We got a little backlogged with editing today, so forgive the uncharacteristic tardiness.
Speaking of "uncharacteristic," last night's meeting of the Special Advisory Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis (try saying that three times fast), was different not only because of the free cookies and coffee, but because of the presence of something not seen in the St. Louis Public Schools in a very long time — PR savvy.
Many came to the meeting, billed as the public's first opportunity to address the new appointed board, not just to listen to the comments, but to watch a bloodbath.
Vocal opponents of the state takeover had waited for weeks to speak directly to the man from Chesterfield now in charge of their kids and their jobs. But like a smaller, faster fighter using political Judo to disable his larger opponents, District CEO
Rick Sullivan and his team of (as yet unpaid)
Vandiver Group PR consultants, divided and conquered.
Sullivan spread the crowd across the large meeting room in the lower level of the St. Louis Science Center, seating them at tables of seven. The parents, staff, and teachers union members were forced to deal with the SAB members one-on-one. No microphones. No clapping or applauding in agreement with angry speakers. No booing at laments about how the old system wasn't working.
Perhaps it was all smoke and mirrors, but it worked. What was supposed to be a three-hour battle among vocal opponents and supporters of the change in leadership turned into more of a town hall meeting, which winded down after only little more than an hour with people leaving, either satisfied (or pacified) or tired of waiting for one of the three to get to their table.
Strictly from a political strategy perspective... brilliant.
Sure, there were definitely complaints delivered forcefully and directly to the SAB members. The first thirty minutes were the hardest.
"Go back to where you came from," read one evaluation form handed to Sullivan.
"If you want to help the children, then resign," one Local 420 member told Richard Gaines.
But when the dust cleared and everyone had gone home, it was Sullivan and Gaines who were the last one's standing and the last to leave the building (the third member, Melanie Adams, had left earlier).
In fact, even Gaines, who had complained about the format at the start of the meeting, told one of the last parents still in the building, "I kind of liked this tonight. We got to really talk to people."
Labels: Schools
Link to this story
54 Comments:
Wow!
If the protesters have to deal with SAB one-on-one with actual conversation rather than protest aimed at the media, is that supposed to be a not so good thing?
Is it really so wrong to favor communication over showcase confrontation?
6/20/2007 9:20 PM
Smart approach to have the members move from table to table. This the approach we used for Charter Reform. When I worked in Iowa with candidates we always knew you never let the speaker hold the microphone. This approach can't be used too long as it is a lot of work on the speaker. There varies steps to this form of managing an audience.
6/21/2007 12:03 AM
Taking part in this meeting was a huge mistake for anyone still trying to prevent them from assuming power. A better way to undermine their authority would have been to boycott the meeting. The opponents of the transitional board were played like a fiddle.
6/21/2007 12:06 PM
The down side of this kind of interaction is that the audience does not get to hear the comments and questions of the others there, and so the audience develops no sense of the majority will and public leaning of the group present. This means that those who come with similar ideas do not realize how many others hold their ideas, and so cannot unify.
Also, the panel receives a skewed sample of the people's will rather than a sense of the collective will of the people. I say skewed because table selection is not random, but at the discretion of the panelists. They can gravitate toward those they are most comfortable with. The audience tends to assemble itself among the tables like-mindedly, (ie groups of teachers, groups of dissatisfied parents), giving the opportunity for the panelists to recognize and avoid entire sectors of the public by passing a table.
This format certainly diffuses the opportunity for explosive situations, but also diffuses the opportunity to discern the strongest points of public interest and opinion among the group. If determining public opinion and hearing public comment is the goal, this is the wrong format. It has the appearance of personal contact without the substance.
Passionate, sloppy and embarassing as they may be, public forums remain the best means for taking the public pulse. America was built on them.
6/21/2007 12:09 PM
"No booing at laments about how the old system wasn't working."--A. French
"If you want to help the children, then resign," one Local 420 member told Richard Gaines."
Ariel, I am sure that many comments were not heard under the old system of meetings. Perhaps that was on purpose as well.
Very constructive comments made by 420 member. Thanks for your input. Now lower your head in shame and GO AWAY.
Someone should contact Mr. Gaines and ask him to explain the salary comment. You know... to clear the matter up.
6/21/2007 12:38 PM
To the last anonymous commenter, I heard the same notion expressed by a couple of other takeover opponents this week, and you all couldn't be more wrong. If you close your eyes, this thing is not going to go away!
It's like when the teachers union member told Richard Gaines if he really opposed the takeover and really wanted to help the kids, he should resign. As if this Transitional District would collapse without a third SAB member. It wouldn't.
If you don't hear anything else I'm saying, hear this:
This thing is ONLY going to be decided in the courts and/or in the Legislature. In the meantime, it is better to have some voices of reason on the inside of this situation, than to leave it completely up to the people who got us in this mess in the first place.
If all parents kept their kids home and protested this takeover, would that stop it? Probably. But unfortunately few parents even come to regular board meetings, let alone organize for huge rallies.
And the recent situation in SLPS has many parents just praying for ANYTHING to be done.
That's the situation we are operating in.
That's the battlefield you must fight on.
That's the reality.
6/21/2007 12:43 PM
What did you think of Matson's cartoon in the pd regarding Peter Downs.
I agree with Peter for the most part---but i have to wonder about any chance for success unless there is a different judge.
Bourisaw worked for the state department overseeing accreditation stuff---and as slps superintendent---the judge still rejected her views on the subject and ruled in favor of what sounded to me like an incoherent reasoning from the state. I guess downs and company will be going up against someone from jay nixon's office?
I thought the guy was a fair judge----I am beginning to wonder how out of step missouri's democrats are with the national party.
The party itself had an obligation to oppose this republican power grab. They just sat back ignoring it.
