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.

Four new charter schools opened this school year are providing parents with more educational options for their children.  The four schools are South City Prep, Jamaa Learning Center, Preclarus Mastery Academy, and Better Learning Communities all of which received the Mayor’s endorsement.

Better Learning Communities (BLC) was featured in a story on KWMU this week in which the station reports BLC is showing early signs of success with its literacy-based approach to learning.  Sponsored by the University of Missouri – Columbia, BLC is using a reading program called “leveled readers” published by Pioneer Valley Books.

According the story on KWMU.com, early signs of success include children engaged in learning who showcase their enhanced abilities in the home and steady progress working through the program’s reading levels.

The “apples to apples” comparison can begin next year when BLC adds a third grade for its current group of second graders.  The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP test) begins with the third grade and is administered in both traditional public schools and (also public) charter schools.

Read the KWMU story about Better Learning Communities here.

The concept of charter schools emerged in the 90’s as a way to put new educational methods and models into practice without the bureaucracy of the traditional public school system.  It sounds like a great idea, a more nimble and responsive environment for educating children.

Since then, around the country charter schools opened in some of the most challenged and under-performing districts, eventually including St. Louis and Kansas City.  A major problem however with Missouri charter school law is that there is no guidance for what to do with under-performing charter schools.  How much time should we give a new school to demonstrate that it can deliver a more effective model for educating children.

Case in point, Imagine Schools, Inc. is a national education management company operating charter schools around the country including six in St. Louis.  All six of the Imagine schools are performing worse than the St. Louis Public Schools on the Missouri Assessment Program test.  Far worse.

A few months ago Mayor Fancis Slay called for the local sponsor, Missouri Baptist University, to close the Imagine schools.  The mayor has no authority to close the schools on his own and it is unclear if the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has authority either.

Today, both the St. Louis Beacon and the Post Dispatch reported that Missouri Baptist University is planning to close the two Imagine schools deemed to be in the worst shape and has put the remaining four on notice that their charters will also be revoked if the schools are unable to make progress.

That’s a step in the right direction when it comes to high quality educational options because a choice between a low performing neighborhood public school and a low performing charter school isn’t much of choice at all.

Here’s the link to the Post Dispatch story by Elisa Crouch.

The Beacon’s Dale Singer also reported on the situation today.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri supports informed school choice. We feel strongly that charter schools not only allow parents to choose where their child goes to school, but forces the traditional public schools to reform, or face losing students. There is increasing demand around Missouri and the rest of the nation for high performing schools. Fortunately for parents and students, in many cases, the options parents are turning to are charter schools. But you don’t have to take my word for it, The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools completed this report called Charter Demographics Report that paints a very vivid picture of the demand for and success of charter schools in America.

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.

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.

By Chris Geden Community Outreach Director -Childrens Education Alliance of Missouri

Last night, at the Missouri History Museum, there was a round table discussion around the previously screened movie Waiting for Superman. There were about twenty people in attendance and at least twenty different opinions regarding American education and they way to reform it. Actually at times the conversation was so heated and diverse that, it felt like there where two hundred people in the room with differing ideas and perceptions about the state of education.

The crowd was diverse, there were teachers from public, private, and public charter as well as social workers and college students, education reformers, anti-reformers, and just interested citizens in attendance.  The discussion was supposed to be about the movie. However, I have learned that when you talk about education, especially education in failing school districts, everyone’s attention is quickly pulled straight to the real world examples of failure in their own backyard. The group, while having very different opinions and experiences, was able to meet in small groups to have passionate, honest, and at times heated, discussions.

The topics in these small group discussions ranged from teacher tenure, parent involvement, and the achievement gap to the Outstanding Schools Act and school choice. The manner in which people interacted with each other on these hot button issues highlighted the frustration people feel as they try to get their voices heard. I have to admit I got a little agitated when people misrepresented the facts about school choice, teacher tenure, and the Outstanding Schools Act. However, once I was able to sit back and really listen I was able to understand and appreciate that everyone comes at education reform from a different experience and perspectives. I also realized last night that if progress is going to be made, more conversations like last night’s are going to have to happen.

All in all, I found the discussion very gratifying and it was rewarding. Hopefully I was able to give some anti-reformers some things to think about. I would have liked to have seen more people there of course but for what it was a great way to spend a Wednesday evening.

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.

When you mention civil rights, many people immediately think about African Americans and women in our country.  Given a few more moments Hispanics and Gays would also come to mind.

