traditional Derby attire to attend the alliance’s first Kentucky Derby Party and Benefit, which featured a silent auction and mouse races.

Those attending the benefit, held May 6 at St. Francis Xavier Church in St. Louis, included Bill Coppel, David Butsch, Allen Icet, Rachel Keller Brown, Kathy Fulton, Kat Cunningham, Judge Jimmie Edwards, Shonagh Clements, Eric Felty, Brad Wright, Keith Brooks, Angela Brooks, Tony Palazzolo and Kristin Lappin.

Peter Franzen, the alliance’s new director of development, was on hand to meet many supporters for the first time. The evening featured a presentation by board member Edward R. Weber III.

Tom Sudholt, who was the weekday morning drive announcer for KFUO-FM, was the emcee for the evening. The proceeds will go toward programs that offer financial aid and training for parents of children with special needs.

Online at: http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/metro/life/article_27c5806d-90d9-56db-8db9-9b35f9aa2f52.html

$35,000 raised for Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

June 03, 2011

An evening of Kentucky Derby-inspired fun and fundraising generated $35,000 for the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri on Friday, May 6. About 130 people arrived in traditional Derby attire for CEAM’s first Kentucky Derby Party and Benefit, which featured a silent auction and mouse races.

Tom Sudholt, the weekly morning drive announcer for KFUO-FM, was the emcee for the evening. The silent auction items included artwork by students from Churchhill Center, the School for Learning Disabilities and Logos Schools, as well as a three-course Italian wine dinner at Remy’s Kitchen and Wine Bar and a cocktail party at the home of Kevin and Patti Short.

CEAM is a non-profit organization focusing on ways to improve and expand on high-quality education choices for Missouri children, with an emphasis on those who do not learn in a typical classroom setting. Proceeds from the event will go toward CEAM programs that offer financial aid and parent training programs for parents of children with special needs.

Peter Franzen, CEAM’s new director of development, was on hand to meet many CEAM supporters for the first time. The evening also featured a presentation by CEAM board member Edward R. Weber III.

Read more:

http://www.westendword.com/Articles-i-2011-06-03-175409.114137-CEAM-Hosts-DerbyStyle-Event.html#ixzz1O8Gaiir

Keith Brooks and Peter Franzen

ST. LOUIS –An evening of Kentucky Derby inspired fun and fundraising generated $35,000 for the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri. About 130 people decked out in traditional Derby attire, attended CEAM’s first Kentucky Derby Party and Benefit, which featured a silent auction and mouse races.

Those attending the Derby benefit, held Friday, May 6, at St. Francis Xavier Church in St. Louis, included Bill Coppel , David Butsch, Allen Icet, Rachel Keller Brown, Kathy Fulton, Kat Cunningham, Judge Jimmie Edwards, Shonagh Clements, Eric Felty, Brad Wright, Keith Brooks, Angela Brooks, Tony Palazzolo and Kristin Lappin. Peter Franzen, CEAM’s new director of development, was on hand to meet many CEAM supporters for the first time. The evening featured a moving presentation by CEAM board member Edward R. Weber III.

Kathy Fulton and Bill Copple

Tom Sudholt, who was the weekday morning drive announcer for KFUO-FM, was the emcee for the evening.  The auction items included artwork by students from Churchhill Center and School for Learning Disabilities and Logos School, a three-course Italian wine dinner for eight at Remy’s Kitchen and Wine Bar, and cocktail party for 50 at the home of Kevin and Patti Short.

The proceeds will go toward CEAM programs that offer financial aid and parent training program for parents of children with special needs. CEAM is a non-profit organization focusing on ways to improve and expand on high-quality education choices for all Missouri children, with an emphasis on those who do not learn in a typical classroom setting.

Edward R Webber III, Jennifer Webber, Tracey Alcorn, and Tyler P Alcorn

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri , based in St. Louis’ Central West End, is a non-profit 501c3 organization and supports individualized learning opportunities for all children through issue resolution, community education, and civic engagement.

