By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, April 06, 2007 at 7:59 AM
State intervention in St. Louis Public Schools may soon make a bad situation even worse, and ultimately lead to a total collapse of the city's public education system. That's according to the city schools' chief. Labels: Schools
In a letter to the State Education Commissioner, City Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw warns of hundreds, possibly thousands, of white families looking to send their kids to St. Louis County schools on the city taxpayers' dime.
"We are receiving calls from parents who are seeking entrance into county schools. Most of these calls are from Caucasian parents of children currently enrolled in private or parochial schools," wrote Bourisaw in the letter dated April 2. "Since we do not have a budget for these students, is DESE setting aside funds to pay tuition?"
One of the consequences of the SLPS being stripped of its accreditation is that the already financially-strapped district will now have to pay for city students to attend a neighboring fully accredited County district. This is sure to make the budgeting process for the city schools next to impossible since there is really no way of knowing how many students will choose to attend city schools or how much county tuition the district is expected to pay every year.
Superintendent Bourisaw also warns of a disruption to the district's acclaimed magnet program, which by law requires a racial balance of students. Waiting lists of black students wanting to get into these programs are already a regular occurrence because there are often not enough white students applying for seats.
"We anticipate the exodus of white students from within our magnet schools. Currently our magnet schools barely maintain the racial balance required by the desegregation agreement. Should this occur, our magnet schools will be out of compliance by fall. As a result, they may need to close," wrote Bourisaw.
Bourisaw warns the exodus of white and black students due to unaccreditation and charter schools will place the district on the brink of insolvency.
UPDATE: The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education today issued a detailed list of questions and answers about the St. Louis Public Schools’ impending loss of accreditation and its impact on students, families and neighboring school districts.
The State Board of Education voted last month (March 22) to classify the St. Louis Public Schools as “unaccredited,” with an effective date of June 15, 2007. Under state law, St. Louis students may have the opportunity to transfer to an accredited district in St. Louis County, at the expense of the St. Louis district.
State education officials compiled the following information from questions they have received to date from parents, legislators and school officials.
1. Can the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) appeal the State Board of Education’s decision to classify the district as unaccredited? How long will an appeal take? Will an appeal change the date for the loss of accreditation?
The St. Louis Board of Education has 30 days from the date of the State Board of Education’s decision (March 22) to appeal to the commissioner of education. There is no prescribed time for a response. It is unknown whether an appeal might affect the June 15 date for the district to become unaccredited.
2. There have been reports that various parties may file lawsuits to challenge the state’s actions regarding the SLPS. Would such action change any of the events slated for June 15?
Litigation is always possible. We will not speculate about what impact a lawsuit might have on the future course of events.
3. There are many questions about the ability of SLPS students to transfer to other districts when the district becomes unaccredited. Where can they go? When? Will a single agency handle the transfer requests?
State law (Section 167.131) gives students in an unaccredited district the opportunity to transfer to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county. Accredited districts, however, have the authority to accept or reject non-resident students based on their own policies and on their capacity. For SLPS students, the opportunity to transfer does not exist until after June 15, 2007 – and, therefore, not until the 2007-08 academic year.
Each school district in St. Louis County must decide whether it will accept transfer students from the St. Louis Public Schools (in addition to any students the district may now be serving through the VICC program), and how many additional students it will accept.
State education officials are not aware of any efforts to create a “clearinghouse” to deal with these issues. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not plan to assume this function.
4. Who will be eligible to transfer from the SLPS? Students in private and parochial schools? Charter schools? Must they enroll in the SLPS first?
The law (Section 167.131) states that any resident student in an unaccredited school district has the opportunity to transfer at that district’s expense to an accredited district. (Emphasis added.) In the case of the St. Louis Public Schools, “resident students” include those presently enrolled in a public, private, parochial, charter or home school.
Although it is not mandatory that students formally enroll in the school district before they could transfer, the SLPS has the authority to establish a process for verifying the residency of students who seek to transfer out of the district.
Students who reside in St. Louis County and currently attend a magnet school in St. Louis may not attend a different St. Louis County school district after the SLPS is unaccredited.
5. Who is responsible for payment of tuition for St. Louis students who transfer to accredited school districts?
According to state law (Section 167.131.1), the St. Louis Public Schools will be responsible for such tuition payments. The SLPS also may be responsible for the cost of transportation for transfer students, consistent with the provisions of Section 167.241, RSMo.
6. What is the tuition rate for students attending an accredited district?
Each school district that accepts transfer students from an unaccredited school district may charge its current tuition rate, according to the provisions of Section 167.131.2, RSMo. The tuition rate may vary according to the students’ grade levels.
7. Who determines how transportation will be provided for St. Louis students who transfer to accredited schools?
Under Section 167.131, the district of residence (St. Louis) must designate a district or districts to which transportation will be provided at no cost for students who elect to transfer. The statute does not limit the number of students who may be transported.
St. Louis must designate at least one accredited district to which it will provide transportation, but it may designate more than one.
8. Does the loss of accreditation by the SLPS affect compliance with the desegregation settlement agreement?
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not in a position to comment about compliance with the settlement agreement. Guidance on this question should come from the parties’ own legal counsel.
9. What happens if there are financial shortfalls in the SLPS?
Budget issues that may occur within the St. Louis Public Schools will remain the responsibility of the governing body of the district which is in place at any point in time. State funds made available to the SLPS are determined by state appropriation and distributed according to the provisions of state law.
10. What impact does the reclassification of the St. Louis Public Schools have on agreements between school districts in St. Louis County and the Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation (VICC)?
The role of the VICC is a function of the desegregation settlement agreement. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not in a position to comment about compliance issues under that agreement. Guidance on this question should come from the parties’ own legal counsel.
11. Are St. Louis County school districts required to make space available for SLPS transfer students up to the class-size standards (minimum or desirable) set by the state?
Each school district in St. Louis County must decide whether it will accept transfer students from the St. Louis Public Schools (in addition to any students the district may now be serving through the VICC program), and how many additional students it will accept. Each St. Louis County district may use its own criteria to determine what its capacity is to accept transfer students in various grade levels.
12. Could a county district establish a “satellite” location in the city for purposes of accepting transfer students from the city?
State law (Section 177.091.3) provides that a board of education may acquire additional grounds when needed for school purposes. If the directors of both school districts involved agree, such grounds may be located outside of the boundaries of the district and operated for school purposes.
13. In light of possible appeals and legal challenges, what is the likelihood that the SLPS will remain unaccredited during 2007-08?
The Department will not speculate about what impact a lawsuit might have on the future course of events.
14. If the SLPS remains unaccredited for 2007-08, when will it be reviewed for possible reclassification?
Review of the classification of the St. Louis Public Schools will be based upon academic progress within the district. District officials also may request a re-review of the district’s status at any time they believe it may qualify for provisionally accredited or accredited status.
15. Will summer school be required for all under-performing students in the St. Louis Public Schools this year?
No.
16. Will the SLPS be required to retain students who are performing below grade level in their current grades for the upcoming school year?
No.
17. Do parents have to wait until June 15 to contact St. Louis County school districts about possible student transfers?
No.
18. Will students be able to transfer to non-public schools at the expense of the SLPS?
No.
