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

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

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

Districts:

Accredited

Classification held over until next year

Provisionally Accredited

Unaccredited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Special Education Division

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

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

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

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

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/all-reform-news/news/missouri-competitive-disadvantage/feed 0