“And might makes right,
And till they’ve seen the light,
They’ve got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.”
(With apologies to Tom Lehrer)
That pretty much sums up the theme of the Special Advisory Committee on the SLPS which met Monday, September 13th at Harris Stowe State University. A quick summary would be that the committee supports an eventual return to governance of the SLPS by an elected board but not any time soon. Two of the special advisors expressed concerns about the quality of candidates for an elected board. Civil rights attorney Frankie Freeman emphasized repeatedly that she would like candidates to be, “screened”.
The following news was reported at the meeting. The SLPS has been awarded 5 accreditation standards for this year’s preliminary Annual Progress Report from DESE. That is an increase of 2 standards from last year and one short of the 6 needed for provisional accreditation. But don‘t get your hopes up that accreditation will come any time soon.
The 5 standards met are enrollment in Advanced Courses, enrollment in Career Education courses, College Placement, Career Education Placement and a bonus point for improved performance on the MAP. This represents an improvement over last year’s 3 points which were for Advanced Placement, College Placement and the MAP bonus point. There are 14 standards in all. A district must meet 9 standards for full accreditation.
It was also reported that during their July meeting, DESE Area Supervisor Robert Taylor, mentioned that he expected it would take 4 or 5 years before the SLPS is awarded provisional accreditation. Considering that there has been a 2 point jump in one year, that was interesting. The awarding of the bonus point is at DESE’s discretion. It would appear that DESE intends to ensure that the SAB looks good but not good enough to be removed from their job any time soon.
A significant part of the meeting was dedicated to a presentation by UMSL Political Science Professor Terry Jones. Dr. Jones held focus groups with 44 randomly selected SLPS teachers and 36 randomly selected SLPS parents on Tuesday , August 17. Out of those small samples, 10 individuals were chosen to participate in discussion groups that evening to further explore issues. His report was titled, Qualitative Research Findings: Parent and Teacher Opinions Regarding St. Louis Public Schools. Quotes are from the report.
He found that both, “ Teachers and parents see weak leadership as a continuing obstacle. Complaints are not directed at the Special Administrative Board or Superintendent Dr. Kelvin Adams. Both groups cite deeper systemic issues and continuing instability as problems.”
“Parents and teachers recognize signs of improvement
Are skeptical that significant progress will continue
Articulate systemic problems
Leadership with political agendas other than educating the City’s children
Failure to commit to any policy long enough to see results”
His slide presentation included charts of how teachers and parents graded the district in 2006 and 2010. The 2006 data was taken for a survey done at that time.
In 2006, no teachers graded the district as an A or B. 33% gave it a C, 63% gave it a D and 5% gave it a grade of F.
In 2010, 2% of teachers gave it an A, 11% B, 46% a C, 36% a D and 5% F. That was sign of improved impressions among teachers.
Parent grades of the district indicated a different take. In 2006, 4% gave the SLPS an A, 11% a B, 52% a C, 2% a D and 11% an F.
In 2010 however, there were no parents grading the district with an A, 17% gave it a B, 47% a C, 31% a D and 6 % an F. Parental satisfaction has decreased.
Dr. Jones reported that neither parents nor teachers like the district’s leadership.
5% of teachers gave the leadership an A, 18% a B, 30% a C, 34% a D and 14% an F.
None of the parents gave the leadership an A, 14% gave it a B, 36% gave it a C, 28% gave it a D and 22% gave it an F.
The next charts dealt with improvement in quality of the SLPS over the last 2-3 years during which the SAB has been in control.
25% of teachers saw no change. 39% saw improvement. 37% saw things getting worse.
For parents, 31% saw no change. 28% saw some improvement. 41% of parents thought things were worse.
Teachers and parents were surveyed about issues they hear a lot about. The issues were,
Authority transferred to special administrative board, SLPS was unaccredited in 2007, recent budget requiring workforce cuts, voters recently passed $155 bond issue, local elected school board continues to function but without authority, some SLPS high schools independently accredited, possible court decision allowing city children to attend county schools, before disaccreditation SLPS met standards in only 4 of 14 areas, 100% of classes taught by highly qualified teachers, and policy requires pupil/teacher ratios to meet state standards. The surveys indicated that parents were less aware of these issues than teachers. For instance, 38.6% of teachers heard a great deal about the county court case allowing SLPS students to attend county schools. Only 16.7% of parents heard a lot about it.
