By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 12:35 PM
BREAKING NEWS -- READ IT HERE FIRST! Labels: Breaking_News, Schools, State_Senate
State Sen. Maida Coleman today introduced a bill (Senate Bill 551) to eliminate the "transitional" three-person, politically-appointed board approved last week to run St. Louis Public Schools. Here is a statement from her office:
"Today, I introduced a bill that would abolish the Transition Board, an entity poised to administrate the St. Louis Public Schools. I cannot in good conscious allow the State Board of Education to install a Transition Board that would effectively eliminate the representative democracy enjoyed by other school districts around Missouri.
"Furthermore, I am alarmed at the apparent moving target the State Board of Education has been using to determine if the St. Louis Public Schools should lose its provisional accreditation. It appears the State Board is predisposed to installing a Transition Board. It also seems that when the school district’s data would support continued provisional accreditation, the State Board is seeking additional data that would jeopardize the district’s status.
"Finally, the State Board’s remedy will be no panacea for the ills of the St. Louis Public Schools. In fact, the installment of the Transition Board is a dangerous precedent that could result in the degrading of our schools in St. Louis and around the state."
16 Comments:
I would like to see more cosponsors. What can be said is that Maida Coleman does not disappoint. She really is fighting against the rural lobby which seeks to disenfranchise our urban political power.
2/21/2007 2:28 PM
Coleman needs to put a lid on it. No job for her after this term.
2/21/2007 5:49 PM
Don't worry about the previous post, Maida, it's obvious which side of this issue turns out to vote and to speak, and we won't forget your support.
2/21/2007 6:39 PM
First reaction: "God bless Maida." It's awe-inspiring to see some do stand up for principle and for what is right.
Too bad some have sold out for personal gain or other ulterior motives.
It's a privilege to be acquainted with politicians who do not forget the people or from whom or where they gained their positions.
2/21/2007 9:44 PM
With the above posts- that interseting. I believe that Coleman has the creatism dignity and unity to be Mayor of the City of St. Louis. She meets all of my qualifications and she delivers to our community. We truly need more people like her to make the world go round. And don't doubt her unseating that snake Slay, it can happen.
2/21/2007 11:00 PM
This is simply more feel good do nothing legislation.
2/22/2007 12:05 AM
It's about time SOMEBODY woke up! What the state board, the Mayor and the Governor propose doing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNETHICAL! FURTHERMORE, IT WILL NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC EDUCATION. PUBLIC EDUCATION IS NOT IMPROVED BY BUREAUCRATIC APPOINTEES; IT IS IMPROVED BY SMALLER CLASSES, MORE INDIVIDUALIZED ATTENTION, MORE ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES ESPECIALLY IN THE ARTS, ADEQUATE LEVELS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION HELP, REDUCTION OF UNECESSARY PAPERWORK, AND A TEACHING FORCE FREED FROM CONSTANT GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT AND INTERFERENCE. TEACHING IS AS MUCH AN ART AS IT IS A SCIENCE. JUST AS A DOCTOR CANNOT PROMISE YOU A CURE, AND A LAWYER CANNOT PROMISE YOU A WIN; A TEACHER CANNOT PROMISE YOU TEST SCORES. WHAT THEY CAN PROMISE IS TO ENACT WHAT CONSTITUTES SOUND PRACTICE, ADD SOME INNOVATION PAIRED WITH SOLID OBSERVATIONS, CREATIVITY AND SOUND DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS. IN ADDITION THEY CAN PROMISE A SAFE, CLEAN ENVIRONMENT FREE FROM VIOLENCE AND SUPPORTED BY A CARING ADMINISTRATION. THESE THINGS IMPROVE SCHOOLS--NOT BUREAUCRATIC APPOINTEES. PRIVATE SCHOOLS ALSO KNOW THIS AND ADVERTISE THIS AS ONE OF THEIR MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FEATURES. I MERELY WANT FOR OUR CHILDREN WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS. ANYTHING LESS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND DEFINITELY PREJUDICED.