70 Comments:
As a society, shouldn't we be cheering the ability of those students to be able to transfer to whatever public schools they want.
Give the people what they want!!
Note, I am not for religious school vouchers on first amendment grounds or vouchers for those who can afford private school anyway. I am not even in favor of 'vouchers', just the ability of kids to be able to leave non-fully accredited school districts for those that are.
This is a win for the kids, and it is all about the kids.
4/06/2007 11:38 AM
How dare Dianna Bourisaw criticize parents who have been paying taxes and not getting their money's worth in the SLPS of wanting to attend County schools on "the city taxpayer's dime." Of all the arrogance. They ARE city taxpayers. They simply desire what they have been paying for all along but have never been provided: a quality education for thier children. Now that they have that opportunity, Bourisaw and her shill Antonio French ought to be ashamed of themselves for criticizing them. If you are forced to pay for years for a product that you cannot use, and suddenly you are able to get that product, why should a person be chided.
As I have said previously, the leaders of the SLPS should have been worried about all of this well BEFORE they boneheadely let their district's accreditation be stripped from them. Look at where all of the infighting and turf wars have landed them now.
4/06/2007 12:23 PM
I am dumb.
I read what she said and immediatedly started thinking---what will Archbishop Burke think of this?
I am not even Catholic.
Let us say 500 students in parochial schools decide---pay 5000 dollars tuition to parochial school with underpaid teachers, not accountable to the state standards---or let my parents pocket the 5000, and have the taxpayers shell out 15 grand to send me to a school in Clayton, or wherever.
I guess I will let my parents decide.
Archbishop Burke---ever mindful of the church's financial situation and the temptations of sin in even the best public schools---gets out his calculator and says 500 times 5000 equals---just 2.5 million.
No problem--the Catholic schools are really good---I doubt if even 500 students decide to do that.
4/06/2007 12:54 PM
"How dare Diana Bourisaw criticize parens..." Read again. She didn't criticize anyone. She stated a fact and warned of its consequences on the budget planning for the next school year, something that always has to be done early in every school district.
Misplaced venom toward both Antonio and Bourisaw. Reading comprehension seems to be a problem for so many, and I believe some who have difficulty comprehending what they read attend schools other than the SLPS.
As for accreditation being stripped from them, it is being stripped ahead of schedule and due to the mayor's slate's decisions and obstruction by someone considered irrational by most.
4/06/2007 1:46 PM
CORRECTION:
"How dare Diana Bourisaw criticize parents..." Read again. She didn't criticize anyone. She stated a fact and warned of its consequences on the budget planning for the next school year, something that always has to be done early in every school district.
Misplaced venom toward both Antonio and Bourisaw. Reading comprehension seems to be a problem for so many, and I believe some who have difficulty comprehending what they read attended schools other than the SLPS.
As for accreditation being stripped from them, it is being stripped ahead of schedule and due to the mayor's slate's decisions and obstruction by someone considered irrational by most.
I did think when I read the word "shill" for Antonio how the term "shrill" should apply to that posting. It was like a fire, ready, aim approach to the issues.
4/06/2007 1:50 PM
elf,
I didn't read any criticism in her remarks either, but I can see how the feeling could come across. Sensitive topic to a lot of people right now.
4/06/2007 2:47 PM
Here is the key---Dr. Bourisaw will be exploited by answer number 14:
""District officials also may request a re-review of the district’s status at any time""
"14. If the SLPS remains unaccredited for 2007-08, when will it be reviewed for possible reclassification?
Review of the classification of the St. Louis Public Schools will be based upon academic progress within the district. District officials also may request a re-review of the district’s status at any time they believe it may qualify for provisionally accredited or accredited status."
Mark my words----the loss of accreditation was a legal maneuver---it was necessary to have the 3 man board take over. They will take Dr. Bourisaw's data to the state board before the 4th of July, ask them to look at it again, and they will decide accreditation should be restored. Dr. Bourisaw will have been fired by then, and the Post Dispatch and KMOX will be slobbering all over the new 3 man board for their heroic action.
4/06/2007 4:12 PM
I really cannot abide this outcome. We are going to pay to send our kids to schools outside their community. More and more we see the destruction of local neighborhoods as if some could get any worse. Anchors which previously held the community together may soon be gone. These few institutions which remain are essential if our distressed communities are to make a turn around.
4/06/2007 5:01 PM
What a mess. I was struck by the repeated refusal to answer questions regarding the desegregation agreement. It will be difficult for the state to justify using the desegregation agreement take over and then destroy the desegregation program. I hope.
I also was struck by papillon's naive assumption that the county districts are going to welcome the city residents with open arms. They too need to be able to plan their budgets. It will be impossible for them to project them while admitting an unknown number of city students. It's an illusion that city students will have this option. As the report says, it is up to the county districts to decide whether to accept students, how many, and what criteria to use and how much they will charge. There is also no mechanism in place for facilitating this transfer process.
This may be the most poorly thought-out piece of public policy ever attempted to be enacted. Perhaps the state government is incompetent and should be replaced by a 3-man federal board with a CEO selected by the President.
4/06/2007 5:11 PM
If the state had not taken away accreditation for losing points, they still could have taken over because of the "financially distressed" label. The Danforth committee's recommendations allowed for other options the state could pursue to "justify" a takeover.
Let's say they do give us back our accreditation to make it easier on themselves...are we miraculously not "financially distressed" anymore? (I don't think the recent proposed school closings, etc. will save anywhere near enough money to pull off that miracle.)
It seems the state is basically saying two things: "We don't know" and "Go ask your lawyer".
There's leadership for you!
4/06/2007 10:52 PM
It's a shame that students have to transfer to another Public (Government) school. The law should have been written so that the students would receive vouchers so they could go to any school, parochial, private, or government that best meets their needs.
I take solace in the fact that parents that can't afford private schools now have a choice...it may not be in the best location for them, but they have a choice.
4/07/2007 9:10 AM
cweguy,
I am not trying to offend you but I must ask...Are you in favor of eliminitating ALL public education?
After reading your comments for some time, it seems that would be the logical result of much of what you advocate for (and against).
4/07/2007 10:21 AM
sorry,
"eliminating"
4/07/2007 10:23 AM
Jim,
Yes, I am in favor of eliminating public education. I have read the constitution several times and have yet to find a right to education. The fact is, when the federal government gets involved in almost anything, the weight of the added rules, regulations, unions, etc., destroy it.
The tax burden that Government Schools impose on society is outrageous. SLPS spends over $10k per year per student. That's twice what the Catholic schools spend and in line with what most private schools spend. However, there is virtually zero accountability to produce results. If just ONE of SLU High's students was illiterate when he graduated, there would be an outcry of epic proportions. Teachers and administrators would be fired immediately and changes put in place. In the SLPS and virtually all Government school systems, illiteracy is accepted. As proof of this I point to our Government Universities. They understand the weakness of Government secondary schools and have remedial reading classes...
Note that I specifically pointed out that the federal government should stay out of education. If a state, city, or county chooses to fund public education--that's their choice, I don't have to live there if I don't want to.
Also note that I have not said there should be no public funding of schools. I think could be an argument to be made that education is a public good and should be funded by all. If we move to a voucher system, the market will evaluate all schools and the bad ones will fail.