Both groups were polled on their confidence in the elected board versus the appointed board.
9% of teachers had a great deal of confidence in the elected board. None had a “great deal of confidence” in the SAB. 7% had “quite a lot of confidence” in the EB and 2% in the SAB. 46% had “some confidence” in the EB and 48% in the SAB and 39% had “very little confidence” in the EB and 50% in the SAB.
Among parents, 6% had a great deal of confidence in the EB and 0% in SAB, 6% had quite a lot in the EB and 8% in the SAB, 56% had some confidence in the EB and 56% had some in the SAB and 33% had very little in the EB and 36% had very little in the SAB. So both groups had more confidence in the elected board but teachers had more confidence than parents interestingly enough.
According to comments culled from the 10 member discussion groups, Jones reported, “ Stakeholders appreciate “less drama” with Special Administrative Board.” That amuses this reporter because as a regular attendee, I have observed far fewer parents and community members at SAB meetings than used to attend elected board monthly meetings. However, the professional media have emphasized the phrase “less drama” in their reporting on the SAB. Therefore, this indicates that their propaganda has been successfully absorbed. Jones did not ask whether his participants had ever attended elected or appointed board meetings and had seen a difference in the drama level with their own eyes.
One parent commented, “I don’t know that there’s much improvement. There’s not as much chaos.” Jones summarized, “”Parents and teachers see the Special Administrative Board as more accountable, dispassionate, merit-based. Groups appreciate “businesslike” approach. Credit Special Administrative Board with bringing local businesses and private money to the table But describe the SAB as “faceless” and “nameless.””
Jones concluded, “Parents maintain an attachment to the idea of an elected board, but remember the actual elected boards as dysfunctional”, and they, “See an elected board as having a connection to the community.” He reported that, “Parents feel disenfranchised,” and, “Believe political agendas come before educating their children.” Parents also expressed frustration over the continued closing of neighborhood schools, which they felt robbed them of their primary choice for where to send their children to school.
Jones polled participants on the issue of future governance.
14% of parents had no preference. 28% strongly preferred an appointed board, 28% somewhat preferred an appointed board, 19% somewhat preferred an elected board and 11% strongly preferred an elected board.
For teachers, 16% had no preference. 9 % strongly preferred an appointed board, 11% somewhat preferred an appointed board, 34% somewhat preferred an elected board and 30% strongly preferred an elected board.
Jones concluded from the responses to this question that 56% of parents prefer an appointed board and 64% of teachers prefer an elected board. Given the small sample. He said there was an 8-10% error factor but he insisted that the methods used would result in the same statistics 95% of the time. Dr. Jones is a highly respected authority in the St. Louis area. So, the special advisors will be able to use his data to back their decisions. Parents who disagree with his findings will in all likelihood be ignored.
Participants were asked who they would like to make appointments to a governing board. They were limited to 4 choices, Governor Nixon, Mayor Slay, the Board of Alderman and the State Legislature.
9% of teachers and 6% of parents opted for the governor. 7% of teachers and 14% of parents chose the mayor. 34% of teachers and 53% of parents chose the aldermen and 50% of teachers and 28% of parents chose the legislature. Jones reported that participants indicated that they meant their own alderman or legislator, not necessarily the entire body.
In summary, Dr. Jones reported that, “Parents and teachers see signs of progress, but still lack confidence in the future. Both groups feel disenfranchised and believe the process is driven by political agendas that are hidden to them and beyond their control. The closing of community schools has magnified this problem for parents.
Parents and teachers expressed specific wishes for any governing body going forward: Focus even more on goals and outcomes rather than means and programs
Address variance in quality and resources from one school to another
Parents and teachers differ in their preference for a governance structure going forward . Parents are strongly drawn to the community connections of an elected board, but prefer an appointed administrative board
Teachers prefer an elected board, believing that to be the better structure for accomplishing key goals .
On-line networking located one parent who attended the focus group. The parent reported that, ”Most everyone …. was disillusioned with Slay and the SAB.”
