By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, August 13, 2007 at 7:16 AM
The Post-Dispatch's Paul Hampel reports on the dilemma being faced by thousands of families in St. Louis City and the Riverview Gardens School District. The state says their districts are not providing a quality education, but then offers them no options and no other place to go. Labels: Schools
An attorney might ask, just what are these parents paying taxes for? And why can their tax dollars only pay for an inferior public education, while their neighbors in nearby counties receive an at-least-"adequate" (as defined by the state) public education for the same, or even less, tax dollars?
From the Post:Under Missouri law, students in unaccredited school districts such as Riverview Gardens and St. Louis can transfer to a better district in an adjoining county. And the districts they leave have to pay tuition at their new school.
Read Hampel's full story here.
The problem: Other districts don't have to admit them.
The McCoys, a family on a tight budget, can't afford private tuition. A transfer out of the district seemed like the only option for their daughters, Fernetta, 14, who wants to be an architect, and Remeika, 17, who aims to be a pediatrician.
31 Comments:
Given the facts as presented, it would appear vouchers are the only equitable alternative.
8/13/2007 8:57 AM
Private schools are not the only option.
It seems to me that a law stating that when a district is unaccredited parents have the right to send their kids to a neighboring district is worthless if those districts can for any reason simply refuse to accept those children.
The State Legislature to needs examine whether Clayton, University City, Hazelwood, etc. — all of which receive state tax dollars — have the right to refuse St. Louis and Riverview Garden districts without a good reason.
And as more and more parents turn to charter schools, the Legislature should also add measures to insure those schools are indeed offering a quality education.
There is no one solution. In a crisis like this one, with 30,000 kids left in Limbo, no single life raft can hold them all.
8/13/2007 9:21 AM
Create a district for Bill Purdy to run so he can feel important. Maybe he can hire Rick Sullivan and Jim Gant.
8/13/2007 9:31 AM
Another barrier to educating black students emerges...state recognized higher performing school districts can now refuse to accept students formerly attending lower-performing schools. Black parents may need to consider home schooling their children, if they are unable to find other options such as moving to another school district. Without question, this is another disgrace in the ongoing disparaging of educating black students.
8/13/2007 9:49 AM
With useless laws in force, at least with a voucher, a parent would have some financial resources. Right now, it appears they have nothing, except useless talk. Talk about your dashed hopes...
Case in point: a friend of ours had their son graduate a city charter school. They tried for a Metro High admission, but their wasn't a space for him.
They tried for an Affton High School admission, and we're refused.
So now he's enrolled in a private school, at the family's expense.
I guess the main winner here is the SLPS: one less student, and the family's tax money still being paid in to the district.
8/13/2007 10:07 AM
This is why the prior comment was right about that Purdy guy. This is what he and his board are doing to black children. Now he is getting Sullivan to hire all his white friends back that were fired or have black marks on their record.
He drove this district down. Now look at our children.
8/13/2007 11:36 AM
Money being paid in Purdy's pocket under the table. I heard he is getting money from the major vendors. Thanks for all your help Blunt.
8/13/2007 11:38 AM
One interesting wrinkle on this story is that the Elected School Board begged these districts to NOT accept St. Louis children.
8/13/2007 3:19 PM
Another interesting wrinkle----let's say that you are a good student with sought after talents who lives in St. Louis and pays to go to a private school---If Clayton decides there is room for you---you can stop paying tuition, go to Clayton free, and slps has to fork over 9 or 10 thousand bucks on your behalf.
8/13/2007 3:53 PM
Is Clayton accepting city kids? (Besides those attending under the Deseg program?)
From what it sounds like in the news, NO County district is accepting (non-Deseg) kids.
Is there a definitive answer to this question?
8/13/2007 4:32 PM
I was a little surprised that (as Antonio stated) that the refusal to accept SLPS students by outlying districts was not challenged by someone.