By the time I was born, the Civil Rights Act was already signed and forced integration was underway and the Equal Rights Act was passed a few years later. As I was growing up in Oregon in the late 70’s and 80’s, migrant workers from Mexico and beyond were finally being heard.  In the past two decades progress was made in hate crimes and, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Defense Of Marriage Act aside, Gay rights have also made progress.  All these efforts were undertaken in the name of equality.

As we move into the second decade of the 21^st Century, one important issue is emerging from the shadows and taking center stage again in the struggle for equal civil rights.  Across the country despite all the time, effort and money that has been poured into our educational system, there remain huge gaps between African American and Caucasian students and between students attending poor districts and their middle class and wealthy counterparts.

It’s not the first time we have grappled with education as a civil right.  The last time, in the middle of the 20^th Century the inequities were as blatant as the racist attitudes that created them.  Today, though, things are less clear.  Well-intentioned people abound, but education is still not improving.  Something is stuck.

And in the 21^st Century version of this struggle the lines are increasingly drawn on class distinction over race distinctions.

I’m not a parent, but I was a child once.

I try to imagine what it would be like to send my child off to a school where I know he is not receiving the same quality education as children attending schools just miles away.  I would feel frustrated knowing that there are some other choices I might make, but also knowing that those choices are extremely limited.  I would want to do right by my child, but not having the resources to send my child to a high quality private school I have to wonder if anyone cares.

That’s what low-income parents face everyday.  Without the resources and without options, they have no choice but to send their children to the mandated public school.

We all accept that a good education is the basis for a successful future, so how can anyone be surprised that the cycle of poverty continues going strong in our country when high quality educational choices are not available to so many people?

By now, you may be aware that St. Louis is once again in the midst of deciding education as a civil right.  Now more than four years old, the Turner v. Clayton case is causing everyone in Missouri, and especially the St. Louis area, to think about what our rights are to a high quality education.

The next court date is set for September as the Turner v. Clayton case continues.  However even now there are resourceful parents trying to send their children to neighboring districts following the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling last fall as part of the Turner case that upheld a heretofore little known Missouri law that states children living in an unaccredited school district can attending a neighboring district at the expense of their home district.

Like so many times before, change will come from crisis.  Without impugning anyone, it is probably fair to say that with everything going on, it has been easy to ignore low-income families who do not have high quality educational choices.  Now, however, Missouri law and two, local unaccredited school districts are forcing the hand.

To give you a refresher on the Turner case, here’s a link to Dale Singer’s story from May 2011 in the St. Louis Beacon.  It’s a good read for background.

Lots of talk, little action on education by Missouri lawmakers

By Dale Singer, Beacon Staff

May 17, 2011

On the first business day after a legislative session that saw a lot of talk but a lot less action on bills concerning Missouri schools, the head of the House education committee found himself in a Washington, Mo., classroom.

After state Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington, spent Monday working as a substitute teacher in an industrial technology class — “not exactly my forte,” he said — he took time to talk about the bills that passed, the ones that stalled and the outlook for action next year.

On two of the issues with the highest profile — expanding charter schools beyond St. Louis and Kansas City to throughout the state and coming up with a fix for the “Turner case,” which provides options for students living in unaccredited school districts — Dieckhaus said good ideas were proposed, but various groups couldn’t put aside their differences to come up with an acceptable compromise.

But in Jefferson City, issues often move forward by inches until they cross the finish line, and on charter schools, Dieckhaus (right) wasn’t ready to give this session’s outcome a flunking grade.

“To focus on the bill’s failure is the wrong way to look at it,” he said. “We hadn’t passed a charter bill out of the Missouri House since charters were authorized in the ’90s. It really shows we’re making progress on the issue, and it’s something we could run all the way through the process next year.”

State Sen. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg, Dieckhaus’ counterpart in the Senate, noted that two education bills were sent to Gov. Jay Nixon for his signature.

One, SB54, deemed the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act, provides greater protection for children who allege sexual abuse by a teacher or other school employee. The other, SB81, bolsters fine arts education.

And he shares the optimistic view that issues that did not make it out of the General Assembly this time around may win final passage in the future.

“We found out some things that would work,” Pearce ( left) said, “and we found out some things that would not work. When it comes to education, people are not bashful. We hear from a lot of folks back home. I have to look at policies that affect everybody, and it’s not an easy task at times.”

