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.

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

I 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 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

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

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

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

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.

Event Registration and Ticketing Powered by Event Espresso

Chris Geden, Community Outreach Director Children Education Alliance of Missouri

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

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

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 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 !

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These bills now move to the House floor for debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you know?

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

From National School Choice Week:

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

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

From “Waiting for Superman”, Social Action Campaign:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sally Oelzen

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

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

Check it out:

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

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

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

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

The questions they are asking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Description

Pilot program launching soon, check back for details.

Introduction:

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

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

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

Statement of Need:

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

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

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

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

(Click here to see full article)

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

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

(Link here)

From the Columbia Daily Tribune:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the highlights of the study included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.teachforamerica.org

“…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.

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.

“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.

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

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

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

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

]]> http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0 http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/news/teach-america-founder-wendy-kopp http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/all-reform-news/news/teach-america-founder-wendy-kopp#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:46:08 +0000 admin http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/?p=468 Teach for America (TFA) Founder Wendy Kopp spoke in Kansas City this past week as part of the series “What Works in Urban Education.” TFA is an amazing organization that asks the best and brightest graduates from America’s colleges to teach for two years after graduating. Children’s Education Alliance Executive Director Laura Slay attended the event and spoke with Ms. Kopp, learning that the number of TFA teachers in Kansas City and St. Louis will increase in the coming school year.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri ranks 28th in National

Education Study as Students Fail Key Testing Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

About ALEC

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

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

Thursday, January 29, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earl Simms, State Coordinator

Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

Friday, February 6 , 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeanne Cairns Sinquefield, Ph.D.