By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 10:16 AM
While other urban mayors are fighting to take the reigns of their city's failing school districts, Mayor Francis Slay continues to push instead for the state's Republican governor to take over St. Louis Public Schools. And he's finding an ally in the woman he first appointed to the school board.
After denials four months ago by his aides, Robin Wahby and Ed Rhode, of secret conversations first reported by PUB DEF in July in which the mayor's office called on the state to intervene following the defeat of his hand-picked school board candidates, Mayor Slay, a Democrat, has grown more and more vocal about his desire for Gov. Matt Blunt to take control over St. Louis' beleaguered schools.
"A State takeover of the district is a needed first step," the mayor wrote on his website Saturday.
"If legislation is needed to make the law clear and to protect a takeover from legal challenge, the Missouri General Assembly should pass a bill the first month it is in session -- and the Governor should sign it."
The current school board president, who Slay appointed to the board in 2004 after former member Rochelle Moore was removed because of her erratic behavior, has joined Slay in calling for state intervention.
Veronica O'Brien said that while she doesn't yet support an all-out "takeover," she does think the state should do away with the superintendent's office.
"A state takeover in the truest sense would be disastrous and it would not help the children," O'Brien told KSDK this week. But she said she wants to see the position of superintendent completely eliminated and replaced by two positions; a chief operating officer and a chief academic officer.
O'Brien also has begun to undermine the credibility of the very woman she abruptly introduced as superintendent just four months ago.
"Dr. [Diana] Bourisaw does not have the experience to handle some things in this district," O'Brien told Channel 5. She said she once believed Bourisaw had the "potential to grow," but no longer.
O'Brien said she doesn't believe she personally deserves any of the blame for the current state of the district. "I don't think I bear the burden of many years of the district falling apart," she said.
In that regard, she and the mayor are again on the same page.
For three years, between April 2003 and April 2006, Mayor Slay enjoyed unprecedented influence over St. Louis Public Schools. Under the direction of his original slate of candidates -- Vince Schoemehl, Bob Archibald, Ronald Jackson and Darnetta Clinkscale, who later became the heavy-handed board majority -- the district embarked on an expensive experiment, overseen and co-directed from the mayor's own office, that turned control of the district over to a New York City-based corporate turnaround firm and a superintendent that had absolutely no prior experience in education.
When the dust settled, the district was left in debt, the community was even more divided, and the New Yorkers where back in New York preparing for their next adventure in New Orleans.
But Slay, like O'Brien, accepts no blame for his role in today's mess.
"It would be controversial to give up local control of the St. Louis Public Schools, but it would be plain wrong to allow the district to continue to betray the futures of thousands of students," Slay wrote today on his website. "It's past time for a state takeover. Why not just say that?"
If Slay and O'Brien get their way, it would put St. Louis City residents in the very unique position of being perhaps the only city population in America with no control over either its own police force or its own public schools.
Now the commentary:
It is not leadership to jump to the front of a steady march and join in the chorus. Indeed, it is cowardice for elected leaders to abandon their mission and turn over the power voters invested in them to outsiders -- whether they be from New York City or Jefferson City.
If Mayor Slay wants to be a good leader and if he truly wants someone to have the authority to "put the district in the hands of a strong administrator with a mandate to stabilize the district and start it on the long road to recovery," as he says, then he should ask for that power, not pass the buck to a governor who has repeatedly voiced his own insensitivity to this state's urban people.
Instead of giving our power over to the state, the mayor should ask for control over his city's schools -- as mayors have done in Chicago, Cleveland and Los Angeles, and as is currently being considered in Seattle and Washington D.C.
It would be controversial, but no more so than if a governor who is not directly accountable to St. Louisans was given control.
And at least there would finally be one person the voters of this city could hold accountable for the future of our public schools.
19 Comments:
O'Brien is a big disappointment, while Bourisaw has not been superintendent long enough for anyone to prove she is not capable. Evidently, all she has done is irritated O'Brien. With O'Brien acting like she does, I don't see why that's a bad thing.
What would the State or Slay do if they had control? Would we be back in the Roberti period with outsiders making a bigger mess?
This is Slay's mess to begin with. Why should we trust him to make things better when he has not answered for the damage his handpicked slate created?
11/28/2006 10:41 AM
Put our district in the hands of a governor who obviously holds nothing but contempt for the residents of the urban areas? How incredibly insulting and scary. People, look what the state has done to the health care of the powerless under Blunt's administration. Why would we feel the state would improve the lives of impoverished children, who don't vote and whom the governor has already written off as not worth the money to save?