Rachel Keller Brown and Kat Cunningham

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

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

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

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

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

These bills now move to the House floor for debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 legislative session ends on May 13.

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

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

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

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

In writing for the majority, Judge Anthony Kennedy noted a difference between a tax credit and a direct expenditure by the government.  The majority opinion also found that the plaintiff’s status as taxpayers did not give them standing to file suit and that “any financial injury remains speculative.”

Education reform advocates immediately reacted to the ruling as a great victory for providing education options for children.  Many of the scholarship tax credit programs in the country are focused on low income families or special needs students.  This case is also viewed as a final word on the constitutionality of scholarship tax credit programs. Many states were waiting on this decision before expanding, or considering new, programs similar to the one in Arizona.

Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented stating that no practical difference existed in direct expenditures and tax credits.

Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in a majority concurring opinion adding that a narrow exception allowing taxpayers standing in establishment cases should be overruled completely.

Nicki’s Central West End Guide

Show Me St. Louis – March 25th

KPLR – March 21st

Alive Magazine – March 15th

KMOX – March 23rd

West End Word – March 23rd

Ladue News – March 24th

KTRS – March, 28th

STL Kids Magazine – March 28th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy your passport to the Central West End

‘PASSPORT TO CENTRAL WEST END’ APRIL 1-10 OFFERS DISCOUNTS, GIFTS TO BENEFIT SPECIAL NEEDS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

ST. LOUIS, March 10, 2011 — Free appetizers at restaurants, invitations to special events and a percentage off various items at retailers are all available for just $25 with the purchase of a “Passport to the Central West End.” The passport is valid at participating commercial locations in the Central West End (CWE) from April 1-10, 2011 as part of Autism Awareness Month.

All proceeds from sales of the passports will benefit the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri’s (CEAM) innovative Financial Assistance and Parent Training Program, which is being launched later this year. The not-for-profit CEAM is the state’s leading education reform organization dedicated to policy that encourages improved and expanded learning opportunities for all children.

Merchants throughout the CWE are participating in the 10-day promotion. Each merchant involved will offer an enticement to the passport buyer, such as an appetizer, a tasting, a special gift or a percentage off the price of an item in their store. Selected outlets may also choose to dedicate a percentage of sales generated during the promotion to CEAM.

“Spring is a great time to enjoy the many entertainment and shopping offerings of the Central West End,” said Laura Slay, president and executive director of CEAM. “The season’s fashions are just arriving, along with new wines and menu items. CEAM’s ‘Passport to the Central West End’ offers the added incentive of generating funds for a one-of-a-kind tuition scholarship program for families with special-needs children.”

CEAM’s mission is to support parents of special learners so they can make the best choices for their children. The new financial assistance and parent training program has been created for families of children who are exceptional learners, pairing special education-related financial assistance with the best privately-funded, solutions-oriented, parent-training program available.

“When parents are told that their child is learning disabled, they face a number of critical choices,” said Slay. “They need a crash course in the diagnoses, good advice on what educational requirements and rights that child has, and ongoing training on how to ensure that their child has access to the best, most appropriate education. The process is overwhelming. CEAM’s program uniquely provides two of the most requested services: ongoing advocacy support and tuition and therapy assistance.”

CEAM will place more special-needs students in schools that are equipped to handle each student’s unique disability, assist parents with navigating a complex special needs education system and the Individualized Education Plan process, and also train them to advocate for the education needs of their children.

No other program in the St. Louis area pairs educational scholarships with special needs learners for tuition and therapies with this type of training. St. Louis has more than 30,000 special-needs learners, many of whom do not learn in a typical classroom setting. Statistics show that the lifetime cost of caring for an individual with autism can be $3-$5 million.

Numbers for families with special-needs children are sobering as well. Bankruptcy rates are higher than the national average and the national divorce rate is an astonishing 80 percent for parents of children with autism, according to the National Autism Association.

To sign up for a “Passport to the Central West End,” click here.

