By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 10:38 PM
What happens if the St. Louis Public Schools becomes unaccredited? Well, the administration has released the following Frequently Asked Questions (F.A.Q.) sheet. Labels: Schools
Is the St. Louis Public School District currently unaccredited?
No. The unaccredited status goes into effect June 15, 2007, as a result of recent action taken by the State Board of Education. However, the St. Louis Board of Education may appeal the designation within 30 days.
What happens now?
Missouri law gives the State Board of Education the authority to intervene in the governing of St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) by creating a “transitional school district.” The State Board did reinstitute the “transitional school district” in February. As a result of that State Board action, the District was to have a three-member advisory panel appointed by the mayor, the president of the Board of Aldermen, and our elected school board. If the District becomes unaccredited effective June 15, then the three-member board will become the governing body overseeing the school system. The member who would have been appointed by our elected school board would be replaced by someone selected by the governor.
What about the elected board?
The elected board will remain intact but will have no governing authority. School board elections will continue as required by law.
Who will serve on the governing committee?
According to state law, the Missouri governor, the mayor of St. Louis, and the president of the city’s Board of Aldermen must each select one person to sit on the governing board. Governor Matt Blunt has already appointed St. Louis businessman Rick Sullivan to lead the committee and serve as the school district’s chief executive officer (CEO). This appointment is subject to Senate confirmation. Other appointments do not need Senate confirmation.
How will the unaccredited status affect graduating seniors seeking admission into colleges?
This year’s seniors will graduate while the district is still provisionally accredited.
SLPS recently conducted a phone survey of approximately 20 primary universities and colleges to which St. Louis graduates apply. The answer provided by each of the schools surveyed was the same. All said that they would consider each applicant from SLPS just the same as from any other school district, even if the district became unaccredited this school year.
We have identified only two schools – one public university and one private college – where students may have to submit additional information, and possibly face increased rigor, if they graduated from an unaccredited high school. However, please note that six of our high schools are independently accredited (see below).
What about students who don’t graduate this year? What are their chances of getting admitted to college?
Most of the colleges surveyed said that they would continue to accept graduates from SLPS for admission in subsequent years. A few said that they would also consider the student’s school to be accredited if that school is recognized by the independent school accrediting organization known as the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI). Six high schools in SLPS are currently accredited by the NCA CASI. – Central, Cleveland, Metro, Roosevelt, Soldan and Sumner.
Will I need to get my GED?
No. Students who graduate from a St. Louis high school will not have to get a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). A diploma from the St. Louis Public Schools will still be accepted as students apply to colleges, universities and vocational schools, or as they pursue employment.
May SLPS students transfer to another school district?
Yes, if another district will accept them. According to state law, students in an unaccredited school district are eligible to transfer to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county. Accredited districts, however, may choose to accept or not accept transfer students from an unaccredited district.
SLPS would have to pay the tuition and transportation costs for any student who elects to transfer to an accredited district. SLPS may designate a single district to which students will be transported at its expense. Students who transfer to other districts would be responsible for their own transportation, but SLPS would still be obligated to pay their tuition. If a significant number of students transfer to other districts, the cost of tuition and transportation could be financially devastating for St. Louis schools.
How long will St. Louis Public Schools be "in transition"?
The transitional district is expected to be in place for six years.
Will students and families be affected in other ways?
State law requires that students not performing at grade level must attend summer school (with the exception of special education students).
Students reading at grade level or above, or at one grade level below, may be promoted to the next grade. However, the law states that students not meeting this requirement must be retained. For example, an 8th grader who cannot read at the level of at least a 7th grader will not be able to move on to high school with his or her peers. Again, there is an exception for special education students.
Will schools be affected?
Specific to schools, the statutory language that authorizes the transitional school board also provides the following powers and duties to the new board:
“(1) Creating an academic accountability plan, taking corrective action in underperforming schools, and seeking relief from state-mandated programs;
(2) Exploration of alternative forms of governance for the district;
(3) Authority to contract with nonprofit corporations to provide for the operation of schools;
(4) Oversight of facility planning, construction, improvement, repair, maintenance and rehabilitation;
(5) Authority to establish school site councils to facilitate site-based school management and to improve the responsiveness of the schools to the needs of the local geographic attendance region of the school;
(6) Authority to submit a proposal to district voters pursuant to section 162.666 regarding establishment of neighborhood schools.”
27 Comments:
As one who has always suspected that the examination of Dr. Bourisaw's data was unusual, possibly criminal, on the part of the state board, I have to wonder---can the new 3 person board reapply for accreditation in June or July, with a nod and a wink, to say go ahead and give back the accreditation-----we are in power now, ---just look at the data again and take another vote.
