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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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.

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.

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

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

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

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

]]> http://www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0