The parent reported that the focus group was run by Delve LLC and held at a facility near I-270 and Manchester Road and that many of the participants had to take a Metro bus to attend. Participants were given a $60 visa Debit card in payment for their time and the 10 chosen for the extended discussion received an additional $25. A parent asked why they didn’t hold this focus group in the city where we all live? The facilitator said they didn’t have facilities like theirs in the city.” That may well have depressed participation. Jones reporetd that 60 parents were chosen but only 36 attended.
Participants were asked their opinion of Mayor Slay’s performance. None of the answers were positive. The parent felt manipulated because when asked who should choose the SAB, “none of the above” was not an option and “elections” were not provided as an option. If elections were provided as an option, the parent thought that would have won hands down. All of the comments made were in favor of returning the elected board to power. Parents remarked that, “we want control, we want it back”. The closest Dr. Jones’ report got to expressing these sentiments was in saying that parents felt “disenfranchised”. But he did not emphasize the extent of the passion the participating parent reported. Answering the future governance question was frustrating. The parent reported feeling manipulated by the wording. That may very well have led to the discrepancy between the unhappiness expressed elsewhere in the survey with the SAB and the 56% in favor of the SAB outcome. Given that in answering the other questions, parents did not like the district’s leadership and are less satisfied with the district than they were when it was governed by an elected board in 2006, with only 28% seeing improvement since the SAB has taken control, parents demonstrating more confidence in the elected board than the SAB, it does not make sense that they would choose the SAB over an elected board for future governance.
In his presentation, Dr. Jones emphasized positive comments about the SAB and Dr. Adams while acknowledging concerns were expressed about the leadership of the district and the community not being in control. That ambivalence was not apparent to the parent participant.
Jones reported that some improvement was seen but that there was skepticism because of systemic problems. Participants were concerned about political leaders with agendas other than educating the kids and also a failure to commit to a consistent educational strategy. Teachers saw more improvement than parents did. But they liked the current leadership less than parents did.
40% of teachers saw some improvement while only 30% of parents did. There was also concern about inequity of resources between different schools. Parents were skeptical that 100% of the teachers are highly qualified. He said they had confidence in the appointed board. That the number preferring an elected board and an appointed board were about the same because board after board had not done what was expected of them. He said parents preferred the elected board because it had a connection with the community, which the appointed board doesn’t have. They feel disenfranchised and feel that the mayor has another agenda. Both groups are tired of disenfranchisement, political agendas and the closing of schools.
The special advisors then discussed the report. By way of reminder, they are Dr. William Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus of Washington University, Civil Rights Attorney Frankie Freeman, Attorney Ned Lemkemeier, Deputy Chancellor of the University of Missouri, Columbia Michael Middleton, and Dr. Donald Suggs, publisher of the St. Louis American newspaper. Dr. Danforth began his professional career as a cardiologist. He served on the faculty of the WU School of Medicine before moving into the administration of first the medical school and then the university. Dr. Suggs is a dentist. Middleton is a civil rights attorney who represented plaintiffs in the St. Louis desegregation litigation.
The first to speak was Ned Lemkemeier. He remarked that they,”can’t determine what is better, an elected board or an appointed board.”
He mentioned DESE Area Supervisor Robert Taylor’s report from their July meeting where discussion of district data occurred and claimed that it was accurate for the first time, crediting Dr. Cleopatra Figures the SLPS accountability officer. (It should be noted that Dr. Figures was brought to the SLPS by former Superintendent Dr. Diana Bourisaw.) He said the 2010-11 data should be used as the baseline for future performance.
He said it was not how you select board members but the quality of board members that was important. There should be no micromanagement. The superintendent should be the CEO. The board role should be limited to getting the right person to be superintendent and getting information. He made short term recommendations beginning with continuing the SAB for such a period of time as satisfies DESE that the district is making progress towards reaccreditation. It should stay in place until accreditation is achieved. DESE should develop criteria for measuring progress in the SLPS and should measure progress against the 2010-11 school year. He also said the SLPS will be well served if the current statutes regarding board responsibilities are amended to emphasize that the most important duty is to hire and retain the superintendent. (This could severely curtail board responsibilities as currently outlined by state law. The current statutes outlining the responsibilities of our board of education are MRS 162.571 and MRS 162.621.) The board should set standards and expectations for high quality education and hold the superintendent responsible. The board should have responsibility for tax and bond issues. The superintendent is responsible for running the district, employing and monitoring staff and creating budgets. He acknowledged that current statutes give the board of education more responsibility for hiring people other than the superintendent.