Sorry for rambling, but I'm in a hurry...
Papillon, I kept looking at your post as I wrote this. I don't see how vouchers cause the "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Send your kids to any school you choose--Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Scientologist, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian... I won't judge where you send your kids just as you shouldn't judge my choice. As far as "affording" private schools, I have made choices in my life that have resulted in my being able to "afford" private schools. And, most of those choices involve sacrifices that I have made. It is bad policy to punish those who made tough choices and worked hard. All children deserve a good education and it's their parents who are responsible for providing it.
4/07/2007 11:34 AM
ok, thanks for your reply, I'm in a hurry, too but will ponder.
4/07/2007 1:10 PM
cweguy said, "All children deserve a good education and it's their parents who are responsible for providing it."
Sorry, but I don't buy that we need not be there for the members of society who, by accident of birth, got parents who couldn't (or wouldn't) be "responsible for providing it."
4/07/2007 3:44 PM
Is there a right to highways in the constitution?
Education is a public service. I don't like highways, but through the gasoline tax, I fund them.
4/07/2007 3:55 PM
Doug,
I agree 100%. Let's dump the tax and go to a toll system--even better, I say let's privatize it!
Let people pay for what they use.
CWEGuy
4/07/2007 4:05 PM
So, CWEGuy, do we have any shining examples of privatization of public services? Are you thinking of AmerenUE? What about private education companies? Are you thinking of Edison Schools? Or, what about Imagine Schools? Or, are you placing your confidence in corporate business models such as we've seen with Enron. The Enron Highway System.
Can you point me to the part of the constitution that says parents are responsible for educating their children?
Do you have any evidence, any facts at all that support your theory that educational vouchers and public schools that aren't publicly funded will outperform traditional publicly funded public education?
BTW, SLUH spends almost $13,000 per year per student.
4/07/2007 6:04 PM
Snead,
You are getting the idea. There shouldn't be public services.
Enron Highway? Look at Walter Reed. That's the future of our health care if we allow the Government to control it.
The part of the constitution that says parents are responsible for educating their children? It's probably the most ignored portion of our amazing document: Amendment 10...
#10 Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The evidence I have to support vouchers is the same free market system that has allowed the USA to become the greatest country in the world. Besides, ANYTHING would be better than the SLPS' performance in the 20 years I have lived here. Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
So, are you are implying that if the SLPS spent an extra $2,400 per student per year, there would be no illiterate graduates?
Now, it's my turn to ask you a question about the constitution. Can you show me where the constitution it talks about the Government building highways, generating electricity, providing health care, supplying food, making sure everyone has internet access, etc...? I read it again tonight and I can't find those things anywhere.
4/08/2007 12:12 AM
Besides, ANYTHING would be better than the SLPS' performance in the 20 years I have lived here. Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Make your case for the takeover---criticize the new board members---dump on Bourisaw---defend Floyd Irons----whatever you have to do---by all means---make the case for the takeover.
But quit trotting out that tired old definition of insanity----when you are advocating letting Slay make still another appointment for a St. Louis school board!. DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WILL GIVE YOU SOMETHING BETTER, THIS TIME?
If you do---Einstein says you are nuts.
4/08/2007 2:04 AM
Kjoe,
You don't get it. I am not nuts. I don't want new board members. I don't want a take over. I want the SLPS shut down! Give every parent in the city the $10,400 they waste every year on each student and let us make the education decisions for our children and find the best schools for them.
My dream is that one day parents will recognize that they, not the Government are responsible for their children.
Just as Enron was a parasite on society, so is the SLPS.
4/08/2007 9:22 AM
And, by the way, I know and like Mayor Slay. I think he does a good job of running the city's government. I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.
However, I have not, and will not, ever expect him to "GIVE" me anything--better or otherwise...
Read the constitution. The government is not designed to give us anything!
4/08/2007 9:26 AM
cweguy,
Amendment 10 is about power, not responsiblity. Find an amendment that says that the parents are responsible.
The constitution doesn't say anything about paying Federal taxes, either. Would you argue that this country would be where we are today without Federal taxes to support at standing army?
IMO, public services, including public schools should be run with some oversight by the government. For reasons of greed, our local government wants total control of schools and then seems to look the other way when people die because these corporations you revere act irresponsibly.
So, I'll give irrefutable evidence that $2,000 more per pupil will improve the quality of education in the SLPS: the Magnet Schools. Maybe you didn't know this, but Metro H.S. and McKinley Middle have been the standard in the St. Louis area for years. Magnet schools cost more.
As it has been stated before, it is also evident that the SLPS have been sabotaged by the people you're expecting to step in and improve them. Slay and Blunt's plan is to leave no option for students in the district except to attend a charter or parochial school. So, the SLPS can and will get worse.
This thread is about a serious problem that must be resolved reasonably and thoughtfully. There is too much at stake to leave it to sound bytes, theory and speculation.
Now, do you or do you not have any evidence or fact that supports your theory that anything is better than what we have now? If you do, please share it. I'm only invested in quality public education. If you know of a way to provide a quality education such as the Magnet Schools on a budget that is nearing bankruptcy, share it.
Otherwise, the above is a "yes or no" question so you can simply type "no."
4/08/2007 10:43 AM
cweguy,
You are an enigma. You've disclosed that someone else paid for your education and that you are grateful for that. Now that you've gotten yours you don't seem interested in paying for anyone else's education.
You state, "Give every parent in the city $10,400..." Implied in that sentence is "You". Now, who EXACTLY is "you" that will give each parent $10,400?
I have been astounded by the greed that has oozed to the surface since this issue came about. No one wants to pay to educate our children. Or, they want to provide it as cheaply as possible. People see vouchers as a way to avoid paying taxes or a way of bringing money into parochial and private schools. More greed.
I hope you get past your desperation soon and post some rational ideas that are grounded in reality.
4/08/2007 10:55 AM
I pay over $40k to send my kids to school each year PLUS a usurious rate of income tax. Trust me, I pay. And, frankly, cost did not affect the choice of school that I and the mother of my children made. Furthermore, I do not mind helping others with less money pay for school. I give significant amounts to the scholarship funds at my kids' schools.
I have said that I think an argument could be made for public funding of schools. However, I do not agree that there should be Government schools.
By the way, we looked at sending our oldest to Metro and visited the school last year. If that's the best the SLPS can do, I have given them way too much credit here.
4/08/2007 12:33 PM
cweguy,
Now you're introducing a new concept into the discussion: government schools. And you still haven't given a description of whatever solution you have for funding the SLPS properly.
Because of your apparent subjectivity here, your judgement about Metro is questionable since the people who hand out the awards are professional educators.
The topic here is about white flight. I think if you play out whatever you're proposing to it's conclusion you'll see that it probably enables white flight. You're probably thinking, "People should be able to live where they want." I don't disagree with that. However, in this case, because of the ludicrous funding formula our great State has, it would be detrimental to students whose parents remain in the district.
BTW, my son is a recent graduate of SLPS (not Metro) and he is on the Dean's list at a nationally ranked University. My support was and is ancillary. Whatever business plan your kids' school(s) are operating with, they don't seem very efficient.
4/08/2007 1:12 PM
"Besides, ANYTHING would be better than the SLPS' performance in the 20 years I have lived here."
