By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Before the State Board of Education considers action this week with the administration of the St. Louis Public School District, Senate Minority Floor Leader Maida Coleman, D-St. Louis, and Sens. Harry Kennedy and Jeff Smith sent a letter to members of the state board and the Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Kent King urging them to consider four points before deciding the future of the local school district. "This lack of representation prevents the board from being privy to local points of view," Coleman said. "How can important education decisions about the St. Louis Public Schools be fairly made when there is not representation on the state board from the area?" Furthermore, the lawmakers drew attention to the fact that the originally scheduled review for the St. Louis Public Schools had been set for 2008, but the review clearly is now being fast-tracked. "Unfortunately, the state board has been forced into action by the pro-voucher, anti-public-education politicians who are essentially browbeating state board members to the point we have reached today," Coleman said. The timing of the state board's action is causing a third concern for area lawmakers. St. Louis voters are just six weeks away from a local school board election during which voters will elect two more district residents to have a say in the fate of St. Louis schools. Coleman said the addition of community stakeholders should provide the stability their district needs. "A transitional board implemented by the state board denies the people of St. Louis their constitutionally granted voice in their own schools," she said. Although Coleman agrees that more focused efforts are necessary in order to provide the struggling local school district with a way out of its academic crisis, she is against what seems to be an unnecessarily hasty attempt to solve the problem. Coleman said that the district, under the leadership of Superintendent Diana Bourisaw, has clear near-term goals and is working towards those goals with the help of several stakeholders in the district. "Our final point is that if the board decides tomorrow that the state will indeed take over the St. Louis Public School District, there will not be any appreciative effect on academics during this school year," Coleman said. "For this reason, I, along with my St. Louis counterparts, see no reason to rush forward with a plan that may or may not have positive results. Ultimately, we all want what is best for our school children, but at this time, we do not know whether a state takeover will do anything of the sort." In the concluding paragraph of the letter, Coleman, Kennedy and Smith called on the State Board of Education to postpone their decision and instead give the St. Louis Public School District the chance to improve itself with the upcoming school board election and the fulfillment of the superintendent's goals. Labels: Schools
The Senators noted the absence of a state board member from St. Louis, despite the fact that St. Louis Public Schools is the largest school district in the state.
22 Comments:
Maida must have forgot, there would be representation from the St.Louis area had her and other like her, not worked so hard to keep Donayale Whitmore off of the State Board.
So Maida, don't start crying now about what you had a hand in creating.
Jeff shouldn't have been so quick to judge Mrs. Whitmore on her religous beliefs and instead should have focused on her desire to see children learn.
And Harry . . .he needs to go sit down somewhere; I'll bet he has not even been in a public school in the last 20 years!
2/14/2007 10:07 PM
Good for Jeff. Never had any doubt. More or less.
2/14/2007 10:17 PM
Anonymous 10:07 sounds a lot like Veronica.
Here's two more points:
1)Nowhere in the transitional board plan does it say how it would get past the influence of the union. If the state puts in the transitional board watch the union dig its heels in and nothing will get done. This district needs someone who can reahc compromise with the union. Bourisaw has done that.
2)Slay has it in for Bourisaw. A transitional board with him and Blunt appointing two members will almost certainly mean them getting rid of Bourisaw. How is that going to help? Can anyone say SEVEN superintendents since 2003?
2/14/2007 11:01 PM
Anonymous 2/14/2007 11:01 PM said...
Anonymous 10:07 sounds a lot like Veronica.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
On point 1: "...how it would get past the influence of the union." DOn't forget, it was with the support of Local 420 htat Scheomehl, Jackson, Archibald, and Clinkscale came to power.
On point 2: "Can anyone say SEVEN superintendents since 2003?" It was only because members of the current SLPS Board voted to get rid of Dr. Williams that we are up to number seven. No one seemed worried about the number of superintendents when Bourisaw got her position.
Lastly; If you are going to respond to a previos post, address the points made in that post before you make your own points. Now I'll give you another opportunity . . . .
So Maida, don't start crying now about what you had a hand in creating.
Jeff shouldn't have been so quick to judge Mrs. Whitmore on her religous beliefs and instead should have focused on her desire to see children learn.
And Harry . . .he needs to go sit down somewhere; I'll bet he has not even been in a public school in the last 20 years!