FINALLY, THE PROPOSED TAKEOVER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT THROUGH VOTER RESULTS NULLIFICATION. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNOR OR THE MAYOR THINKS; WE WILL TAKE OUR RIGHTS BACK--AT ANY COST! FOR THE MAYOR AND THE GOVERNOR TO HIDE BEHIND THE 'CHILDREN', CLAIMING TO CARE ABOUT THEIR FUTURES ALL THE WHILE, THEY HAVE TAX ABATED WEALTHY PROPERTIES DENYING THE SCHOOLS' FUNDING SOURCE, OR WITHHELD EARMARKED COURT ORDERED FUNDING RESPECTIVELY, IS COWARDLY, DECEPTIVE AND DISGRACEFUL. THE FACT THAT THEY DISENFRANCHISED AN ENTIRE CITY OF VOTERS IS UNDEMOCRATIC, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DANGEROUSLY FASCIST. IF THESE PEOPLE CAN SET ASIDE THE RESULTS OF A FAIR AND CERTIFIED ELECTION; WHAT PREVENTS ANY POLITICIAN FROM DOING THE SAME INCLUDING SETTING ASIDE THE RESULTS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! THIS IS TRULY WORTHY OF NEO NAZIS LIKE BUSH AND CHENEY. IT'S TIME TO PROSECUTE SUCH TRAITORS AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
GADFLY
2/22/2007 10:08 AM
Pam Ross will be disappointed that she won't be able to be appointed by Jim Shrewsbury to the new School Board. All of his lobbying for the state take-over has been a waste. Now she will have to look for a job after they lose their campaign.
2/22/2007 10:15 AM
Who is Pam Ross?
2/22/2007 10:26 AM
i googled "pam ross" and got a bunch of junk then i added in "st louis" too and got
Pamela Ross
Chief of Staff, City of St. Louis/Board of Alderman
Saint Louis, MO
from http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Councils&template=/uli/whoswho/dsp_dcwhoswho.cfm&dc=st.%20louis&name=St.%20Louis
so shrewsbury is going to appoint someone working for him at the board of aldermen to the new school board? talk about one hand washing the other.
2/22/2007 10:38 AM
Funny no one cried foul (or unethical or unconstitutional) when they took over the Wellston School District. Its actually very much so with in the constitutional rights to do such thing. I'm not saying I support this but lets atleast make a reasonable and thoughtful arguement as to why they should takeover. If only 8-15% of voters turnout for school board elections how the hell do you expect the state to take your claims serious? The answer is you can't!
2/22/2007 12:56 PM
What was the percentage turnout for the mayor's election?
Considering his candidates lost in the school board election---why is he being taqken so seriously?
Because his agenda fits with theirs?
2/22/2007 1:29 PM
Anonymous,
It doesn't matter whether only 8% of voters turned out on election day. I believe you quoted between 8-15%. Slay himself was 'elected' with an equally low turnout. Perhaps we should set aside THAT vote as well, according to your logic. As for Wellston's case--there were voices of dissent--the media didn't report them.
Finally, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS TO SET ASIDE A PUBLIC VOTE PROPERLY CERTIFIED ACCORDING TO LAW. LOW VOTER TURNOUT HAS NEVER BEEN USED AS A LEGITIMATE EXCUSE TO SET ASIDE A PUBLIC ELECTION. IT HAS BEEN USED--IT'S JUST NOT LEGITIMATE. I BELIEVE A CHARACTER BY THE NAME OF JIM CROW WAS THE LAST TO USE SUCH A DEVICE BEFORE SLAY AND HIS CRONIES. NEXT TIME ACTUALLY LEARN THE LAW BEFORE YOU RUN YOUR MOUTH.
GADFLY
2/22/2007 1:58 PM
This was forwarded to me today. Nancy Briggs inserted the numbers, as these points will be addressed in the addendum to this letter. Please read in its entirety.
Let me add this dimension to Gadfly's excellent post:
FROM KENT KING (DESE)
As you probably know, the Wellston School District, in St. Louis County, is the only district in the state that is unaccredited. (1) It became unaccredited in 2003. We took over the district last year (July 1, 2005) after the district failed to make sufficient progress during the two-year period allowed under state law. As a result, the board and superintendent of the Wellston School District were removed, and a three-member administrative panel appointed by the State Board of Education has operated the Wellston schools for the past year. Dr. Charles Brown of our staff is now serving as the chief executive officer of the district. Along with the two citizens serving on the administrative board, Dr. Brown and his staff have worked extremely hard during this past year to restore the academic and fiscal integrity of that school district.