CWEGuy also said...
Kjoe,
You don't get it. I am not nuts. I don't want new board members. I don't want a take over."
so.... when you say "anything"....you want to omit the ONE and only thing that is actually going to happen in the real world---unless the courts rule that dese cannot break the laws regarding accreditation.
"However, I have not, and will not, ever expect him (Slay) to "GIVE" me anything--"
Fine. DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WILL choose a better board member, THIS TIME....
4/08/2007 2:29 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
4/08/2007 8:56 PM
cweguy said, "By the way, we looked at sending our oldest to Metro and visited the school last year. If that's the best the SLPS can do, I have given them way too much credit here." That's interesting, because Metro received the 2004 - 2005 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Award (U.S. Department of Education). If you prefer corporate kudos; in 2005 - 2006 Newsweek Magazine ranked Metro High School 48th in the Nations Best 100 High Schools.
I have to tell you, cweguy, your intense hatred for SLPS now, ("ANYTHING would be better than the SLPS' performance in the 20 years I have lived here.") when you were considering a city school for your child just last year is quite a mixed message. I almost get the feeling that your oldest did not qualify for admission to Metro and what you really want here is revenge.
4/08/2007 9:00 PM
What I want is great schools for all kids. Would you agree that every child is different and has different needs? That's why I believe that parents should have a choice.
Metro's awards? In my opinion, that's just the system awarding its own. I'm sure they do the best they can within the boundaries set by the Government. But, the best they can do in that system is simply not enough. And, I have to ask, what are your opinions on W's other initiatives? What do you think of the TSA's employee of the year program? ;-) I feel so much safer when I fly these days...
Snead--You are kidding yourself, or at least drinking the kool-aid, if you think that Metro provides a quality education to ALL of it's students. So, I can't answer your question with a simple yes or no.
And yes, my oldest did qualify for Metro. My wife and I chose not to send him there after looking at the school and meeting with teachers. Frankly, I wish Metro was as good as it's PR says it is. Financially, it made a lot of sense for him to go there. But, the fact is, even if it is the best that the SLPS has to offer, Metro's education wasn't even close to the other (private) schools we considered--in our opinion, of course.
So, to eliminate any confusion, here is where I stand:
1--The government should not be in the business of educating children.
2--Ideally, (this is a forum for ideas, isn't it?) parents should be able to choose the best education setting for their children.
3--Public funding for education is something I could consider. I freely admit I don't know how to make it work without falling back into the trap of Government schools. The best solution I have found is vouchers...
4--The real world fact is the SLPS has failed at least one generation of St. Louis' children--probably more. I don't see evolutionary change fixing the problem. I want to raze the system and start over...
The children of St. Louis deserve no less than our best.
4/08/2007 11:32 PM
cweguy said at 4/08/2007 11:32 PM
"What I want is great schools for all kids. Would you agree that every child is different and has different needs? That's why I believe that parents should have a choice."
Your post is evidence that parents already have a choice. "Choice" is a word you've adopted from the government spin doctors.
1--"The government should not be in the business of educating children."
So you disagree with State takeover then?
3--"Public funding for education is something I could consider. I freely admit I don't know how to make it work without falling back into the trap of Government schools. The best solution I have found is vouchers..."
Please explain how a voucher program would work in a way that doesn't leave the SLPS worse off. It's already well known that it would be destructive. Clearly it's the choice of the government as a method for backing parents into a corner and leaving them with fewer choices (the ones the government wants them to have).
4--"The real world fact is the SLPS has failed at least one generation of St. Louis' children--probably more."
I keep asking for facts from you. Tell me where to find this fact if you won't share it. I hope you're not implying that my son is a failure.
"I don't see evolutionary change fixing the problem. I want to raze the system and start over..."
Why isn't it enough to get the government out of education except to provide funds sufficient enough for quality education?
"The children of St. Louis deserve no less than our best."
We agree on this. Thanks for greater clarity and concreteness.
4/09/2007 6:41 AM
Read in the 4/9/07 Post-Disgrace
David Evans is in the admissions business at Harvard University. It's not too often, he says, that "we run into what we call the American Dream."
This year, it happened. The American Dream, in this instance, is a senior at Soldan High School. His name is Jeffrey Lynn Hall Jr. The dream arrived recently by e-mail; a formal letter from Cambridge, Mass., followed.
It began, "I am delighted to inform you that the committee on admissions and financial aid has voted to offer you a place in the Harvard Class of 2011."
With the exception of graduates of Metro High School, a magnet school with admissions requirements, Hall is the first St. Louis Public Schools student to receive a Harvard invitation in at least 35 years, according to Evans.
4/09/2007 6:45 AM
For a funny and true description of politicians and their interest in education search Google Video for George Carlin's "The Owners of the Country."
4/09/2007 7:12 AM
Snead Hearn says:
> I keep asking for facts
There are lots of facts around, but I think everyone's ashamed of them so even though they're available, they're not advertised. Or maybe the assumption is that most Missourians won't be able to understand the facts properly — after all, they're mostly expressed with numbers.
This is a well-founded fear. Here are some facts for you. The difference between an ACT score of 18 and 22 amounts to something like this: someone who scores 22 can tell you what a pair of sneakers costs after a 20% discount, and someone with a score of 18 can't. Do you know what it means when 33% of students in Missouri score at or above the national average score?
None of this says word one about any individual graduate.
All the best to the kid accepted into Harvard. I sincerely hope he's not in over his head like so many SLPS graduates who manage to enroll in college apparently are. We can only trust in the Harvard admissions process on this.
t
4/09/2007 9:47 AM
Tom Leith said...
"This is a well-founded fear. Here are some facts for you. The difference between an ACT score of 18 and 22 amounts to something like this: someone who scores 22 can tell you what a pair of sneakers costs after a 20% discount, and someone with a score of 18 can't."
This is written as fact but could well be conjecture. Can you cite your source(s). Everything else you wrote is opinion. So, by my count, ONE fact. Not "facts."
You give this "fact" as though it is a significant measure of the SLPS and then make a statement like, "None of this says word one about any individual graduate."
There seems to be a definite tone of animousity in your post Tom. It's a mystery to me why some people would have such feelings and emotion on a topic they don't seem invested in. Unless of course they feel they're paying too much to educate kids.
4/10/2007 6:41 AM
I am extremely tired of the "apples and oranges" comparisons of SLPS with other Missouri districts. I recall that when national crime statistics named St. Louis the country's "most dangerous city", there was outcry that St. Louis was unfairly assessed because its statistics do not include a metropolitan region as do most other cities, and so the comparisons are skewed by concentration. A similar situation exists with SLPS.
The same DESE site that reports SLPS per-pupil expenditure at over $10,000 also reports that the Special School District, which does not serve SLPS students, has had a per-pupil expenditure of over $100,000 for many years. Since other districts are relieved of the cost of educating special education students as part of their budgets, it is obvious why their expenditures are less than that of SLPS.
Also, in point of reference, SLPS serves MORE special education students than the Special School district, and many charter schools have LOWER MAP scores than the Special School District.
SLPS numbers of ALL kinds INCLUDE the budgeting, test scores and graduation statistics--including ACT scores and college entrance information--of special education students. Other districts' do not. Apples and oranges.