2/15/2007 10:14 AM
Donayle Whitmore-Smith will never represent the people of this city. Rather, she represents the affluent, pro-voucher, anti-public school crowd that would deny equal voting rights to the 'great unwashed masses.' While it is good to hear that Jeff Smith and Maida Coleman had a change of heart; it does not excuse their lack of interest in the schools prior to the public outcry. What kind of lesson does this power grab teach our children about 'democracy,' when influential businessmen and politicians set aside the results of a public election because they didn't get their way? Democracy is exactly what's needed during times like this when politicians demonstrate such callous disregard for the constitution and the people. It is time to reflect on this move by the state, time to honestly investigate all the conditions leading to this action, hold politicians accountable for their unconstitutional actions, and remove them from office. It is time to elect new voices--voices that will respect the voting process and fight to defend the people's right to elect all their public officials--school boards included. It's time to begin RECALL PETITIONS ON SLAY, BLUNT, LACY-CLAY AND MCCASKILL FOR THEIR CALLOUIS DISREGARD OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. IT'S TIME TO KICK THE COUNTRY CLUB ELITE OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND RETURN IT TO THE PARTY OF THE LITTLE GUY. IT'S TIME TO RECLAIM OUR DEMOCRACY. CALL BILL PURDY, OR MARY FRANKLIN AT AFT -420. CALL JAY NIXON AND VOICE YOUR DISGUST. HE WANTS TO BE GOVERNOR. LET JAY NIXON KNOW IF THIS ACTION BECOMES FACT--HE WILL NEVER SEE THE INSIDE OF THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION. CALL PETER DOWNS AND BEGIN THE RECALL PROCESS.
J. Gadfly
2/15/2007 11:23 AM
Mrs. Whitmore-Smith is neither "affluent" nor "anti-public schools". In a different post you stated that someone was "showing (their) ignorance", while your accusations against Mrs. Smith indicate you are capable and willing to show your own.
I have been in audiences and have heard Mrs. Smith speak of the need for all children to have an opportunity to learn. Children shouldn't have to really on the "luck of the Magnet School lottery" or "parental wealth" to get into a good performing school that meets their individual needs.
She has publicly stated that the reason she started her own school was because the public school in her neigborhood failed to meet the needs of her children and she did not have ther personal wealth to send them to an alternative school.
To be "pro-choice" does not mean that someone is "anti-public" on the school issue. A lot of us in the Pro-Choice movement are also fighting for increased funding & equity in the public school system as well.
You are right however, this is a "...power grab". It is a "power grab" by those parents who recognize that the schools should not be ran by the unions. We are the paretns who feel that we should be able to have our children educated in an environment that is clean, safe and meets their educational needs.
We are tired of waiting on the District to improve while OUR CHILDREN SUFFER. We have suffered for years, this didn't start with Slay and as you said in your other post this should lay at the feet of a society that would rather fund incarceration rather that education.
In closing I will say that I personally don't care who runs the district, because there is no plan to create equity for all. As a lower income, white, father I want what is best for my child and that has not proven to be available through St. Louis Public Schools.
2/15/2007 12:21 PM
J. Gadfly said (in a different post)
". . . a large part of the blame lies on politicians witholding adequate funding, parents failing to teach their children right from wrong, parents failing to discipline their children, school boards dictating inferior curriculums with scripted procedures, and a society that denies a living wage and health care even to it's children."
AND. . .A UNION THAT HAS SUPPORTED DIFFICIENT TEACHERS & RELATED PERSONNEL. IF THE UNION WOULD SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THOSE WHO CORRUPT OUR PROFESSION THERE WOULD BE FEWER CHILDREN BEUING PASSED THROUGH THE SYSTEM W/O LEARNING ANYTHING.
THERE SHOULD ALSO BE JUST AS MANY PARENTS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND TEACHERS SHOWING UP FOR ALL THE OTHER HEARINGS THAT IMPACT THE LIVES OF CHILDREN MAYBE, JUST MAYBE WE COULD DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF EDUCATION WHOLISTICLY RATHER THAN JUST FOCUSING ON OUR JOBS.
I LIVE IN THE CITY AND DON'T SEND MY CHILDREN TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE I KNOW (FROM THE INSIDE) HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS!
2/15/2007 12:56 PM
Please pardon the typing errors. I am doing this on my lunchperiod and was in a hurry.
2/15/2007 12:59 PM
Whitmore-Smith is not on the Board because she is not qualified to make decisions for public education, which she is against.
Jeff Smith FINALLY joined the people's position on this after being sworn in as the 4th senatorial district's representative two months ago. Twice now he's proved he can not make a decision until he's pressured to do so. I mean, folks have been talking about (and against) this proposed state takeover all during Smith's campaign. Either the guy can't make a simple decision or he craves attention. Either way, as The Source stated, I guess if you promise him a free meal, he'll do anything for you. Local 420, what WILL Smith get from you?