He went on to long term recommendations such as removing the SAB when accreditation is achieved, doing so on a staggered basis over 2-6 years so that there is continuity as there is a return to an elected board.
Dr. Donald Suggs then spoke. He said they need to find a way to promote a better exchange between the SAB and the Board of Education. He was disappointed that the Board of Education was opposed to the bond issue since it has broad support throughout the community. He expressed concern about the role they would play in the future because they took a stand that was against the interests of the district moving forward. He continued that some attention should be paid to the current appointing authorities. He agreed that the SAB should remain in power. And that DESE should pay attention to the district’s performance. Attention should be paid to the senior team as well as the superintendent. He doesn’t want to see a disruption of the positive direction in which the district is moving. But he also said the SAB should be attentive to the concerns expressed by the focus groups. He said the Board of Education can be a sounding board for community concerns. The SAB should be able to move things forward. Their relationship with the superintendent is good and there is progress.
Michael Middleton said he agreed with Dr. Suggs that the SAB is making some progress. But he wondered about leaving the decision to terminate the SAB in DESE’s hands. He said he was not sure he was comfortable with DESE’s attitude towards the SLPS in every situation. Asked to clarify what he meant, he said he was concerned that DESE would give up and end the SAB’s control too soon before the SLPS returned to accreditation. He also said he didn’t know whether the Board of Education or an appointed board should govern the district because the data wasn’t clear. But, he said, it was important that the right people (italics ours) be in place to ask the following question. “In St. Louis, in this era, which method of procuring board members will provide the right people, elections or appointments?” He said t he question won’t come for several years. He agreed with Lemkemeier’s ideas for limiting the role of the board. He said he didn’t know how much one can legislate responsible behavior. He mentioned the incessant micromanaging that has been a concern in the past but gave no examples.
Curiously, Dr. Danforth remarked that, “It is not our decision what to do, DESE is empowered to make the decision. We advise DESE.” He went on to say that, “No one favors a mixed board.” (By that meaning a board jointly composed of appointed and elected members although Lemkemeier’s recommendation of staggering a return to an elected board would produce a mixed board for several years.) He also said, “There is no clear standard for making a decision. So we have to use our best judgments and recommend something . It is tempting to recommend going back to an elected board but …we have to be aware that things have not worked well. There is low voter turnout. We should have school board elections when we have maximum voter turnout.” (This is a holdover recommendation from their 2006 report. We will see what kind of an outcome holding the school board election during the general election in November yields in a few weeks’ time.)
Danforth went on to talk about the need to figure out how voters might be informed about the issues and candidate positions because they get little coverage in the press. “No one wants lots of money spent on publicity to influence votes. We need a group to study the issues and inform the public on what’s going on.” They hope to have their final suggestions at their Friday, October 8 meeting, which will be held at Harris Stowe’s library at 2 p.m., a convenient time for the general public to attend.
Frankie Freeman said that she believed in an elected board but one problem is the membership. She asked, “How can we assure confidence and stability on the elected board? She proposed screening candidates. And she expressed concern about how we got members who would oppose the recently passed bond issue. “The SAC should stay in place until the schools are accredited,” she said. That could be, “10 years, or 5. It is not our decision to make. If we agree there should be an elected board, should there be a way to screen candidates before the public votes?” she continued. But she agreed that, “a mixed board isn’t going to work either. Concurring with Dr. Danforth, she reiterated, “We need to come up with recommendations to DESE which reflect our best judgment.”
Dr. Suggs then brought up a sticky subject, the question of representation on DESE (meaning the appointed state board of education) from this area. He stated that we want “transparency”. He also said he wouldn’t support continuing the SAB because of how they are appointed, lack of accountability, transparency and monitoring by DESE. He said the SAB or any governing body shouldn’t have legal authority to mismanage.