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

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

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

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

Bryce’s Law, which has been introduced in the Missouri Legislature by state Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst, creates a special needs scholarship tax credit program that would be administered by the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED).  Named after Scharnhorst’s late autistic grandson, Bryce’s Law would allow DED to establish criteria and standards for determining scholarship-granting organizations.

Parents of special needs students would be able to use those scholarships to send their children to a school well-suited to work with them.  Legislation would serve students in grades k-12 who currently attend a public school with an Individual Educational Program (IEP), including students such as those who are mentally challenged, speech and language impaired, specific learning disabled, deaf or hard of hearing, visually impaired, dual sensory impaired, physically impaired, emotionally troubled, diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, or hospitalized or homebound by illness or disability.

These scholarships would be funded entirely by charitable donations from Missouri taxpayers.  Both individual and corporate taxpayers could claim tax credit against the taxpayer’s state tax liability equal to 80 percent of the contribution.  Scholarships could be used for payment of tuition and fees as well as transportation costs outside of a resident school district.

Without such assistance, many special needs children have little hope of gaining the education necessary to succeed in society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you know?

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

From National School Choice Week:

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

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

From “Waiting for Superman”, Social Action Campaign:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“”We listened to some of the problems parents are dealing with,” Slay said, “and across the board, they had two major concerns. They were going through emotional changes after their children had been diagnosed, worrying about their future, and they also were trying to navigate a very complex educational system.”

CEAM’s financial assistance and parent training program will call for applications in April and will grant financial scholarships for tuition and therapies this summer, empowering parents to seek solutions for their special needs children who are not excelling in their current classroom environment.

As noted in the article, it is critical for parents to know their rights and how to advocate for specific individual needs of their child.  Parents, upon learning their child has a diagnoses, must navigate a very complex education system in addition to managing emotional and financial stresses.  CEAM intends to alleviate some of that stress and allow parents to focus on the educational needs of their child through education and training.

There is great demand for this kind of assistance in Missouri.  CEAM is planning benefits in support of this program this spring and we are hearing from the community that we are on the right track.  Please hold the evening of May 6th for our Kentucky Derby Party and pull out your fanciest hat!  The race is on!

KUDOS to the Met schools in New York!

However, not until we, collectively as a nation, determine to make this type of private education accessible to all will we advance all children to reach their maximum potential.  That, after all, is pretty much what any parent wants for their children.  Our federal laws guarantee the right of all individuals a quality education, but as a nation, we struggle to meet this obligation.  When we do not, we damn those we fail to a lifetime of dependence that we, as taxpayers, will support.

So, if you do not care on a personal and moral level, perhaps you might notice the punch from these lifetime costs of services of one individual on the spectrum who could draw between $3 and $5 million (YEP~That’s MILLIONS, folks!).  By intervening early enough and providing access to quality education options to these children and their families, the lifetime costs of care can be reduced by as much as two-thirds.  Now do you care?!

Options to consider that would increase access to appropriate quality education in Missouri are such things as charter school expansion, open enrollment, teacher development and scholarship tax credits, to name a few.

So until we reach the point that we can and do meet the individual needs of all (something we work toward daily here at CEAM), the odds of success favor those parents who learn their rights and responsibilities and learn how to become fierce advocates for their child.   As noted in the article referenced above, that parent who advocates the most, will get the most for their child.  PERIOD.

[Author's note:  please see our innovative new program, launching in spring 2011:  the financial assistance and parent training program; this program will provide direct access to St. Louis area children who are not excelling in their current educational environment and will offer parent trainings to any Missouri parent seeking to become the parent advocate they need to be.]

The situation:  Her child, now in 3d grade, acts out in class, and though the child has been receiving A’s and B’s, she questions the merits of the reporting and fears her child is not learning.  The Mother says she knows her child can learn, but she is quite certain by now that her child has some type of learning disability.

Has this child been advanced socially so the school does not have to address the problem?  IEPs and special education can be costly and very involved.  Perhaps there is nothing nefarious and the disability has simply gone unnoticed, but it finally is catching up?  Is there a disability at all?  And if not, what exactly is the problem?  To continue punishing this child is not working.