6/21/2007 1:02 PM
What is even more interesting was the number of Local 420 officials that were at the SAB meeting. It looks like they see the writing on the wall for the old board and have decided that the SAB is somethey they must pay attention to and ultimately work with.
6/21/2007 1:42 PM
Kjoe,
Separation of powers, remember? What party a judge came from is not supposed to inform their decisions. And if you don't believe that, then you should be on the bandwagon to keep the Missouri plan which appoints judges without having partisan elections--but that's another post.
Not granting a TRO doesn't mean a judge isn't fair. He wasn't supposed to be deciding the issue of the case itself and he hasn't heard all the evidence on it yet. Don't let our local bought and sold media convince you it is over based on that one battle. Hardly the whole war.
6/21/2007 1:49 PM
Antonio,
In the courts? Give me a break. Hey Executioner...any chance you will change your mind?
6/21/2007 2:27 PM
kjoe,
As far as the Post editorial cartoon...
Sure looks like they are trying to put the final nail in the coffin doesn't it?
Anon. at 1:49...
The judge may not have been deciding the merits of the case, but he did rule on the Elected Board's chances of winning.
What he wrote was:
"While the Court acknowledges that Petitioners' argument on the regulation issue may have some merit, the Court is unable to say at this time that petitioners are likely to prevail on the merits of their lawsuit".
That doesn't sound promising for them no matter who the judge is (or what the media says).
6/21/2007 3:21 PM
I agree with Antonio about having voices on the inside. While I STRONGLY opposed the state takeover, I attended this meeting and relayed my concerns for my school and my students. I know it's likely not to make a difference, but I wanted to tell them, in any format available, what I think is needed in this District.
I am so angry and tired of people bashing the teachers and the Union, especially those are not an SLPS employee, parent, or student, saying we only care about our jobs, blaming the teachers if test scores are low, despite the poverty, abuse, drugs, gangs, and violence all around them, and often at home. Yet we are not given anywhere near the adequate resources to meet the students' needs, affecting their ability to learn. It's hearbreaking every day - you have no idea. I could easily get a job and earn a lot more in another district; I choose to work here.
I don't understand why so many people consider their opinions valid, when they know nothing of what it's like on the inside. Why don't you have more questions than answers?
Teachers at my school are frustrated and exhausted, trying to teach our students under very, very difficult conditions. I challenge one of the "experts" out there to spend a day/week/year doing my job and then tell me what you think.
6/21/2007 4:47 PM
Of course it is about having voices on the inside...the point is, they just kicked them out!
Now we are being forced to choose.
6/21/2007 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...
"I am so angry and tired of people bashing the teachers and the Union, especially those are not an SLPS employee, parent, or student, saying we only care about our jobs, blaming the teachers if test scores are low, despite the poverty, abuse, drugs, gangs, and violence all around them, and often at home."
While I will readily admit that teachers are not only reason for the poor test scores, they are both part of the problem and part of the solution.
I will grant you that many (or at least some) teachers work hard against great odds trying to educate city youth. They are hampered the factors mentioned above, but they are also hampered by a school system that has ceased to be functional for purpose. The problems are, in part, systematic and the previous school board has failed to correct those systematic problems. The end result of that was decertification of the district.
Job security has always been a concern of the teacher union, and the current situation following decertification is particularly fluid, with rampant insecurity. The response of the union to this development is to side with the failed school board in to resist change. Change will occur, no matter which school board is in power. The question is whether or not that change is positive or negative. Unfortunately, the old school board seems incapable of making positive change.
It is not in the teachers' best interest for the systematic problems in the district to go unsolved. Since the old board has proven itself incompetent in addressing those problems, attempts to sabotage the new board are not in their best interests.
6/21/2007 5:25 PM
The old Board? Which one? Over the last few years the seven members have changed several times. This last composition has only been in existence since April. Further, how many school districts do you know where the Board is held to the level of power that people seem to think the SLPS Board has? The Superintendents run districts, not Boards, and it seems pretty telling to me that the transitional board is sticking with our current superintendent. So all they are doing is continuing what the elected Board was doing.
6/21/2007 5:51 PM
Which old board? The one that was constantly changing its membership rather than addressing the problems at hand.
6/21/2007 6:08 PM
Also, hasn't there been a lot of changes of superintendents under the old board(s)?
6/21/2007 6:15 PM
Anonymous said...
Smart approach to have the members move from table to table. This the approach we used for Charter Reform. When I worked in Iowa with candidates we always knew you never let the speaker hold the microphone. This approach can't be used too long as it is a lot of work on the speaker. There varies steps to this form of managing an audience.
6/21/2007 12:03 AM
Forgot to post my name Veronica O'Brien
6/21/2007 7:04 PM
There were several superintendent changes under the board characterized my members picked by politicians. Since parents with an actual vested interest in the district have been elected to the Board, Bourisaw has been around.
By changing membership you mean having elections? As the law required? That was a way of addressing the problems at hand--the politicians' choices weren't helping the problems, so we elected new people. Couldn't keep the same people last time even if we wanted to since they didn't run for re-election. Of course we won't get to see if our new choices would have helped since the politicians threw a big hissy fit and decided to find a way around the democratic process so they didn't have to bother with accountability to voters anymore. At least until those politicians come up for re-election.......
6/21/2007 9:54 PM
By change in membership, I am talking about the high turnover in superintendents, and inter-party squabbling for personal fiefdoms instead of solving problems.
Are you really implying that the poor test scores of the past few years the previous board was an outstanding success and that the students in St. Louis were adequately served by it? If so, you have a strange concept of success.
If the previous school board hadn't been so grossly incompetent, it would not have had to been replace.
6/21/2007 10:24 PM
For what its worth,
I agree with Antonio
I liked the post editorial cartoon on Downs.