Mr. Lemkemeier repeated that Dr. Taylor told them at their July 26 meeting that we should expect 4-5 years before the SLPS gets provisional accreditation. As a consequence, Lemkemeier suggested continuing the SAB for that length of time. He said he was concerned about the way the SAB is appointed. Just because they are doing a good job, they may not continue to do a good job and there is no guarantee the current SAB members will agree to serve another term. Michael Middleton piped in that the SAB could be in power for another 5 to 10 years and we could be in deep trouble. Lemkemeier then said that the SAB should remain in charge until accreditation is returned or, “significant progress s is made.” (That could mean beyond a return to accreditation.)
Middleton retorted that, “Accreditation may not come for who knows how long.” He expressed, “fear that DESE may give up or give in and remove the SAB and eliminate progress made so far.” He suggested they provide guidelines to DESE not to remove the SAB before the SLPS regains provisional accreditation. Dr. Suggs reminded them that they are acting as advisors to DESE and that was why the vacancy on DESE from the St. Louis area was an issue. (The seat has been vacant for 4 years because Governors Blunt and Nixon have not been able to get their preferred nominees approved by the Legislature.)
Dr. Danforth asked whether they should recommend changes in the law regarding how the SAB is appointed? Dr. Suggs reminded them that according to Terry Jones’ research parents and teachers had little confidence in the governor or mayor to make appointments. But then he said they should be indifferent to the opinions of parents and teachers on this issue because the strength of the SAB is its credibility with stakeholders. (But Jones’ survey results suggested the SAB has little credibility.) Suggs reminded the other special advisors that the governor, the mayor and the president of the board of aldermen are, “subject to public feelings.” Freeman again brought up screening. Dr. Suggs said that ad hoc groups could make information available to voters. Dr. Danforth said there was a problem with informal ad hoc arrangements. Dr. Suggs then remarked that you won’t get a school district better than the community. You can’t have a functioning district without the community. He was impressed by the vote for the bond issue. Suggs said he was for the SAB. “ The best option for us is to continue it but with caveats.” Middleton said he liked Lemkemeier’s recommendation for staggered replacement, saying they needed a transition. Lemkemeier then asked whether they should make a proposal about filling vacancies on the SAB while it is still in existence? Dr. Suggs responded that they should, “encourage the appointing authorities to be as deliberative and inclusive as possible.”
That wrapped up their discussion. There was no one in the sparse audience to contribute public comments during a meeting which began at 3 p.m. on a Monday, a workday, afternoon.
Much has been made about the obvious, that the special advisors will recommend retaining the appointed Special Administrative Board for an extended period of time. No surprise there. But little has been said about their other possible recommendations and their consequences for the democratic governance of the SLPS in the future, namely, that all school board elections be held in November, that candidates be screened, that information about issues and candidates be disseminated by a select committee and that transition from the SAB to an EB be staggered so that for a period of time both appointed and elected members would serve together.
These ideas, if adopted will ensure that school board membership is tightly controlled. And the issues electing them will be determined by a select group. Isn’t that special?
We will be told what to think about and acceptable candidates will be pre-selected for us. Isn’t that what Mayor Slay did for us in 2003. And that turned out well, didn’t it?
It is apparent that these eminent citizens do not believe that democracy will yield a proper school board so they want to engineer the democratic process that has served communities across our country since the advent of public school districts in the 19th century to determine that its outcome is acceptable to them. What is truly amazing is that these goals are acceptable to two people known for their careers as civil rights lawyers and one practitioner of freedom of the press. In what country? The USSR? Forgive me, that doesn’t exist anymore.
Not wanting money to influence votes but wanting November school board elections when the school board race will be buried by concern about congressional, state legislature and presidential election campaigns is neither sensible, nor workable. Just because the idea comes from the mouth of a man of Bill Danforth’s stature, and yes, he is tall as well as eminent, does not make it a sensible idea. There is no way that non-partisan school board issues are going to invade voters’ consciousness during elections where the economy, national defense/homeland security, illegal immigration and the plethora of red flag issues infused into our politics by people bent on manipulating voters’ emotions compete for attention. The only way people will notice that a school board race is happening as well is if lots of money is spent sending professionally designed mailed campaign literature to every home in the City and that costs.
