By Antonio D. French
Filed Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 9:03 AM
State Rep. Mike Daus paid a visit to one of city's best performing schools Friday morning and, according to one student reporter, said if the state really wants to help SLPS they should allot more money for public education. Labels: Governor, Press_Releases, Schools
Young Claire Paddock, fifth grade reporter for the Kennard Tiger Times, writes:
Mike Daus is a Missouri State Representative from the 64th district. He visited Kennard School today. He said that he does not support the State Board of Education taking over the public schools because sometimes the government doesn't know best what's going on and that the people do, and should have a say in who they elect, and what happens to their schools.
He also said that the state legislature can help schools by spending more funds for the right things and not for unimportant things. He didn't say what those were.
Meanwhile, Gov. Matt Blunt will be bouncing around the state Monday to announce his plan to improve student achievement in the areas of math, engineering, technology and science.
In addition to stops in Kansas City, St. Joseph and Cape Girardeau, Blunt will be in the St. Louis area at 2:15 p.m. at the Florissant Valley Campus of St. Louis Community College.
According to his press release, Blunt has made education the highest priority of his administration.
19 Comments:
Where was he 3 years ago? That must have been when the tobacco lobbyists were his highest priority.
1/20/2007 9:48 AM
Good going MB. CDV
1/20/2007 10:09 AM
Why does Daus think the SLPS needs more money to solve their problems? They spend almost as much per pupil as the best districts in our state. (I'm not even going to touch how they waste money on BS like Bonner's made-up position and iPods.)
1/20/2007 11:50 AM
One needs to compare apples to apples. The county districts have special school district, so they have lower spending per pupil because special ed costs are taken care of by special school district.
A lot of the county districts aren't burdened by 100 year old asbestos and lead paint laden buildings. These old buildings have higher maintenance costs.
1/20/2007 2:48 PM
Fine, if you want to compare apples to apples, let's talk about the economies of scale the SLPS has which should reduce per-pupil costs for any number of budget items.
Then tell me how throwing more money into a school is going to convince kids to take school seriously when they have demonstrated no interest in doing so, when that message is taught at home, and reinforced in their communities.
Look, I don't blame young children for not knowing better when the adults in their lives fail them. But throwing more money into that pot is not going to solve the problem.
1/20/2007 3:21 PM
Young Ms. Paddock can be forgiven for getting Daus' district number wrong (he reps the 67th, not the 64th, but the 4 and 7 are adjacent if she used the keypad). Her last sentence, noting that Daus hadn't specified what were "right things" or "unimportant things", was more insightful than most professional reporters.
1/20/2007 6:02 PM
To reduce class sizes one needs to hire more teachers. It takes money to do that.
1/20/2007 10:33 PM
If the state really wants to see the children of the St. Louis City public schools succeed they need to realize that part of the problem for many of our students is what happens when they leave school. They are tossed into an environment where a number of things could be happening. Mom or dad are working several jobs to keep the family afloat and struggle to give the kids the attention they need to succeed in school. Mom or dad struggle with drug dependency or depression (usually due to poverty) and struggle to give the kids the attention they need to succeed in school. Mom or dad are unable to give the kids the help they need in school for the simple reason that mom or dad were also raised in a home where the circle of poverty raised havoc.
If the state wants to turn the public schools around they need to understand that these kids need guidance during school and after school. They need to offer a list of programs to help parents resolve their problems so they don't pass them down to their children. In cases where parents refuse to get the help they need the State needs to be prepared to have some schools opened and staffed until 6 p.m. so those kids can get the guidance and attention at school that they should have received at home.
Either way this is going to cost money, and that's what I meant.
1/21/2007 1:18 AM
Rep. Daus, you are absolutely correct. In your list of challenges we need to address, please don't forget about the existence of family violence in many of these homes. No child should be falling asleep at his desk because he stayed up all night to protect his mother from his father.
Katie Wessling
Managing Attorney
Legal Advocates for Abused Women
1/21/2007 11:10 AM
"let's talk about the economies of scale the SLPS has which should reduce per-pupil costs for any number of budget items."