Factor the Special School district's spending and scores into the equation or do not pretend to play with "facts".
4/10/2007 7:44 AM
> So, by my count, ONE fact
I provided hyperlinks leading to a great many facts, none of which say word one about any individual graduate. I myself have always been mystified by people who won't trouble themselves to follow an argument but will "sneer" at it, and by people who claim to be invested in a topic but can't be bothered to learn anything about it. I guess its just me. Oh, wait. No its not.
> Can you cite your source(s).
Why, yes I can! Thank you for asking.
See page 15 of this. And as an added bonus, it matches my own experience tutoring people who didn't score above 20 on the ACT. Stories are always better than numbers, right?
t
4/10/2007 10:22 AM
> I am extremely tired of
> the "apples and oranges"
> comparisons of SLPS with
> other Missouri districts.
Then do something about it. Re-work the DESE data in a way that you think puts all the measures on the same footing, tell us what your assumptions and methodologies are, and show us the results. It could be Ariel's Truth in Education Statistics blog.
t
4/10/2007 10:43 AM
Tom Leith,
You're missing the point IMO. You're spinning the data to support your opinion. Some people call taht poor scientific method. When that's done you have people who can find facts that support what their opposing point of view is.
Certainly, weak conservative politicians like Slay, Blunt and their minions will applaud you. But, dont' expect everyone to look at the last few years of ACT scores (the period when Slay, Shoemehl, Roberti and Co. have been busy dismantling the SLPS) and compare SLPS to Tarkio H.S. That is very naive indeed. It may also be naive to measure a district's performance by test scores. Testing has become a source of debate in education and rightfully so.
4/10/2007 11:59 AM
> You're spinning the data
> to support your opinion.
Beats the devil out of ignoring the data and then claiming with a sneer that none was provided. What I think you're doing now is changing the subject.
I don't expect everyone to look at the last few years of ACT scores (the period when Slay, Shoemehl, Roberti and Co. have been busy dismantling the SLPS) and compare SLPS to Tarkio H.S.
I didn't do it either. And I did not set up a straw-man to knock down.
What I did was look at the last few years of ACT scores and confirm my impression that the majority of SLPS high school graduates cannot compute the price of a pair of discounted sneakers. If you think I have spun something, tell us how.
Opinion: the majority therefore ought not have a high school diploma. Maybe a Certificate of Attendance and Tolerably Good Behavior instead. And I can perfectly understand why cweguy wants a different environment for his kids.
t
4/10/2007 12:53 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
4/10/2007 1:25 PM
"What I did was look at the last few years of ACT scores and confirm my impression that the majority of SLPS high school graduates cannot compute the price of a pair of discounted sneakers. If you think I have spun something, tell us how."
Tom Leith,
You sir are on a different wavelength. There is no wisdom in repeated criticism of the SLPS. No one is disputing that the SLPS needs help. In case you've just joined, cweguy wants do eliminate public education altogether.
When I asked cweguy for a complete plan as far as how a voucher system would work, he quit the thread.
Like many people who write negative posts with data from DESE (a political dept. with questionable ethics) you didn't peruse for the postive data and when I and others have posted it, you discount it.
This is an issue for people who are problem solvers and who have compassion for kids who are not ours and not necessarily like us.
While your arguments may be impressive to you, they don't really help or contribute much that is helpful in solving the problem. And, maybe it's not your problem. If so, it makes your postings even more enigmatic.
As I said before, your postings may be more pertinent if sent to weak politicans like Slay and Blunt who are not leaders but politicans who react and subvert.
4/10/2007 1:27 PM
> You sir are on a different
> wavelength.
So, after you ask for data, ignore it, sneer at me, and finally change the subject you're going to call me names and not address anything I say? No wonder cweguy quit the thread.
t
4/10/2007 2:51 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
4/10/2007 6:36 PM
Sorry Snead--didn't quit, my kids and paying gig take precedence over solving the world's problems...
Where did I leave off? Do I disagree with the State takeover—No, I don’t. If you are going to use the power of law to confiscate my money, you better not waste it. SLPS is a broken system and needs to be razed and rebuilt.
How does a voucher program work? Give each parent a voucher worth $10,400 that can be used for education (including home schooling). If the parents choose bad schools or otherwise waste the money, they and their children will remain ignorant and poor. There is nothing wrong with ignorant and poor, mind you, but it IS a choice—the world needs unskilled labor and not everyone can, or wants to live in Ladue.
I would never call your son a failure since I do not know him. You are obviously interested in his education. In my experience, a parent's active interest is one of the best predictors of a well-educated child. If he has the proper encouragement, drive, and determination, I'm sure he can eke out a good education in SLPS. That's exactly what the new poster boy of the SLPS, Jeffrey Lynn Hall Jr., has done.
However, I point to the 2nd year college enrollment rates as evidence that your son and Jeffrey Lynn Hall Jr. are anomalies. Further proof is a study that I read recently but can't put my hands on that showed the rates of remedial reading required by SLPS grads. I would be willing to bet that your son knows a student in his school that can't read at grade level--I don't blame the child, every year, a teacher did not have the courage to fail this kid and make him take a class over until he got it right. It’s very simple, if little Johnny can’t read, write, or cipher, we must tell him he can’t graduate. Or, just give him his Certificate of Attendance and Tolerably Good Behavior. Anything less devalues what your son and Jeffrey Lynn Hall Jr. have done.
Now, to answer your question, "Why isn't it enough to get the government out of education except to provide funds sufficient enough for quality education?"
You are SOOOOOO close to getting what I believe. Get the government out of education. However, who funds this multi-headed beast that has grown over the years? Us. Let me keep my money, let me educate my children. You know what's best for your son; I know what's best for mine. Nobody should tell us how to educate them. That is a decision our society has abdicated to bureaucrats and "experts". I’ve taken it back at a phenomenal personal financial cost. Vouchers would let everyone else do it too.
4/10/2007 6:39 PM
How do we "Give each parent a voucher worth $10,400 that can be used for education" AND "Get the government out of education."? Won't that $10,400 come from taxes? Won't the government then have to require any school that takes voucher money to meet the Federal No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress laws for each category of students at the school?
What if the non-public schools don't want the money because it isn't worth the government intrusions that would result? If they do take the money, will it equalize private and public schools or just resegregate education? This may get worse before it gets better.
4/10/2007 8:38 PM
cweguy said:
"If you are going to use the power of law to confiscate my money, you better not waste it...How does a voucher program work? Give each parent a voucher worth $10,400...If the parents choose bad schools or otherwise waste the money, they and their children will remain ignorant and poor..."
So it's ok for parents of poor children to waste your tax money, leaving masses of poor, ignorant children to populate American cities, so long as public schools don't get it?
Do you even READ what you write?
TL... Regarding your comment about my post on the "apples and oranges" comparison of SLPS to other districts: You suggest that I "do something about it. Re-work the DESE data..."
My question is, why would DESE not post this information in a fair way in the first place? There are people whose JOB it is to do this. It is not MY JOB. Tax money pays THEIR salaries.
I do not believe the very significant cost and unavoidably lower scores associated with educating a vast number of special needs children is something that can be discounted offhand in assessing the performance of SLPS. To continuously compare SLPS unfavorably with districts which DO NOT SERVE SUCH CHILDREN is UTTERLY UNJUST AND FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.