11/28/2006 10:49 AM
Antonio is right. Mayor Slay constantly criticizes the schools--let's see if he can do better running them.
11/28/2006 11:03 AM
Actually a state takeover may put more power in Slay's hands. The oversight board will most likely be selected with input from the Mayor, who, my guess is, will not make the same mistake he made with Ms. O'Brien.
11/28/2006 12:08 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
11/28/2006 1:41 PM
Great commentary Antonio, I really enjoy when you give your opinion as you are a realist.
I have been saying that Slay should take control of the SLPS and also the Police Department because we need a strong Mayor not a weak puppet.
Slay can say he is angry about the pseudo-weak Mayor form of City Government, but what is he doing to change the structure! Nothing! This is a clear opportunity and he is not seizing the day!
The SLPS is a disaster and we need see a local official in charge.
Local officials need to become leaders when it comes to the SLPS, crime, urban design, and general quality of life issues. Instead of shirking responsibility when it goes bad while accepting praise when it’s good, take direct control. The risk is greater but so are the rewards and incentive for success!
I wonder why St. Louis Mayors have not had office in Jefferson City for God knows how long? We can blame the rural-urban divide, yet how can one have prestige if inaction is preferred to action!
If a St. Louis Mayor took control of the SLPS and Police Department, and made huge improvements, then this success would be universally appealing for the platform regardless of geographic region. Viable education and crime reduction is appreciated by those in rural and urban Missouri. This is the sign of a leader.
Again, for those who need a reference of what more proactive Mayors are doing:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6859153
11/28/2006 1:45 PM
Thanks Antonio for reminding this mostly Democratic voter how thankful I am that our school board is not a partisan election. Of all the reasons to oppose a state takeover, the Guv's party affiliation would easily be the least of them, unless you're a strict partisan. But hey, maybe now the American's Political Eye will finally realize you're not a Republican after all.
11/28/2006 2:50 PM
Slay can say he is angry about the pseudo-weak Mayor form of City Government, but what is he doing to change the structure! Nothing! This is a clear opportunity and he is not seizing the day!
Slay tried to get the charter amendments, ABCD passed and that would have given the mayor more power, granted not over the schools. Those failed with a big thud.
Do we want a strong mayor or not? I think not.
11/28/2006 3:17 PM
The current crappy state of SLPS is not Slay's fault as they have been on a rickety freight train to crap town for some time. We are reaping what has been sown for some time and it is going to take some sort of radical change to course correct this mess. So why don't we all start throwing out some suggestions instead of casting aspersions and waxing philosophically about what a leader should or should not do. Be part of the solution instead of the problem.
11/28/2006 7:50 PM
Since I called for suggestions here is the first one:
Let's get rid of the elected school board. It obviously has led to a great deal of political positioning, posturing, and divisiveness. By agreeing to let the Mayor's office appoint a superintendent we put accountability squarely on one entity's shoulders. It also allows that entity to freely move and make changes eliminating the senseless bickering and gridlock.
11/28/2006 7:56 PM
Does anyone have any suggestions for the deeper-seated, more difficult-to-solve problem: the poor state of the raw material the SLPS has to work with--the students and their families?
I would hazard that reorganizing the structure and governance of the SLPS will do some good, but would not eliminate the underlying problems of poverty and a willful ignorance or rejection of the values that are required to succeed in school and in modern life.
I can't say I have any answers for that, but it strikes me as strange that those issues are rarely, if ever, discussed.
11/28/2006 8:24 PM
"Does anyone have any suggestions for the deeper-seated, more difficult-to-solve problem: the poor state of the raw material the SLPS has to work with--the students and their families?"
Better teachers?
11/28/2006 9:38 PM
Bill Haas said...
I thought people might be interested in my submission to the State Committee currently reviewing the St. Louis School District. The Post wouldnt run it as an oped (altho he's a god to me, Eric Mink seems not to like anything I ever say or write; also that would make less room for the 12 articles he wrote on the Forest Park issue - a good cause, to be sure, but as best I can tell, they were all the same, tho since no one read them, we're not sure), and the American hasnt yet.
In any case, that pouting of mine nothwithstanding, here's my submission to the Committee, if anyone is interested:
"I speak as a former SLPS school board member (1997-2005) and someone who continues to be interested in the schools (I filed to run last year, then withdrew; may file this year).
So as not to "bury my lead" as journalists say, I will present my ideas I have long held and wish you to consider in your recommendations, and then follow with what is more or less background and prologue at the end.
I have long held the following 4 ideas as the panacea/silver bullets for urban education:
1. The reality is that any child not reading at grade level by third grade never catches up. We need to front-load the system to insure all reading at grade level by the third: mostly with volunteer tutors and smaller classes, reading specialists et al. Phased in over 3 years or so. Zero tolerance!
