By Gabe Bullard
Filed Friday, September 28, 2007 at 9:37 AM
According to a news release, 30,729 students are currently enrolled in St. Louis Public Schools. On the first day of school this year, 22,793 students showed up for class.
|
"Best Blogger" — St. Louis Magazine Featured on
"One of the Most SUPPORT PUBDEF.NET Your $7.00 monthly contribution will go a long way to helping us expand the coverage and services you enjoy. GET THE LATEST PUBDEF NEWS 24/7: ABOUT PUB DEF PUB DEF is a non-partisan, independent political blog based in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Our goal is to cast a critical eye on lawmakers, their policies, and those that have influence upon them, and to educate our readers about legislation and the political processes that affect our daily lives. CONTACT US Do you have a press release, news tip or rumor to share? editor@pubdef.net Tips are always 100% Confidential
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 SLPS Enrollment Announced
|
|
|
21 Comments:
Yeah!
3 out of every 4 parents who send their kids to SLPS managed to get the most precious thing in their lives to school that day. Maybe we could have had more if we gave away TVs again...
Is there any wonder why their kids can't read and write?
I'd be so proud.
9/28/2007 1:19 PM
CWEguy,
Do you have any idea how hot those unairconditioned brick buildings were for the first 2 weeks of school? I know a lot of very concerned parents who kept their kids home for health reasons, not just the first day but many thereafter.
Parents who don't care just don't care. But parents who do care care about health as well as education. Hopefully the administration learned a lesson and will start school later next year.
9/28/2007 1:35 PM
finally, as I predicted back in August. Somebody is going nuts at KMOX---about the 74 percent on that educationally "vital" first unairconditioned day----and the question I asked before, during, and after the first day goes unasked by the media, and unanswered for me or anyone else. I even wrote to Dr. Bourisaw---(I could understand if she has me on a list of questionable characters to whom you do not respond)
WHAT WAS THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF ATTENDANCE FOR 2005-2006 FOR THE ENTIRE 175 DAYS, COMPARED TO THAT OF 2006-2007?
9/28/2007 5:21 PM
Great "fresh start" there, takeover guys! Obviously the state is so much better at this than that stupid elected board!
9/28/2007 6:18 PM
No wonder the SAB didn't want the first day attendance figures released!
9/28/2007 7:49 PM
kjoe:
Here is what I have been able to find out. Apparently, DESE (MO Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) does not complile attendance data on a "school year by school year basis" but on a more "calendar year to calendar year" basis. On their website under "school data and statistics" choose St. Louis Public Schools and then click on attendance data. It is correlated with financial data. Here is where I found it:
http://dese.mo.gov/schooldata/four/115115/finanone.html
The site says the data is recorded "as of Dec. 6, 2006. So I assume that the attendance rate for 2005 was compiled on or about Dec. 6 of 2005, and 2006 data was compiled on or about Dec. 6 of 2006. This seems to suggest that data for 2007 will not be compiled until on or about Dec. 6 of this year.
Kind of hard to draw any conclusions about "school year" attendance when they are not compiling it that way. If it helps, the 2005 attendance rate was 81.5, and 2006 was 83.1.
As a longtime teacher in SLPS I can tell you that beginning day data is not a good indicator of overall attendance. Air conditioning--or lack thereof--may have been a factor this year.
For the record, starting school later does not seem to be up to the district. There are test requirements for NCLB that force the issue. But then, I guess they have air conditioning in ALL of the offices in Washington D.C.
9/28/2007 10:27 PM
No, Ariel, the test requirements don't force the issue. The MAP test timing and every school trying to get a jump on everyone else by having as many days as possible before the test is the thing. But I don't think the kids learned all that much while they were standing on the playground sucking popsicles trying to survive, so it's kind of a dumb idea to start in the middle of summer.
9/28/2007 10:32 PM
Thanks, Ariel.
One thing that can be learned from the state data---there was a humongous drop in the percentage of school attendance during the Roberti era which carried over into the Williams era.
If I undersatnd the figure you gave for 2005---81.5---covered the second half of the 04-05 year, and the first half of the 05-06 year.
The second figure of 83.1 would have covered the last half of Williams' final year, and the first half of Bourisaw's year. I would guess, but could not be sure, that the 2007 portion of Bourisaw's year would have added more to the slight percentage increase------with all that was going on---mostly instigated by Mayor Slay, and the takeover fanatics---if attendance actually improved, that would be more significant than what happens on the first day. I guess we will have a better picture in December of this year----and if it trends up to 84 or 85, still not very good, it would be a nice thing for the takeover board to point to and say---"look how we are straightening out this mess." If it could be spun that way, it will probably be reported.
9/29/2007 3:03 AM
I find it simply amazing that on any given day, only 4 out of 5 students are in school.
Blame the administration, the lack of A/C, or the weather all you want. It simply comes down to the fact that the kids' so-called parents don't care. We could spend $30K per student and I don't think it would change a thing.
I know it's easier to blame someone else. But, one day, the parents are going to have to take back the responsibility for raising their children that they have ceded to the government.
9/29/2007 7:02 AM
cweguy: I'd like to add to what you've said that we could add all the student testing, new curriculums, new administrative plans and strategies, consultants, teacher testing, professional development, government mandates for improvement, political grandstanding about the importance of education and campaign promises...
and nothing will change until the home environment of these children changes. Unitl then, teachers every day do their best to make up the gap in love and care these children have as best we can. It would be nice if so many in society would stop beating up on us while we try to do it.
9/29/2007 9:51 AM
Another situation without a ready solution.
