By Susan Turk
April 16, 2011—St. Louis—On Wednesday, January 19, SLPS Superintendent Dr. Kelvin Adams attended the monthly Parent Assembly meeting. He presented a brief preview of the plan for the district which, he would present at the subsequent evening’s SAB meeting. Among the initiatives he announced were the intent to provide free Pre-K for all city three and four years olds who wish to attend. He reported that there is a waiting list of 500. He also announced the opening of gender specific schools and an African curriculum focused school. His report to the Parent Assembly was notable for what he omitted from it.
Thursday morning, January 20, the Post-Dispatch reported more on his plan for the upcoming school year. It includes increasing the proliferation of charter schools. Had he mentioned this at the Parent Assembly meeting, he would have gotten an earful of protest and concern. Parent Assembly members tend to be opposed to charter schools. Dr. Adams apparently did not want to have that conversation with district parents that evening.
The January 20 SAB meeting was cancelled due to snow. The imperative of wheeling out Dr. Adams’ plan for the district led to the expedited rescheduling of the meeting for the morning of Saturday, January 22.
In addition to the above mentioned expansion of early childhood education , gender specific schools , charter schools and an African-centered curriculum program , his plan includes an expansion of the Parent Infant Interaction Program or PIIP and alternative programs , as well as changes in policy such as allowing 8th grade students not planning to attend a choice or magnet high school to choose among the 4 comprehensive high schools rather than being assigned to one by virtue of their residence and change in the policy for closing schools. Where formerly decisions about school closings were based on enrollment or the cost of maintaining a school building, Adams wants to close schools based on academic performance . Some closed schools may be reconstituted or “repurposed” and reopened as district sponsored charter schools. Adams also wants to reverse district policy on the sale or lease of vacant district buildings to charter schools . During their nearly 4 year tenure, the Special Administrative Board running the district has not sold or rented space to charters. CEO Rick Sullivan has previously expressed reservations about facilitating the competition to that extent. Adams recommends selling and renting to charter schools.
Prior to coming to St. Louis, Dr. Adams was chief of staff for the Recovery School District in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. In that position during 2007 and 2008, he opened 59 schools of which 26 were charter schools. During 2005-2006, he served as charter school liaison for the College of Education for the Southern University of New Orleans.
On January 22, Adams presented a timeline for his plan. He intended for two public forums allowing community input to be held at Vashon and Roosevelt High Schools before the SAB would discuss and vote to approve the plan at their February 17 meeting. However, no public forums were scheduled prior to February 17. The date for the SAB vote was then delayed until their March 10 meeting. Forums were indeed held at Roosevelt on Tuesday evening, March 1 and Vashon on the morning of Saturday, March 5. But at the March 10 SAB meeting, it was announced that the vote would be delayed until March 31. The vote for approval did not occur on March 31 and no announcement about another date was mentioned. Meanwhile, the consent agenda for their next meeting, April 21, lists the 8th grade high school choice policy change as an item to be approved independent of the rest of the plan.
One could be forgiven for wondering what is holding up approval of the rest of it, especially given how loath the SAB members are to discuss anything that might be construed as controversial in public. Far be it from The Watch to speculate. But it is interesting that Adams waited until his contract was renewed for another three years to push his charter school agenda. It may be that he and SAB members are not in complete agreement on aspects of the plan.
At the January 22 SAB meeting, Dr. Adams also announced that school closings for next year would be announced in 45 days. That did not happen either. Deadlines being announced and passed without being met has become standard operating procedure for this administration.
Expanding Pre-K is not controversial. It is widely understood, and backed up by research, that children who attend Pre-K perform better in school throughout their academic careers. Plus, there is money from the Prop S bond sales to improve Pre-K classrooms. But there will be costs incurred from hiring new teachers, TAs and necessary supplies. The state of Missouri does not pay for Pre-K. The administration is attempting to find new revenue sources, such as grants, to fund the initiative. If they are not successful, Dr. Adams has said that GOB funds will be used and it will impact funding for everything else, meaning cuts to other programs and increases in class size. However, he does not think cuts will be noticed.
There will be 25 new Pre-K classrooms plus 2 additional early childhood special education classrooms. Eleven of the early childhood sites will expand before and after school programming so that parents will have reliable care for their children from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Gender specific schools are controversial. They were common in public school districts during the early part of the 20th century. They were largely abandoned in the 1960s and 1970s because they discriminated against female students. In many cases they offered curriculum to boys that was not also offered to girls. Rather than close, many of these schools became co-educational. Many private schools went co-ed at this time. Most gender specific schools which remained were denominational.