2/15/2007 6:41 PM
" Nilhil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit "
Cicero, In Verrem, I, ii, 4
Our dear friend, Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher, spoke centuries ago about today: "Nothing is so well fortified that money cannot capture it." This includes public interest, public education, and public service.
The lucrative Saint Louis Public Schools is well on its way to being captured. The State Board of Education decision to grant partial takeover by the State to the whims of three politicians is proof of the lure and power of money. It is this humble scribe's opinion that many self-interest groups, and money-hungry groups and individuals, recognizing the alluring pot of gold the Vandals from the North (Alvarez &Marsal's Roberti &Team), discovered and exploited, are now lining up for the spoils.
Despite all the psychobabble and terminology that it's about the kids, too much effort and energy has gone into dismantling and destroying the school system to open the door to personal gain to believe otherwise. The fact that otherwise sane, rational, affluent men and women allow themselves to appear so publicly foolish by irrational, insane, and bizarre behaviors signals just how serious the money hungry are in getting what they want.
Cicero spoke well not only for his times but for ours. Another, Plautus (254 - 184 B.C.), a Roman writer of comic dramas, wrote in Epidicus, 382-383, "Non oris causa modo homines aequom fuit sibi habere speculum, sed qui perspicere possent cor sapientiae."
Commissioner D. Kent King, Mayor Francis Slay, et al, should follow Plautus advice: "A man needs a good mirror to scrutinize his heart as well as his face."
These Roman men continue to speak to us today. Nevertheless, it may be an American closer to our times whose words will best describe today's decision: "This day will live on in infamy." (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) It is an infamous decision because of all the behind-the-scenes machinations and collusions, the trickery, the pilfering and pillaging, the refusal to do business in good faith for the sake of the children, the injustices of demanding of the City school district what other districts are not required, the withholding of promised funding, etc., etc.
Philo-Teknos grieves and weeps with you today, those of you who truly care about the children, for the children, and about their future. We send our young men and women to fight and die to bring about democracy in a far corner of the earth, while wily politicians steal democracy from the people in our own backyard.
Unlike Charles Dickens, we can't say "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." Today begins "the worst of times" because wicked schemes and plans have been rewarded.
Philo-Teknos
(Friend of Children)
2/15/2007 10:10 PM
Whitmore-Smith may not be affluent, and if so--I stand corrected. However, since you brought up the subject--I will speak to my opponent's grand generalities minus any factual proof. First of all, just because I demand my civil rights to have the vote respected does not mean I am either pro or anti-union. It merely means that I demand the constitution to be held as the law of the land. As for the pro-choice crowd regarding 'school choice'--I defer to the fact that school choice has always existed. It's called private or parochial school. I am curious as to why some contributors are so closed minded against unions. Unions originally came into existence to fight against the abuse and occasional murder of workers. Before unions--there was no mandatory free public school for all children. Child labor was the norm. Children as young as 5 were made to work in factories under conditions deemed harsh even by military standards. These abuses were not corrected because of the tender mercies of politicians; they were brought about by tireless battles against the corporation, sometimes purchased with the blood of those same workers.
While I agree that the schools must change; I take exception with the generalization that unions unconditionally shield the incompetent. All organizations pose that problem including executive ranks. The present occupant of the White House is a prime example. The problems of the district will not be solved by stripping the citizens of their voting rights any more than those same citizens will be protected against terrorists by relinquishing said same rights. If you had read any other columns I've composed--you would have seen a complete rationale for rebuilding our schools. I suspect, however that you are too blinded by anger and prejudice to focus beyond the propaganda you've been spoonfed by the corporate press. Finally, whether you remain anti-union is irrelevant. Whether you are convinced that privatization of schools is necessary--is also irrelevant. The stripping of voting rights by setting aside the results of an election ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY, WHETHER LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL OR EXECUTIVE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE ANY INDIVIDUAL THEIR VOTING RIGHTS. IF YOU WERE SO APPALLED BY THIS BOARD OR PREVIOUS BOARDS THEN YOU OR WHITMORE-SMITH COULD HAVE RUN FOR THE BOARD THEMSELVES, OR YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED DEMOCRACY TO WORK AND VOTED THEM OUT OF OFFICE. NONE OF THESE OFFICIALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY THE PUBLIC THEIR VOTING RIGHTS. THEIR ACTIONS YESTERDAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING CHILDREN. IF YOU WANT TO HELP CHILDREN LOOK TO THE EDUCATOR'S ROUNDTABLE. THIS IS ABOUT THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SOCIETY, DESTROYING DEMOCRACY AND REPLACING IT WITH CORPORATE FASCISM. I WILL NEVER BACK DOWN TO FASCISTS. WE WILL REGAIN OUR VOTING RIGHTS.