If they reapplied and won back accreditation quickly---would that affect their legal status to take the place of the 7 man elected board.
Because the denial of accreditation was a clumsy improvisation to create the legal basis for the 3 man board taking power.
3/29/2007 1:54 AM
"If a significant number of students transfer to other districts, the cost of tuition and transportation could be financially devastating for St. Louis schools."
IS DESE ADMITTING THAT IT IS DELIBERATELY CREATING A FINANCIAL CRISIS FOR SLPS BY ITS ACTIONS?
3/29/2007 11:04 AM
Ariel:
DESE is not admitting anything. They are simply stating the consequences for any school district which is boneheaded enough to lose its accreditation. They are just citing state law.
The SLPS knew or should have known this consequence of being unaccredited. I doubt that anyone there really took it seriously though. They were too busy fighting, performing, emoting, ranting, and just generally carrying on to have even given it a second thought.
Shame on the citizens of St. Louis who stayed home in droves for the last two school board elections (over 85% of you know who you are). They allowed the Teachers Union to organize a board takeover, endorsing and supporting Veronica ("My kids already have six Ipods") O'Brien, Bill ("Spends like a drunken sailor") Purdy, Peter ("I will work with Dr. Williams") Downs, and Donna ("You wouldn't do this to a white school district") Jones. Together they destabilized and made a laughingstock of the district.
To be fair, the decline did not start with them. Remember back to the last board over which Purdy presided. He had such notables on his team as Rochelle Moore, who was removed by a federal judge for her mental instability, and Bill Haas, perrenial nutball.
Purdy spent the district into oblivion and then handed it over to the so-called Mayor's-slate. The outside consultants they hired to focus on getting as much money as possible into the classroom were forced instead to deal with a budget fiasco of biblical proportions. Having made the unpopular but required budget cuts, which closed schools and cost jobs, they and the board they served were demonized by the Teachers Union. As noted above, the Union then capitalized on voter apathy and the anger/fear of their constituency, and engineered a takeover of the board, all of which resulted in the loss of accreditation for our school district.
I can still hear Bill Purdy stumping for school board and ranting about how the "Mayor's Board" lost so many accreditation points. Well, now he can live with the fact that he was vice-president of the board that had its accreditation yanked.
Sadly, Ariel, one result could possibly be a crushing economic hit to the district as they meet their obligations to those students who do not wish to obtain their education in an unaccredited district. Did DESE create this looming financial crisis? Not in your wildest imagination. The voters (or, rather, non-voters) of St. Louis did this to themselves.
3/29/2007 9:01 PM
Elf44: I guess you just crawled out of your cave or something. SLPS did not "lose" it's accreditation like a "bonehead" who left it in his other pants or something. Accreditation was unconstitutionally, unfairly and probably illegally RIPPED from SLPS over monumental objections by parents, teachers and students who did and are taking it VERY seriously indeed.
Your revisionist history on what you call the board "takeover" is so full of half-truths and erroneous assumptions I do not even know where to start, so I won't.
The saddest part of your tirade is that you say the voters did this to themselves. Blink your eyes a few times, cavedwelling one, and see that the will of the people who DID vote is being ignored and overturned as if this were some banana republic instead of the United States of America.
My point is that if DESE is AWARE of the fact that these actions will likely create a financial disaster for SLPS--and they ARE--they faced the same problem in their takeover of Wellston and had to invent a new accreditation category to stem the bleeding of finances--WHY WOULD THEY CHOOSE TO CREATE A DISASTER? WHY WOULD MAYOR SLAY ASK THEM TO CREATE A DISASTER? A DISASTER THEY ARE WELL AWARE IS INEVITABLE? WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? WHAT DO THEY PLAN TO DO WHEN THE FINANCIAL RUIN IS UPON THEM? MOTIVES, ANYONE?
3/30/2007 10:56 AM
Ariel, like you, I didn't even know where to start addressing elf44's "ministry of truth" version of what has occurred. Then I thought to myself, "Hey, that sounds like the stuff that comes out of Slay's office!", and decided not to bother, because the Slay-ers have just told those same lies so many times now, that they actually believe them.
He has no clue about the truth of the matter. And as far as the teacher's union comment, I had to LOL at his gullibility. Of course, the community is supportive of grocery workers' unions and auto workers' unions. I guess teachers are supposed to sacrifice adequate work conditions and compensation for the good of other people's children, while their own children do without.
3/30/2007 2:18 PM
How's this for a motive, Ariel: DESE care about ensuring that all children in St. Lous receive a decent education, one that will break them out of the cycle of poverty and crime to which the current district oversight has condemned them.