The Mother said she requested an evaluation of the child to see if there is a learning disability over 100 days ago and has received no response.

Now, I know as a Mother that 3d grade really advances beyond the basics of the child’s prior school experiences and it is critical that the child have all the basic learning skills under their belt by 3d grade.  So, if those skills were not built, you will really begin to see problems at the 3d grade level.

Again, I must inform her that I am not an advocate.  However, I do know a few things…and a few people, like a special education specialist.  Here is what the expert said:

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Special Education Division

I offered other information as well, already found on our resources page that any parent starting out on the path of specialized education for their child should know,  like “What Every Parent Needs to Know About IEPs” and the US Dept. of Special Ed. IEP Guide.  A law called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act guarantees the right to a quality education to people with learning disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Most importantly, I encouraged this Mother to educate herself on her rights and to become the very best advocate for her child.  I pointed her to agencies that offer support and advocacy training and I truly hope she will work it with the school.  Then, in case she is not successful with the school, I told her about our financial assistance and parent training program.

I simply cannot wait until our prgram launches this next spring!  Then maybe I’ll know what it’s like to be Superman!!

On Thursday, I returned a call to another Mother in St. Louis city who called about her son.  They (parents) all call because of concerns about their children hoping that when I answer, I will be the one who can finally help them.  They are looking for their own ‘Superman’, just like the one who was noted missing in ‘Waiting for Superman’, the recent Davis Guggenheim documentary on public education being screened across the country, showing now in St. Louis until at least 10/28 (call to see if extended beyond that date).

I am not sure how this woman came upon CEAM and didn’t get the chance to ask.  She has no access to a computer.  Someone must’ve told her about about our financial assistance and parent training program, as I finally realized during this lengthy conversation that this woman was panicked and seeking an alternative that she now does not have.  So, what happened?

There was some kind of ruckus on the playground, preceding this call, involving a group of 16 children.  Though this woman says she has 3 witnesses affirming that her son had nothing to do with it, he has been somehow identified by his school as one of the 16 that is now facing the possibility of expulsion.  She told me her son is 11 year old, has an ADD diagnosis and an IQ of 18.  He also has no history of bad behavior.

When I shared this sad story with special education specialists (no less than 3 of them), they all winced and said either she meant that her son has an IQ of 81 or her son was not properly diagnosed.  She says she has had some parent training, but she was seeking an advocate for her child.  For if he is expelled, what will she be able to do for him?  She also said that the school’s designated representatives do not show up for her son’s IEP meetings.

I was able to make some personal recommendations based on what I know already about who in Missouri provides support, but the fact of the matter is that resources are scarce and one must be trained to advocate in this education bureaucracy.  I am not in a position to provide direct intervention and immediate consult/relief, which is what they all seek.  They are often pretty desperate by the time the calls come in.  They need help now.

All I could do was provide some phone numbers to help them find that superman and put this woman on our list to mail out applications in April when we finally launch our program.  But what about right now?  What about all those kids we will have to turn away because they do not live in the St. Louis metro area or because demand well exceeds our funds?  What about the Mother I met from Hillsboro whose 12 year old daughter with autism is sent to a state school that does not have teachers trained to advance her non-verbal child, nor an appropriate curriculum nor therapeutic services necessary?  Or the child in Union who did not receive a proper diagnosis of autism until he was in 5th grade?  I have not even met that family~a friend told me about this.  The 5th grade boy has a history of having been restrained, drugged and isolated.

I hate that I am not Superman because if I was I could swoop in and save these children by stopping that freight train that is their destiny.  I don’t want to tell anyone that Superman really does not exist.  Choice options like charter schools serving special needs learners, or open enrollment, at least for this demographic, and expanded scholarship funding would benefit these children and their families.  From a long-term perspective, society would benefit financially by advancing children to their fullest potential and independence.