I'm sorry the teachers are getting the bad end of the deal. Yes, many are over worked and underpaid when the problem is the layers of middle and upper management that have gotten the district in this mess in the first place.
Not only the districts administrtation, but the union's administration as well. Both hell bent on preserving their way....well their way is coming to an end.
6/21/2007 10:48 PM
No matter what side you are on high turnover of supt. is the worse excuse I have seen. Most of the supt. change was before 2005. Still not fair. There was Roberti-not a supt, Crues was temp-he quit for the right reason, Hughes temp-left and replaced by Williams. Throughout all of these individual the board was conducting a search. So it really bothers me for the state or anyone to act like this was the reason for the change. The only permanent supt. was Williams. All sides need to be real. The issues are academics and finances. Nothing else.
6/22/2007 12:14 AM
Okay, let's assume that the superintendent turnover was not the problem, at least do we agree that the students were being shortchanged as to their education? Or are you going to say that test scores are meaningless and they were getting a perfectly good education?
6/22/2007 1:14 AM
Ernest, you still haven't said which old board you are referring to. I don't think test scores are meaningless since many SLPS students are scoring very well on them (gasp! not that you would know.
I also don't think that in a city where our leaders have continuously abated taxes for new home owners and thereby reduced revenue for education, eliminated low-income housing, and done nothing that I can tell to help those who are struggling with issues of poverty, our city leaders should get to say that the public school system is responsible for curing all of the attendant problems that result from that. There are a lot of impoverished kids who are being taught to succeed, and there are others who aren't. Parents get no share of the blame, it is all the schools' fault!
So no, as a parent with kids in the SLPS I don't feel shortchanged on their education at all. If there are kids who aren't taking advantage of the opportunity being offered to them to receive a free public education, that is their fault and that of their family. Not the district's.
I agree that the school board between 2003-2007 was incompetent. It was replaced, effectively, this past April when elections were held and the majority of seats on the Board became held by parents of kids in the district who have a clue and care deeply. That, in my opinion, was the change we needed.
6/22/2007 9:39 AM
Anon. at 9:39
That was the opinion of the majority of voters in the city as well...TWICE!
But who gives a damn about the voice of the people?
6/22/2007 10:15 AM
One thing everyone has conveniently forgotten--NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY, WHETHER THE COURTS, THE STATE OR EVEN THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS AND UNSEAT AN ELECTED BOARD. WHILE THE STATE MAY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO STRIP A DISTRICT OF IT'S ACCREDITATION; IT HAS NEVER HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TAKE OVER A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT POWERS NOT RESERVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVT. OR THE STATES ARE RELEGATED TO THE LOCAL GOVT. AND/OR THE PEOPLE. I BELIEVE IT'S THE NINTH AMENDMENT, BUT DON'T QUOTE ME--I'LL CHECK THAT LATER AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY. KENT KING, THE GOVERNOR, THE MAYOR AND THE LEGISLATOR HAVE ALL VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF THE VOTERS AND SET A DESPICABLE EXAMPLE IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN. HOW CAN WE PREACH TO OTHERS ABOUT DEMOCRACY, WHEN WE DON'T LIVE IN ONE? I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE RECALLED.
TEACH FOR FREEDOM
6/22/2007 12:24 PM
Anon. at 9:39 asked which old board I was referring to.
It is not simply one board, but the boards that have been elected over the past through years. The most recently elected board has not had a chance to show that they would do anything differently than previously failed boards, and there isn't any indication that, left to their own devices, they would be any more capable than the previously failed boards.
One disturbing factor is the reluctance to admit that there is a problem, as indicated by the comment that "I don't think test scores are meaningless since many SLPS students are scoring very well on them (gasp! not that you would know."
Of course some would be some who would learn, even in the most incompetent system. That does not excuse the fact that overall, the test scores are poor and that a great many students are being hurt by the system.
Instead of dealing with the problem, Anon. at 9:39
discounts that there is a problem (because some survive the system despite no matter what) at the same time that Anon. at 9:39 blames it all on the parents, or the kids, or anyone except the school system responsible for that education. With such thinking, it is no wonder that school system has failed so miserably.
You can't solve the problem if you are constantly denying that there is a problem while simultaneously saying it must be somebody else's fault.
No wonder that the State had to take over.
6/22/2007 12:37 PM
Anon. at 12:24 PM shouted that "THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT POWERS NOT RESERVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVT. OR THE STATES ARE RELEGATED TO THE LOCAL GOVT. AND/OR THE PEOPLE."
Correction: It is the tenth amendment, not the ninth, and it does not stat that powers not reserved by the States are relegated to the "Local Government" and/or the people.
Instead, it states "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."
Local governments do not get their power from the U.S. Constitution. Instead, any power they have comes from Article 6 of the Missouri Constitution.
6/22/2007 1:11 PM
Mr. Schaal said: "...at least do we agree that the students were being shortchanged as to their education? Or are you going to say that test scores are meaningless and they were getting a perfectly good education?"
Ever since No Child Left Behind, the definition of "education" has been reworked to mean something it is not. The primary assumption of the new definition is that intellectual learning can be separated from physical, emotional and social learning, and that it is unaffected by them.
In fact, psychology has long pointed out that there is a hierarchy within humans about these types of learning. Physical needs are most basic, emotional and social learning is higher up. Intellectual ability is at the top. According to established psychological science, human beings who have deficits in the lower areas cannot attain to their potential in the higher realms.
With the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government eliminated all historical human knowledge of the multifaceted components of learning, and put all of the focus on intellectual learning, declaring that it operated in isolation from the other factors. They packaged this radical departure from accepted research in the phrase "every child can learn", and encouraged the belief that this meant that they could learn intellectually at the same rate and level regardless of their physical, emotional and social conditions.