4/10/2007 9:11 PM
Adric,
Obviously, it will come from taxes. You must remember that I said that I think there could be an argument for public funding of education. If nothing else, it’s a start. We can look at reducing taxes and eliminating vouchers at the same time.
The “No Child Left Behind” act is political pablum. More Governmental interference that does nothing to educate kids and is intended to make the gullible feel better. Keep the government out of my kids’ education!
Ariel,
The current system gives no choices, and encourages people to let someone else think for them. If, you make bad choices, you suffer the consequences. It’s completely different when someone else makes your choices for you.
If people make bad choices, I have no sympathy for their consequences. However, if their bad choices are made in my name, we bear the responsibility. That’s another cycle I would like to break.
4/10/2007 10:29 PM
cweguy, believe me, I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the NCLB laws. My point was that the only reason private/parochial schools have been "excused" from compliance is because they take no tax money. If vouchers are used, this is no longer the case. No matter how misguided it is, it is the law, and schools that take tax money will have to comply. It has been bad for public schools, and it will be bad for private and parochial schools. Vouchers are still governmental interference no matter how you frame them. Tax dollars = GAO oversight. Non-publics have had the advantage of independence from this crap, but vouchers will destroy that.
4/10/2007 11:15 PM
Tom Leith,
"So, after you ask for data, ignore it, sneer at me, and finally change the subject you're going to call me names and not address anything I say?"
I wish you could write with more clarity. I have no idea what you are referring to in what I write as "sneering".
Second, I acknowledged the details you shared from the DESE website that has been posted numerous times and I said that the issue isn't whether or not the schools need help. Then the facts that I present you discount as "anomaly"
I will ask you if you researched SLPS further back in history. Do you remember who the superintendent was in '01? What were your complaints about SLPS then?
I'm still waiting to read your plan, your suggested solution. As I said before no one is writing that the SLPS doesn't need fixing. In fact if you've been at this from the early days of rumored State takeover, you'll have read EXACTLY how Slay, Shoemehl and the Roberti Wrecking Crew have made a mess of the SLPS.
And as I said before, we need people who are willing to think things through. cweguy has more work to do on his voucher plan. We certainly can't rely on the State to provide it. There have to be contingencies if schools don't accept vouchers. (Who recalls which school district refused to participate in the desegregation program?) And no one who has proposed vouchers has addressed transportation and who would pay for it. No one has said who would fund vouchers and no one has said anything about oversight. No one has said how this will actually lead to improvement. No one has said what will become of the students who remain in the district . What will happen when the State decides to discontinue the voucher program?
Has anyone besides me heard any complaints about Slay's beloved charter schools? Few people hear anything about the conditions in these schools. I wonder why?
4/11/2007 6:46 AM
cweguy,
"If the parents choose bad schools or otherwise waste the money, they and their children will remain ignorant and poor. There is nothing wrong with ignorant and poor, mind you, but it IS a choice—the world needs unskilled labor and not everyone can, or wants to live in Ladue."
This is just plain cold hearted, IMO. And the logic is dangerously simplistic. I think this issue is too complicated for your kind of logic. I think when people shrug off complex and important issues with simple common sense approaches they close off any possible discussion that involves problem solving.
The greed and disregard for less fortunate families absolutely astounds me. What really bugs me is that when the dust settles on this issue one way or the other, you won't be reading this blog anymore and won't be available for reflection and feedback on your ideas.
4/11/2007 7:13 AM
What is cold-hearted and mean? Do you really think everyone should go to college or become a skilled tradesman? We need people of all levels of ability and talent. To think otherwise is simplistic belief. It’s that type of thinking that encourages a minimum wage. Please tell me why don’t we make the minimum wage $75/hour so there would be no poor people…
The less fortunate are less fortunate because of bad choices, either by them or their ancestors. I voluntarily donate my time and money to help and educate those children in order to break that cycle, but, at the end of the day, it’s their own fault.
Why won’t I be here? Are the less fortunate preparing to storm the Bastille? Oh, I forgot, they already did when they skipped school and hung out in the Mayor’s office for a few days. My children, on the other hand, were in school learning. And, I’d be willing to bet yours were too.
It's all about choices...
4/11/2007 8:05 AM
cweguy,
"The less fortunate are less fortunate because of bad choices, either by them or their ancestors. I voluntarily donate my time and money to help and educate those children in order to break that cycle, but, at the end of the day, it’s their own fault."
The above is cold hearted. Your choice as to who gets vocational training and who doesn't is cold hearted. How do you select SLPS to be the training ground for people who do manufacturing and servile work?
What is cold too, is that you really believe that no one is victimized or oppressed; that everyone in life started out just like you and made wrong turns along the way.
You really seem to believe that having a significant number of unemployed (by choice if I think the way you do) and undereducated in our society will not impact your life.
I've heard others say quite easily, I got mine and my kids are taken care of. F*** everybody else.
I put time and resources into my son's life. I'm not satidfied with that. I want him to live in a world that is better.
If Slay and Blunt get their way, I believe our kids are going to look around someday and say, "What happened? How did things get this way?". There will be a significant number of peope they won't be able to communicate with. Even now, reviewing these threads from the past few months it's clear that many people are unable to think critically and formulate and answer questions accurately. I shudder to think of it being worse.
4/11/2007 8:33 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
4/11/2007 12:29 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
4/11/2007 12:31 PM
Ariel writes:
> My question is, why would DESE
> not post this information in a
> fair way in the first place?
Maybe they're posting it in the way the legislature has told them to post it. Maybe they're posting all the data they have. Maybe they think they are posting the information in a fair way. It looks fair to me. Tell me where it isn't fair. I agree that the data they post is often misunderstood and often misused by people who can't distinguish a mean from a median, but that's not the data's fault.
> To continuously compare SLPS
> unfavorably with districts
> which DO NOT SERVE SUCH CHILDREN
> is UTTERLY UNJUST AND
> FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.
Yep. I try to compare the performance of non-special needs kids graduated by the SLPS with the performance of the non-special needs kids graduated by other districts against norms that are not re-leveled in the face of decling performance.
Even if we look only at Metro, its apparent performance is just a tick better than the average public education district. Note the average public education district can't select its student body the way Metro can. I am not all that impressed with Public Education in Missouri generally — the average Missouri district performs below the national average, and I'm told the national average isn't what it was 50 years ago. I think this has more to do with an increasingly anti-intellectual culture than it has to do with the amount of money spent.
In any case, about 40% of the kids that start high school in SLPS don't finish, and the majority of those that do finish can't figure the price of a pair of sneakers. Most can't compose a coherent English paragraph either. This is apparently true as well for a minority of kids graduated from Metro. I think it should be untrue of any kid holding a high school diploma. For that matter, I think it should be untrue of any kid in the ninth grade.
A related question hinted at by Mr. Snead's comment about vocational education: faced with five hundred illiterate 13 year-old children of 30 year old illiterates who may not be engaged in the least, what's best for the children? Shall we pretend they're going to Harvard, or even to Meramac? The great majority, at best, are going to work in low-skill occupations.
Snead Hearn writes:
> I have no idea what you are
> referring to in what I write
> as "sneering".