Educators and parents agree that assisting our gifted children is an overlooked priority and that this group is often not given critical support, especially that group within the ‘gifted’ category that are also learning disabled.

On August 29 I took my children to see a music recital presented by the Lacefield Music Company.  In many ways it was like any other recital, with some participants in the beginning stages of their musical education and others with many hours and years of practice under the belts.  The difference was that every one of the musicians featured that day was on the autism spectrum and ranged in age from 8 to 38.  I was touched and amazed at the talent and commitment of these musicians as well their instructors and music therapists.

Lacefield Music Company has a special commitment to individuals on the Autism spectrum and other disibilties that they state very clearly in their mission statement:

“To provide a place where anyone, Regardless of age or musical experience or ability, could fulfill a lifelong dream of learning to play a musical instrument as well as a place, to purchase top quality instruments, operating with a sense of corporate responsibility placing customer service at the top of its priorities list.”

I had the opportunity to briefly meet Cathy Krubsack, President of Lacefield Music and grandmother to a child with autism.  In 1995 Cathy and her son opened a store in St. Louis that would help them fulfill this mission, offering opportunities for anyone, regardless of ability, to enjoy music and learn how to play an instrument.

Music is and always has been a part of daily life in my household.  My children freely play instruments and break into song at will in our house, in the car, in the grocery store, and sometimes during performances at recitals.  Although I am a music teacher and taught piano for many years we have been looking for a place just like Lacefield to start formal instruction for Ben in piano and voice.  Music opens up many pathways socially and emotionally as well as in language and other areas of development for all children and for some children on the spectrum.  Ben struggles with speech and language, but give him a song that he likes to sing and the words just flow from him.  In fact, Ben has been known to sing a song beginning to end after only having heard it one time.  He has also exhibited an understanding of intervals on the piano in the same manner after hearing a song on television and then going to the piano and playing the melody after finding the first note.  This is pretty amazing considering his struggles with his studies in school.  It is my belief that the investment of time, effort, and money in a music program for Ben will enhance the other areas of study and life for him.

Once soccer has ended this fall we will begin piano and voice lessons and I will keep you posted as to Ben’s progress, unless he decides on a different instrument.  Last week he said he wanted to play a saxophone and this summer he said he wanted to play the fiddle.  It seems that in many ways my kiddo is quite typical and I am sure that at some point drums and/or the electric guitar will appear on his horizon of interest.

Sally Oelzen

[NOTE:  Here is a video of one of the musicians, Darrius Roberts, featured at the Lacefield recital:]

The video discusses the unique characteristics of people with autism~among them: they can be very comfortable with highly methodical processes and because of their attention to detail, they can excel and be highly productive valuable employees~oh, and they have less absenteeism!  The video is inspiring and serves as a great example of how individualized learning can maximize a special needs learner’s full potential and open up their doors to opportunity such that they can reach their maximum independence.  Currently, according to the video, Scotland employs only 13% of the possible talent pool of people with autism.

Check it out:

This is a great example of how America should be preparing for our gifted special needs learners, aka: the ‘twice exceptional’.

How much talent is wasted by failing our children who CAN learn, but not in the traditional ‘one-size-fits’ all methods?  How many parents hearts must break until we realize that we need to do something different?  It is said that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same process expecting different outcomes.  It is time to do things differently.

There are charter schools and private schools that address the ‘twice exceptional’, however you will not find them in Missouri.  If I am mistaken, by all means please point me to them.  Our U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has called for exceptional high-performing charter schools to pave this path to educate the most under-served in America’s education system, and special needs learners are one of his top targets.

We also need to train teachers who will excel at understanding how to reach this special demographic.  It is critical to our community’s future to tap these kids’ potential and is unconscionable to not do so.  Oh, and if none of that matters (and I would argue, of course, that it does), it will be more costly in the long run if we continue to fail our ‘twice exceptional’…

The questions they are asking:

1. What is the process by which I can apply to place my child in a neighboring accredited school district under the Missouri Statute 167.131?
2. Is it true that my home district will be legally obliged to pay for my child to attend the receiving school?
3. What will happen? Will they accept my child?
4. What do I do if my child is refused?