The law holds schools alone responsible for making sure that established levels of intellectual achievement take place, and absolves government of any responsibility for providing the physical, emotional and social support systems necessary for intellectual achievement to happen.
The law instituted measures for intellectual achievement applied equally to every district everywhere, and began to declare that students from schools that did not achieve certain levels had "substandard schools". This is never tied to the substandard support for the physical, emotional and social needs of the children put forth by the government. All the responsibility is placed on the teachers and the schools.
In all of this, there are the voices of the educators saying, "Wait a minute. This makes no sense." But no one is listening. Perhaps everyone is eager to believe that urban children can become brilliant students just by changing the teachers, schools or textbooks. The collected human knowledge about how we learn says otherwise. Simply stated, it says that intellectual achievement rests like the top of a pyramid on physical, emotional and social factors, over which governments--not schools--have control.
6/22/2007 4:50 PM
Ariel says:
> According to established
> psychological science, human
> beings who have deficits in the
> lower areas cannot attain to
> their potential in the higher
> realms.
Maslow asserted something like this, but although Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs makes some intuitive sense, it should never be confused with established science.
Maybe there's been some other work though. Can you provide a couple of peer-reviewed citations?
> intellectual achievement rests
> like the top of a pyramid on
> physical, emotional and social
> factors, over which governments--
> not schools--have control.
Uhhhhhh. No. Unless you want to say that the government should remove children from parents who cannot or will not provide your "foundation", the parents have primary control of these factors in our society. We permit this in (some) extreme cases: do you say that the scope should be expanded?
t
6/22/2007 6:14 PM
ariel tries to rationalize the school board failure by trying to blame "No Child Left Behind." While that program has flaws in implementation, one thing that it does right is that it quantifies the level of education. Teachers unions and school administrators might deny that there is a problem, but the test scores definitely show that major problems exist.
Not every kid is brilliant, and not every parent is involved in the kid’s education, but the school districts exist primarily to educate children in those districts. They are not the only ones having responsibility for education, but education is their primary responsibility.
That is why they were created, and that is why are financed, and that is why teachers are hired and paid. Education is their primary responsibility, and the recent test scores have shown that they have not carried out that responsibility. They have not carried out the reason for their existence.
Rather than recognizing that the poor test scores shows that problems exist, ariel either denies the existence of those problems or implies that the school system has no responsibility in the matter.
With thinking like that, no wonder the State had to get involved.
6/22/2007 7:05 PM
TL: Typical of those who want studies done to prove what should be common sense. I will, however look up some references for you.
As to your other comment, I did not mean to imply that parents have no responsibility in their children's development. My focus was to contrast the roles of schools and the government. While parents surely shape every area of child development, schools are primarily tasked with intellectual development. When one understands that this development does not take place in a vacuum, but is affected by physical, emotional and social development, it becomes clear why schools should not be judged on the basis of development over which they have no control.
Governments exist to provide for the physical safety and social welfare of the people. When governments fail to provide safe, healthy living conditions and social support systems for the people who are in most desperate need, their children suffer in their physical, emotional and social development in ways that negatively impact their intellectual achievement. Rather than pretend these factors do not influence intellectual outcomes, the government should be working WITH the schools toward the fuller development of the children in all aspects of their lives. Schools do not implement jobs programs, staff social work organizations, fight crime in the neighborhoods. There are many things the government could and should be doing to improve student achievement. Instead, they are playing school.
Mr. Schaal: You have not even taken the time to understand the political dynamics of "the board" you lament over the last decade. I sincerely hope you will take the time to educate yourself about the political twists that have taken place. In the present situation it only shows ignorance to lump "the board" into a single entity.
As for "denying that there is a problem", you have missed my entire point. There is a very HUGE problem. It is just not the problem the government has chosen to make you look at. It is literally as if a child with broken legs is being required to run a race against sound children, and they are blaming the child's running coach because he cannot keep up. And when the coach asks for help to heal the child's legs, a consulting firm is brought in to reteach the coach how to do his job, and millions of dollars go to running shoes companies. Think about it.
6/22/2007 10:19 PM
Ariel: I find amazing is that you talk about schools and government as if they are two completely different things. It is as if you were unaware that public schools systems are part of the government, and school districts are governmental structures.
Maybe you were merely being sloppy in your use in the English language but please clarify whether or not you realize that school districts are governmental districts and that school boards are governmental bodies.
Also please clarify whether or not you accept that schools bare ANY responsibility for the education of children. Your statements seem to imply that otherwise.
Your analogy of the coach and the kid with the broken legs is a strange one, since it implies that the children in the St. Louis school system are so broken that they incapable of learning. Such an implication does a disservice to those children.
6/22/2007 10:45 PM
Ariel writes:
> Typical of those who want
> studies done to prove what
> should be common sense.
It is common sense. If you mean common sense tells us... do not say according to established psychological science.... You brought up science making Maslow-ish noises, and Maslow didn't do any science. Maybe you have some actual science though, and I'd love to see it.
Mr. Schall reacts with the same dismay I had expressed on the level of educational readiness of (undifferentiated) "children" in the SLPS, and reaches the same conclusion I had about what that must mean. But it isn't that the children are innately incapable of learning — its that too often they're not supported in the activity, and sometimes actively discouraged from it by the people with the most influence in their lives.
