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.

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.

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.

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

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

Districts:

Accredited

Classification held over until next year

Provisionally Accredited

Unaccredited

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

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

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

December 14, 2011

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

Commissioner Nicastro

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

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

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

1. Student Growth Model

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

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

2. Subgroup Reporting

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

3. Last in—First out

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

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

Sincerely,

Katherine Casas
State Director
Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

“…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.

“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).

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.

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.

“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.

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

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

Thursday, January 29, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earl Simms, State Coordinator

Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

Friday, February 6 , 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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