Unfortunately, we do not know the process nor do we know what will happen. Nor does CEAM function in the role of advising parents on this process. We do, however, believe that the recent decision with its interpretation of Missouri Statute 167.131 clearly gives parents the right not only to apply to a neighboring district, but also to be accepted.

Just today I received a call from a firefighter residing in the city who has been able to ‘manage’ paying for his 3 children to attend a private elementary school not far from where he lives. However, one of his children will enter high school next year and he is concerned about the expense of a private high school and concerned about his child’s future.

He asked all the questions above, as all parents in his circumstance are asking. Unfortunately, we cannot provide a clear answer.

I tried to find out, within the constructs of the limitations of our mission. Under our 501c3 status, we inform our community on research-based education related reforms that are having impact both in our community and across the nation. We are also able to inform our community on developments relevant here in our own state, like the recent Supreme Court case, Turner v. Clayton.

Out of curiosity, I called SLPS to inquire what the process is. I was transferred to Lou Kruger in the recruitment office and asked, ‘What is the process by which I can apply to place my child in a neighboring accredited school district?” He answered that there is no process in place right now and the Supreme Court decision is not yet final. He said, ‘If you live in the city, you can go to the city. If you live in Clayton, you can go there.’ He said there is ‘no format by which to send or receive.’ He said there is no provision yet, but I was welcome to contact schools I had in mind.

Hmmm…So, then I did just that: I called a potential receiving district~Clayton, of course. I was connected with a young woman and asked: “If I live in the city and am interested in enrolling my child in your district, what is the process?” She politely informed me of the ‘tuition program’ for non-residents and informed me of the cost of tuition for each grade level. When I inquired on how to apply under the Missouri Statute referenced in the Supreme Court decision, she informed me that the decision is not final. So, I asked, “If anyone applies under that statute, they will be refused?” She answered, “Yes.”

City employees are required to live in the city. That law is enforced. Shouldn’t they have access to quality schools in their neighborhood such that they don’t have to pay tuition at a private school for their children? And shouldn’t the law guaranteeing their right to that school also be enforced?

What alternatives do these parents have? Options of choice should be expanded for these dedicated individuals and their children, like charter schools and open enrollment.  SLPS is proposing a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools.  As a parent, I would want options immediately, while the district works toward improving.

I know from speaking to other parents in St. Louis as well as in other cities, and states for that matter, that not everyone has the same experience that we have had with our IEP team. One big difference I have noticed is that not all parents know what is available to them and their child and unless you have a good IEP leader, teacher, counselor, and sometimes even an advocate you may not get the information that you don’t even realize you need. The relationship I have forged with my IEP team members has been one of the key components to Ben’s success for three reasons: One, the team’s genuine desire to provide the best possible learning environment and tools possible for Ben (and others); two, continuous communication throughout the school year with Ben’s team, not just at IEP meetings; and, three, the teams knowledge and willingness to impart information about opportunities offered outside of the school to enhance Ben’s education. I think, if a team is unwilling to look outside of what is available at that particular school, that is a big red flag.

My son does not go to his home school in our district because it does not have a language center-based classroom, but thankfully another school in the district does. Unfortunately, this is not the case in all districts for all families but the cost of moving to a different school district or a private program is not merely prohibitive but for some impossible. It is my understanding that if it is determined that a child’s IEP specifies a need for a service in school that the school is required to provide it. This may be true, but if the child needs a language center-based program, for example, and the school district doesn’t have one then the IEP will reflect the next best thing and the school district will do what they can to provide it and that will have to be good enough. I can tell you from my point of view that ‘next best thing’ and ‘good enough’ doesn’t cut it when you are racing to get as much into and out of our child while their window of opportunity is still open.