CHARTER SCHOOLS

From the start of Missouri’s venture into charter schools — publicly funded schools that operate independently of any district and are not subject to a district’s policies and procedures — they have been allowed only in St. Louis and Kansas City. Going into the legislative session, there was a lot of talk about expanding them statewide.

Coupled with the talk of expansion was a call for more accountability for charters. Some have gone under because of poor financial management, and few have shown markedly better student achievement. The charter bill that got the most attention was HB473, sponsored by Rep. Tishaura Jones, D-St. Louis. It passed in the House in late April, 86-70, but got caught in the crush of legislation at the end of the session and was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.

Pearce said the bill appealed to a lot of people, despite its failure to win final approval.

“There were some things we could all agree on,” he said. “One, there needs to be more accountability with our charter schools. Some have done a fantastic job, others have not been as good. This was a positive step. There probably is some need for some expansion.

“For the most part, in outstate Missouri, this was really a non-issue because they have not had charters, and there’s not really a compelling need for them. Those who are really involved in the educational community have seen some of the problems they have had and say, ‘We really don’t need that.’”

Adds Dieckhaus:

“The bill got over to the Senate side late, but ultimately we had a couple of differing viewpoints as to what needed to be included. We just ran out of time. But I think a lot of legislators who voted ‘no’ this time around are willing to take another look at the issue. I think there’s a fear of the unknown — not necessarily a fear of charter schools but a question of how they would affect individual districts.”

Amber Simpson, head of the board of the Missouri Charter Public School Association, considers the debate “an ongoing exercise. We just need to keep on doing what we’ve been doing and continue to build relationships with stakeholders in the community.”

She, too, cited competition from other bills, like local control of the St. Louis police force, as one reason the charter bill stalled, even though there was more legislative support than backers have seen in the past.

“It’s really working from an educational perspective,” Simpson said, “that we are public schools and we exist because the public is asking for more options.”

Joe Knodell of the Missouri Education Reform Council said he thought some opposition came from teachers unions and others who thought an expansion of charters would take some of their power away. He also sees an element of “the fear of the unknown” in parts of the state, even in regions where charters are unlikely to take root.

“We support charter school expansion statewide,” he said. “But you had people watering it down from what we would have liked to see. We would like to see local districts allowed to form their own charter schools or make their own schools into charter-like schools.”

Knodell said he also saw the expansion of charters as part of the fix for another knotty education problem in Missouri — the Turner case.

UNACCREDITED DISTRICTS, LEGAL REMEDIES

Widespread talk of the Turner case began last summer, when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that students who live in a district whose schools are unaccredited, like St. Louis or Riverview Gardens, have the legal right to transfer to accredited schools in the same or an adjacent county. The sending district must pay the tuition, the court said, and the receiving district must accept the students.

(Read more from the Beacon about the case here.)

But the high court also sent the case back to St. Louis County Circuit Court, where it began with a suit filed by families whose students had transferred to the Clayton school district. There, a judge put off new action until May 31, apparently expecting the legislature to come up with a fix.

Despite a lot of talk about the issue and legislation that was filed as HB763, which would have given receiving districts more discretion on what students would have to be accepted, the bill did not pass.

Its sponsor, state Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, said he wanted to make sure that students who live in failing school districts have more options, but he also wanted to give more leeway to the receiving districts. Coming up with an acceptable compromise proved impossible, he said.

Now, Stream (right) added, “we don’t know what’s going to happen. There are different opinions. Some think the court will say that since the legislature didn’t do it, we’re going to crack down and say to students in the city that they’re allowed to go to any county district and the city school district will have to pay for it. That will really hurt county districts.

“Others think the court wasn’t as clear on that as they were on other parts of its ruling, and they think the lower court isn’t as inclined to be that hard on county districts, which aren’t at fault. They may come up with their own solution.”

Knodell’s group pushed for a solution that let students in unaccredited districts transfer to county districts. He said the bill did not fail from a lack of trying.

“I’ll give everybody an ‘A’ for effort,” he said. “We met with several organizations, but we never could come to an agreement about what needs to be done. So it looks like it’s back in the court’s court.”

The state school board, which meets in Jefferson City this week, has no power to act on its own, but Turner is expected to be a topic of discussion. Meanwhile, only two students remain in the Clayton schools from families who were the original plaintiffs. They will remain in the district this fall, said Clayton spokesman Chris Tennill.

“We have a pretty good track record in the three years that this has been going on,” he said, “so that we can work things out that the kids’ education is not impacted by the disagreement that the grownups are having.”

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!!

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 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!

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

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.

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 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.

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

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