I have asked around, and anecdotally at least Ariel's main point is mainly true for somewere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the children in the SLPS System. This is shocking to me, but apparently true enough: it seems that many, many parents are so very disengaged from the educational process in which their own children are involved that there is at best indifference and at worst hostility to it. They don't ask "Is your homework done?" when the kid wants to play Nintendo (or whatever). They may say "Do you think you're smarter than I am?" when the kid knows something the mom (or uncle) doesn't. There's much more to it than this, but it gets at the flavor. Or so I am told. We have had evidently a couple or three illiterate generations now in a world where literacy is increasingly rewarded, but where its also possible to live an illiterate life and not starve, and a popular culture that denigrates it. In this world, most kids would not be internally motivated to make the effort. (Yes, I realize there is a great debate over the notion of literacy itself. I am using the term in the sense ED Hirsch used it, which I think is common sense.)
Whether she knows the term or not, Ariel is asking for a risk-adjustment when comparing educational outcomes. This is completely reasonable: we do risk-adjusted metrics in medicine all the time when comparing doctors' performance, and its beginning to extend to hospitals too. She thinks its unfair to say the SLPS System is "bad" because its students perform on average below the average Missouri district. She's right. NCLB does not do risk-adjusted metrics.
There are politics involved in what's going on here — I get that Ariel sees it in terms of greedy non-governmental organizations wanting to clamp onto the teat of "public funds" pure and simple, and that taxes collected for education are rightfully the property of the government-run schools.
I think its more nuanced than that. I don't want right now to write an essay about it, so I'll just say that School Choice seems to be the preference of at least a large plurality of the public, in part because they see it working just fine in post-secondary education. If you can get a Pell grant, a federally-subsidized student loan, or spend Veteran's Administration education subsidies at the college or vocational school of your choice, then why can you not have a subsidy at the elementary school of your choice?
One can understand how 1/2 to 2/3 of parents would not want their children schooled in an environment where so many children are so "unsupported" at home as described previously, and would choose a different environment for them if they could.
If this takes hold it will certainly change the character and maybe the mission of government run schools in urban areas at least. I wonder whether School Choice will create a political climate under which public support for increased public funding for education and other social services would grow. I hope so for the sake of the 10 - 15,000 kids in the SLPS System who evidently are in desperate need of adult supervision.
t
6/23/2007 11:08 PM
Tom Leith said about Ariel:
"She thinks its unfair to say the SLPS System is "bad" because its students perform on average below the average Missouri district. She's right. NCLB does not do risk-adjusted metrics."
So are we at least in agreement that currently an average student finishing school in St. Louis is less ready for college or other education that other school districts?
Does the school system have any responsibility of those poor results, or are they not in the business of educating our youth?
6/24/2007 8:43 AM
Mr. Schall asks two questions...
Q1: Yes, of course. Nobody seriously questions this.
Q2: Mu. The question is premised on a false assumption and on a false dichotomy, the identification of which are left to the reader as an excercise.
t
6/24/2007 12:41 PM
Okay, let me rephrase the question.
What responsibility, if any, does the school system have for the education of child in their district?
If there is any responsibility, what part do they play in any failures in education?
If there is not responsibility, what is their reason for existence?
6/24/2007 2:51 PM
Mr. Schall asks:
> What responsibility, if any,
> does the school system have
> for the education of child in
> their district?
> If there is any responsibility,
> what part do they play in any
> failures in education?
In my own view, it is the responsibility of any school or school system to assist parents in their responsibility to appropriately educate their own children. Its a little horse-and-water: if adequate assistance is made available to the parents, the school had discharged its responsibility.
This answer begs the question of adequacy, and begs the question of what shall be done with or for children whose parents fail to make adequate (or even the least) effort in this respect.
Since some parents, in the city evidently quite a significant fraction, fail in this, where shall the responsibility fall? We seem to have said it falls to the (government run) schools, but they are still organized around assumptions of family life that too often do not exist.
One problem we have in assessing the performance of a school right now is that the metrics are poor — they presume an "average" student body. The city schools haven't got one.
It does concern me that Metro, even with selective admissions, does not beat the state averages by more than a tick. And the state averages are not impressive either. But maybe the best they're able to do is select a nearly "average" student body from the available population and under their other constraints, and then perform "adequately" well. It could be that even with selectivity the student body is at far greater than average risk for poor outcomes, and the faculty perform superbly. There is simply no way for us to know.
t
6/24/2007 9:32 PM
Tim Leith said...
"One problem we have in assessing the performance of a school right now is that the metrics are poor — they presume an 'average' student body. The city schools haven't got one."
Tim,
You assume that the student body is below average. An equal case be that the teaching body is below average, or maybe both are below average.
One of the things that bothers me most about the situation is how the teachers union and the old board pretend like they had no impact (positive or negative) in the situation.
The teachers seem to be too interested in avoiding blame than doing anything constructive about the matter.
No wonder the State had to move in.
6/24/2007 11:41 PM
Mr. Schaal said:
> You assume that the student
> body is below average.
With respect to family and other cultural supports for academic achievement, not innate ability, yes I do. The anecdotal evidence I have seems to point that way, as do some metrics, howsoever crude they may be. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.
> The teachers seem to be too
> interested in avoiding blame
> than doing anything constructive
> about the matter.
So do the parents: 1/3 to 1/2 of them, according to what I have been told. Looked at another way, all of them are. Try selling that politically. Its much easier to blame the teachers.
The teachers are pretty much powerless to make structural changes. But there are some structural changes I think they do not want.
I think many (most??) public school teachers and administrators tolerate private education because the Supreme Court found in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) that they have to. With Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann they believe it best that kids are educated primarily by the government, not their parents. So, what the Government School Establishment could not coerce by threat of jail, they have coerced by economic means; arrogating to the government schools any and all government subsidies for education, and screaming bloody murder if it is threatened. This is typical behavior in any political economy.
I think the tide of public opinion is turning in favor of small-d democratic School Choice, and perhaps we will end up with a model more along the lines of Germany's. In Missouri I think the apparent failure of the SLPS is being used as a pretext for this development (i.e. Ariel is right about that).