In recent years, schools segregated by gender have returned to some urban public school districts. It is believed that there are fewer discipline problems which, improves the learning environment. The SLPS has been experimenting with segregating the genders at Yeatman-Liddell Middle School during the current school year. Boys and girls attend class on separate floors of the school. The experiment is said to be going well. The administration now proposes to expand this initiative. They have not yet decided just how they are going to do it. There may be 2 elementary and 2 middle schools segregated by gender next year, one elementary and one middle school each for boys and girls. An alternative plan would have boys and girls in the same building, like at Yeatman-Liddell, but in separate classrooms. They are also considering having boys and girls segregated for some, but not all classes. The details are still being worked on. Dr. Adams has said that if parents whose children are currently attending the neighborhood schools which, are designated for the gender specific program, do not wish their children to participate, they will be allowed to transfer to another school and transportation will be provided if necessary.
Segregating students by gender is a trend spreading across the country. Segregating the genders at lunch is being done in a Kansas district to lower the number of disciplinary infractions as well as get children to eat more. Rather than doing the hard work of instilling values of respect, self-control and equality in students, some school districts are regressing into social patterns favored by the conservative powerful people who are attempting to radically reorient public education.
Expanding the PIIP is not controversial. “Currently implemented at Vashon HS, PIIP provides services to 33 families with children age six weeks to five years. There are more than 100 pregnant girls in the three other comprehensive high schools.” The PIIP enables the mothers to complete their education while providing early childhood education to their offspring. It includes a “Male Involvement Component” for student fathers.
66% of the seniors in the program graduated during the past 2 years and continued on to post-secondary education. That number is remarkable in that it is higher than the statistics for the SLPS as a whole. In 2009 the graduate rate was 47.7% and the rate for graduates who went on to post-secondary education was 64.8%. In 2010 the graduation rate was 60.1 and the post-secondary education rate was 61%. Both of these rates are accreditation standards. Expanding the PIIP helps the district achieve two more accreditation standards.
Expanding alternative education opportunities is not controversial except perhaps for elementary school students. The district has not had an alternative program for elementary school students since the SAB closed the Big Picture elementary program 2 years ago. There was no mention of reopening an alternative program for elementary school children.
It is obvious that the district needs more alternative classrooms. Alternative ed has suffered due to philosophical and budgetary concerns based on the priorities of board members and changes in governance during the past 8 years. Much of what was provided for high school students was outsourced in 2004.
According to Dr. Adams, “The goal is to place students in the best environment for them to succeed,” because, “Not all students succeed in a traditional classroom setting.” Vocational training, behavior interventions, community service programs, school-within-a-school programming, second or last chance schools for disruptive students, self-contained alternative classrooms within schools and separate alternative schools are all under consideration to provide every possible opportunity in a non-punitive atmosphere to turn the students in a productive direction.
Allowing eighth graders, who have not elected to attend magnet or choice high schools, to choose their comprehensive high school is not controversial. Adams thinks that if they are attending a school they have chosen, they will be more committed to their education. Therefore, the drop out rate should decrease and the graduation rate, ACT scores and attendance rate should increase.
Expanding charter schools by creating district sponsored charter schools and by selling or renting vacant district buildings to non-district sponsored charter schools is controversial. During the two public forums Dr. Adams hosted in early March, a significant percentage of the questions and comments dealt with charter schools.
Dr. Adams named his plan “Creating Great Options.” Its goal is to, ”Improve the quality of educational options available to all children in our city.” (Italics ours.) These quotes are from the PowerPoint presentation of the plan viewable at http://www.slps.org/ Click on District Info, Special Administrative Board, SAB Board Meeting Presentations, SAB Meeting Presentations 2011, January 22, 2011.
To meet the goal, the plan will, “Institute new initiatives and programs that will increase quality options for students.”
These italicized opening words are the pith of what this plan is about. They are the whistles and bells, so to speak, that we are being offered. This reporter has observed the presentation of many plans intended to improve the SLPS over the years. They always say they are plans to improve academic achievement. This one, perhaps deliberately and cannily, does not make that claim or state that as a goal. It modestly proposes to improve options, or rather “choice”.
School choice has been a rallying cry for the ideologues whose school reform crusade has done devastating harm to public education during the past decade. The ideologues appear to think that if parents have more options for their children’s education, academic achievement will magically improve and most of the problems in our schools will disappear. The proliferation of school voucher programs and charter schools are a consequence of this notion. No amount of research based evidence that vouchers and charters to do not improve achievement is acceptable to adherents of this ideology. They rebound with a new embodiment of their dogma and insist that this time it will work.
Charter schools were introduced in Missouri by the same legislation which created the SAB in 1998, the notorious SB781, allegedly authored, not coincidently, by SAB member Richard Gaines. Missouri’s 10 year experiment with charter schools has not lived up to the claims of charter school promoters, that because of their freedom from regulation and their innovativeness, their academic performance would be better than the SLPS. Rather the contrary has been true for the majority of them and 5 have closed in St. Louis, some rather abruptly.