2. An eighth grade initiative, with the eighth graders being "adopted" by the business community: tutoring, mentoring, school year and summer jobs, a promise of a job after graduation or money for college if they stay in school and get the skills they need to compete. Zero tolerance for losing one eighth grader as a dropout for the following five years, taking the graduation (dropout) rate from 50% to 90+% in 5 years, with commensurate increase in test scores. Again, phased in over 3 years. Of course the business community would have to back it, but if they thought it would succeed, they will. City Hall behind it would help. Possible tax-credits instead of for vouchers. See also #4 below.
3. Widespread peer tutoring program for academic credit or compensation (coupons from stores as well as pay), with the older and better students tutoring the younger and less accomplished. And as Floyd Crues once said when I was suggesting such a program, "and we need a few thugs in it too"; very incisive. The point is that when you are teaching others good life skills, you tend to live up to your advice to them as well. Also teachers such as myself (Harris Stowe) know that to tutor or teach makes you learn the material better yourself.
4. Finally, and this is perhaps my favorite, lobbying the legislature to require companies to let parents/adults off from work 3 hours or so a month, with pay, if they go into the schools and visit their kids or tutor other people's children. It would be good for the parents and other adults, good for the kids, good for the families, and great for the schools. Tax credits equal to $10 an hour for time away from work would seem appropriate too, and again, better and less controversial than vouchers. Let them give all the scholarships they want, but tax-credits only for public education (or parents/adults who visit private and parochial schools, too, I suppose.
Last a word about board "governance", if I may, and the idea that boards should set policy and nothing else. Which has been much in the news lately, e.g. with respect to Atlanta.
This is a complex issue, I believe, but my position can be summed up in the paraphrase, "a foolish simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds."
More specifically,
1. Boards do set policy and goals, and superintendents do implement those, and by and large micromanaging can be bad and counter-productive. But letting the superintendent implement the goals without dialogue on means works only with proven superintendents, not new ones.
2. No one would wisely take that position who has ever been on the board of a large and complex district. One wants a superintendent who is smarter than the whole Board combined, but that rarely happens, and on complex issues, 8 minds are better than one.
3. Legally a board can get involved in whatever issues they want.
4. No individual board member should try to micromanage, but boards as a whole sometimes need to get involved, and the Floyd Irons situation for all its ramifications and complexities, would be one example. And a smart superintendent would seek board input before action, for political as well as practical reasons.
5. And most important, goals and policies are at one end of the spectrum, and implementation of strategies at the other. In between are the means and strategies to accomplish the goals. This is and should be an area of board and superintendent collaboration. Against 8 minds are better than one. I would want to be able to dialogue on the strategies I've suggested above with the Board and superintendent. The superintendent should give their input as to what they think of an idea and why, but if the board likes it and decides on it, the superintendent should run with it.
6. Generally, if the board is constantly second guessing a superintendent then it might be a bad fit, but boards and superintendents who work well together should be able to reach consensus on the means to accomplishing goals and policies, and all else being equal the benefit of the doubt should be given to the superintendent as it's their job on the line.
7. But just to establish goals and policies and then sit back and see how the superintendent does with them, would more often than not be a recipe for failure, where it takes 2-3 years to see how a superintendent is doing and then if it doesn’t work out, fire them. Who wants that system?! Even the SLPS never had that system. And without judging anyone, of the many superintendents I've served with (Hammonds through Williams, briefly), Bourisaw is the first one I would have confidence is ahead of the board's curve rather than has to be pushed somewhat around the curve. And even with Diana, constant dialogue on means and even how implementation is going has far more chance to help than hurt. But only if the dialogue is as a board and not individual board members trying to assert their will independent of the board.
Background and prologue:
To disclose any bias, I have long been affiliated with the group of four that have been in the majority of the school board since this last fall.
I was also one of those on the board who voted to hire Creg Williams. No one wanted him to succeed more than I.
I think the new board slate tried their best to work with him, but he was disrespectful to them, didn’t follow their directives, and just wasn’t doing a good job otherwise, in my opinion. Tho he had some good ideas, many of them were old ones resurrected; also, as Freeman Bosley Jr. says, and I, too: "Leadership is action, not position." The key isn’t only good ideas; it's implementing them.
I think they were right to let me go; I'm sure it was a difficult decision.
I'm a big supporter of Diana Bourisaw, tho wasn’t very familiar with her before she was hired.