I support the decisions of the districts who refused SLPS students but I was wondering about the legal issues. Antonio suggested the State Legislature needs to examine it. Is there any kind of legal case here? Could SLPS parents take it to court? or the State School Board? Someone else? Just asking all you legal minded individuals out there what you think.
8/13/2007 5:26 PM
Or maybe families could look at schools besides Metro. Geez, so many families in the city think Kennard/McKinley/Metro are the only schools they could send their little darlings to. Soldan educated the boy going to Harvard--just one example of a good education received at another school in the SLPS.
8/13/2007 5:28 PM
Whether or not there is a legal case here depends upon what the obligations are of the school districts to those outside the school district.
Usually, the rule is that the school districts do not have an obligation to educate those from outside the district, but the courts have imposed a limited obligation when there was deliberate segregation.
I don't know of any obligation to take students from unaccredited districts, but that does not mean that the obligation isn't buried somewhere in the law.
A more probable cause of action could be based upon the obligations of an unaccredited school district to not hamper the acceptance of its students by neighboring school districts. After all, the SLPS owes a direct obligation to its students.
8/13/2007 6:37 PM
What makes some schools good, and some schools bad. Many of us here in Riverview Gardens school district believe that the answer lies in getting all the stakeholders involved. The community. The teachers. The parents, and yes, the students. That is why we have organized Action Teams who have been meeting and working over the summer to develop plans to improve our schools. I have heard of some similar efforts in the City. The public education system in this country was built from the ground up by the community, by parents, by working class and Black people who worked hard to make sure their children got a good education regardless of how much money they had. No other richer community provided schooling to our children then, and no other community can do it "for us" now. We've got to pull together and build a good school system in each of our communities.
8/13/2007 8:01 PM
Earnest, if there was a lawsuit, I don't think the target would be the neighboring school districts, but rather the State of Missouri.
It is the State — specifically the State Board of Education — that is allowing tens of thousands of students (mostly poor and minority, mind you) to be trapped in system that the state itself says is separate, unequal and inadequate.
8/13/2007 8:27 PM
Until the state allows charters in all cities and counties, the problem will persist. But, what is the likelihood of that happening?
8/13/2007 9:15 PM
Such an action would be difficult to win, but it might be possible. My bet would be on the State to win.
One of the things that would make it so difficult to win is that the State could show that the State was stepping in, trying to make things better. (Even if those attempts fail)
Absence a showing of deliberate segregation on racial grounds, the Courts would be reluctant to second-guess the legislature.
8/13/2007 10:27 PM
Aren't city kids going to county schools through the voluntary intradistrict transfer program? If so, wouldn't that eliminate the segregation argument?
8/13/2007 10:51 PM
I agree that the segregation argument probably wouldn't hold water, especially in light of current efforts.
I mentioned it merely because it is one of the few areas of the law where the Courts will second guess the legislature on political questions.
Frankly, St. Louis has a better at trying to change the mind of legislators than by trying to Court route on this. Unfortunately, St. Louis has few friends in the State legislature.
My guess is that the best argument that St. Louis has with the rest of the State is showing that failure in St. Louis has a definite negative impact on the rest of the state.
8/13/2007 10:58 PM
Ernest continues to show his ignorance. The Courts in Missouri are never "reluctant to second-guess the legislature." Are you kidding me? Why do you think Baby Blunt is always screaming about judicial activism?
Reluctant to second-guess the legislature? Why the hell do you think campaign contribution limits were just put back in?
8/14/2007 7:55 AM
Degseg numbers are being increased. So the kids can enter the Deseg program. Think people you are not stuck. Go to the VIC office and apply.
8/14/2007 9:49 AM
You're stuck if you are white.
8/14/2007 11:38 AM
b. real commented "Reluctant to second-guess the legislature? Why the hell do you think campaign contribution limits were just put back in?"
The courts are only willing to "second guess" the legislature if a constitutional right is violated, like a violation of freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or the right of privacy. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are specifically stated in the US Constitution, and the freedom of privacy has been found to be implied.