Dr. Adams gave the following reasons for wanting to proliferate charter schools at the public forums in March. They offer more “flexibility and accountability”. You are, “able to close a charter school if it is not functioning properly.” Well, superintendents seem to have had no trouble closing regular SLPS schools. More than 30 have been closed during the past 8 years.
Adams thinks, “Charters are an option for kids who are hard to educate.” He mentioned the number of recommendations for expulsions from Vashon this year (125) and spoke passionately about the need to keep kids off the streets and out of prison. He is looking to create options that might work because of the number of drop outs. He said he would, “partner with anybody who is going to support kids.”
The district will be the Local Education Agency, the funding source for district sponsored charters. That will be written into their charter agreement so that they will not subsequently choose to be their own LEA. State Senator Robin Wright-Jones (D-St. Louis) has filed SB 184 which allows the district to be the LEA. Existing statute seems to allow the district to be the LEA. DESE thinks it is allowed, so SB 184 may not be necessary. For some reason Dr. Adams does not think state law provides for districts to be LEAs. If SLPS are the LEA, then the 1.5% management dollars come to the SLPS and no funding will be lost for their students.
Adams also said he sees renting or selling district buildings to charters as a good business decision. The sale or lease of buildings to charters not sponsored by the district will be governed by market rates. Academic requirements will be written into the sale or lease terms. When asked how the loss of students and state aid money to charters for students who attend non-district charters set up in buildings we sell or rent would help the district, he did not have an answer. He also did not answer the question, “Why start charters instead of new magnet schools?” Both Karen Kalish, a member of Mayor Slay’s education task force who spoke at the Vashon public forum in praise of Dr. Adams’ plan and Dr. Adams used the same phrase, “Charters are here and you can’t do anything about them.” It is notable that they both used the same “talking point”. There is always something you can do, though. Citizens can and should persistently attempt to communicate to their elected and appointed leaders when they have serious disagreements about policy being implemented in the hope of effecting a change of course.
Responding to repeated criticism from parents at Vashon, he repeated something he has said before, that he would, “Call them anything you want, such as ”contract schools” since I am getting flack on charters”. But at subsequent SAB meetings, he was again speaking about opening charters, not contract or more pilot schools. When he arrived in November, 2008 Dr. Adams mentioned opening charters as one of his intentions. Soon after his arrival, a group of parents met with him to explore his affinity for charter schools and ask him not to do that. The outcome of that meeting was a decision on Dr. Adams’ part to open pilot schools instead of charters. He said they amounted to the same thing. He opened 5 pilot schools in 2009 and 2 more in 2010. However, his affinity for charter schools has resurfaced and appears to be no longer restrainable. It seems he will say anything to quiet criticism during public meetings and then move ahead as planned.
Adams said he wanted to sponsor charters with proven programs catering to innovative education settings, “high quality options”. Charter schools should fill unmet needs in education such as underserved areas or high demand educational themes. (Instead of innovation some St. Louis charters have copied what the SLPS already has, i.e., Montessori, fine and performing arts and the Gateway science and math theme). Adams acknowledged that only 3-4 charters have higher achievement results than the SLPS. He said we need to look at the accountability issue. He will exercise the option to close them if they don’t perform. Senator Robin Wright Jones’ bill, SB 184 would allow him to revoke sponsorship after two years. Closing is considered proof of accountability. “The best way to do that is to start our own,” he said. But the district already has a charter school which it sponsors, the Construction Careers Academy, whose charter the SAB renewed in 2010 for 5 more years despite dismal academic achievement. He admitted that the district had not done a good job of overseeing the CCA. He said charter schools will be held to the same accountability requirements by which SLPS is measured. When asked why accountability, repeatedly closing charters, would improve education for SLPS students, Dr. Adams recommended reading The Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation report on charter schools in Missouri. So we did. The content of the report will be addressed in a future issue.
Closing schools based on performance is controversial. It smacks of educational Darwinism, suggesting that only the fittest schools should survive. Adams pointed to New York City and Chicago as school districts where this is being implemented. One would be forgiven for questioning whether the SLPS should emulate these two stellar districts, both of which are under the control of mayors. New York’s school district just lost its chancellor (superintendent) after barely three months in office. Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s unilateral choice of Hearst magazines publisher Cathy Black, a businesswoman with no education experience and no education beyond a B.A., to run the 1.1 million student school district did not work out. So, why would the SLPS want to follow their policies?
