By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 1:43 PM
The St. Louis Board of Education will be meeting for its first administrative meeting since new members Katherine Wessling and David Lee Jackson, Jr. were elected last week. Labels: Schools
Wessling and Jackson were sworn in last week even though the St. Louis Board of Elections has yet to certify the April 3rd election results.
In a repeat of an identical situation we reported last year, Election Board officials notifed the school board and their counsel that they believe it is inappropriate — and unlawful — for new members to be sworn-in before the election results are certified.
"As you may recall, Peter Downs and Donna Jones, the two successful candidates for membership on the Board of Education in last April’s General Municipal Election, were sworn in as Members of the BOE the day after the election," wrote Republican Director Scott Leiendecker and Democratic Director Mary Wheeler-Jones.
"Under §115.507 RSMo (2000), the results of an election conducted in the City of St. Louis are not official until they have been certified by the verification board of Board of Election Commissioners..." the April 3 letter states.
"Until certification occurs, and required Campaign Finance Disclosure reports have been filed, it would be inappropriate for the successful candidates in today’s election to be sworn in as Members of the BOE or attempt to act in any official capacity."
It is unclear if Wessling (who is a lawyer), Jackson, and the new board majority (including Downs, Jones and Bill Purdy) will move tonight to replace Board President Veronica O'Brien or save that until their regular board meeting next week.
Tonight's meeting will be in Room 108 of the district's Administrative Building, 801 N. 11th Street, at 7:00 p.m. Check Pub Def later for video.
29 Comments:
On the agenda tonight:
1)Vote O'Brien off of the island.
2)Strenghten new coalition of connivance.
3)Look for new scapegoat. Hmmm... who is showing the most signs of being crazy?
4)Make sure and set up phone tree for ready access to pawns(students) during summer break.
5)Come up with good reason for pawns(students) to gather during summer. (joy of missing class will not be there.)
6)Once we get the pawns(students) riled up, should we even bother to try to control them?
4/10/2007 2:31 PM
Is inappropriate the same as unlawful?
1. O'Brien has a right to her seat--as only one of seven voters. But since she counseled Creg Williams to just go away for the good of his career,(recent interview on ktvi), maybe she should dvote more time to State Farm.
Touching to hear your concerns for O'Brien---where were you when she was being harrassed last summer, the week before Tim Bacon's murder? Were you sympathetic to her back when she was allied with Jones, Downs and Purdy?
2.you say connivance---I say democratically elected cooperative non-politically appointed representatives of the citizens who cared enough to vote.
3.Not too much mystery here---Blunt, Slay, and their puppets on the state board who broke the law to get this takeover farce accomplished.
4. Lawyers' numbers are available.
5. the accreditation status will have a lot to say about summer school and grade placement (14 year old gang trainees in regular 5th grade classe)
6 we will see if the new 3 man board matches Bourisaw in getting the schools ready for 2007-2008.
4/10/2007 3:41 PM
OK, Kjoe you caught me. I have what Adric calls "AWS." Sexist?
(please tell me that you can see the irony of your second paragraph and my first two agenda items.)
Or maybe it was sarcasm. Please note that not one of the agenda items has anything to do with the education of the students.
And yes the lawyers are out there in numbers. Large numbers. Too many?
Your answer to number 6 is frightening. I am sure it will ring true though. You rile 'em up and let the triumverate settle 'em down. I would caution you about tipping your hat too soon, but that one was obvious.
(look triumverate up under "So I married an axe murderer.")
4/10/2007 8:05 PM
OPEN SESSION AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Resolution: Amendment of Bylaw B9120 to change removal of an officer to 5/7th vote of the entire Board.
3. Vote to remove current President from office
4. Resolution: Request for Reconsideration of Unaccredited Classification Designation
5. Resolution: Challenge of the Creation and Authority of the proposed Transitional District and to have the proper authority of the Board declared.
6. Motion to direct Administration to report back to the Board with a plan for bringing building maintenance and food service back in-house.