> No wonder the State
> had to move in.
I think the state "had" to move in to make big Structural Changes. The SLPS System could not garner sufficient political support to accomplish its mission, and for a variety of political and ideological reasons cannot through the ordinary means be organized differently so as to attract support and simultaneously meet the needs of the kids. Structural Change is politically a very tough thing, and is what the state's board may be able to accomplish over the objections of the many who profit by the current arrangement. I am not very optimistic about it, but we shall see.
t
6/25/2007 9:28 AM
Mr. Schaal said: "You assume that the student body is below average. An equal case be that the teaching body is below average, or maybe both are below average."
You are wrong about this. Compare achievement scores for minorities and free/reduced lunches between the city and county schools on the dese website. You will find that city schools outperform county schools in educating these populations. It's not the teachers.
You also said "One of the things that bothers me most about the situation is how the teachers union and the old board pretend like they had no impact (positive or negative) in the situation."
This is just blatantly false. The teachers and union and the current board have consistently argued that we have made positive strides since the elections in April 2006, and that the old board before them was responsible for most of the problems we have had. I think you are arguing just to hear yourself.
As to your opinion of my "broken legs" analogy..."it implies that the children in the St. Louis school system are so broken that they incapable of learning. Such an implication does a disservice to those children."
Mr. Schaal, many children in St. Louis ARE so broken they cannot concentrate, sit still, keep their anger under control, remember things, follow directions or interact with others cooperatively. Do YOU think that impacts how well they do on MAP tests? I think the greater disservice to these children is to pretend their pain, fear, worry and struggle do not exist, and do not affect their lives and learning.
As far as knowing the difference between schools and government, DO YOU? The government FUNDS schools. Schools are not the government any more than any other institution the government funds IS the government. And for the record, the government isn't supposed to run the schools. Locally elected school boards are.
6/25/2007 2:31 PM
TL: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my point of view. I appreciate that you have endeavored to understand my point that there are significant factors in a child's home and societal environment that can and do affect his academic achievement, over which schools have little or no control.
I did look up some references on research done related to Maslow's work . There are a large number of scholarly articles and research that support his theory in the fields of psychology, sociology, medicine and education. My best advice is to go to Ask.com and type in “effect of poverty on learning”. A lot of good ones come up there. You can also find information by looking for the work of specific researchers: Aronoff 1967 critiqued Maslow, Sophia Catsambis & Andrew Beveridge did specific research on neighborhood poverty’s affect on math achievement. Also check out Alderfer’s ERG theory, which is kind of an update of Maslow.
I guess it is a matter of interpretation whether Maslow’s work is scientific or not. He did collaborate with other researchers and he did do anecdotal research in developing his theory: "...My 'data' were gathered through twelve years of psychotherapeutic work and research and twenty years of personality study. One obvious control research...was on the effect of replacement therapy which showed, with many complexities, that when these deficiencies were eliminated, sicknesses tended to disappear." Toward a Psychology of Being (p. 27) It is not insignificant to also note that Maslow's work is foundational to the study of psychology and education, and remains an essential pillar of higher education in those fields.
Given the fact that psychology and education HAVE LONG KNOWN physical, emotional and social factors are involved in intellectual learning, doesn't it give you pause to wonder why some form of "metrics" was not employed in NCLB from the beginning? Doesn't it also give you pause that something that is so intuitive and common-sensical as that urban life issues affect learning has been so eagerly ignored by the public in favor of a “blame the teachers and schools” mentality? It makes me wonder what other forms of common sense we have been "encouraged" to ignore by those in power.
Unfortunately, I have to concur with your anecdotal evidence that there are a very large number of children in St. Louis for whom parent support is just not there. The realities of poverty, crime and urban decay are too much for many parents themselves to handle, let alone provide any kind of stability for their children’s intellectual development.
These are REAL issues that do not go away just because a school system is restructured. And I maintain that they are issues that fall within the scope and power of governmental responsibility, not that of schools. I also maintain that until these things are dealt with in meaningful ways, no significant change in urban student achievement can or will occur.
6/25/2007 3:38 PM
Ariel,
When you first misused the term "government," I thought you were being merely sloppy with the English language but now it appears you really do believe that schools are not part of the government. As a lawyer, I am appalled that someone claiming to teach children could be so misinformed. Let me give you a basic summary of what you have known from elementary school.
You live under a federal system of government, consisting of a national government and state governments. Under the U.S. Constitution, the national government and the state governments have separate powers, some of which overlap. For instance, both have the authority to make laws. If there is conflict between national law and state law (also called "federal law), then national law usually prevails.
Both the national government and the state governments have executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Basically, the legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch carries out the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law to particular fact patterns in litigation. Most governmental workers are in the executive branch, which in the federal government includes not only the President and his staff, but also the military, IRS, FDA, EPA, the Post Office, and a host of other administrative agencies. Workers in those agencies are governmental workers, even if they don't pass laws
The Missouri state government is bound by both the US and Missouri constitutions. Local governments, such as the City of St. Louis and the various school boards, are creatures of the Missouri constitution, and have no powers separate from what is delegated from the state. The St. Louis school system is a governmental system that derives its powers from the State.
In Missouri, you have public schools and private schools. The difference between the two is that public schools are part of the governmental apparatus and the private schools are not. The teachers in public schools are part of the government, even though they are not in the governing part of the government. The fact that you didn't know that is indicative that the standards for St. Louis public school teachers must be REALLY low.
If you are indicative of the St. Louis schoolteachers, no wonder the system needed to be taken over by the State.
6/25/2007 5:08 PM
Tom Leith said...