Dr. Danforth claims concern for low voter turnout for school board elections. But the same can be said for municipal elections in general. Yet, no one has suggested that the mayor, the comptroller, the president of the board of aldermen and the aldermen themselves be elected in November. So, what this suggestion that school board elections move to November appears to be about is controlling the outcome. It will be difficult for mere parents or any candidate not favored by our wealthy eminences to raise the money necessary to compete.
Of course Dr. Danforth wants a higher turnout to provide these controlled outcomes with the appearance of legitimacy. But increased participation of voters, who are neither educated regarding the issues nor concerned with the consequences of the outcome of the election, will not necessarily result in an elected board of education dedicated to providing a quality education to our children. A case in point is our elections to retain judges. Rarely do voters actually know enough about a judge’s record to make an informed decision.
Those people who get picked to serve on “special” advisory committees and “special” administrative boards want to reserve control over who gets to serve on the board of education, if it ever is returned to power, to themselves. And if they can get the legislature to pass the necessary bills, they just may succeed.
The sad thing is that these eminent folks apparently have no faith in our democracy. If that isn’t a nightmare, what is? And their arrogance and hubris negates whatever wisdom ought to be there. They are absolutely certain that they know better. And DESE Commissioner Chris Nicastro, who ought to know better, reappointed them. Who’s minding the store? Where the heck are John Wayne and Randolf Scott, the guys in the white hats defending democracy? Why even bother to have a required high school class on the state and federal constitutions anymore if our education establishment is going to be controlled by people who don’t abide by their rules?
I can almost understand Dr. Danforth’s point of view. As a physician, he had to make life or death decisions for people and that can breed exceptional self-confidence, saving lives for a living can augment the ego a tad. But what excuse do 3 attorneys and a newspaper publisher have for undermining our civil rights? None of the parents and college professor elected during the last three school board elections are Rochelle Moore. Moore left the board in 2005 but from the frequency with which her name is still mentioned in the professional media, you’d think she was still serving on the board. Problem solved. Reasonable people have been elected by the name of Dr. Rebecca Rogers, Donna Jones, Peter Downs, David Jackson, Kathrine Wessling, Emile Bradford-Taylor and Chad Beffa. They are our current board of education. But, they are not people whom those who qualify for these “special” groups would approve, although one of the parents is an attorney. No, that class of people who insist that it is their due to control things in this town refuse to share power, or even to communicate on equal terms, because after all, only those they recognize as equal are so, and the mere parents whose kids attend the schools cannot be allowed to think themselves worthy of winning elections and running the school district.
If the SAC makes these recommendations and DESE adopts them, future elected boards will consist of the right people from the special advisors’ point of view. If that means people such as the illustrious citizens currently filling the seats on our SAB, that will be the best recruitment tool the charter schools could hope for.
Much has been made of the “progress” the SAB has allegedly made. When accreditation was removed, some said “stolen” from the SLPS in 2007, the district was left with 4 standards, although Dr. Bourisaw was absolutely certain that we qualified for the 6 standards necessary to maintain provisional accreditation. Subsequently, under the SAB the district dropped to meeting 2 standards, then 3 and now after 3 years 5 standards with little hope according to DESE of our meeting the 6 needed for provisional accreditation for 4-5 years. What has happened during the past 3 years can hardly be defined as progress. Rather, progress was being made under Dr. Bourisaw and the elected board of education and was stopped dead in its tracks by the state takeover. Time was lost as the SAB learned its job. It is simple minded to conclude that the minimal improvement in test scores that has occurred or the passage of a bond issue would not have happened with the elected board in control.
In closing, Tom Lehrer’s lyrics still ring sadly true.
“When someone makes a move of which we don’t approve, who is it who always intervenes? UN and OAS, they have their place, I guess, but when in doubt, send the SAC!”
“Stop calling it aggression, we hate that expression, We only want the world to know that we support the status quo. They love us everywhere we go, so when in doubt, send the SAC!” (Lehrer’s original lyric is, “Send the Marines!”)