7. Motion to direct Administration to report back to the Board with a cost estimate and plan for implementing effective smaller classes in low performing schools
8. Motion to direct Administration to report back to the Board on the effectiveness of each purchased professional services and whether each of those services provides value to the school district.
9. Approval of all items listed in the March 29, 2007 Consent Agenda
10. Approval for Ms. Donna Jones, Board Member, to attend the NSBA Annual Conference, April 13 – 17, 2007, San Francisco, California.
11. Legislative Update: Mr. Steven Carroll: St. Louis Public Schools Site Based Pilot Schools Proposal.
12. Motion to go into Closed Session for legal, real estate and personnel matters.
4/10/2007 10:14 PM
It didn't take them long to get down to business. I see they want to try and take back the outsourced jobs and other professional services.
How quickly we go back to job protectionism. What's on the next agenda? approval for patronage jobs?
4/10/2007 10:19 PM
I have heard the accusations of widespread patronage in the SLPS for over 7 years (since I began as an employee) but have seen very little of it. Admittedly, I am not on the "inside" at 801.
My question is...where is the proof of this and how widespread is it NOW? Unless specific instances (in significant numbers) can be given, then is that really a pressing problem that needs to be addressed? Or just more unfounded accusations? Proof, please.
Seems to me the biggest problems (those that bring down student achievement the most) should be those addressed first and most rigorously.
How about the top three? From my point of view as an elementary teacher I would list them as:
1. High needs and disruptive students in the regular classroom. (Sorry "inclusion" fans but that was the DUMBEST thing
schools ever did) Also, are you all aware that a child in the SLPS must score below a 70 on an IQ test to be eligible for special ed. services? Special Ed teachers, please correct me if I am wrong on this. (I know there are many different kinds of special education services, but I am trying to keep it simple here)
2. & 3. I started to write about a lack of support staff, excessive paperwork, etc. and decided the heck with it. SOLVE NUMBER ONE FIRST DUMMIES!
4/10/2007 11:31 PM
TRouble said...
Or maybe it was sarcasm. Please note that not one of the agenda items has anything to do with the education of the students.
4/10/2007 8:05 PM
You really don't see how this pertains to educating students? We all might be better off and learn something from you if you wrote your posts in a less cryptic style. That is, if it's not too risky.
7. Motion to direct Administration to report back to the Board with a cost estimate and plan for implementing effective smaller classes in low performing schools
4/11/2007 7:24 AM
I can see that Slay is at it again. How long can it take to certify an election when 6% of the voters turn out. Slay only seems to know dirty tricks. It's made him a weak leader.
4/11/2007 7:27 AM
I am a special education teacher. It is true that you need to have an IQ less than 70 to be diagnosed as mentally retarded. You should also have low adaptive behavior. There are different diagnoses such as specific learning disability, other health impairment, autism, visually impaired to name a few. Each area of disability has set criteria which is set by state and federal law. Students who have low IQ but higher than 69 may not qualify. To be diagnosed specific learning ability your performance needs to be 22 points below your IQ. Children who qualify under this criteria generally need to be of average IQ or higher. Children with low IQ are not considered special education if they are making commensurate progress with their IQ. This is where the district should have other programs in place such as Title I or Reading Recovery.
4/11/2007 12:10 PM
OK Sneed. Done deal.
How is the smaller class size to be achieved? Shift more students to Metro? Per Adric-there is a shortage of teachers who will teach in Saint Louis. Where do the teachers come from and where does the pay come from?
Jim- Maybe a Charter School sponsored by the Mo Dept of Corrections for the disrupters? Last I heard, it cost more than 30k/year to incarcerate someone. Does that money come from the Education budget? (sarcasm)
Now, how many of you have dealt with underperforming contractors? Do you whine about their low performance? Do you let them underperform? Do you break the contract and then end up paying for the service until the end of the contract while paying for the same in house services? (that is what I forsee) Do you hold the underperforming contractor up to the standards of the contract? Many words have been typed about Sodexo and Aramark not performing? Has ANYONE contacted them about the level of service that is expected?