3/30/2007 2:24 PM
Adric:
I support Unions and what they stand for, and I applaud the Teacher's Union for their skills in organizing voters to get their endorsed candidates elected. But shame on the rest of the St. Louis voters who sat on their asses and let the Teacher's Union sneak on by them. Shame, shame indeed.
3/30/2007 2:28 PM
elf44:
If you seriously believe that DESE's motive is to 'rescue St. Louis children from poverty and crime caused by the evil school district', I can only say you have chosen the right screen name, and I wish you the best of luck finding the ring, the key or whatever it is that you are seeking in the imaginary forest in which you live.
I'm leaning toward Slay and DESE creating an excuse for mass charterization of the SLPS district for financial gain. I know Slay is on board to have a few charters, and Jeff Smith will probably want more too. I'm sure there are more. The advantage I see for them is that NCLB is set up so that they can receive TONS of federal money for reading and math curriculum (Reading First, Math Now) that doesn't even require certified teachers because it's scripted. The federal funding also pays for consultants to train the "teachers" too. There's even a cut that goes to the state "consultants" who oversee the federal programs.
Free curriculum, free staff training, uncertified, cheap staff (because charters are not REQUIRED to have certified teachers), no accountability for results (because charters are not REQUIRED to meet AYP on the MAP)...what's not to love? All they require are "failed" urban schools to take over from a "failed" urban district. Conveniently, it seems to me, they have created one.
3/30/2007 6:59 PM
I keep hearing about Slay or someone else stealing the money. But according to Bourisaw isn't the district broke and will have to shut a bunch of schools? On the SLPS website they talk about being about $28 million in the red for the upcoming fiscal year. So how does someone steal money that SLPS doesn't even have?
3/30/2007 10:13 PM
Hi Robert, I want to respond to your question. It isn't actually SLPS money that they are after. There are federal dollars to be had from the NCLB initialtive for private companies like McGraw Hill (a golfing buddy of "W" that I've personally seen show up at the Sanford, ME airport during legislation to exclusively select specific textbooks and programs, like Open Court, that are eligible for funding with the reading first grants). It isn't like the most qualified programs are eligible. Just like the Haliburton monopoly on war profits, the companies with connections are allowed and the well researched, best options do not qualify!
3/31/2007 12:42 AM
NEWS FLASH
IN THE LEGAL FORUM THEY CALL IT "IN BED TOGETHER"
The "McBride and Sons" guy is named CEO!
New homes in the city of St. Louis have been sold with tax abatement (robbing the district of millions of tax dollars)
SLAY DIDN'T HAVE TO STEAL ANYTHING, HE USED THE SH**STEM TO LEGALLY BUT IMMORALLY OBTAIN IT
Craig Williams was here to help the district lose accreditation. He would still be here if he had not gotten mixed up with Floyd Irons. This would allow for civic progress to strip people of their property, sell homes, repopulate the city, and provide a new school district for the homebuyers!
3/31/2007 8:38 PM
Robert Barnes: Like Adric said, its about FEDERAL money.
A great deal of federal money comes into the state of Missouri and St. Louis in the form of Reading First grants. Please note: the money does NOT come to the school district, but to publishing firms, assessment companies, consulting firms and those invested in them, who have positioned themselves to "qualify" as "accepted" providers of services under the grants.
The insidious part of this is that the money comes in based on how many poor, poorly perfoming urban children the state can produce. The more failure of urban children, the more federal money comes in--not to their schools, but to these businesses and consulting firms. Perhaps that is the REAL reason people like Slay and Jeff Smith keep touting "choice" to urban parents in the form of charter schools. The test scores show that the charter schools perform much more poorly than the lowest neighborhood schools in SLPS. What sort of "choice" are they REALLY advocating?
People keep missing the connecting points. SLAY brought in the board members who brought in the McGraw Hill reading program Open Court, ostensibly to "position" the district for funding. SLAY'S selected school board borrowed the money to pay for it from DESEG funds. Then they brought in Roberti and Spampinato and consultants who ENFORCED this substandard reading program in every school, including the specialized magnet programs with which it was utterly incompatible--even though the DESEG agreement mandated them to SUPPORT the magnet programs. They killed magnet schools with money borrowed from DESEG. Why? They performed too well.
Before Open Court came there were only a handful of elementary schools performing poorly enough to qualify for Reading First grants. When SLAY's board got through, nearly all of the schools qualified.