Sally Oelzen, Center Director
SallyO Music Together
St. Louis, Missouri
www.sallyomusictogether.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, I will continue to search for opportunities to enrich my son’s education and special education needs wherever I can find them.  However wonderful my son’s experience has been thus far there are still obstacles to that success that are inherent in the system.  For example, the math curriculum currently being used at my son’s school is not a model that works well for him (or for many of the other students but that’s for another time).  We have had to work around the issues with the math curriculum and teach him the concepts in a way that he understands, versus the way the curriculum presents the material.

Ben is also behind his peers in reading so this summer we have tried a different reading approach than he experienced in school.   Ben still struggles with reading, although we feel it is more a behavioral issue than a cognitive one as he wants to read each word perfectly, therefore he reads very slowly, and comprehension suffers.  Nevertheless, we are using a different reading approach over the summer to see if there is a program more suited to his way of learning.

Ben’s language teacher and gen ed. classroom teacher are generally restricted to teaching the curriculum they are given, which obviously doesn’t work for all students.  Thankfully, Ben has the language center-based classroom to go to during the day where he can have more individualized attention and focus.  His teachers make adaptations when and where they can, but there are limitations to how much they can do within a general ed. classroom of 25 students, both typically developing and special needs children.  This reality has led us to continue to look at other learning and enrichment opportunities for Ben which we will continue to do throughout his education.

Part of our ongoing search for better opportunities has included a two-week program at the Miriam School summer camp, which will conclude today.  It seems to have been a very good experience for Ben and we are planning on continuing to be involved in after-school enrichment programs through  The Miriam Center in the coming year.  Although we have been happy with Ben’s public education we have not ruled out the possibility of sending him to a school like Miriam where they offer a variety of curriculums and learning tools to meet the variety of children at various levels on the upper end of the spectrum.   We will be weighing all of this out over the coming year in determining where we will send Ben in the future and keeping a log of our experiences at his public school and through extra programming offered at Miriam.  I welcome any input that others may have about the Miriam School and similar schools for our kiddos on the spectrum.

Talk to you again soon!

Sally

June 20, 2010

KY98 Radio personality and show host, Tim Burt, invited us to join him recently to introduce CEAM’s new Financial Assistance and Parent Training Program to our community.  Enjoy!

Listen Here

National Charter Schools Conference
Chicago, Illinois

Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, addressed the leadership of the National Charter School movement and conference attendees at the 10th annual National Charter School conference recently in Chicago.  CEAM was there.  Arne gave a resounding call to the charter school movement leaders to make wide-spread the acknowledgement of the difference charters can and are making in the lives of the most under-served children in our country.

Here are excerpts from Secretary Duncan’s ’4-Point Plan’ for charter school movement leadership:

Point 1

Create more schools for the most underserved: English-language learners, Special needs students and those who have been expelled.  Then do an extraordinary job of advancing these groups of children.

Point 2

Build stronger relationships at the state and national level with the Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and Civil Rights Organizations to dispel the perception that charter schools are adversaries.

Point 3

Change the charter school debate by collecting data and generating longitudinal studies, showing proper comparison of children served by charter schools vs. those who sought charter school alternatives, but were not able to gain entry.  He referenced Caroline Hoxby’s break-through study as a model.

Point 4

The charter school movement’s leadership must be courageous and establish criteria below which charter schools should cease to exist and be pro-active in the area of self-governance.  Though the leadership and the community itself does not hold the authority to close down ineffective charters, Secretary Duncan calls upon the family of charter schools to not tolerate unacceptable performance within their family of schools and their authorizers.  He wants a list of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ authorizers, along with minimum criteria for charter school performance and pro-active self-governance.

In closing, Secretary Duncan says to the charter school movement, “Your best are world-class.  Your best give me extraordinary reason for hope for public education in this country.”  Now he strongly urges the movement to step up their role of leadership and let this country know what they stand for.

Program Description

Pilot program launching soon, check back for details.