(2) When Wellston became unaccredited, its students became eligible (under state law) to attend other accredited districts. (3) About 100 students have taken advantage of that opportunity, and Wellston has been paying tuition for those students to attend other districts. The total cost of those tuition payments is roughly $1 million per year. (4) In the long run, this district cannot survive if mandatory tuition payments continue at this level.
(5) Therefore, at the April meeting of the State Board of Education, I recommended that the board grant "interim" accreditation to the Wellston district, effective July 1. The district will not be provisionally accredited, but it will no longer be unaccredited. This means that new students will not be eligible to transfer to other districts at Wellston’s expense. Wellston officials also are hopeful that some students who have transferred will return to Wellston when they see that the district is making progress and has a (6) reasonable chance for long-term survival.
In many ways, Wellston is like a new district that began operating this year. (7) If it can control and reduce tuition costs, it has a chance to regain financial stability and work on making the changes it must make in order to achieve accredited status. The "interim" status gives the district a chance to regroup and move forward.
We felt that the unique circumstances in this community warranted the action of creating a "new" (and temporary) accreditation category. This solution might not work in another time and place. Another option would have been for us to allow the Wellston School District to collapse and then assign its remnants to surrounding districts. That would have ended the need for state intervention, but it would have only transferred Wellston’s problems to other school districts.
The Wellston case has produced a year of many "firsts." Legally and administratively, it has been a great challenge. At the same time, I am proud that Dr. Brown and his colleagues have been able to deflect most of the distractions and keep the students, parents and faculty focused on what matters most. In addition, (8) I am grateful to the State Board of Education for its willingness to stay engaged with this difficult case - and its willingness to support unconventional solutions to the new problems created by the first state takeover of a school district.
Although Wellston’s status as an unaccredited district will soon be changing, I anticipate that there will be more unaccredited districts in the state in coming months. Therefore, I think it is important for superintendents all over the state to know what is happening in these cases. (End of Letter)
Addendum
It is important that you read Kent King’s entire letter. Please note that he wrote this and neither I nor any other person made it up.
1. Wellston became unaccredited in 2003 (didn't give exact date) and on July 1, 2005 state took over. (State did wait to take over after the two-year period allowed under state law.)
2. Students became eligible (under state law) to attend other accredited districts at the expense of the Wellston district.
3. About 100 students did this and it was costing about one million a year for Wellston. (Please note that is more than $7,000 a year to educate them properly.)
4. The state realized that the district could not keep doing this financially.
(Remember that the state was in charge at this point.) Are we not supposed to educate with a lower amount per student? Why couldn't they do it? Duh!!!!!!!!
5. State changed the rules to fit their needs. A new label was given to Wellston. They are now “interim” accredited. The district is not accredited. This means that they (now state) do not have to help students go to an accredited school district in fact, the students are left to fend for themselves. Students are now on their own, Good luck students!!!!!
** Remember accreditation determines whether a student’s diploma is valid. **
6. King then states that he hopes the students will return to the non-accredited district and gamble on their education. Again please note that the state has not been able to get the district accredited by their own standards but the district is not obliged to assist students to acquire a valid education.
7. King states that once the State gave Wellston this new title of “interim” status they (meaning Wellston) can now start over and try to become accredited “if it can control and reduce tuition costs.” Now if the state was not able to reduce the cost how on earth could Wellston do it???????????
8. King states that he is “grateful to the State Board of Education for its willingness to stay engaged with this difficult case - and it is willingness to support unconventional solutions to the new problems created by the first state takeover of a school district.”
Are you reading this???????? He thanks the board for creating another mess. They had to change their own rules to make it work and who had to suffer when they did it? The students!!!!!!!
Therefore, after examining King’s own words our students will need to transfer to other districts in order to graduate, and this will probably be at their own expense. This sounds as though the rumors are coming true and someone wants to get the poor out of the city. How do you make them move? Take away their one guaranteed right - a free education!
Nancy Briggs.
2/23/2007 7:10 AM
Gadfly, you make good points. But please stop keyboarding in all caps. It's difficult to read and even encourages not to read.
Make your points easier to read for your own benefit as well as for ours.
2/23/2007 10:54 AM
Gadfly, also please separate thoughts with paragraphs. A little white space would help to zero in on important points.
2/23/2007 10:55 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home