A Letter to the Community
The Special Advisory Committee on St. Louis Public Schools is preparing to release its report on how the school system should be governed. All indications are that they will again come out in opposition to democracy.
Through news reports and personal remarks, committee members have telegraphed elitist attitudes and an anti-working-class bigotry. They have said that they do not want a return to an elected school board until they can figure out how to fix elections to make sure that ‘people of quality’ – by which they presumably mean people who are much like they see themselves and think as they do – are elected to the board and figure out how to fix state law to make sure that school boards can’t change anything.
They seem to hope that most everyone has forgotten that in 2003 they endorsed and promoted school board candidates whose ‘rapid change’ pushed the school district off of a cliff. Although they have apparently abandoned policies they once championed, they appear still to be smarting from the fact that voters recognized failure before they did. They seem to want to deny ordinary people the same right to change their minds, or to make a mistake and correct it, as they have.
All indications are that the Danforth-Freeman committee is prepared to recommend the continuation of an unelected, unaccountable dictatorship over education. Their reasoning seems to be that dictatorship is more efficient, and less public, than democracy. Apparently, they believe that that is more important than people’s right to have some say over important decisions that affect their lives or the spending of their tax dollars.
Which do you favor, democracy or dictatorship? It is that simple!
Democracy advocates are circulating the attached petition to the state commissioner of elementary and secondary education urging a return of governing power to the elected board of education . Please print and sign the petition. Ask friends, neighbors, and family to sign the petition, and returned signed petitions to the elected St. Louis board of education care of 5725 Holly Hills, St. Louis, MO 63109 .
Against Danforth, Freeman and their ilk, I would paraphrase the former English prime minister and historian, Winston Churchill: yes, democracy is the worst form of government , except for all others.
Sincerely,
Peter Downs
Transferring the following petition across software led to a loss of signiture lines. add as many as you need before printing.
To: Commissioner Nicastro, DESE
We, the undersigned, as citizens and taxpayers of St. Louis City, support the return to the existing and democratically elected Board of Education as the governing body for the St. Louis Public School district.
Name Address Email Address
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Return to: STLBOE, 5725 Holly Hills, St. Louis, MO 63109
“State of the District” town hall meeting set for october 16
Community Invited To Vashon High To Get Update And Ask Questions
ST. LOUIS, MO , September 24, 2010 – St. Louis Public School District stakeholders are invited to a “State of the District” Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, October 16 , 2010 at Vashon High School. The meeting will begin with a continental breakfast at 9AM, followed by the Town Hall Meeting at 10AM. Vashon High School is located at 3035 Cass Avenue.
The “State of the District” Town Hall Meeting will include updates on the District’s progress towards regaining accreditation, information about the District’s academic achievements, the District’s plans and initiatives for the 2010/2011 school year, and a report on future facility improvements to be funded by the recently passed $155 Million Bond Issue Proposition S.
In addition to the presentations and reports, community members will have an opportunity to engage with members of the Town Hall panel via a question and answer session regarding topics discussed during the event.
Participants at the meeting include Special Administrative Board members, Superintendent Dr. Kelvin Adams, Cooperating School District Executive Director John Urkevich and a representative from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education .
In an effort to prepare adequate space for the event, the District is requesting attendees to RSVP in advance via email at rsvp@slps.org or by calling (314) 331-6044. However, RSVPs are not required and all stakeholders are invited to attend.
Calendar
October 8, Friday, Special Advisory Committee on the SLPS (Danforth Freeman), 2 p.m., Harris Stowe State University Library Building October 14 , Thursday, regular bi-monthly SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108 Octobe 16, Saturday, SLPS Town Hall meeting, 9 a.m., Vashon H.S., 3035 Cass Avenue October 18, Tuesday, regular monthly Board of Education meeting, 7 p.m., Carr Lane VPA Middle School Dance Studio, 1004 N. Jefferson October 28, Thursday, regular bi-monthly SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108Please note, The Schools Watch has a new mailing address, P.O. Box 1983, St. Louis, MO 63118. Our email address continues to be SLS_Watch@yahoo.com
Questions for the Watch?
Letters to the Editor?
Stories to contribute? News tips?
Send them to SLS_Watch@yahoo.com