Of course, that cuts in both directions. What extra costs does SLPS incur for maintaining an infrastructure that has stayed the roughly same size while its student population has sharply declined?
1/21/2007 1:02 PM
I wisn some of the legislators in my area of the state (Joplin) could see things as clearly as Rep. Daus. Quick fixes like vouchers and tuition tax credits are not going to work as long as we don't take care of the problems that face students when they are not on school property. While public schools are not without their problems, it is difficult for teachers to deal with students who are receiving no positive reinforcement at home, and are often exposed to drug, alcohol, and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at home.
1/21/2007 6:31 PM
"Of course, that cuts in both directions. What extra costs does SLPS incur for maintaining an infrastructure that has stayed the roughly same size while its student population has sharply declined?"
Which was the point of the school closings that have been so vilified on this site.
1/21/2007 6:57 PM
Rep. Daus, I think you're right. Fixing those underlying problems is the greater part of the solution. And you're talking now about fixing the parents so they don't screw up/can begin to help their children. If you can figure that one out, you can give Einstein a run for his money.
1/21/2007 7:01 PM
Rep. Daus is correct in saying that the State needs to address the problems city schoolkids enounter outside of school. HOWEVER, why subject these same kids to more disfunction while they are IN school? SLPS is completely disfunctional and has been for over a generation. Why NOW are folks like Mike Daus (and Maida Coleman)becoming so vocal against state takeover? Let me remind everyone that only 11% of registered voters came out last April to have a voice in who sits on the SLPS Board. ONLY 11%!!! City voters/residents obviously don't give a crap about the schools - let the state take them over! Daus is dooming another generation of St. Louis children to a bleak future.
1/22/2007 9:23 AM
If it is fair to be critical of the population which sends just 11 percent of its votersw to the polls, is it also fair to specifically punish those who cared enough to organize and make the changes they thought necessary to improve the schools? This state takeover is a reward for some very cynical people who were unsuccessful in keeping power through democratic means. Slay has to be one of the worst democrats in the history of the party----handing republicans a fundamentalist victory in education policy on a silver platter.
1/22/2007 10:51 AM
where should I post this---from today's daily independent---a California story I believe is relevant. Monday, January 22, 2007
Other politicians interested in L.A. school controversy
Published: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:25 AM CST
E-mail this story | Print this page
Tom Elias - California Focus
It was one of the most obvious unspoken agreements in the history of California politics: The charismatic Democratic mayor of Los Angeles would do little for last year's Democratic candidate for governor. In return, the Republican governor would okay a plan for him to take over much of the huge Los Angeles school district.
So Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, by far the most prominent and influential Latino politician in California, sat on his hands through most of the fall campaign, even taking off to China and South Korea for three of the five weeks just before Election Day.
And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation giving Villaraigosa and a token "council of mayors" of smaller cities absolute control over 36 poor-performing city schools and veto power over hiring of school superintendents for the entire district, second largest in America with 650,000 students.
This was part of the image of inevitability Villaraigosa wants to project about his likely candidacy for governor in 2010, when current law will see Schwarzenegger termed out. Since his election in 2005, former Assembly Speaker Villaraigosa had been a golden boy, gracing the covers of national newsmagazines, starring in TV news segments and getting movie star treatment wherever he goes.
He overshadowed other possible 2010 Democratic candidates. People like Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and Treasurer Bill Lockyer and former state Controller Steve Westly and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seemed intimidated by the Villaraigosa aura, at least.
But the Villaraigosa balloon may have been punctured by the decision of a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who found the mayor's takeover of even part of the school district thoroughly unconstitutional. Not only is there often a conflict of interest between city and school district needs, ruled Judge Dzintra Janavs, but the Legislature and governor have no authority to hand over school districts to anyone, willy nilly.
Allowing lawmakers to take school districts out of the hands of school boards elected by the public to oversee them is unconstitutional, she found. Letting them do it now might in the future allow them to turn school districts over to Jiffy Lube or any other unrelated outfit their whims favored, she said.
Janavs surely knew how strongly Schwarzenegger supported the mayoral power grab, and that made her move even more meaningful. For Schwarzenegger rescued the judge from oblivion last June after she was defeated for reelection by a bagel shop owner who invested significant money in exploiting her odd name. No sooner were those election results certified than Schwarzenegger reappointed Janavs to the bench on the basis of her reputation for integrity and top-notch performance.