Sneer quotes express disdain. In your first reply to me, your repeated enclosure of the word facts in them is a prime example, especially in a context where hundreds of facts are provided and you can find only one, for which you demand a citation. When a citation is provided, it isn't so much as acknowledged — you simply change the subject. That's what I mean by sneering. Its all based in behavior. I hope this is clear enough for you.
> Then the facts that I present
> you discount as "anomaly"
I have shown you what I mean by sneering. Maybe you can show me where I have discounted anything you have said.
> As I said before no one is
> writing that the SLPS doesn't
> need fixing.
Sure they are -- cweguy for example. To an extent, I agree with him. If there is a mission for a government school, it seems to me it should have a mission nobody else can do, or is willing to do. I think I would fix the SLPS by changing very radically its mission, and freeing anyone not so well served by that new sort of institution to choose something else.
> Slay, Shoemehl and the Roberti
> Wrecking Crew have made a mess
> of the SLPS.
Horsefeathers! SLPS was a mess long before Mr. Schoemehl was first elected mayor much less to the school board, and if you have been paying attention, you know that. Kids for at least 30 years* have been held hostage to in the SLPS because Jeffersonian idealogues want to control for their own ends all primary and secondary education everywhere, declaiming all they while "it all about the chilllll-dren" when its really about the ideology. So hogwash! It simply isn't true that SLPS has been recently wrecked by nefarious profiteers or powermongers. It was conceived in a bad ideology, and has been wrecked by bad ideology.
*actually much longer than 30 years, more like 150 years. It took a Supreme Court decision to finally establish that they shouldn't be allowed to hold kids hostage, so the idealogues have arranged public financing of education to ensure that only people who have a choice are rich enough to pay twice. And being idealogues, they're still at it.
Even the much-hated Mr. Schoemehl wanted to prop-up this crumbling edifice. Maybe Mr. Slay wants finally to demolish it and build a new one — if he does its fine with me so long as people, even poor people, have a wide range of choices about where and how to educate their kids. No school (private, homeschool, whatever) should be discriminated against with respect to funding, and if it takes an amendment to Missouri's constitution to make it legal, let's have the amendment. If there remains a need for a government school, then let's have that too.
> Do you remember who the
> superintendent was in '01? What
> were your complaints about SLPS
> then?
It does not matter who is superintendent, but I think it was Hammonds. My complaints were the same place they are now, and they haven't changed since. Now, back in the 1980's I would've argued even against public subsidies to parents for education of their children, but I was wrong then. What is wrong now is state-sponsored educational monopoly, and the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms.
> reviewing these threads from the
> past few months it's clear that
> many people are unable to think
> critically and formulate and
> answer questions accurately.
Seems a little pot and kettle to me. And what's an accurate question?
t
4/11/2007 12:34 PM
"""Oh, I forgot, they already did when they skipped school and hung out in the Mayor’s office for a few days."""
Oh, those foolish, manipulated, irresponsible kids.
They were in the wrong office, for the wrong reason, making the wrong noise---
yet
somehow, an accident, an irresponsible squeaky wheel gets the grease reaction from the state------
somewhere along the line, the threat of an IMMEDIATE TAKEOVER was dropped, and the state QUIETLY set the takeover date for June 15th---after the protesting seniors graduate from an accredited school.
Oh the state taught them a lesson, all right.
4/11/2007 3:50 PM
"""Kids for at least 30 years* have been held hostage to in the SLPS """
desperation alert!
The takeover by the 3 person board will have consequences. Not doing the takeover will have consequences.
Generalizing about the last 30 (or 150) years is a convenient way to avoid the realities of what happened between 2003-2006, and contemplate whether voters have a right to do what they have been doing to reverse the bad things which led to a loss of accreditation.
4/11/2007 4:03 PM
Cheers to Tom!
It's comforting to know there are other people out there with the courage to address reality.
Snead, the cold reality is the fact that we can't keep throwing good money after bad to support people that refuse to avail themselves to the systems we have put in place.
EVERYONE in this country has the ability to PURSUE happiness. There is no guarantee they will find it.
All I ask is that my children have the same opportunity I, and I believe, every other adult on this blog had.
Now, 60 comments on this thread are enough. I'm done with this one. See you on the next interesting one!
4/11/2007 7:32 PM
> All I ask is that my children
> have the same opportunity I,
> and I believe, every other
> adult on this blog had.
Oooooo! That was subtle. I like it.
If there's significant Bright Flight, not White Flight, I can only applaud the parents who see an opportunity for their own kids and grab it.
t
4/12/2007 12:07 AM
Tom Leith
"I am not all that impressed with Public Education in Missouri generally — the average Missouri district performs below the national average, and I'm told the national average isn't what it was 50 years ago. I think this has more to do with an increasingly anti-intellectual culture than it has to do with the amount of money spent."
WE AGREE ON THIS. Does State takeover mean this will change? Even DESE can't answer that. DESE might even admit they are clueless. And they ahve yet to present a coherent plan for the Fall of '07. That by itself is incompetent.
"In any case, about 40% of the kids that start high school in SLPS don't finish, and the majority of those that do finish can't figure the price of a pair of sneakers. Most can't compose a coherent English paragraph either. This is apparently true as well for a minority of kids graduated from Metro. I think it should be untrue of any kid holding a high school diploma. For that matter, I think it should be untrue of any kid in the ninth grade."
This is one of a long list of criticisms not followed by a rational plan.
"Sneer quotes express disdain. In your first reply to me, your repeated enclosure of the word facts in them is a prime example, especially in a context where hundreds of facts are provided and you can find only one, for which you demand a citation. When a citation is provided, it isn't so much as acknowledged — you simply change the subject. That's what I mean by sneering. Its all based in behavior. I hope this is clear enough for you."
> Then the facts that I present
> you discount as "anomaly"
"I have shown you what I mean by sneering. Maybe you can show me where I have discounted anything you have said."
I can see that my attempt at diplomacy was ineffective. I suggested we are on different wavelengths ( If I wanted to "sneer" I would have stated that differently). The line you quoted from me was my example of what I call a discount. I followed that by saying that anyone can find facts to support their position. So, the facts become half-truth. One of my college professors put it well when he told us, "Statistics don't lie. Statisticians can." You discount my facts, I discount your facts and nothing is accomplished.
One of the benefits of this type of dialogue is that tone of voice and non-verbal behavior is removed. This removes static in communication. If you felt sneered at by my attempt to demonstrate that statistical data doesn't always represent truth, it's on you.
4/12/2007 8:27 AM
Tom Leith said,
"Maybe Mr. Slay wants finally to demolish it and build a new one — if he does its fine with me so long as people, even poor people, have a wide range of choices about where and how to educate their kids."
I guarantee you Slay wants to destroy it and I guarantee you there will be only ONE choice for parents: charter schools.
" What is wrong now is state-sponsored educational monopoly, and the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms."
So, let me get this straight: "what is wrong is a State sponsored education monopoly" and so your solution is to hand the responsibility of educating to the State. And you and cweguy want to stop "throwing good money after bad" and so your solution is to throw less good money after bad.