So, instead of solving our problems we will just move them around like the deck chairs on the Titanic. There is already too much mobility in the SLPS. Outside of the magnet schools, rarely do our students remain in a school for more than one year. Many move more than once during the school year and don’t take advantage of the voluntary “Right to Remain” program. Closing schools, for whatever reason, increases mobility. There is a correlation between a district’s student mobility rate, its rate of students who move from their school during the school year, and its academic performance. In the SLPS the mobility rate has hovered around 50%. But, the number of students who move from year to year is not tabulated and that also contributes to a student body who are disconnected from their schools, unable to form long lasting nurturing relationships with school staff. It is these relationships, sometimes with a TA or a janitor of the lunchroom lady, aside from teachers, that contribute to a student’s well-being and academic achievement.
There is a stability deficit in many of our student’s lives. Largely due to the poor quality of housing for low income families in the city and the economic instability which, results from inadequate employment opportunities for parents, contributes to nomadic lives where families are frequently moving, once, twice or more a year. An extreme case was a child who entered a first grade classroom in March a few years ago. It was his seventh school that school year and he was way behind his peers in terms of what he had learned. Fortunately, he stayed in that class through the rest of the term.
The district has attempted to deal with the mobility problem in the past by instituting a unified curriculum and requiring teachers to all be on the same page of that curriculum day by day, so children moving from school to school would at least find themselves in the same place as their peers in their new school. However, without continuity and familiar faces, it is still difficult to improve academic outcomes for children whose family life is in crisis. Closing their schools for low performance, moving low performing students to ever more crowded schools, with larger class sizes, in unfamiliar surroundings isn’t going to improve the situation. Rather it may cause a domino effect of closing schools due to creating environments that propagate low performance rather than eradicating it. An example of this is illustrated by Herzog Elementary. Achievement increased at Herzog Elementary when the size of the student body shrank and classes were small a few years ago. Herzog was rewarded for its success with increased enrollment and a higher pupil teacher ratio. Herzog became a pilot school in 2009 allowing students from all over the city to enroll. Its enrollment grew by 160 students and the Pupil Teacher Ratio expanded from 18 to 1 to 21 to 1. The result was a 22 point drop in the percentage of students rated proficient or advanced on the MAP Communication Arts test.
Low performing schools need a performance audit. Any deficits in resources and staffing need to be addressed. Low performing students, especially students not reading at grade level by the end of third grade need to be evaluated for learning disabilities, handicaps and anything else that might limit their success. Sometimes all it takes is an eye exam and a pair of glasses. There are kids who can’t see the blackboard and won’t tell anyone. Mentors and tutors need to be found, even paid if necessary, to find enough of them. Curriculum has to be differentiated. All children do not learn all subjects at the same time and pace. Kids have aptitudes and weaknesses in different areas. Current attitudes about how fast kids can learn, when low income kids start from behind and are not supplied with the resources to catch up, must be reconsidered.
Recently retired NY Times columnist Bob Herbert, in one of his last columns published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on March 23, made the point that diluting poverty in our schools is the single quickest way to improve academic performance for low income students. He wrote, “One of the most powerful tools for improving educational achievement of poor black and Hispanic public school students is, regrettably, seldom even considered. It has become a political no-no….. Breaking up these toxic concentrations of poverty would seem to be a logical and worthy goal. Long years of evidence show that poor kids of all ethnic backgrounds do better academically when they go to school with their more affluent—that is, middle class—peers. But when the poor kids are black or Hispanic, that means racial and ethnic integration in the schools. Despite all the babble about a post-racial America, that has been off the table for a long time….Ninety-five percent of education reform is about trying to make separate schools for rich and poor work, but there is very little evidence that you can have success when you pack all the low income students into one particular school. If you really want to improve the education of poor students, you have to get them away from learning environments that are smothered by poverty.”
Sadly, the Turner decision may take care of this issue. But if it goes into effect, it will do so in a random fashion with the potential to undermine county districts along with the SLPS. A recommitment to emphasizing the expansion and promotion of magnet schools could stabilize the educational environment for our students and increase achievement. Sadly, the administration is silent on the issue of the magnets, which have been losing students due to their orphan status over the past 10 years, even though they are opening a new one at Humboldt this fall. Not coincidently, magnet schools have a very low mobility rate.
Charter schools are not required to be integrated. The SAB and our elected board of education have abandoned racial quotas in the magnets. But economic quotas are legal. Rather we lack the leadership to really try to address what will work to solve our problems. Closing low performing schools without replacing them with schools that have the potential to be better, and with schools you seek to have the freedom to close because of built in assumptions of failure, that is, charter schools, will not help.
There is nothing innovative about Dr. Adams’ plan. Some of it consists of tried and true remedies such as the Pre-K and alternative ed expansions. But some of it consists of truly bad ideas taken from the tool box put together by conservative power brokers determined to undermine public education.
Calendar
April 21, Thursday, regular bi-monthly SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108
Please 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