In a mild slap at her benefactor, Janavs stated the obvious: "There is substantial evidence that (the Villaraigosa bill's) passage was the result of political compromiseŠ" With that shorthand, the judge was saying she knew full well this bill keynoted an under-the-table deal neither the mayor nor the governor has been willing to admit.
But this kind of irony did not for a moment cool the hubris of Villaraigosa. After the judge essentially called it a no-brainer to find the mayor's pet law unconstitutional, Villaraigosa immediately said he would appeal. And he added that he had quickly spoken to his protégé, current Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, about having the Legislature do a full audit of the Los Angeles district to find wasted funds.
Never mind how much time and money such an audit itself might waste. The sole purpose of an audit would be political revenge against school officials who had the temerity to challenge the mayor's pet law in court.
If all this doesn't encourage other potential entrants in the 2010 gubernatorial derby, it's hard to say what could. For here we have the early frontrunner caught in an obviously unconstitutional deal with a governor he nominally opposed. Voters generally don't like politicians who try to overreach the power that's already theirs, and any skilful opponent can be counted on to use this decision against Villaraigosa.
That probably won't be nearly enough ammunition to fuel a credible attempt to oppose his reelection as mayor in 2009, but it surely ought to be enough to reopen a gubernatorial succession race that previously looked like it was locked up.
1/22/2007 11:44 AM
Sorry about all the California stuff----but Oakland had their schools taken over in 2003-----things have been less than perfect. There are reasons why Peter Kinder----who gives small fortunes to republican political candidates----thinks it is necessary to haqve this takeover---those reasons sometimes have very little to do with educating students. Where is the Post Dispatch in providing wider coverage of exactly what is going on in state takeovers?
Property Sale Plans Dominated Oakland School District News
By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor
One of the biggest East Bay political stories of 2006—the proposed sale of the Oakland Unified School District downtown properties—was reported first in the Berkeley Daily Planet.
“The California Superintendent for Public Instruction is close to a decision concerning the disposal of 9.47 acres of midtown properties owned by the Oakland Unified School District,” the Planet reported on May 15.
“The properties include the Paul Robeson Administration Building, La Escuelita Elementary, Dewey High School, Met West High School, and the Yuk Yau Child Development Center. The OUSD administration midtown property is in the middle of some of the hottest pieces of publicly owned real estate in Oakland. It sits next to Lake Merritt Channel, the waterway that connects Lake Merritt with the estuary, which Oakland voters granted money to open up as public land in the 2002 Measure DD bond vote. An announcement could be made by the OUSD administrator to trustees as early as this week. Sale or long-term lease of the properties could set off a political firestorm in Oakland, if true.”
The Planet reports set off a political firestorm in Oakland that lasted through much of the year.
In mid-June, the Planet reported the OUSD state administrator Randy Ward said that a letter of intent could be signed as early as Monday, June 12, and that Ward’s office would then schedule “public hearings to review options, receive input and discuss the possibility of selling property at fair market value.”
Three days later, the Planet reported that after months of secret negotiations, State Superintendent Jack O’Connell had signed a letter of intent to negotiate the sale of the downtown properties with an east coast development partnership that included black-owned real estate company UrbanAmerica and TerraMark, a company owned by old school, deep pockets New York real estate and investment firm Fisher Brothers.
In the next week, the Planet had reported that OUSD Administrator Randy Ward was now proposing borrowing $35 million from the state—the remainder of the district’s $100 million line of credit that had originally led to the state takeover in 2003—to finance the move of the district’s administrative headquarters from the Paul Robeson Building to Carter Middle School in North Oakland, remedying problems in the district’s financial software, and re-establishing a 2 percent reserve fund.
Members of the district’s advisory board of trustees reported their opposition to borrowing the remainder of the funds, objecting that this would put the district further in debt and make it more difficult to keep the district solvent once local control was re-established.
The proposed sale of the OUSD properties, coupled with Ward’s announced intention to put OUSD deeper in debt, put a sudden spark into the long-simmering movement to return local control to the Oakland schools.
