By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, March 12, 2007 at 9:30 AM
In an open letter to his old friend and publisher of the St. Louis American newspaper Dr. Donald Suggs, longtime activist Percy Green says the esteemed dentist should have remembered to "do no harm" before operating on St. Louis Public Schools. Labels: Beefs, Media_Watch, Schools
"I have confronted the St. Louis Board of Education on issues as far back as 1969," said Green in the letter dated March 5. "So, that does not make me a 'Johnny-come-lately' on tackling issues pertaining to [public] education."
Green outlines Suggs' involvement with the 2003 takeover of the St. Louis School Board led by Mayor Francis Slay. Suggs served as advisor and campaign treasurer for candidates* Vince Schoemehl, Ron Jackson, Bob Archibald, and Darnetta Clinkscale. He also advocated in his newspaper their candidacies and their eventual decision to briefly privatize the management of the district and close several school buildings (located mostly in predominately black north St. Louis).
"Mayor Slay with Donald as a team member, lost two straight school board elections, year 2005 and 2006," wrote Green. "After the last election, 'like me and my shadow', Slay and Donald begin advocating a state take-over of the public school system."
Suggs was appointed to the five-member state committee (later known as the Danforth-Freeman Advisory Committee) which, as expected, recommended a takeover of the local school board.
According to Green, all five members of the Advisory Committee "were either friends or close associates. They all supported the Slay failed experimental school practices that lost many accreditation points over the past three years. This scheme was like putting the wolf in charge of the hen house to say the least."
"I am sure my old friend Donald had good intentions when he first engaged Mayor Slay about him teaming up with the Black [Leadership] Roundtable," wrote Green.
"Mayor Slay and Donald’s 'how-to' intentions of fixing the public schools became obvious after three years and the accreditation points slipped downwardly from 2 to 25 points from full accreditation.
"Purposely done or not, it happened. My old friend Donald has made it worse than what it was before he and Slay intervened."
Click here to download the full two-page letter.
*Antonio French was also a candidate for school board in 2003
18 Comments:
The lowest points ever have been when Purdy was on the School Board, both then and now.
3/12/2007 9:51 AM
I think most people would agree that the state not funding the deseg agreement as intended led to a lot of what is now hurting this school district. So deseg is at the heart of the problem. Why would you put the people who gave us deseg in charge of a commitee that is looking for what is wrong in the school district? Of course they are not going to blame themselves.
3/12/2007 10:07 AM
"I have confronted the St. Louis Board of Education on issues as far back as 1969," said Green in the letter dated March 5.
So, after 25 years of Green's "confrontation," we end up with THIS school district.
Time for something different.
3/12/2007 11:43 AM
Sure, because the district was in perfect shape before "Slay's meddling?!"
3/12/2007 2:45 PM
You end up with this school district because societal problems have not been addressed and increase. Then the Vandals from the North (Roberti et al) came in and drove away many more families who did try with their children.
Just one proof of how horrible the mayor's meddleing was was the sale of Waring School, a fairly highly performing school, to St. Louis Univerisity for a pittance and to build a sports arena. Where did those families go after that? Probably outside the school district.
3/12/2007 3:12 PM
Hmmm,
Seems I remember Local 420 endorsing Schoemel, et. al. when that slate was up for election. Then when they realized that JOBS would be lost (due to Purdy's drunken sailor spending binge), they backed way, way off and demonized City Hall.
Funny, they endorsed Veronica O'Brien in 2005 too....
3/12/2007 4:11 PM
This district has loss population every year since the mid-1970's as families voted with their feet. People did not like the education they were getting and either went to the deseg program or moved to the county. That is a fact!
So it is silly to say that what is taking place now is a result of any current person. The seeds for where we are now started in the mid 70's, if not earlier. It is just that noone saw fit to stop the slide.
3/12/2007 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...
This district has loss population every year since the mid-1970's as families voted with their feet. People did not like the education they were getting and either went to the deseg program or moved to the county. That is a fact!
So it is silly to say that what is taking place now is a result of any current person. The seeds for where we are now started in the mid 70's, if not earlier. It is just that noone saw fit to stop the slide.
Amen to that!!
3/13/2007 10:54 AM
It would be incredibly short-sighted to blame the loss of city population since the mid-1970's on the school district. There was a general decline in population nationwide after the mid-70's as the baby boom came to an end. All school districts everywhere lost enrollment. THERE WERE FEWER CHILDREN.
As far as the city population falling, which came first, the JOBS moving to the county or the PEOPLE moving to the county? Did the people move to the county to "escape the horrible schools" or to GET WORK?
I am so tired of hearing St. Louis Public Schools bashed and referred to as a "bad" district that has "failed" children. It is the community of St. Louis and the people of Missouri who have failed inner city children by being selfish and socially callous to those in need around them. Now everyone who abandoned the city chidren for decades wants to act "horrified" that they have unmet needs and blame the schools for it. Well all these years while so many people were sitting in the suburbs sipping iced tea and discussing how poverty is the fault of the poor, THE ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WAS THERE FOR THESE CHILDREN EVERY SINGLE DAY.
With not enough money and not enough resources and no credit and no respect, day in and day out for the decades you mention, it was SLPS teachers and staff who were the only lifeline these children had.