When the new board and Diana Bourisaw began discussing removing Open Court from the district because of the obvious, negative effect it has had on our students' performance--see DESE site MAP Communication Arts scores last 5 years--SLAY requested the state to dis-accredit the district so there would be no interference with the flow of Reading First money.
The state gets a cut of Reading First funding too, so they are happy to comply. Especially since the new NCLB package includes ANOTHER fat grant program, Math Now, for which poorly performing urban children will qualify them for even MORE federal money.
Immediately preceding and throughout all of this, the state has witheld from SLPS (and other districts) HUGE amounts of money that it OWED them under the DESEG agreement, forcing SLPS into a budget crisis that "justified" the Roberti takeover in the first place, and NOW the state has the gaul to USE the DESEG agreement as a grounds for taking control of the district.
Meanwhile, SLAY positions himself to open charter schools--which also can funnel the federal grants if the students perform badly enough. That should not be a problem given the current track record of the charter schools.
GET IT?
4/01/2007 7:01 PM
And before any elves or fairies crawl out of the woodwork to remind everyone that the Teachers' Union supported and vowed to work with Slay's people...let me add that the Teachers' Union ALSO vowed to work with Veronica O'Brien, Creg Williams, Diana Bourisaw, the old board, the new board and even the state team if it comes to it. See a pattern? The teachers are willing to work with ANYONE, ANY TIME, ANYHOW because the TEACHERS are not grandstanding, running for office or lining their pockets with federal funds. We just want our students to succeed. We will work with any situation we are handed to get that done. WE CARE ABOUT THEM. THEY ARE OUR LIFE'S WORK.
4/01/2007 7:15 PM
Ariel,
And you accuse me of being "revisionist". Wasn't that Mary Armstrong herself I saw in Jefferson City chanting "No Take-Over" right along with the rest? Oh yeah, Local 420 is dying to work with the state team.
And while there may be a large group of teachers who have a desire to see their students succeed, the UNION is, by its very nature and the nature of all unions, mainly concerned about JOBS and job security. No wonder Local 420 were furious at Roberti, who had to cut jobs to rectify Purdy's huge budget shortfalls. No surprise they were furious at Creg Williams as well, who was more than ready to show the door to any teacher not willing to give maximum effort. Challenge teacher absentee performance, find yourself booted out by the Union's majority. Oh yeah, they were dying to work with Creg Williams.
The Teachers Union is just as interested as anyone else in getting (and keeping hold of) their piece of the pie.
4/02/2007 1:14 PM
Elf:
Proverbs 26:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
I should probably take Solomon's advice. I think I'd rather let you continue to think you're right than be like you.
4/02/2007 5:45 PM
gnummyyI think the thing to remember is---Creg Williams was some sort of genius---maybe his greatest trick was getting out of town before really messing his life up-------------------------I feel sorry for Mr. Slay----he had it all planned out---and then those irresponsible newly elected board members hire Bourisaw==who was competent enough to do an audit on Floyd Irons---next thing you know Williams was gone, and Slay had to let Matt Blunt in on his scheme------
this is from the archives--last July 11
By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 3:47 PM
A rumor is circulating around St. Louis Public Schools that the Mayor and at least one holdover from the last school board majority have requested the state to step in to take over the troubled school district.
It is believed that Mayor Francis Slay and board member Ron Jackson told Kent King, Commissioner of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, that the current board majority is standing in the way of Superintendent Creg Williams' reform plans. Sources tell PUB DEF that the two asked DESE to take over the district at the first opportunity and appoint Williams to oversee it, effectively eliminating the St. Louis Board of Education.
I guess one third a loaf is better than none.
4/02/2007 6:15 PM
How'd ya get so smart. You retained information. Let me guess, you had a teacher?
Kudos for putting this piece back on front street. The reason this mess has been able to happen is because too many people forget too many things!
PRT
4/03/2007 11:06 AM
You know what, Po? It is very funny that you bring up forgetfulness. You, as someone who thrives on the ordinary citizens forgetfulness to vote your idiocracy down.
It is time that the people rise up and vote out the mediocrity. I am completely sure that most will not. Your lawsuit will slog through the system. The state will tenderfoot around. Students will be led, by the nose, through "student led" disruptions.
I, for the life of me, do not know why regular people are allowing this to happen. It makes no sense. Just how bad does it have to get before ANYONE does ANYTHING "just for the kids?"
I voted today. It was lonely there.
4/03/2007 1:50 PM
trouble, I don't have a lawsuit and the shytstem is designed to produce mediocre citizens who can be led around by the nose.
It is the purpose of public education and it can be found in the opening paragraph of every textbook purchased as a requirement in Foundations of Education classes at public colleges and universities!
I don't thrive on anything but blessings from the Most High.