In late June, Randy Ward announced his decision to quit his post at Oakland Unified, taking on the position of San Diego County Superintendent. The Planet later reported a story first broken in the East Bay Express that Ward’s resignation grew directly out of his opposition to the proposed land sale.
Meanwhile, the week before Ward’s surprise resignation announcement, the district advisory board began to mount public pressure for a return to local control of the Oakland schools, unanimously passing a resolution requesting the state superintendent to “direct the State Administrator to immediately work with the Oakland Board of Education to develop and execute an orderly governance transition process, including, but not limited to the Board of Education’s search for a Superintendent, beginning January 30, 2007, and its selection of a Superintendent by July 1, 2007.”
A month later, the Planet reported that a coalition of district education and political leaders had met that at OUSD headquarters to plot strategies for a return to local control, as well as to try to delay the proposed sale of the OUSD properties. In the same story, OUSD announced a plan for three public hearings on the proposed land sale.
At the first public hearing in July, the Planet reported that TerraMark/ UrbanAmerica officials unveiled their plan for five high-rise luxury towers for the OUSD properties in a mixed residential-commercial development, including a proposal for an artificial waterfall coming off one of the buildings. The proposal was almost universally opposed by a packed audience at the hearing. OUSD facilities staff analysis showed that the district could net as little as $25 million on the land sale, a figure considerably lower than had been advertised.
In late July, the Planet published a news analysis of the TerraMark/ UrbanAmerica proposal, concluding that the proposal had not met several requirements which had been originally advertised in the district’s request for proposals, including provisions for affordable housing for teachers and construction of a multi-grade school complex to replace the five schools currently on the property site.
Shortly afterwards, political pressure against the proposed land sale began to mount, with six members of the Oakland City Council signing a proclamation calling on the state superintendent to delay the sale until the terms could be renegotiated and the deal received school board approval. The Planet later reported that the two remaining City Councilmembers joined to make Council opposition to the immediate sale unanimous.
In August, the Planet completed an investigation of the events in the state legislature that led to the 2003 takeover of the Oakland schools. A key revelation was that provisions allowing the sale of the OUSD properties was taken out and put back in several times during the time the OUSD takeover legislation went through the Assembly and Senate, indicating that the sale of the property may have been an important reason for the takeover.
In August, the district held the second of its three public hearings on the proposed sale, with opposition centering around the schools which would be displaced by the sale. State Assemblymember Wilma Chan, who co-sponsored the original state takeover legislation that included the land sale provisions, called for a delay in the proposed sale negotiations until more information about the proposed sale was made public.
In September, the Planet reported that the OUSD board of trustees proposed that instead of selling the downtown property, the district build a “new, permanent, state of the art education center” on the site.
Also in September, representatives of the state superintendent’s office and the TerraMark/UrbanAmerica development team said they had agreed to extend negotiations on the sale past the original Sept. 15 deadline. Neither party has issued any further statements about the proposed land deal since that time.
A month later, however, incoming Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums announced his opposition to the proposed OUSD property sale, confirming that he had earlier met privately with Superintendent O’Connell to voice that opposition. And in December, newly-elected State Assemblymember Sandré Swanson announced the introduction of a bill to immediately return most levels of local control to the Oakland schools, as well as his request for a select committee to investigate state takeovers of local school districts in California.
1/22/2007 12:06 PM
I don't recall anything in our nation's history that says elections are only valid if a certain percentage of people vote. We would have a lot of issues that couldn't be decided by popular election if that were the case (including the city mayoral elections). Claiming certain issues are too important to trust to elections is a dangerous argument to make. Who decides those issues? I'm more upset about our involvement in Iraq than I am about the state of the SLPS, for example. Why couldn't all of us upset about that demand that our last presidential election shouldn't be valid, because the voters "got it wrong?" We can't because the vote was taken and we all need to respect it.
1/22/2007 12:14 PM
RE California/Oakland Stuff--
How has student achievement been effected, positively or negatively? I really don't know.
The most important aspect of education, educating the kids, seems to have been overlooked in the cut/paste.
1/22/2007 3:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home