The increased pressure to perform well on standardized tests results in earlier start dates which some parents simply refuse to do. (for whatever reason)
Then, after Labor Day, more kids show up and classrooms are completely rearranged, teachers moved, students moved, etc...It all results in fairly large scale disruptions (and all the negative consequences that accompany such disruptions).
The worst thing is that you ALL are right. cwe guy is right that 3 out of 4 is nothing to be proud of. Anonymous is right about the unairconditioned buildings, kjoe is right that Dr. Bourisaw doesn't like him (just kiddin kjoe).
Until city residents are FORCED to enroll their children several weeks before school begins, the SLPS will continue to fight with attendance questions well into October.
Then, get ready for transfers back from charter schools and transfers within the SLPS for discipline problem children trying to avoid suspensions, expulsions, or the stigma attached to special education.
I hate to be a broken record or the bearer of bad news but the best possible solution is a huge increase in truancy officers working to track kids down over the summer. And of course the city is not going to pay for it...BUT ENJOY BALLPARK VILLAGE EVERYBODY!
9/29/2007 10:58 AM
Jim,
The city is already paying for it.
The parents must take responsibility for raising their children. Until that happens, we are just throwing our money away.
Ariel,
You are 100% correct. Government schools are forced to teach children (that actually make it to school) how to pass a certain standardized test. Forget about educating the kids. I don't know of one quality private school that cares about the standardized tests. That, my friends, is where the disparity of education occurs today. If you want to raise a test-taker, send your child to a government school. If you want an educated child, send him or her to a private school. Vouchers, anyone?
9/29/2007 3:51 PM
cwe guy, if private schools take vouchers of federal government money, won't they then have to follow the standardized testing mandates of the No Child Left Behind Law? My understanding of the law was that only buildings NOT getting Title I money from the fed. gov. did not have to comply with the testing regulations. That is why privates do not need to take the Missouri State tests (MAP), right? Would these vouchers be only local tax dollars? And who would be responsible for transportation? Most of the parents in my building have trouble enough getting the kids to their local school on time or at all on a given day. Would the days these students are absent mean missed funding for the private from the voucher amount the way it does for a public school? What are your thoughts on the logistics of providing this type of educational service? I am having trouble imagining a way that could make vouchers work for the students that I teach, or for that matter, the privates that accept them, as long as State or Federal taxes fund them. I also envision a frightening future for the public district if vouchers did somehow work, since it would have to exist only to serve those who return after being rejected from other settings for poor attendance, poor progress, or poor behavior (the word poor having as much to do with the underlying cause as it does the exhibited behavior) or those who were never accepted in the first place. Who would be able to teach a class with such a high needs level for every student, or would we decline to provide education for these difficult students?
9/29/2007 4:44 PM
Maybe it's time to get the Government out of the business of educating our children.
That would require parents who are responsible for their children.
9/29/2007 9:19 PM
Come on everyone! The answer for our public schools is simple!
More tax incentives for big businesses and sports teams. And then we can claim that our city is undergoing a renaissance!
9/29/2007 10:27 PM
If those tax incentives (and others) attract people with economic means, which they have, then our city will and is undergoing a renaissance.
BTW, I grew up in a suburban Chicago school district with a turbulent school board and it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my education. Having parents that made sure I was doing my homework and participating in quality activities, and living in a community that valued education were the only things I really needed to get a good education. There is an organization in Chicago(I don't know the name - just heard a relative talking about it) that runs a school for children who have performed poorly and come from bad homes. They take over every part of the child's life, sending someone to the child's home any day they don't come to school and pretty forcefully requiring parental involvement in their child's education. Apparently they have been very successful. Until public schools address all parts of a child's education, both at school and at home, many students will not be successful.
9/30/2007 12:37 PM
Oh these incentives have attracted sports teams and corporations, but how is the city budget? Is there enough money for the police? What about the fire department?
Incentives are wonderful for big business but check the city coffers. Is St. Louis overflowing with cash? It's not! Well I for one am shocked, just shocked! I thought the Rams and the Dome would help solve all our problems! Then I thought the new stadium would help solve all our problems! Well, enjoy this so-called renaissance!
9/30/2007 12:43 PM
Of course the city doesn't have enough money. That is a situation that developed because those who live in the metro area have not historically supported the city. The city has to support an infrastructure designed for twice as many people as it has. Incentives did not cause these problems. Incentives do however attract developments that make St. Louis a nicer place to live, which in turn attracts more people to live here. Getting decent people to want to live here and stay here will pretty much solve every other problem in the end.
Now how about those schools?
9/30/2007 1:52 PM
cweguy,
I agree that parents (including myslf) should take responsibility for their own children and their education. But in the real world that doesn't always happen. Easy to complain about it though.
Now we can keep wishing all we want but the fact is that there are going to be SOME parents who are unable or unwilling to do what is needed for their children. (in this case get them registered in school on time)
It takes a very cold heart to let those children fall by the wayside just because their parents aren't being as responsible as we would like.
9/30/2007 2:34 PM
...and the city is currently not paying for enough truancy officers and or social workers to make it happen. I know it would be a big expense...but money well-spent.
9/30/2007 2:36 PM
Incentives help big business, pure and simple. When the rams moved into town, did we have a big population explosion? No. What about the new stadium? Is the city's population increasing by the minute? No.
So let's see. The city schools are a mess. The police need more money. The city budget is tight. But hey, let's give some more incentives. Let's enjoy our "renaissance" or whatever spin comes out of the mayor's office.
9/30/2007 2:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home