By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, June 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Commissioner of Education D. Kent King today denied an appeal by the St. Louis Public Schools that sought to have the State Board of Education reverse or reconsider its recent decision to de-accredit the school district. Labels: Schools
Under a March 22 decision by the State Board of Education, the St. Louis School District is scheduled to become unaccredited this Friday, June 15
Go to the comments section to read King’s letter to St. Louis Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw.
6 Comments:
June 11, 2007
Dr. Diana Bourisaw
Superintendent of Schools
St. Louis Public School District
801 North 11th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101-1401
Dear Dr. Bourisaw:
On March 22, 2007, the State Board of Education classified the St. Louis Public School District (“District”) as unaccredited pursuant to 162.092(9) RSMo 2004 and 5 CSR 50-345.100. On April 20, 2007, on behalf of the Board of the St. Louis Public School District, you requested a hearing for the purpose of “showing cause why [the] classification designation should be reconsidered.” 5 CSR 50-345.100(9).
On May 16, 2007, you wrote to waive the hearing you had requested and sought permission to submit materials in writing instead. I agreed, and the District was given until May 29, 2007, to provide the new or corrected information that you believe justifies my request that the State Board reconsider its decision. On May 29, you submitted a 21-page memorandum, with 18 numbered attachments, as your “written appeal presentation.” Based on the information submitted, I find that you have presented no new or corrected information beyond that on which the Board made its classification determination in March. You raised a number of perfunctory legal and constitutional challenges to the Board’s classification processes and dedicated the majority of your “appeal presentation” to certain consequences of the District’s loss of accreditation rather than to the Board’s basis for that decision. Such arguments are beyond the scope of this appeal, have no bearing on the Board’s classification decision, and thus are not addressed here.
With respect to the Board’s basis for the District’s loss of accreditation, you submit only two arguments, both of which were made to and rejected by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“Department”) prior to my recommendation to the Board before its March 22, 2007, classification decision. First, you contend that the District has met Performance Standard 9.4(2), which focuses on whether the “percent of credits taken by juniors and seniors in Department-designated vocational classes is high or increasing.” The District’s Annual Performance Report, presented to the State Board in March, shows that the District’s performance under this standard was neither “high” nor showing adequate signs of “increasing” to meet even the lowest acceptable level. Your appeal presents no new or corrected information with respect to this performance standard and relies, instead, on the argument that this determination should have been made based on the District’s preliminary data and calculations long since shown to be inaccurate.
The Department has explained to you and your staff, repeatedly, how inaccuracies in the District’s reporting resulted in an incorrect preliminary calculation relating to this standard. When the data are properly reported and analyzed, as they were prior to the Department’s recommendation to the Board in March, there is no doubt that the District’s performance in this area cannot be considered even minimally compliant with Performance Standard 9.4(2). Because your appeal offers no new or corrected information, I have nothing on which to base a recommendation that the Board reconsider its action.
Second, you contend the District has met Performance Standard 9.4(3), which focuses on whether the “percent of students who attend postsecondary education within six months of graduating is high or increasing.” The District’s Annual Performance Report, presented to the State Board in March, shows that the District’s performance under this standard was neither “high” nor showing adequate signs of “increasing” to meet even the lowest acceptable level. In your appeal, you have presented no new or corrected information. Instead, you continue to insist that the Board make its decision based on data the District submitted last fall showing suddenly increased performance that the District has since been unable to verify.
Prior to November 2006, the District reported the percent of graduates entering qualifying postsecondary education programs within six months for the 2003/04 and 2004/05 school years to be 43.8% and 44.5%, respectively. As disappointing as those numbers were, they were consistent with the District’s percentages in prior years and the District’s performance in other areas. In November, however, the District attempted to change its data for these two years – but only for these two years – claiming college placement rates that were 25-33% higher than what had been reported originally. Though remarkably higher than the District’s previous data for the same two years, these rates still fell far short of meeting the standard for “high” placement rates. The District attributed these changes in its data to its decision to change to an outside vendor to generate these numbers.
Faced with the District’s claim that this new methodology showed sudden and dramatic improvement in the District’s performance, the Department asked the District to update the prior years’ data (2000/01 through 2002/03) using the same methodology so that the Department could assess to what degree, if any, the District’s performance under this
standard was actually “increasing.” The Department also asked the District to verify the new data by providing information about the graduates. The individual data the District provided did not support its aggregate claims.