People aren't even playing checkers when it comes to this entire issue; THE SLAY CAMP IS PLAYING CHESS AND COMMAND AND CONQUER GENERALS!
4/03/2007 2:09 PM
Blah, blah, blah. The man is keeping you down. So, what else is new?
Obviously, your point about education keeping the citizenry in line must be true. Why would we care? Oh wait, some of us care. Uneducated? Hmmm... you must be wrong. Slay might just be commiting political suicide. Right or wrong, he is trying to fix something that is broken and status quo will not fix.
You go ahead and keep laying all of your problems at Slay's feet. If it makes you feel better.
4/03/2007 2:43 PM
Blah, blah, blah. translation:I have no answer, I have no answer, I have no answer.
I do not know if that is true that Slay wanted the school board to be eliminated so Floyd Irons' buddy could run things without interference, but it would not be inconsistent.
His candidates, who spent 7 times what Downs and Jones spent, embarrassed him with their humiliation by the voters who are now being disenfranchised.
Naturally, he saw the voters as the problem and did a damned fine job of selling his garbage to the republicans in Jefferson City, as well as the increasingly incoherent staff of the Post Dispatch.
4/03/2007 3:47 PM
"rumor is circulating around St. Louis Public Schools"
"It is believed that Mayor Francis Slay and board member Ron Jackson"
"I do not know if that is true"
Everybody is out to get the poor little educational insiders. Your proof is rumor and inuendo.
I obviously do not have an answer to po. The only thing that I can think of is that po is so used to being able to post comments that are witty, yet banale and patently wrong; that they were not called on previously. That they feel that they (and you Kjoe) should not be called on now.
Malaprops will not help that which is wrong now.
Wrong is still wrong in my book. Some of us are fed up and you still do not understand that.
4/03/2007 4:12 PM
Some of us are fed up and you still do not understand that.
What????????????
Is there anyone who is not fed up?
There are a variety of culprits cited.
Some want to say the stuff that went wrong at slps happened from about 1970-2003, and started up again in april of 2006.
Some of us do not believe that to be the case. Some are more fed up with what happened from 2003-april ,2006.
4/03/2007 5:25 PM
Some of us are fed up and you still do not understand that.
What????????????
Is there anyone who is not fed up?
There are a variety of culprits cited.
Some want to say the stuff that went wrong at slps happened from about 1970-2003, and started up again in april of 2006.
Some of us do not believe that to be the case. Some are more fed up with what happened from 2003-april ,2006.
4/03/2007 5:25 PM
Don't forget those that think that "stuff went wrong in the 70's" and continued through today, unabated. I could quote someones definition of insanity here. But, that would be trite. It is time to change the course of action.
4/03/2007 8:18 PM
"Stuff" has been going on since the beginning of time. There is no end to seeking the original culprits, nor does it help anything in the present.
Less "insane" is to take a look at what is going on RIGHT NOW; a thorough look at the present facts, and a critical assessment of the situation at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is not something to be taken lightly by the voters or done carelessly by those in power.
Some present facts to consider:
A critical look at the DESE website clearly reveals that there are many school districts with situations MUCH more dire than that of SLPS, and test scores MUCH worse.
There is a district in place which the state has taken over: Wellston. How has the state managed that situation? They had to invent a new accreditation category to stem the financial ruin that was caused by students leaving the district. Wellston's test scores remain far lower than any St. Louis school.
There are a number of charter schools operating in St. Louis already. How are they fairing? Their test scores are lower than the lowest of St. Louis schools.
These are real-time issues. If there is sanity to be achieved in this situation, it must begin with an objective look at what is happening NOW.
At some point, someone with sanity should begin to question the whole NCLB law and its processes whereby American society has begun devouring itself.
Ask yourself why, and when did people begin to see schools and teachers as "the enemy" to be conquored instead of looking at poverty and crime as issues that deeply affect the performance of students; issues to be conquored by all of society? Was it not when someone said it would be in our "best interest" to consider that "all children can learn" and tacked onto that silently the phrases "at the same rate, no matter what situation they live in"? All things considered, has this policy been in our "best interest"? Is this making society better?
Make no mistake. What we are witnessing in this state vs. SLPS fiasco is the inevitable outcome of NCLB policies. I shudder to imagine what may become of America if we proceed with these policies to the 2014 target. By then, nearly every district in the country will be failing AYP and subject to takeovers.
Sanity is a pretty good crystal ball.
4/03/2007 9:37 PM
Well Ariel, you guys already have the lawyers in tow. Why not sue the federal government?
Right this grave wrong at the source.
4/03/2007 10:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home