Or do you just moan about lost jobs?
Risky enough for you, Sneed?
4/11/2007 3:14 PM
jkl,
Thanks for clarifying.
As a special education teacher in the SLPS, what is your opinion of these requirements? Too strict, too lenient, or just right? Are the kids being served who need to be served? I think you all know my opinion already.
The Reading First thing doesn't work in high needs classrooms (those with disruptive or learning impaired children) because there is insufficient staff to implement it. The program depends on the other kids to function on their own while the teacher gives one-on-one attention and tests every two weeks. Obviously, disruptive students will not always cooperate when left without supervision. Also, don't believe the argument from those who sell the program, that the Reading First "coaches" can help. Unless you have a Reading First coach for every classroom, every day! (We used to call those people Teacher's Aides) The coaches can't be everywhere at once.
It (Reading First) also severely restricts Social Studies, Science, and to some extent, Math instruction. The evidence of this will become apparent (if anyone cares to evaluate the data) if/when Social Studies, Science, and Math test results are analyzed for Reading First schools. But, some believe that is ok as long as Reading scores go up.
I was trained under the Literacy-based model, (use quality literature as the basis for the rest of your lessons) not this ridiculous, highly structured, poorly written, crap we have now designed for sub-par teachers. Literacy-based instruction incorporates Social Studies, Science, Math (and any other subject) while also giving tons of Reading and Language opportunities. (Like I said, it also depends on well-trained and creative teachers...I know, that is a whole other story that we have debated many times before. That is why we need to make it attractive for the best teachers to come to the SLPS. They won't come if they face constant disruptions that won't enable them to do what they love to do. And I do believe that we have lots of great teachers already.
Trouble,
You are not too far off on your Charter School sponsored by the Dept. of Corrections. The next step for many chronically disruptive students is either Juvenile Detention (I know of one student facing that right now) or if tried as an adult, the regular corrections system. I don't think it is a bad idea to make it very clear to those students that if they screw up in an alternative school that is exactly where they will end up. Sad, but true.
I say REQUIRE charter schools to handle the most severe. I am even in favor of paying them enough to let them have a fair profit. Think about it. Public Schools were not designed to be, nor should they be forced into, becoming the "dumping grounds" for those who need the most help. But require the charter schools to keep them, not dump them off to save their own test scores and funding. The next step IS the Corrections System.
Oh, where does the money come from? Me and you baby...Joe taxpayer. But I think it will be cheaper for us to educate children then to lock them up! Not to mention, IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
(I know much of this assumes support for the public schools and the belief that every child deserves to get the help they need)
4/11/2007 6:44 PM
jkl,
I just realized you said "Reading Recovery" not "Reading First". Oops, oh well I've been wanting to talk about Reading First for a while anyway.
4/11/2007 6:52 PM
another screw-up...
I said... "But I think it will be cheaper for us to educate children then to lock them up!"
It should be "than", not "then".
We do the latter too much already.
4/11/2007 6:58 PM
Bring back outsourced jobs, professional jobs, etc....how is this in the immediate need of the children? Note, I said immediate. No, it's about bring the jobs back before the state takes control.
Why is it only 1 of the 12 motions made has anything to do with classroom instruction?
This is their 1 opportunity to prove to the state, the citizens, everyone that they really do want to try and put the past behind them and rally to help the kids. Do they capitalize on that? NO, they waste it.
4/11/2007 10:34 PM
Mr. Heger writes:
> I say REQUIRE charter schools
> to handle the most severe.
Cardinal O'Connor of NYC seriously offered ten years ago to do exactly this if only NYC would pay the normal Catholic School tuition. The response from the educational establishment: total silence.
There are people whose mission it is to act very much in loco parentis. But they might teach the little darlings that Catholicism is true, and we couldn't have that — why, that'd make them like opium addicts or something! The people of NYC could have saved $250M/year and 50,000 kids. They didn't do either one. Because its not all about the children.
> Think about it. Public Schools
> were not designed to be, nor
> should they be forced into,
> becoming the "dumping grounds"
> for those who need the most help.
Well, Mr. Heger, you think about it.
Why call it a "dumping ground" instead of a "Solidarity Center"? What is wrong with schools for for those who need the most help? Why should the lives of kids who need less help be constantly disrupted by those who need more? And why shouldn't there be a "default school" to step in and help when nobody else will step-up and make any choice at all for the kid? Why shouldn't that be the Public School? As you say, the only other public facility is the state pen. As long as we're redesigning things...
t
4/12/2007 1:19 AM
"OK Sneed. Done deal."
Thank you.
How is the smaller class size to be achieved? Shift more students to Metro? Per Adric-there is a shortage of teachers who will teach in Saint Louis. Where do the teachers come from and where does the pay come from?
Increase the budget to reflect the district size and complexity (diversity).
"Jim- Maybe a Charter School sponsored by the Mo Dept of Corrections for the disrupters? Last I heard, it cost more than 30k/year to incarcerate someone. Does that money come from the Education budget? (sarcasm)"
I see that the brilliant Jeff Smith wants to get uniforms from the D.O.C. for SLPS students.
"Risky enough for you, Sneed?" Thansk agian.
4/12/2007 8:56 AM
Sneed, you said-Increase the budget to reflect the district size and complexity (diversity).
Not very likely. Please explain how this would happen in a real world situation so that I can grasp that this is in any way not just a dog and pony show. But, an actual, educational issue.
Even I realize that there is always money laying around. To build more and stronger prisons or to invade other countries. But that money is not earmarked for education and I certainly do not see the taxpayers of our fair city paying any more.
So, with your weak, throw more money at the problem, approach. You have to grant me that the BOE is a reality show where coalitions are made and broken with the deeds and misdeeds of the contestants. No regard for the society but only the gains at the end.
Decrypted?
4/12/2007 1:17 PM
I would also like to know why Jeff Smith has the uniforms coming from the Dept of Corrections. Kind of offensive, n'est ce pas?
Bubba? ArchPundit?
4/12/2007 1:20 PM
Tom,
You state... "And why shouldn't there be a "default school" to step in and help when nobody else will step-up and make any choice at all for the kid? Why shouldn't that be the Public School? As you say, the only other public facility is the state pen. As long as we're redesigning things..."
The way I am seeing it, The public schools are for the average, every day, hard working Joe/Jane who want to give their kid at least a fighting chance. Not a dumping ground that dooms them to failure. The public schools should be about what we believe our fellow man/woman deserves just for being human. If we accept lower and lower standards because we are unwilling to support public schools financially, then we are accepting lower and lower standards for what it takes to be a decent human being.
4/12/2007 8:46 PM
Also, thanks for the link, I have not read the entire story about the NYC Catholic Church offer to take in 5%, etc. My first thought is "Good...IF they are parents who want their kids to grow up Catholic". I would hope they are doing it in the best spirit of human kindness...
It would also be handy if you believed in a 3-part God, etc.
4/12/2007 8:57 PM
TL: If it’s really all about the children, why wouldn’t the Catholic Church or any other church step up to serve these children anyway, WITHIN the confines of United States law? It IS possible to educate the children WITHOUT crossing religious establishment boundaries. There is something to be said for giving the thirsty man a drink of water just because he is thirsty, not just if he will let you preach to him.
Surely you understand that the reason for the non-establishment clause in the Constitution is to protect religions from doing exactly what you suggest: preying upon the minds of the least capable of society to indoctrinate them in religious beliefs which are by nature of being presented to them as children, NOT FREELY CHOSEN. We are currently engaged in a war against terrorism that promulgates itself by using this very tactic. The children of the poor are offered education in schools run by Jihadists who use the children’s ignorance and poverty to create brainwashed soldiers. Not that the Catholic Church would do the same, but once the door is opened, like Pandora’s box, it may be impossible to close.
4/13/2007 4:13 PM
TL: It was NCLB that changed the definition of urban public schools from being a place of "solidarity" and empowerment to being a “dumping ground”. Under NCLB, when SLPS “solidarity centers" failed to achieve test scores commensurate with those of children of affluence and stability, they were labled “failed” schools.
Now we discuss needing to create such schools as charters. Would it not have been more rational to provide proper support for the public schools in meeting the challenges associated with high needs children in the first place? Instead, the district has been through closures of alternative schools, mass lay-offs of social workers and millions in deseg monies witheld by the state--money owed under the same agreement the state is now using to try to take over the schools. Ironic, isn't it?
Even now, St. Louis schools are fully capable of becoming what you suggest, given proper social support systems from the community. However, NCLB WILL NOT ALLOW SUCH SCHOOLS TO EXIST AS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Only private schools and charters are allowed to serve children whose test scores lag without being condemned, disaccredited and taken over. Yet private schools don’t HAVE to accept high needs children and charters WON’T, because they are too expensive to educate. County schools will NEVER allow their populations to be overrun with such children due to the inevitable detrimental effect on AYP it would bring, lest they end up like SLPS.
Ironically, NCLB has left behind America’s very neediest children under the guise of not leaving them behind. The only question now is: Are we going to let NCLB get away with it? I say DRAW THE LINE IN ST. LOUIS.
4/13/2007 4:33 PM
Ariel should review the history of the establishment clause, and the history of education in the USA beginning with Horace Mann, and should be sure to understand the history of the Blaine amendments.
To answer one of her questions:
I don't think its possible to educate anyone at public expense within the confines of US and Missouri law. You can do a sort of half-way job by confining oneself to discussion of the physical world. But nobody would consider this a satisfactory education.
For example, you can never answer the question "Is it truly wrong to kill?" (or take the other kid's lunch money) The only thing you can say is "Other people will try to put you in jail if you do it" or perhaps "If everyone decided it was OK to kill just anyone, life for most people would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." But this doesn't say that it is wrong to kill, and it can't rule out ethnic cleansing (or slavery, or anything else the strong might wish to impose on the weak). You can't answer the question "Is it right to give a thirsty man a drink?" except to say "He'll probably like it." Within the confines of the civil law, it is apparently fine to say "It is true that the world is round" but it is not fine to teach that anything is good or bad, or that anything at all has a purpose. You can say it has a function, but not a purpose. And if nothing has a purpose, nothing can be wrong.
This is the boundary between philosophy and religion, and there are many people who say philosophy and religion are the same thing, unless the philosophy is Skepticism, which makes only one truth-claim: truth is unknowable.
But Skepticism is the philosophy or religion of the so-called Enlightment. This is the only philosophy the civil law in the State of Missouri will permit to be taught unfettered at public expense.
And this is why so many parents want out of Public Education altogether. We need a new model that can help people finance an education for their kids that reflects their values. The law therefore should be changed.
t
4/13/2007 5:46 PM
TL said: "Skepticism is the philosophy or religion of the so-called Enlightment. This is the only philosophy the civil law in the State of Missouri will permit to be taught unfettered at public expense."
TL: You are WAY overcomplicating things. Your comments regarding the kinds of things that can and cannot be taught show a detached pomposity that is not grounded in reality.
It is not necessary to spout theology in order to teach theological principles. Public schools have values and character education programs which teach honesty, respect, generosity, etc. The young ones still have consciences that can be nurtured, and there is great latitude for older students to freely speak THEIR OWN minds. NONE of this interfers with parents teaching their children whatever religious beliefs they choose.
For one who truly cares, there is MUCH SEED PLANTING THAT CAN BE DONE. Why shouldn't churches be willing to do the humble work of planting seeds? It's not all about philosophical grandstanding.
You also said: "I don't think its possible to educate anyone at public expense within the confines of US and Missouri law."
I think a lot of people who have had public educations would disagree with you that we are somehow "not educated" by your standards. However, thank you for being honest.