Freedom from poverty is not yet recognized as a constitutional right, nor is uniform education throughout the state.
In the Missouri constitution, Section 1(a) of Article IX provides for maintaining free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law. It does not appear to provide constitutional protection for equal educational resources throughout the state.
In the later half of the twentieth century there was a US Supreme Court case that found that having school taxes dependent upon the local tax base, with the resultant creation of poor districts and rich districts was NOT a violation of the US constitution.
The campaign contribution limits were just put back in specifically because the Missouri overruled a lower court judge who improperly second-guessed the legislature specifically on freedom of speech grounds.
8/14/2007 1:43 PM
Earlier, I mentioned a supreme court case finding that having school taxes dependent upon the local tax base, with the resultant creation of poor districts and rich districts was NOT a violation of the US constitution.
The case is San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
"We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the three-judge panel below that 'the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society' cannot be doubted. But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause."
8/14/2007 6:16 PM
Ernest, I think the Rodriguez vs. San Antonio school distric case is a good illustration of the precarious balance which can be tipped one direction or another by one appointment. In this case, it was a very good appointment from the conservative viewpoint.
Richard Nixon and John Mitchell persuaded Judge Powell to leave his post as Board member of Phillip Morris to join the supreme court, (He had earlier turned them down), replacing Hugo Black.
Powell
Joined by: Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, Blackmun ruled against Rodriguez.
Dissent by: White
Joined by: Douglas, Brennan
Dissent by: Marshall
Kind of a liberal conservative split.
He gave us the Powell memorandum, leaked by Jack Anderson---In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements.
For a long time, the state board of ed has been a nameless faceless group------Slay and Blunt have discovered it---have found uses for it, and are appointing people in line with their concerns.
just the way it is with appointed bodies.
8/14/2007 8:33 PM
KJoe,
One thing to remember about San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez is that it is the law of the land, and has been the law of the land for over thirty years.
Yes, it also shows that Supreme Court appointees count, but remember that Earl Warren was appointed as a conservative nominee, a bigoted conservative nominee who ran for political office on an anti-Asian platform. Appointees do change their politics after being appointed, in both directions.
8/14/2007 10:11 PM
Alright,
I know I asked for the opinions of legal minded individuals...but DAMN! Jus kiddin.
Ernest,
Legal language bores the hell out of me but thanks for answering. In simple terms for a simple sob...Do you think there is a viable (potentially winnable) legal case concerning outlying districts' refusal to take SLPS students? If so...who vs. who?
(whom?)
8/14/2007 10:37 PM
Jim,
To answer your question about whether or not there is a viable (potentially winnable) legal case concerning outlying districts' refusal to take SLPS students. I don't see how the case could be won, but then I have not made a careful review of the specific law on the granting of access to those students.
If I were seriously contemplating such a lawsuit, I would be examining the law dealing with denial of accreditation and the right of students of schools losing accreditation to see if there is any stated obligation of others to take those students. If no specific obligation can be found, I doubt that constitutional-based arguments could win the day.
8/14/2007 11:21 PM
ernest---I know there were others besides Earl Warren who did not turn out to be quite what the presidents who appointed them expected, but I believe that has been less true the last couple of decades---the rodriguez law of the land would seem doubly likely to remain that way---because of the makeup of the court. Roe versus wade, also law of the land for three decades---not so sure about how completely safe it remains---
8/15/2007 1:50 AM
kJoe,
In all probability, at the end of this century Roe v. Wade and San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez will both probably be the law of the land.
Rarely are landmark cases reversed by the courts, instead they are distinguished or restricted. That is because the law is very precedent-based.
One exception to that rule is constitutional amendment, but that is very rare, only 27 amendments in over 200 years. The last time an amendment to our constitution was ratified was 1992.
8/15/2007 2:13 AM
Thanks Ernest.
8/16/2007 9:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home