I repeat (please note this and tell me you understand it) all I read in your writing is one criticism after another and have yet to offer any hope or suggest any clear plan. If all you have to contribute is to demonstrate that SLPS are not performing, then do that and quit. There are other threads that are about saying positive things about SLPS, so this thread is about identifying a problem and discussing solutions. What is your purpose in continuing to repeat some data and some opinion? You can't change my mind because if you read what I've written I think you'll see that we agree that the SLPS need improvement.
You speculate a lot about other people in your posts. I'm not sure where you get your facts (verifiable evidence) that Shoemehl wanted to prop up the SLPS. I can show you what he's actually done. I can repeat what Veronica O'Brien said during a campaign forum that would totally refute your speculation.
"if you have been paying attention, you know that."
You don't know what I know. You can only speculate. As I've written before, I spent 13 years fully involved in my son's education. I think I'm qualified to speak about SLPS outside of what DESE posts on their website. I know students and parents on a personal level and I already know about the criticisms you're writing. In addition, my nephew (now a H.S. chemistry teacher) was a SLPS student in the '80s. When speaks often about the quality of his education at SLPS it is clear to me that there has been a planned decline since it was announced the desegregation program was going to end.
4/12/2007 8:33 AM
Tom Leith said,
"the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms."
Our form of Democracy doesn't count abstentions. I for one deduce that 94% of the voters either don't care or are uninformed and therefore choose not to vote. That's fine by me. I also deduce that those who did vote were informed and most likely parents involved with SLPS.
A 6% turnout says as much about those who didn't vote as it does those who did.
BTW, since your only sources of information is the DESE website and possibly the Post-Disgrace, go back to those sources and see if you can get the facts on how much money the State OWES the SLPS. If you don't find that data let me know and I'll get it for you.
4/12/2007 9:50 AM
At the U.S. Dept. of Education you can read findings of their '06 study that shows that public education is no worse than private education and in some areas better.
At the NEA, you'll find a study that shows that charter schools do not outperform public schools.
So, I conclude that the public education model is adequate and needs to be tweaked. So, I contacted a couple of BoE members to ask that they consider a radical restructuring as suggested by Tom Leith.
I question the validity of accreditation scores if colleges don't care much about them. I also have heard a lot of complaints from teachers about frequent testing and the amount of time it takes. I suggest a serious examination of compliance with MAP testing, etc. along with the compliance to the NCLB unfunded mandate.
I also think the SLPS ought to demand payment of the deseg. money they have coming to them.
I have also been impressed with the idea of K - 8 neighborhood schools leaving 9 - 12 schools as they are (including a return to proper funding of the Magnet System).
4/12/2007 10:20 AM
If I may be so bold to say--Mr. Leith and M. Hearn talking past one another. Mr. Leith is speaking about how to insure education of children. M. Hearn is trying to fix SLPS. The two are related but not the same thing.
I side more with Mr. Leith in that I don't care if SLPS comes or goes, I just want every child to have a good education. However, I have a difficult time imagining such a environment without a vibrant public school system to educate a lot of the kids.
I know Milwaukee has done some 'radical' things, but it hasn't shown to increase student achievement due to, I believe, a lack of study on the issue.
M. Hearn wants solutions for the SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a plan for education. Both are needed.
4/12/2007 1:44 PM
Papillion writes:
> M. Hearn wants solutions for the
> SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a
> plan for education.
Yes, prescisely. Papillion sees immediately the outlines of a plan where Mr. Hearn sees only criticism. Nobody is so blind as him who will not see.
Mr. Hearn says:
> At the U.S. Dept. of Education
> you can read findings of
> their '06 study that shows that
> public education is no worse
> than private education
I am plesantly surprised to learn from this that the U.S. Dept. of Education understands that the standard by which Public Education ought to be measured is Private Education. Jolly Good! And now that we an authoritative decision about what the standard of excellence really is, surely Mr. Hearn and Ms. Ariel will drop their insistence that families ought to be forced by financing dispairties into the Public Schools.
> At the NEA, you'll find a study
> that shows that charter schools
> do not outperform public schools.
Hmmmm. "On the UAW website, you'll find a study that shows that Ferraris do not outperform Corvettes." I am not inclined to believe producers when they compare their own products to their rivals'. I bet Mr. Hearn isn't either.
I want all families to be free, within due limits, to educate their children as they see fit. Mr. Hearn doesn't. It is as simple as this.
t
4/12/2007 6:37 PM
Papillon said... 4/12/2007 1:44 PM
"If I may be so bold to say--Mr. Leith and M. Hearn talking past one another. Mr. Leith is speaking about how to insure education of children. M. Hearn is trying to fix SLPS. The two are related but not the same thing."
"I side more with Mr. Leith in that I don't care if SLPS comes or goes, I just want every child to have a good education. However, I have a difficult time imagining such a environment without a vibrant public school system to educate a lot of the kids."
M. Hearn wants solutions for the SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a plan for education. Both are needed."
Yes, I have mentioned a couple of times that we are on different wavelengths. I've read Mr. Leith's posts carefully and from what I've read you and Mr. Leith are also on different wavelengths.
It looks to me that Mr. Leith wants a good education for some but not all. It looks as if Mr. Leith wants to the State to takeover (WITHOUT a
plan).
So, maybe I missed it, Papillon, where is Mr. Leith's "plan". All I ever read in his posts are criticisms of SLPS, some of which I won't quibble with, and counter-reactions to my posts, sometimes laced with sarcasm. Please point out some of the details of his plan. I've asked him to do it and gotten nowhere. It was the same with cweguy (unless you count his idea of utterly destroying the entire district and starting from scratch).
BTW, I listed some suggestions for a plan just prior to your last post. Do you have any comments about that?
I very much want a quality education for ALL children. Kids who leave the district will have to at least have their own transportation. The State requires the SLPS to provide transportation to one district only. My guess is that it will be Wellston. This is as much an issue of social justice as it is education.
If the SLPS are funded properly the idea of choice becomes moot. The success of the Magnet Schools proves what can be done with proper funding. This thread is about actions that will create further hardships for the SLPS, not improvements. If the State really cared about kids and their education, they'd spend the necessary amount of money starting with the millions they already OWE the SLPS.
4/13/2007 8:50 AM
Tom Leith said...
> 'At the NEA, you'll find a study
> that shows that charter schools
> do not outperform public schools.'
All the data from other sources I've read since then supports the NEA findings.
What did you find? Maybe the DESE website has some data.
4/13/2007 9:04 AM
Tom Leith said,
"I am plesantly surprised to learn from this that the U.S. Dept. of Education understands that the standard by which Public Education ought to be measured is Private Education. Jolly Good! And now that we an authoritative decision about what the standard of excellence really is, "
I spoke today with a friend who is active in her S. County parish. She was sharing her disappointment in the closing of 2 parochial schools and the merging of students into a third school. Declining enrollment as the reason given.
Afterwards and with some effort to jog my memory, I dimly recalled the following schools:
DeAndreis
St. Thomas Aquinas
Mercy
Augustinian (Vince Shoemehl's alma mater?)
McBride
I have no idea why these schools closed. I don't recall any media hoopla and don't recall any outrage or outcry from parents. I can only assume it was also due to declining enrollment. I guess their students went to school elsewhere (Trinity in the case of Aquinas and Mercy). Maybe they were seeking a better education or a school with larger class size.
4/13/2007 6:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home