By Susan Turk
April 25, 2011—St. Louis—Although, individuals under the age of 21 are restricted from gambling by law, there are few laws preventing individuals over the age of 21 from gambling. When gambling was limited to Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos, it was a less pervasive recreational activity. With the advent of riverboat gambling it has become a regular form of entertainment for a growing segment of our community. It used to be an exceptional activity practiced by a privileged minority. It has become normal, so normal, that the mental exercise of gambling has left the casino and crept into areas of practice that do not wager money.
In the SLPS, we are wagering children’s futures with Superintendent Kelvin Adams’ plan, Creating Great Options. The plan emphasizes choices, rather than outcomes. Students and their parents have more choices to make about where they receive their education. There is little in the plan, however, that ensures better end results. Instead of a clear roadmap to improved academic achievement, it offers hope. The hope that the next roll, er, choice will be the winner.
In recent years, much hope has been placed on school choice as the shiny new solution to problems in our public schools. There has been a considerable body of research on the effect of choice on academic achievement. The results are mixed. Where parents are given choices that make it possible to send their children to historically higher performing schools, there is evidence that their children’s performance improves. In St. Louis, during the past decade, the choices given, largely charter schools, have not been better performing schools and so, academic performance has not increased.
St. Louis City and County public school parents have had school choice options since 1983. Under the supervision of the federal judiciary, to achieve desegregation, choice was provided to African American parents for their children to integrate schools in the county, and African American and white parents for their children to attend integrated magnet schools in the city. However, adequate resources were never provided to make choice available to everyone who wanted it. It was rationed. Long waiting lists ensued. Settlement of the desegregation case in 1999 guaranteed an additional 10 years of choice. The commitment of the city and some county districts to continue desegregation options has been scaled back but persists today. The Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation’s board of directors, which oversees the city-county transfer program, has extended new enrollments through the 2013-14 school year.
At the height of its popularity, during the 1990s, more than 14,000 students annually participated in what was then called the Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council’s transfer program. Waiting lists were generally 2-3 times as long as available seats. The 1999 Settlement Agreement created a progressive downsizing of available seats. This school year, 5,685 students participate. Only 600 new seats open up annually. There is currently a waiting list of 2,848 for those 600 seats.
At its height during the 90s, there were also 14,000 seats available in the city magnet schools. 1,400 of them were taken by county students coming from the transfer program. City data only persists to 2001. In 2001, after the lottery there were 3,400 on waiting list. Today, there are 10,700 city magnet seats and 2,094 on waiting lists.
In addition to providing the social benefit of integration, the choices provided under desegregation were designed to provide better academic outcomes for city children and they succeeded. The magnet schools raised achievement. Those attending county schools attended college at higher rates than their city peers. The evidence that the choices currently being offered in Dr. Adams’ plan are beneficial is inconsistent, but largely contrary. The PIIP evidences a higher graduation rate and persistence to post-secondary education rate for participating students than the rates for the district as a whole. Expanding early childhood education and alternative education are also known to improve outcomes.
The greatest expansion of choice in Dr. Adams’ plan, however, will come from the growth in the number of charter schools available in the city. During the 10 years that charter schools have existed in St. Louis, their overall performance has been worse than that of the SLPS. They are not a better option.
Even if charters are not draining dollars from the district, they still present problems. They are not required to be integrated. Sadly, that may be what makes them attractive to some parents. However, the improved educational environment provided by schools characterized by economic, racial and ethnic integration in and of itself raises academic achievement.
Yet, unregulated choice is being heralded as the panacea even when it does not provide options that are known to contribute to greater achievement, such as economic integration. There are about 80 public school districts around the country that are taking steps to reduce concentrations of poverty in their schools. Unfortunately, St. Louis is not among them.
Choice, in its current incarnation, is only exacerbating problems, such as mobility, which contributes to lower achievement. