By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, April 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM
PUB DEF EXCLUSIVE
As we reported last week, there was a rumor that the state was moving to strip the Riverview Gardens School District of its accreditation. After a week-long investigation, we can now confirm that that rumor is true.
Pub Def has obtained a copy of an April 6, 2007 letter to school district officials from Becky Kemna, the School Improvement and Accreditation Coordinator for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), in which Kemna clearly states the Department's intentions.
"As a result of the district's performance and financial situation, DESE will recommend to the State Board of Education that the Riverview Gardens School District be classified unaccredited," writes Kemna in the letter we obtained from DESE after a "Sunshine Law" request.
Riverview Gardens has been in the news recently because of the firing and subsequent indictment of its superintendent for alleged misappropriation of funds. But the letter from DESE outlines the district's larger struggles.
According to DESE, between June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2007 the district's cash on hand dropped from $12 million to just $1.6 million. "A decline of over $10 million in two years is significant," wrote Kemna. "The district will likely be considered 'financial stressed' per state law."
DESE is also concerned about the declining academic performance of Riverview Gardens' 8,000 students. According to Kemna, since the 2001-2002 school year, the district's Annual Performance Reports (APR) have shown a declining trend in the district's ability to meet state standards.
"The 2005 and 2006 APRs reflect that the district has not met enough MSIP performance standards to reach provisional or full accreditation," states the letter addressed to Interim Co-Superintendent Dr. Natalie Thomas.
Dr. Thomas told Pub Def that the loss of accreditation for the district now seems "inevitable," but the how and when of it all is still in the air. But it is exactly how — and why — Riverview Gardens is unaccredited which could make all the difference.
If the state decides to strip the district because of academic performance, the Riverview Gardens school board and officials would have two full school years to get their house in order. If the action occurs this month or next, that means they have until 2009. If it doesn't occur until June or July, then they'll have until 2010 before the state takes further action.
However, if the State Board of Education takes away accreditation for financial reasons, state law allows for DESE to step in immediately.
Dr. Thomas, who only a month ago became co-superintendent along with Dr. Rhonda Key following the indictment of former superintendent Henry P. Williams, made it clear that Riverview Gardens would prefer the first option.
"You never want to lose accreditation," said Thomas. "But we would prefer to lose it for academic achievement because it would allow greater opportunity for our community to address our district's problems."
13 Comments:
As a point of law, I do not understand how the state can make a determination that any district is unaccredited on the basis of financial distress while the state itself is engaged in a lawsuit regarding its failure to properly fund schools.
This would seem to create a situation where the state can withold money from a district-- causing financial distress, then take over the district because it is financially distressed.
Regardless of the fact that the district may have mishandled the funding they did get, the state should not be allowed to make this kind of determination when its own handling of funds is in question.
Why is a state takeover the only remedy for this situation? Misappropriation of funds is a crime. There are legal means to audit and rid the district of those responsible.
As far as academic unaccreditation, I have to point out the disparity between the procedure being applied to St. Louis Public Schools and the proposed procedure in Riverview Gardens. If unaccredited, Riverview Gardens will have 2 years to regain accreditation before a state takeover will take effect. St. Louis is being given no time at all, and in fact was evaluated ahead of schedule with criteria different than that applied to any other district.
Where is the line, Missouri? How far will the people allow the state to go?
4/24/2007 9:18 AM
The State owes money to school districts + The state taking over school districts = Republican hypocracy
4/24/2007 9:22 AM
I expect this kind of krap from republicans.
It is the gutless democrats who are not standing up to it, and the people at the Post Dispatch who ought to know better who really disgust me.
4/24/2007 10:22 AM
I am too tired to take this on---it seems suspect---but----it also sounds "marketable".
« Previous Entry | Politics Blog Home | Next Entry »
April 17, 2007
Voucher editorial gets noticed
Tribune Publisher Hank Waters' recent editorial on school vouchers has been noted by a pair of Missouri political blogs.
In the piece, Waters declares "I believe the argument for vouchers is persuasive and the option should be allowed:"
Under proposed plans, voucher money would come from private sources and could be used only in demonstrably failing districts, a questionable restriction but one that mitigates the argument for damage to public schools. The enabling tax credits would not otherwise be available for public schools, and much of public school support comes from local district property taxes that would not be diminished, so Democrats’ contentions that vouchers would starve public education are highly conjectural at best. Vouchers provide more choice for K-12 parents and students. Privately funded schools at all levels educate many of our citizens who otherwise would have to be taught at public expense. To provide partial public subsidies for students otherwise trapped in poor public schools is a cost-effective way to enhance options for many who otherwise could not choose.
In Missouri, and to even greater degrees elsewhere, legislatures provide scholarship money for higher education in private schools, recognizing that those colleges and universities graduate as many students in this country as their public counterparts and that without them public budgets would be larger. Extending this philosophy to K-12 education makes sense.
Finally, the legislature this year seems ready to provide one of the largest increases in K-12 funding in several years, proposed by the Republican governor and supported by the Republican House and Senate. Their voucher suggestions are having no discernible negative impact.
The plain fact is Republicans, led by Robb, are trying to do more to correct miserable school conditions in St. Louis than are Democrats, who are locked into the status quo by traditional constituencies, including teacher unions, which are strong in urban districts.
One can’t say the union and the Democrats are altogether responsible for the district’s troubles, but one can say they are the primary opponents to more creative solutions. In St. Louis, Democrats no longer can make their favorite argument: that more money is the answer.
GOP strategist John Hancock's Missouri Pulse praised the editorial, adding that "this is not the Henry Waters most readers of his column have come to know, and we totally dig it."
Show Me Daily, a blog run by the Libertarian-leaning Show Me Institute, writes "The time for change is now. Saint Louis has the opportunity to try something new and relatively groundbreaking, rather than constantly being a half-hearted follower of national trends. Hopefully the entrenched political interests will see it the same way, and do whats best for the students rather than themselves. But I won't be holding my breath."
What do you all think? Is Waters right or all wet? Read the editorial for yourself and feel free to comment.
4/24/2007 5:33 PM
kjoe is right about being TIRED.
I am willing to bet that Waters hasn't spent one day in a SLPS classroom. God I am TIRED of people who don't know what the f*#@ is really happening telling us what is wrong and what we need to do.
There, now back to my paperwork.
4/25/2007 1:10 AM
"The charge can be heard across the decades in Christian Right claims that "secular humanism" is being taught in the public schools and that Christians are "persecuted" in America. A recent variation of this claim was made by soft dominionist, Dr. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. "The greatest threat to religious freedom in America," Land declared, "are secular fundamentalists who want to ghetto-ize religious faith and make the wall of separation between church and state a prison wall keeping religious voices out of political discourse."4
from http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
"Jane "Queen of Bad Ideas" Cunningham is running for Missouri Senate, and she's found an anti-schools sugardaddy to sling a little wingnut welfare in the direction of her campaign. While Cunningham raised only $19,010 over the last reporting period [1], $15,000 of that total --a whopping 79% of her entire haul-- came from one man: Barry Conner of Gainesville, Georgia.
Conner is a real estate developer who runs the Georgia-based homebuilding outfit called America's Home Place, but his sidelight is far more illuminating. Conner is heavily engaged as a funder and supporter of a fringe movement [2] whose goal, by its own admission, is to end public education as we know it. Conner is a key funder of an entity called Alliance for the Separation of School and State, and is a signatory to that organization's proclamation [3], which states:
"I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education."
from Fired Up Missouri
"Dan dedicated his life to the Lord and began intensive mentoring with the pastor of his church, Washington Heights Baptist Church in Ogden, Utah. With the birth of their youngest daughter, Dan and Claudia Cook stepped up their interest in Christian education. They spent time visiting accredited Christian schools across the country, formulating ideas about the founding of a local independent Christian school.
“In 1994 in contemplating what we needed to do to bring this school into fruition,” says Dan. "I decided to take a year off from my life as an architect and dedicate my full time to the development of CHS. That was one of the great decisions I made in my life.”
Christian Heritage School was founded from the ground up in a miraculous way. Prior to the initial fundraising banquet in March, 1995 the school had $13,000 to its name. Every step of the way, the Lord arranged construction partners, major donors, volunteer labor, and scheduling efficiencies in extraordinary ways. The 43,000 square foot building was completed for the first day of school on September 12, 1995 with 167 students in attendance.
Dan continued his walk of faith in 1998 by giving up the repeat business of his secular client base. He dissolved his construction business to focus full time on developing the architectural systems for Building God's Way. His heart for the Ministry of Construction and jobsite outreach springs from his years of experience in the construction industry."
excerpt from the Buidling God's Way website. One of the women on the MO State Board of Education is involved in BGW.
4/25/2007 8:21 AM
Ariel,
Under your logic, a district could sue the state for more money, frivolously or not, then turn around and spend money on anything it pleases, and be immune from losing accreditation due to financial distress, regardless of the balance of its coffers.
Making districts immune from 'financial distress' un-accreditation penalties doesn't do enough to discourage bad behavior during times between a lawsuit's filing and its outcome.
I'm not saying that's what happened at Riverview, but a district can be a poor steward of the public's money during a time when a lawsuit is filed, and there should be consequences for that.
4/25/2007 10:15 AM
a district can be a poor steward of the public's money during a time when a lawsuit is filed, and there should be consequences for that.
4/25/2007 10:15 AM
OK.
Regarding St. Louis and Riverview gardens---should there be a reward to the voting public which recognizes bad stewardship, goes to the polls and takes action to deal with the problems?
A reward like giving a chance for the actions they took to be implemented?
Or should they simply be disenfranchised?
4/25/2007 1:25 PM
kjoe said...
I am too tired to take this on---it seems suspect---but----it also sounds "marketable".
I have had time to sleep on it---I really do not like this. There is something kind of sinister about the marketing of it by going back door.
Instead of boldly taking the money out of the state treasury
and giving it to religious schools in defiance of the first amendment----they just let the corporations give the money that would go into the treasury directly to the schools.
The state cannot be accused of giving vouchers if they do not collect the money in the first place. slick.
4/25/2007 1:37 PM
Papillon: First, let me point out that there are a large number of districts involved in the lawsuit against the state for proper school funding, not just one. Second, the lawsuit for proper school funding greatly preceded the present events in time frame. Third, there are a number of constraints on a school district's handling of public money besides fear of state financial unaccreditation, including public outcry, employment termination, voter backlash against elected school boards, academic unaccreditation if spending does not benefit student achievement, lawsuits and criminal prosecution.
4/25/2007 9:00 PM
Firstly, there are a large number of school districts involved, even more cover for terrible spending decisions. The poor decisions could be made after a reasonable lawsuit is filed by different people that decided to make the lawsuit go forward. Filing a reasonable lawsuit doesn't allow the district to treat the public's money with less care. An argument could be made that since the dollars are (illegally?) tight, the district must even more stingy/careful with the dollars.
Secondly, accurate, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Thirdly, there are many deterrents to prevent mis-use of funds, yet mis-use still happens. You seem to say, not sure, that the punishment for bad behavior should be limited to the individual, rather than extending to the district. I say that money is needed to educate the children (how much? it depends on the child), and the districts that do not take good care of the necessity do not deserve accreditation.
I don't advocate giving districts a 'safe harbor' from fiscal un-accreditation because a lawsuit, reasonable or not, has been filed. A district must be a good steward of the public's money come h*ll or highwater, 24/7/365. A pending lawsuit shouldn't suspend that duty.
4/26/2007 9:19 AM
This is all about the property tax and suburbanization. Middle class leaves district, as cheaper land and lower taxes exist out west, thus less funds for schools. Less funds for schools means lower quality teachers since they go to rich districts. Then we have lower quality materials, food, etc. No doubt local public services are lacking as well which puts a burden on the lower income who remain in the district and are dependent on public goods and services. They remain because by this time their home will not sell at a high enough price to afford a home out west, or maybe they value their community.
Lower income distressed neighborhoods propagate similar quality school districts as they are set up for failure. Then the State, also known as "Johnny Come Lately," throws down the gauntlet, when they could have been proactive and helped prevent the situation.
Clearly the State should compensate fiscally distressed districts as their distress is due to the property tax. Revenue sharing among the more affluent municipalities and the disadvantaged could close the fiscal gap as well. This would allow poorer districts the ability to compete for the best teachers, while they would be able to provide better materials.
We should provide the opportunity for success instead of criticizing failure, which is inherently going to happen due to the constraints of the system.
Yet it is still us v. them!
4/26/2007 2:30 PM
Papillon said...4/26/2007 9:19 AM
'Thirdly, there are many deterrents to prevent mis-use of funds, yet mis-use still happens.
A district must be a good steward of the public's money come h*ll or highwater, 24/7/365. A pending lawsuit shouldn't suspend that duty."
I'm glad you brought up stewardship. Do you know how much money the State owes the SLPS? Do you not see the irony in this? The State withholds funds from a district and then removes accreditation because of financial distress.
In addition, the City of St. Louis has offered tax abatements since the desegregation order was handed down. Those funds had been earmarked to fund the SLPS. How much money was turned down by the mayor?
One could easily make an argument that it is the State and City that are not being good stewards of our money. One could easily make an argument that this is a struggle between State and local governments. The City saying, "Well if the State has all the funds, we'll use the money on something else." Then the State says, "Hey the City is withholding funds. Why should we have to pick up the tab?"
But, to points made elsewhere here, there seems to be a hidden agenda. Hopefully, lawsuits will make the covert, overt by invoking the Sunshine Law. There is a reason why anyone would not be above board in conducting themselves. It always means that they know they are having an impact on other people who would object if the conduct was above board.
The question no one seems to want to ask is, who inspires such fraudulent behavior? What is in it for those who are being covert? Politicans with the authority seem to be serving privately (covertly) and they appear to be private servants instead of public servants.
I think you're speaking half-truths, Papillion.
4/27/2007 8:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home