Oh, Now They Ask Questions
By Antonio D. French
Just a short observation: It is with great interest that we watch recent TV news reports questioning why no one — not the state, not the appointed board, not the elected board, and certainly not parents and taxpayers — seems sure about who is in control of what in St. Louis Public Schools.
It's almost like the folks who were pushing most strongly for the state takeover never actually read
Section 1100 of Chapter 162 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, the law which authorizes the creation of this new Transitional School District.
Its lack of clarity, accountability, or an exit strategy is what most frightened many of us who opposed the takeover from the beginning.
As teachers tell students: it pays to read.
Check back later today for videos from last night's meeting of the Special Administrative Board.
UPDATE: This section of law is also pertinent. It outlines the powers and duties of the special administrative board. It includes that the elected school board "shall, at all times, retain auditing and public reporting powers."
Also, contrary to media reports, Rick Sullivan, Richard Gaines and Melanie Adams terms are for only three years, at which point they may be reappointed or replaced.
Labels: Schools
Link to this story
13 Comments:
The only "confusion" in this whole situation is that being sown by the deposed Board and Local 420. The appointed Board has the power and the old Board has none unless the courts say differently. And even that court effort is a major waste of dollars and effort that could be directed to moving the district forward in the interest of educating our children.
6/20/2007 9:43 AM
Lack of strategy or planning seems to be a common theme in intergovernmental relations.
A school board, whether run locally or by the state, will have little impact given the societal problems existing in urban America. People, especially outside the City, blame those within, when in fact their physical and fiscal exodus, that being property taxes, played a huge role.
6/20/2007 10:01 AM
The media finally reporting on the need to close the doors after the horse left the barn...what's new in ol' lou?
6/20/2007 10:31 AM
I have been wondering about the 3 year thing for a long time. June 2010. Who will be governor? Who will be mayor? Who will be president, setting educational policy and goals?
Continued strife in slps will be ignored by most, except the voters of st. louis.
Wouldn't it be ironic if MO in 2008 turned out to be like Florida of 2000----with the voting within the city of st. louis making the difference in which set of electors for president is chosen(the deciding electoral difference)---and giving the margin of victory for a democrat to defeat Blunt.
The elections of 2008---16 months away--- could could cause the 3 man board to serve 19 months as lame ducks---with governor Nixon and Mayor french anxiously awaiting the opportunity to charter a new direction, inspired by president----oh no!----Bloomberg?
I have not had enough coffee, yet.
6/20/2007 11:57 AM
"... governor Nixon and Mayor french ... I have not had enough coffee, yet."
Obviously.
6/20/2007 12:17 PM
More like Mayor McMillan.
6/20/2007 1:09 PM
Wonderful — thanks Antionio.
It seems every school district in a city not within a county (i.e. St. Louis) is "surrounded" at all times by a Transitional School District, which may or may not have a Board of Directors at the moment. The state "activates" the Transitional District by appointing a board to it. When it has a board, it excercises its powers. When it doesn't have a board, it doesn't.
In small-d democratic nirvana, if the reforms of the Transitional District "work" then an ordinary board would be elected to conserve and strengthen the reforms of the Transitional District board when it disbands.
If the Transitional District board disbands before a genuine constituency for its program develops however, the elected board will do its best to undo any reform that tends to limit its own influence. It will do this anyway, but will have a greater latitude without a genuine constituency for the reforms.
So, can the Transitional District board remain in place long enough to:
1) Devise a practicable program,
2) Implement it, and
3) Develop a constituency for it?
I think this will take 8 - 12 years after implementation. And so I doubt it, especially given the climate vis a vis the elected board and Local 420. The Progressivism presumed by Section 162.1100 and required to provide leadership in spite of a campaign of negative publicity simply doesn't exist in the state. It certainly doesn't exist in the city.
What I think will happen is that the elected board will work at all times in opposition to the Transitional District's board and try to get itself (re)elected on the platform of undoing all the nasty, undemocratic reforms imposed by those dirty, appointed carpetbaggers regardless of whether they improve things. This campaign will probably succeed given the low voter turnout in the city and general apathy towards the public school district by the members of the public who are not employed by the district.
We are living Jefferson's nightmare.
t
6/20/2007 2:44 PM
Auditing and public reporting. SAB should not mind letting the elected board be their secretary.
6/20/2007 10:22 PM
No need to go to court. French has solved it all.
6/20/2007 10:28 PM
I find it interesting that everyone posts about the elected board as if it is an entity with one mind. Anyone who has met any of them or gone to meetings knows there are seven very different people involved here, and to speak of the "Board" is a homogenous entity is nonsense. Fowler and O'Brien, for example, have been supportive of the state takeover from the beginning, yet posters continue to speak of the "Board" as antagonistic to the transitional board.
6/21/2007 10:14 AM
> to speak of the "Board" is
> a homogenous entity is nonsense
Good point. I may be guilty of a cognitive bias — confirmation bias maybe, or selective perception, or maybe the Von Restorff "stands out like a sore thumb" effect. Dunno.
We'll have to see what persuades the voters (as distinct from the electorate).
Thanks for the comment. We all have our biases and its best to be aware of them.
t
6/21/2007 10:48 AM
TL: You had to bring up Jefferson...
I think you are right that this state takeover would be Jefferson's nightmare, but I'm sure it's not for the same reason. I think he would be appalled at the idea of state level appointees running a local school system:
"... I think ward elections better for many reasons, one of which is sufficient, that it will keep elementary education out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers, who, in county elections, would be universally chosen, and the predominant sect of the county would possess itself of all its schools."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, 1820. ME 15:293
Jefferson's "fanaticizing preachers" could be interpreted as the right-wing groups seeking to dismantle public education today in order to impose their own agendas on the nation's children. Such groups have heavily funded our state level politicians. Here Jefferson argues that keeping school politics local avoids such pitfalls.
Politicians elected by the state at large, whose citizens' perspectives are fundamentally different from those of the citizens of St. Louis, have imposed their will upon the governance of the city's schools.
6/21/2007 12:59 PM
Ariel writes:
> I think you are right that this
> state takeover would be
> Jefferson's nightmare
Maybe Jefferson would be apalled by the state's actions, but his nightmare is an apathetic, uneducated demos coupled with a democratic form of government.
t
6/21/2007 3:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home