"I think the state "had" to move in to make big Structural Changes. The SLPS System could not garner sufficient political support to accomplish its mission, and for a variety of political and ideological reasons cannot through the ordinary means be organized differently so as to attract support and simultaneously meet the needs of the kids. Structural Change is politically a very tough thing, and is what the state's board may be able to accomplish over the objections of the many who profit by the current arrangement. I am not very optimistic about it, but we shall see."
I agree with you that the takeover was necessary to implement any change to save the system.
My problem with the teachers union and the likes of Ariel is that, in the takeover issue, they support the status quo, which clearly wasn't working.
I share you pessimism on this matter, but with this change their chances have improved from nearly impossible to highly unlikely.
6/25/2007 5:25 PM
Ariel writes:
> the government isn't supposed
> to run the schools. Locally
> elected school boards are.
But Ariel! For the time being at least, the state does not fund just any schools; it funds government schools. Public school boards are creations of the State of Missouri, and their members are elected just like any other elected government official is. Mr. Schaal is right — the government does run the public schools. I think you want to look at the State of Missouri as a sort of Sugar Daddy to provide money and otherwise leave you alone. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way anymore. Back in the day when a majority of households had school-age children it might've, but no more.
> I guess it is a matter of
> interpretation whether Maslow’s
> work is scientific or not.
I quite agree, but even Maslow knew that his 'data' (as he himself apparently put it) wouldn't pass scientific muster. And I agree its not insignificant that his work undergirds so much of the study of
psychology and education. We simply reach opposite conclusions about what that means. Thank you for the names of some papers though — I'll have to read a couple of them to see what they say. For now I will note that proving a negative correlation between SES (socio-economic status) and math skills does not prove that there is a Hierarchy of Needs.
> doesn't it give you pause to
> wonder why some form
> of "metrics" was not employed
> in NCLB from the beginning?
I think its politically impossible to propose a risk adjustment scheme that works, and that's why it isn't done. Doing a logistic regression on "Subsidized Meals" really measures "family income" and that's a pretty crude predictor of the factors you're concerned about. But its the only thing that can be used because its about the only thing its politically OK to measure at the school district level.
As for the rest of your "whys" I think I have said what I have to say a post or two ago. There is a convergence of forces operating now, and you're smack-dab in the middle of it. The only real disagreement between you and me is whether the state should subsidize "education" or whether it should fund only "government schools".
t
6/25/2007 6:18 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
6/26/2007 1:53 AM
hmmm.
Ernest Schaal said...about ariel...
"If you are indicative of the St. Louis schoolteachers, no wonder the system needed to be taken over by the State."
You might be right in the point you made about teachers being part of the government. I guess the janitors are, and the cooks---unless they are being outsourced as part of the free enterprise system. I am not sure about the status of some of the charter school teachers, hired by private corporations. Considering the amount of taxes payed to corporations like Halliburton (and Roberti for that matter) there is a lot of gray area about who is government and who is not.
One day Charles Brennan did a ten minute sermon on KMOX about how bad the district was because a student was quoted as saying "The mayor wasn't giving us no eye contact".
He was technically correct--the grammar was wrong. (never mind that it gave him a pass on dealing with the actual issues that day--never mind that it was about as bad a language mistake as Senator Prior using the verb "snuck" that day.)
So now you want to use this thing about teachers and schools being the government as proof that a state takeover was justified and Ariel is unfit as a teacher.
Just my opinion----ariel isn't crude like I am from time to time---your asinine, disproportionate rant revealed more about how fucking stupid you are than anything else.
6/26/2007 1:53 AM
6/26/2007 1:56 AM
Kjoe.
I agree with one thing that you said: Ariel does not share your use of crudeness and vulgarity.
You asked what significance there was that Ariel didn't understand basic civics about the nature of government. It is significance in two ways.
First, it is significant as an indication of the minimum standards used in employing teachers within the St. Louis school district.
Second, the lack of understanding about the position of public schools in government affects Ariel's understanding of the issues involved in the decertification process.
6/26/2007 2:59 AM
Mr. Schaal: I did not respond to your "schools vs. government" issue because I considered it to be a symantic argument, and there were more important issues to address. Now that you have turned it into an attack on my professional competence, I will respond.
I am well educated in and aware of the structure of government, as well as the fact that schools are not just funded by "government", but operate as governmental entities. I did not imagine it could cause such misunderstanding to speak of the division of responsibilities between the roles of governing bodies vs. the governmental entities they create and oversee. I apologize for confusing anyone. Here is what I meant:
There are different responsibilities delegated to different governmental entities by governing bodies. Schools have a primary responsibility for academic education. There are other governmental entities which are primarily tasked with public health, welfare and safety ie: health departments, departments of children and family services, unemployment services, medicare, medicaid, police departments, etc.
When I speak of "government" failing in its role to provide for the health, welfare and safety of children and society, I mean that the governing bodies--executive, legislative and judicial branches of federal, state and local government--have failed to delegate the necessary resources, leadership and commitment to adequately address these issues through support of designated governmental entities, programs and legislation.
The responsibility for establishing proper support and structure for accomplishing the goals of governmental entities of all kinds lies with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of federal, state and local governments, not with schools. Public schools are another governmental entity like those listed. It is quite proper that those governing bodies hold schools accountable for providing sound instruction, fiscal responsibility, compliance with law, etc. My objection arises when student academic achievement becomes the primary standard by which schools are assessed.
My point was that I believe research on psychology and education, and certainly common sense, supports the idea that children who are not healthy, emotionally stable or safe are seriously hampered in their ability to learn and perform intellectual tasks. This means that in order to reach their academic potential, their health, welfare and safety must be addressed as well as their academic instruction.