Although no one can be happy with the internecine public disharmony that has recently arisen between Diana, Veronica and Bill Purdy, [I've been working behind the scenes to encourage them all not to criticize each other publicly (or privately, perhaps), and to build board and superintendent consensus for courses of action], I am hopefully that they will work out their differences. In the meantime, I don’t think it should be used as a factor in your recommendations unless they decide to fire Diana. I don’t think that will happen, but if it does, even I will begin to despair, and I'm ever the optimist. To be fair, most of the changes of superintendents before Diana were to be expected, natural (some were interim in any case - 3, I believe), and most changes were made by the previous board majority. This board majority shouldn’t be held responsible for previous actions. I think they have stability now, even if it's a little rattled lately, and I expect Diana to be there at least 2-3 years.
The Slay board representatives were in charge for the last three years, and took Accreditation points from 66 to something under 40, I believe.
The new administration, board and superintendent deserve at least two years to get the scores back up to full accreditation, and it is my belief that they will succeed. Of course the goal should be 100 not 68.
thank you; I hope you will read and consider my ideas."
11/28/2006 10:33 PM
No doubt that the SLPS is a failure and creates many of its own problems. However, many if not most of these problems cannot be solved by the mayor or the state. Students who have not learned to respect authority, basic civility, and the value of education, should never be expected to be proficient.
The success of schools is mainly due to the parents of students. Yes of course good teachers and administrators are necessary but not sufficient.
The SLPS is a perfect example of micromanagement and a palce where liberalism has gone amok. Don't expect any quick solutions. This will continue to be a black eye for StL for many more years.
11/29/2006 7:03 AM
Just a radical suggestion in case the mayor or state decides to take over.
Break the district up into 3 -5 smaller sub districts. Put neighborhood advisory school boards in in each district. Let them address the issues that are particular to that neighborhood. Limit their power to policy setting and of highering the superintendent of the sub district...not of micromanaging the district. Make the superintendent accountable for actual management of the district. Give parents/children the choice of the school they want to go to across the entire city. Develop some type of agreement with the special school district in the county to address the needs to the children with special needs. Get them the real help they need. Divide the monies equally among the sub districts.
Just a thought
11/29/2006 7:28 PM
Rather than divide up the city district, why don't we combine all of the county districts with the city as a mega-district with resource sharing? Or at least combine the Special School District with the city special ed services. It isn't fair that county special needs children are provided with appropriate services, while the poor city special ed department struggles to provide even the barest minimum mandated by law. A higher percent of city children have dangerous lead levels than Herculaneum children. The increase in learning disabilities and behavior disorders seen with lead poisoning are well documented, and the inordinate percent of city students who qualify for special services has become a real drain on district resources. And don't complain about teachers unless you are prepared to become one or finance some because there simply are not enough out there applying for work at SLPS. When the supply outweighs the demand, we can do something about it, but very few people want to spend the money and hard work it takes to get through college, then not earn any more than many jobs requiring only a high school diploma.
11/29/2006 9:55 PM
Since I called for suggestions "here is the first one:
Let's get rid of the elected school board. It obviously has led to a great deal of political positioning, posturing, and divisiveness. By agreeing to let the Mayor's office appoint a superintendent we put accountability squarely on one entity's shoulders."
This logic absolutely "Slays" me.
It is kind of like the old Latin American ideas of democracy. I f we like the results--fine. If we don't like the results of how the people vote, then pull off a coup.
The people Slay put into place chose two lousy superintendents. The people threw two of those members of that board out, and replaced them with people who had about 1/7th the money to spend on campaigning. So now, that is political posturing--so throw them out? You had damned well better throw them out before the next election---because more of Slay's people are going to be removed and replaced with people who you like even less.
It is called democracy--the worst way of governing there is---except for all the others.
11/30/2006 3:54 PM
To 11/30/06 at 3:54 p.m.
Good to see your bringing some solutions to the table. Oh wait actuallyjust bitching about another idea. Why don't you say heya better idea is XYZ. Your approach only further divides everyone.
Its fine that you don't like the idea, you don't have to. But the way it is now isn't working either, so bring something to the table other than griping. That is all we have now.
SOLUTIONS not Criticism.
11/30/2006 9:48 PM
"Why don't you say heya better idea is XYZ. Your approach only further divides everyone."
As I understand it, your idea is to let Slay pick the superintendent. For accountability?
My idea is to let the people pick two more board members in 2007, and hopefully they will be as good as Downs and Jones.
O'Brien (who Slay now regrets appointing) will be there until 2009, but perhaps some more of Slay's people can be replaced with more constructive members.
Your idea---I don't like the way the people voted, so get rid of them.
My idea---be patient and let democracy work.
12/03/2006 6:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home