We do agree about one thing. The current education laws are junk and need to be changed.
4/13/2007 10:08 PM
Ariel writes:
> pomposity... grandstanding...
> spout...
Name calling. That Values Education is evidently effective.
t
4/14/2007 7:40 AM
Sorry, TL, but one of them is honesty.
The whole story of the Catholic Church's offer of which you spoke rubs me the wrong way. It sounds a lot like the priest and the Levite who passed the injured man on the road, offering no help for their various reasons. Jesus commended the lowly Samaritan--himself an outcast--who did what he could to help when the "religious establishment" would not.
I just feel, on a spiritual note, that churches--in general--are not living up to their calling. There are a lot of convenient excuses floating around. I have to wonder if they hold much water with the One who said that whatever we do for the least of the children, we do for Him.
4/14/2007 1:31 PM
Ariel writes:
> The whole story of the Catholic
> Church's offer of which you spoke
> rubs me the wrong way.
The whole story rubs you the wrong way and you think Cardinal O'Connor offered nothing?! Wow. I think you have things backwards. But thank you for being honest. It sounds to me like the only help you will recognize or accept is help offered on the terms you like — pay teachers more money to teach Enlightenment philosophy in a coercively funded system that disallows anything else, and stay out of it otherwise. So much for diversity, respect, and choice. Cardinal O'Connor was less an ideologue than you are.
> I feel that churches [...] are
> not living up to their calling
How nice for you. I feel hungry. I know Churches are not living up to their calling: see Romans 3:23 Got anything else?
t
4/14/2007 3:15 PM
The great "magic" of Catholic school success is the LOVE surrounding the children. The great deficit in public school children is LOVE. Children thrive when they know they are loved, whether in a public school or a private school or beneath a shade tree in the jungles of a third world country. Why not bring that love TO the children wherever they are?
The love of a single teacher or even a lunchroom worker can make all the difference in a child's life. Churches of all kinds vastly limit their ability to impact society by refusing to interact with society in the form of acts of LOVE. (There is no shortage of interaction in terms of legal challenges, philosophical debate and political posturing.) In all fairness, the Catholic Church has done much more than others to engage society in acts of LOVE, but as you say, we all fall short.
And as for the "iron bars" of separation of church and state, see Isaiah 45:2...
"I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron."
LOVE knows no iron bars.
4/14/2007 9:53 PM
> Why not bring that love TO the
> children wherever they are?
I can make a guess what you're getting at. I turn the question around: "Why take the children away from where they are loved?"
It is rapidly becoming illegal to show acts of love to children in a school setting, and lots of other settings. It is already inadvisable. A friend of mine teaches in a public district out west of the city, and he says he's afraid to hug a hurt child for fear of insinuations of the sort being leveled at Mr. Irons.
This attitude and the secular solutions infect even the Catholic schools because they've let lawyers have influence. I myself have attended the Archdiocese Protecting God's Children (if I were feeling polemical I would put this in sneer-quotes) program where the lesson being taught to children is that adults, especially men, are not to be trusted and the adults are being taught that commonsense treatment of children cannot be allowed because, well, of insinuations of the sort being leveled at Mr. Irons. If these guidelines are followed, the children can't help but get the idea that the adults don't trust them either, and not in the ordinary way that adults don't trust children because of the way they've been taught not to trust adults.
So we making a village to raise our children in where its OK to love them abstractly, but not concretely in order to avoid the worst effects of a few cases in which they have not been loved but rather used as objects of gratification. But this cure makes love impossible by substituting professionalism for humanity. All this is due ultimately and entirely to bad philosophy. I want out, and I know that many (or maybe most) of the parents I know want out. A good number of teachers I know do too.
There are ways out of this mess that preserve American style equality of opportunity but at the cost of the hegemony the educational establishment presently enjoys. Now is probably the best time we're going to have for quite awhile to find a way out that works for St. Louis City or maybe for Missouri generally. But it cannot be the status quo ante with more money because money is not the main problem.
t
4/15/2007 3:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home