J. GADFLY
2/16/2007 10:42 AM
I am curious to know why the union is so opposed to parents having choices in their child's education?
The union has billed anyone for school choice as anti public schools which is a complete and total LIE. Their strategy was to convince people of this nonsense.
I am for school choice, but my children attend public schools.
For the record, Whitmore was not for taking over the schools. If anyone had bothered to get to know her for real instead of labeling her with blanket statements, she may have been able to prevent it or at least have some imput.
She was for an education overhaul and who could deny that reform needs to happen.
It is rather ironic that now no one but the mayor, governor, and Shrewsberry has a choice in our children's education. See how it feels?
2/16/2007 11:15 AM
We all have a choice in our kids education,pull out your check book and enroll them in a private school,(I did,had to cancel cable and eating out) or put your house up for sale and move into any school district that you like and send them to that school,I will this spring.I live very close to the mayor so I would like to sell it to a Bosnian family that is currently renting in the city,the mayor says he wants diversity,I thought I would give him some real close to his front door.Hello Rockwood schools.Why stay in this city where politics is incredible,the mayor gives the store away,and the city services are terible...like plowing snow..Really folks get out while the property values are still high before the city goes bankrupt.Oh,and yes my wife,a very dedicated SLPS teacher will be looking for a new employer also!!I figure we will save at least $1500.00 a year not having to buy school supplies for her new district or maybe I'll let her stay home and keep up the house since I wont have to pay for private schools anymore.
2/16/2007 10:46 PM
How does it feel to not have a choice? said...
I am curious to know why the union is so opposed to parents having choices in their child's education?
The union has billed anyone for school choice as anti public schools which is a complete and total LIE. Their strategy was to convince people of this nonsense.
I am for school choice, but my children attend public schools.
For the record, Whitmore was not for taking over the schools. If anyone had bothered to get to know her for real instead of labeling her with blanket statements, she may have been able to prevent it or at least have some imput.
She was for an education overhaul and who could deny that reform needs to happen.
It is rather ironic that now no one but the mayor, governor, and Shrewsberry has a choice in our children's education. See how it feels?
2/16/2007 11:15 AM
You might check the bio of Ms. Whitmore-Smith. And, you probably would improve your knowledge base by doing more in-depth studying instead of reading the P-D front page. Also, "for the record" Vinny Shoemehl, Bobby Archibald and Ronny Jackson were all about "reform". THIS is reform? People who looked into the Shoemehl, Clinkscale, Archibald campaigns could see past that and realize that they had a hidden agenda when it became clear taht their slick campaigns were financed by Civic Progress.
You also talk about "choice" without explaining (even to yourself) what that means. As someone has already responded, there has always been a choice.
When I say choice, I am talking about plans to offer tax credits in the form of vouchers. That will be the extent of choice.
If you have any details to the contrary, please post it and spare us the repetition of political sound bytes we've heard a hundred times.
2/17/2007 10:13 AM
How about vouchers that give priority to those students with the most severe learning and behavior problems?
Or maybe we can start our voucher experiment with only those students with poor attendance rates or failing grades?
Perhaps vouchers should be made available to only the most disadvantaged, perhaps beginning with those students who are homeless or are from "broken" homes.
Should we put a limit on acceptance into charter schools for only those with a D average? An F average?
If the state is intervening because the students are failing...then why not let the state intervene for only those students who ARE failing? Not all of my students are failing...some are doing quite well!
(I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I haven't really given it enough thought...just throwing it out there to hear your opinions)
2/17/2007 6:10 PM
Jim
The 2006 Scholarship bill was designed for the children who were performing the lowest. They had to have less than a 2.0 and be in the free lunch program. The bill also asked for testing. While I did not agree with that as I believe anyone should be able to take advantage of the program, I realize they were trying to help the children in the worst predicaments. The union would not have it though and valiantly fought against it.