Instead of basing the St. Louis Public School District for its efforts to care for the whole distressed masses of society with NO HELP, why not take responsibility and DO RIGHT BY THESE CHILDREN by properly funding the St. Louis Public School District for what it has been trying to all these years FOR you!!!
3/13/2007 12:23 PM
I agree with the last anon. that it wasn't the schools being bad that were the cause of people moving out of the city.
I was always under the impression that the schools got bad as they lost students (funding).
Like anon. said...jobs lost.
I know some of you will want to tear me up for this but bear me out for a minute. Maybe the schools SHOULD BE a "jobs program"...or at least function as one.
What better way to help impoverished neighborhoods than providing some stable employment through jobs in the schools? If we (through the government) are going to try to provide at least the minimum amount of community support, then why not do it through the schools? They are a natural conduit for community activity and often serve as the hub of a neighborhood. As long as this network is already set up, why not use it more?
The benefits of increased employment in the schools is beneficial to not only to the children (god knows we need as many responsible adults in the schools as possible), but the neighborhood residents and businesses as well. The parents can work close to home, be close to their children during the day, provide another level of adult presence in the schools, and provide for their families (including paying taxes).
Maybe the schools are not a "jobs program", but they might be a good choice for one.
3/13/2007 7:43 PM
There are jobs which can be done within the framework of the educational setting.
When I read the story of how Illinois and other states are setting up more health clinics which go beyond a nurse's office, I was not surprised that Missouri just does not want to go in that direction.
The report pointed out the financial and other benefits of children being able to get direct, immediate medical treatment---along with prevention of serious costly problems which occur without such care---I could hear the complaints from Matt Blunt and his friends---can't do it---it could lead to birth contol stuff.
3/13/2007 7:57 PM
I agree with part of what Jim posted at 6:43. Perhaps in some essence, schools should be a jobs program. Whether we like it or not, schools are the anchors of the neighborhoods...it's not the 7-11's or the strip mall or the favorite restaurant.
But where does one draw the line? and at what cost? $30 an hour versus $10, one person vs. 12?
This is a very slippery slide which has gotten out of control over the years past which did require painful correction.
But how do we support the neighborhood, how do we support the school when we give away tax money, move out of the district, spend unwisely, poorly manage, and allow for sloppy performances?
As go the school, so will the neighborhood.
3/13/2007 11:46 PM
Disagree.
Although schools should pay their employees well and offer them safe working conditions, the schools' primary purpose should be the education of the next generation of workers, neighbors, voters, and parents.
Want to increase the role of the schools in their neighborhoods' and city's economies? Require SLPS employees to live in the City -- or, even, in the neighborhoods near their schools.
3/14/2007 9:53 AM
I know some of you will want to tear me up for this but bear me out for a minute. Maybe the schools SHOULD BE a "jobs program"...or at least function as one.
I don't know if you are a union member or not, but it comes across like it. The union would get more members, more dues, more power. As a union's first instinct is for self-preservation, I don't see this as a necessarily wise use of money. It would have value, yes, but not enough to justify the expenditure.
Government, in whatever its form, should not be a jobs program. There are necessary functions to be performed by government, but providing employment is not one of them.
3/14/2007 11:44 AM
"I don't know if you are a union member or not, but it comes across like it."
There is nothing wrong with coming across like a union member, or as coming across like a republican.
Republicans happen to be a little squeamish about trusting unions---preferring the financially prudent methods of outsourcing to private enterprise experts such as Halliburton and Roberti.
3/14/2007 1:02 PM
Trying to spend public money wisely=Republican????
I have voted Democrat all my life. This district is strapped for cash, and you have to get the best bang for your buck, wherever you can find it.
Is it about the kids learning, or about the parents who need a job?
The two aren't mutually exclusive, but with a fixed amount of money to spend, choices must be made. Spending money on a jobs program for able bodied adults is not a good choice
3/14/2007 1:50 PM
Trying to spend public money wisely=Republican????
I guess it was just a bad, failed attempt to be sarcastic---republican=roberti and Halliburton methods of spending.
sorry.
3/14/2007 2:59 PM
Anon. 10:44 said
"Government, in whatever its form, should not be a jobs program. There are necessary functions to be performed by government, but providing employment is not one of them."
I just wonder what would have happened to America if people had had that attitude when FDR used government jobs programs to keep America alive through the Great Depression.
Without a doubt there have been times in history when the government's role has been to pick up the ball when free enterprise drops it. The 1980's came and Ronald Reagan told us that supply-side economics would cause money to "trickle down" through society. What was learned from Reaganomics was that 1)the APPEARANCE of prosperity can, in fact, be built on credit, and 2)money always, without exception, trickles UP. America still seems to be asleep, dreaming that the policies of empowering the rich will help the poor to this day.
I agree that it should not be the role of a school district to become a "jobs program" for communities. The fact is, the school district should also not be the social work department, food service, social service networking center, health screening center, daycare center, counseling service, etc. etc. etc. The SLPS is all of these things because the children do better in school when their social needs are met, and the schools do what they can to help. But it is NOT something the schools should be doing in isolation from the community at large. These are issues far beyond what suburban districts encounter, yet SLPS has been called upon to assume these roles because society--government--has not.
3/14/2007 4:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home