Introduction:

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri’s (CEAM) Financial Assistance and Parent Training Program is the first of its kind in the country. The program will provide grants directly to parents of children with special needs requiring Individualized Education Plans or ‘IEPs’, enabling them the choice of schools and organizations that deliver the best special needs education and therapeutic services in St. Louis City and St. Louis County. Schools and organizations will be invited to participate by referring families in need.  Grants will distribute funds in the form of needs-based scholarships and financial assistance for therapies and will provide certificates for payment for services from approved outside providers delivered outside of the school.

Funds may not be used for any other purpose than tuition and therapy assistance. These funds will follow the child(ren) through 8^th grade provided the family re-qualifies financially during school registration each spring, continues to reside in St. Louis City or St. Louis County, maintains their portion of tuition payments and the student maintains good standing in the school.  Grant recipients will receive a 3-year commitment of support, with the ability to re-apply after the 3d year allowing support to follow the child through the 8^th grade year.

Additionally, CEAM will offer individualized learning specialists to train parents to become advocates for their child’s education and therapies. Services will be provided at no cost to any Missouri parent who requests it, regardless of whether or not their child is a recipient of the financial aid program.  Trainings, hosted by our learning specialists, will be offered through two group parent orientations per year, quarterly 3-week training sessions that educate parents on IDEA, IEP process, the differences between public and private education and monthly one-hour support seminars for issues that develop with parents, families and schools.

Statement of Need:

After extensive research, face-to-face surveys and discussions with leading educators in the St. Louis metro area, we have found that the greatest need for financial assistance is in the special needs community, and the greatest opportunity for impact is with children in middle school (grades 6-8).

Missouri is home to over 133,000 IEP students.  CEAM receives calls on almost a weekly basis from parents who are dissatisfied with their child’s educational situation and are seeking alternatives.  These parents cannot afford an alternative option and remain trapped in the failing situation. Though any child with an IEP is eligible to apply for this scholarship program, it is known that a significant increase in diagnoses of autism alone threatens to overwhelm our school systems.   Here are some statistics related to just autism:

• The National Autism Association estimates that the divorce rate is 80% for parents of autistic children.
• Statistics show the lifetime cost of caring for a person with autism, including medical care, is between $3 million and $5 million.
• Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by two thirds with early intervention
• Bankruptcy rates are higher than the national average, 1 in every 1,100 households in January 2010
• Currently, 1 in 91 children are diagnosed on the autism spectrum (formerly 1 in 150, up until 2009; 1 in 10,000 in the early 1990s)
• 4:1 ratio of boys to girls (1 in 58 boys)
• Fastest growing developmental disability
• More than $100 billion in estimated annual costs nationally
• In ten years, the annual costs are projected at $200 billion to $400 billion.
• More children will be diagnosed with autism this year than cancer, diabetes, Downs Syndrome and AIDS combined.

And now he enters the world prepared to pursue his full potential.  A very happy story.  Can’t wait to see what he does!

View comments, related videos, and more

(Click here to see full article)

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

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

(Link here)

From the Columbia Daily Tribune:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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 admin 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.

Our primary objectives are to educate business and civic leaders, legislators and parents about the importance of improving quality educational opportunities for every Missouri child and, when possible, to open pathways for that change.  Our goal is to change statewide policy that will lead to increased academic achievement, especially for children who do not excel in a typical classroom setting.

To that end, CEAM supports strong, traditional public school system and support reforms that are designed to strengthen public schools.  Reforms such as performance pay for teachers, restructuring the outdated tenure system and ending the practice of social promotion can rebuild struggling district public schools and bolster quality ones. We also believe in options such as charter public schools, open enrollment and scholarship tax credit programs.

Missouri currently is falling behind much of the nation in many of these key areas of reform.  Our state often is ranked in the middle of the pack on various assessments of how all states are performing in education.  Add to that the fact that the United States ranks in the middle of all industrialized countries worldwide and it is clear that Missouri schools presently are not producing students ready to compete in the global marketplace.

“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/all-reform-news/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/national-news/ny-times-article-highlights-women http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/national-news/ny-times-article-highlights-women#comments Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:23:21 +0000 admin 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.