Under NCLB, urban schools are judged on the academic performance of their students while the children's significant physical, social and emotional needs are neglected by their parents and/or society. I believe this sets urban schools up for an artificial brand of "failure", because in order to raise academic achievement, schools MUST mitigate physical, social and emotional issues over which they have no control and for which they receive little or no support. This support should come from the governmental bodies that are holding schools accountable, but instead, they are not holding themselves accountable for their responsibilities to schools or to other governmental entities they have created and tasked with mitigating these factors.
It is at least common sense that in order for children to reach their academic potential, they must feel safe, be fed, have their physical needs attended to, have some emotional stability and experience some respite from excessive fear and worry due to the societal burdens of poverty. Homes free of lead paint, drugs and violence would be a start. If governmental bodies are going to hold schools accountable for academic achievement, they must either adequately address these issues through other governmental entities, or provide schools with the necessary staff and resources to do so. These other issues do not go away just because they are not put into the equation.
I believe this is the REAL objection teachers have to "takeovers". It's not so much about commitment to the "status-quo" as frustration that we cannot even get these issues on the table. Making changes to the academic setting addresses only one aspect of a child's learning process. Children learn all the time, everywhere, good and bad. They learn to cope with and survive in the environments they live in. Teachers know that for academic achievement to improve, ALL aspects of children's needs must be addressed.
It creates a lot of resentment in teachers to be giving superhuman effort to meet these children's physical, emotional and social needs ourselves in order to help them learn better, and then be told--by those who SHOULD be finding ways to meet those needs--that the reason the children don't do better is because WE are not doing OUR job.
6/26/2007 2:09 PM
Thank you for the clarifications, not only in your understanding that schools are in fact part of the government but also that teachers do have some responsibility for education.
The Internet is a very imprecise means of communication. Not only is there the lack of audio and visual cues to help one communicate, there is a lack of knowledge of who we are talking to. All I know about you is what I have read on PUB-DEF.
When you continually refused to admit that teachers have any responsibility for education, I naturally assumed that you actually believed that they have no responsibility. When you were so emphatic that schools are not part of the government, I naturally assumed that you believed what you said. How could I do otherwise?
There are plenty of intelligent people on the Internet, but there are also plenty of not so intelligent people who believe that you don't have to pay income tax if you don't use zip codes. I thought I was dealing with someone who couldn't grasp basic concepts, like grade school civics or the role of teachers. Thank you for your clarifications that show that this is not the case.
After your clarifications, I find that we are not that far apart. As I stated before, I consider the main responsibility for teachers is to educate, but they are not the only ones with that responsibility. For instance, the parents have responsibilities in this matter, the school administration has responsibilities, the state legislature has responsibilities, and kids have responsibilities.
Test scores reflect the current state of the school system, reflecting not only on the teachers, but also on the kids, the parents, the local school districts, and the state government in general. Recent scores in St. Louis confirm the fact that St. Louis schools have a problem, and that problem has got to be fixed.
My problem with the teachers union was not that they weren't doing their jobs as teachers, but that they resisted the takeover, preferring the previous school board. The status quo wasn't working.
I found that self-defeating, as the state was saying that St. Louis education was now the state's problem. What better way of getting resources for the schools than making the state take a more active role?
With the takeover, continuing failure of the school system would reflect badly not only on St. Louis but also on the state as a whole.
6/26/2007 4:49 PM
I thought he had it until the last 4 paragraphs. Ariel, you are wasting your breath.
6/26/2007 5:44 PM
Well, don't bother, you are probably correct but I have to try....
Mr. Schaal, there are absolutely NO extra resources being devoted to the city schools as a result of the takeover. None. Prove me wrong if you can, I'd love it.
The April election was a flat out REJECTION of the status quo. It finally solidified a Board with a majority of the members having kids in the schools and determined to support a worthy superintendent, address disciplinary issues (which the 2003 majority exacerbated by closing alternative schools), and turn this mess around. You say there is no reason to believe they would have done any better. They already have done better. Their meetings were civil (with the exception of O'Brien), they did not vote in lockstep but show independent thought, and they voted to begin alternative schooling again for kids who need it so they are not disrupting the other students. They had only 2 months.
I've watched the way this state has been run under the current governor and cannot believe anyone could believe that he could do a better job with our kids than local, concerned parents can. Missouri as a whole ranks almost at the bottom of the states in how its children are treated. The fact that children outside the city may be looking like they are doing a little better doesn't mean they are doing well. But I suppose that is another post.
What has the appointed board done that makes them deserving of our support? If the elected board can be judged as undeserving of it so dismissively, I'd like to know what it is about this process that inspires such confidence. The fact that it is political patronage doesn't do it for me.
6/26/2007 7:12 PM
The problem for the new board was that it came into too late. The change occurred after it was announced that the district was going to be decertified. So as a practical matter, they will never have an effective chance to prove themselves. If the change had occurred prior the announcement of decertification, that decertification might not have been necessary.
But the change did not happen prior to that announcement, and the reason it didn't is the change occurred primarily because of the shock of decertification. Without that shock, the previous board would probably have stayed in power.
It is a classic case of too little, too late, with the emphasis on being too late. Given the city's track record in this regard, I can understand the State's skepticism about the city being able to do it itself. To be blunt, the city lost credibility on this issue, and it is going to be a long, hard earning that credibility back.
If the new board is as good as you say, they should stop fighting a losing turf war, and work with the appointed board so that the district can be recertified.
6/26/2007 8:25 PM
The previous board would probably have stayed in power? Ernest, the incumbents weren't even running for re-election--perhaps because they saw their two cohorts go down in flames last year despite outspending their non-politician "just parents" opponents by tens of thousands of dollars. The supporters of the 2003 majority saw that the voters were on to them and were not going to elect people with that mindset anymore. To say the previous board would have stayed in power shows a complete lack of knowledge of the recent history of the SLPS.
6/29/2007 2:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home