I also realize that people like to use the word voucher because it incites fear in people, but the truth is that school choice is about empowering parents by offering more opportunies and increasing quality educational options for all children. Just as a standardized curriculum does not work for all children, the same type of educational system does not work for all children. Choice includes but is not limited the following options:
Charter Schools
Home Schooling
Innovations in Traditional Public Schools
Privately Financed Scholarships
Public School Contracts with Private and public Organizations
Supplementary Education Programs
Tax-Supported Scholarships
Tuition Tax Credits and Deductions
It is about a better EDUCATION for EVERYONE regardless of race, geography, or economic status.
2/17/2007 7:24 PM
SNEED HEARN:
I don't have to check the bio. I take time to get to know people personally to understand issues. I have known her for many years prior to her involvement with school choice. We cried on each others shoulders when we realized the few educational options that were available for our newborns if we stayed in the city. This was prior to 1999 so call it mother's intution that we felt what would come in the following years with the school board.
Furthermore, my information does not come from the PD. I was for school choice before there was a movement for school choice. As a child I was forced to go to a school that I did not do well in because I was literally living on the wrong side of the street.I could not understand why I could not go to the other school equal in distance where I might do better. After years of failing and begging for a change, my mother finally used my aunt's address on the other side of the street and I went to other school where I thrived. Eventually I went to college and recieved multiple degrees. That would have been made much harder to achieve had I not changed schools. For the record, I was not even in a failing district. I was in Hazelwood, a triple A rated district. That is just to say that school choice ( for me) is not just about failing schools even though that is a good enough reason. The essence of it is just about a basic right of parents to be able to give their children the best start in life that they can.
2/17/2007 7:34 PM
Anon at 7:24,
What worries me, is that I'm pretty sure that the children who need the options the MOST, will not get the opportunity because they don't have an advocate. (usually a caring and able parent) Those with parents who are able to stand up for them are not the most needy (but, of course are still worthy).
The fact is that money and resources are limited. I fear that those kids who need it most will be left behind and the SLPS will simply continue to fail, but at a faster rate. We are forced to compete with other districts while trying to educate those requiring the most intensive support. With an increase in programs that pull resources out of the public schools, the SLPS will in effect become another Special School District. This is already happening to a degree with the exodus of families from the city.
One of the things I did not agree with former Supt. Williams about was his wanting to eliminate much of our special education. He should have faced the truth and INCREASED Special Education, not downsized it.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion no matter how many ways I study it. The students without advocates will suffer even more. If we are going to provide equal public education we must protect those who have no one else to protect them, or we doom them to the bottom forever.
I'm not willing to do that and, as unfair as it sounds, will continue to oppose programs that divert resources from the public schools. Not because I want to deny your children opportunities, but because I think we need to DEMAND that ALL children get the opportunities, starting with those who need it most.
2/17/2007 10:54 PM
To say that to be for school choice means being against public schools is just as crazy as Bush saying to be against the war means you are un- American. That logic simply does not ring true. It is time to evolve out of the simplistic us vs. them view of the world and see it for the many facets it has. It doesn't' have to be an either/or situation. Why can't a person just be pro education?
2/17/2007 11:59 PM
Can anyone who supports the position that the Senators have taken tell me if any of them have any children? Did they or there children attend St. Louis Public Schools? When is the last time each of them spent time in a St. Louis Public School? How did they spend that time?
Have these three senators nominated a person to serve on the State Board of Education since they defeated the last nomination?
Has Jeff Smith also changed his position on charter schools? Will he use "religous" beliefs as a litmus test for all nominations?
While I'm asking questions: Does Maria Chapel-Nadel or Jamila Nasheed have children? If so, refer to the questions in the first paragraph.
Of those students who gradualte from St. Louis Public Schools is it possible to get a summary of their entrance exams grades to get into college? How many have to take remedial classes once they get there? How many stay to complete the first year? How many graduate? How many return to St. Louis to teach?
I hope my questions don't offend anyone, I'm just trying to understand the thinking process of those who support the Senators' position.
2/18/2007 3:37 PM
To Ronald Humphries of Fairgrounds Park:
Instead of asking questions of the general public, why don't you call all three senators and ask? I don't know the men senators but I did attend school with Mrs. Coleman's oldest son at Brittany Woods in University City before they moved to St. Louis City. We lost touch sometime after that but I know his school was public, on the corner of Delmar and 19th or 20th(?) That's in St. Louis city and I know it was a public school.
I'm not sure where his younger brother and sister ended up.
Regardless, I don't know what where Mrs. Coleman's children attended school has to do with any of this anyway. She was elected to represent St. Louis and seems to be very interested in children getting a good education.
2/20/2007 11:35 AM
That must have been before she sent them to county schools which is where they ended up.
2/20/2007 1:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home