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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KUDOS to the Met schools in New York!

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

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.