Instead, the District repeatedly has argued - and now argues again in this appeal - that the Department must accept the District’s claims of sudden and dramatic improvement at face value and should unquestioningly compare that data with data from prior years despite the District’s admission that the two sets of data were collected using entirely different methods. Under the circumstances, the Department's request for additional information was plainly necessary and appropriate. While the District's defense that the Department treats other districts differently is irrelevant to the Department's request, I will nevertheless note that the Department's request was consistent with its past practice involving other districts. But, again, the fundamental issue is the District’s performance; and its performance under this standard by any verifiable measure is neither “high” nor adequately “increasing.” Because your appeal offers no new or corrected information, I have nothing on which to base a recommendation that the Board reconsider its action.
Finally, despite the District’s markedly inadequate results on its Annual Performance Report in March in which the District failed to meet 10 of the 14 performance standards, and despite the Board’s receipt of the St. Louis Public Schools Special Advisory Committee’s report illustrating the worsening financial difficulties of the District, the District argues that the State Board should not have acted to classify the District unaccredited in March and should have waited, instead, another year or even longer to take action. The Board had clear authority to act when it did and, in any regard, this argument addresses only the timing of the State Board’s decision rather than the basis for that decision. Accordingly, such an argument is beyond the scope of this appeal and offers nothing upon which I can base a recommendation that the Board reconsider its action.
In summary, for me to conclude that the Board’s classification decision was incorrect, the District would have to have demonstrated that its performance was adequate under both Standards 9.4(2) and 9.4(3). But, based on the evidence and arguments you have presented, I remain convinced that the District’s performance failed to comply with either standard. Accordingly, I conclude that you have not submitted sufficient new or corrected information, demonstrated any errors of fact upon which the State Board of Education relied, nor otherwise shown cause, for me to request the State Board to reconsider the classification of the St. Louis Public Schools. The District’s appeal is therefore denied.
Sincerely,
D. Kent King
c: State Board of Education
6/11/2007 6:17 PM
zzzz.
wake me up when judge Callahan takes a look at this bs.
6/11/2007 6:27 PM
I bet Slay and V. O'Brien are sipping champagne and dancing a jig at the damage they did to SLPS! Their celebration will be short lived,as the courts will overturn this decision by King and his klan!
6/11/2007 9:19 PM
It is refreshing to actually see what SLPS were required to do instead of the constant drumbeat of unfairness that we get from the Local 420 shills. All we've heard is how the district had to unfairly conjure up an extra years' worth of data based, supposedly, on some evil whim of DESE. Now we see that DESE was not going to fall for SLPS's attempt to smoke and mirror their way into acceptability. Instead DESE asked SLPS to back up its numbers and, guess what, it couldn't. Someone should slap the SLPS Board members and senior administration who put up such a roaring fuss at DESE's last public meeting. The SLPS people should be ashamed of themselves. Talking loud and long does not make things so.
6/11/2007 9:21 PM
You are right on it Star. Slay and O'Brien are sipping away. Who gets the Oscar for carry off the best act. Slay against O'Brien or O'Brien against Slay.
Let's slap one of them.
6/12/2007 12:00 AM
If the judge can translate gobbledygook---and I believe he can----then this:
"Though remarkably higher than the District’s previous data for the same two years, these rates still fell far short of meeting the standard for “high” placement rates. The District attributed these changes in its data to its decision to change to an outside vendor to generate these numbers."
will translate into:
"when you started calling actual people to find out actual schools they were enrolled in--that was the shiite that really, I mean really, f###ing pissed us off. So we said call all the people from the Roberti years, you assholes, and get back to us."
when dese says "The Department has explained to you and your staff"
they mean:
"we make the rules. If we need to use vague subjective words and phrases like adequate,-- “high”,-- “increasing”,-- properly reported and analyzed,-- you continue to insist, --the District has since been unable to verify, then we damned well will. We will say whatever we have to to close you down."
"While the District's defense that the Department treats other districts differently is irrelevant to the Department's request, I will nevertheless note that the Department's request was consistent with its past practice involving other districts."
that means----
"Your defense is irrelevant, but it makes us nervous. So I will say that we are not guilty of doing what is really making us f%%%ing nervous. Governor Blunt taught us that technique, and he expects us to use it".
6/12/2007 12:38 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home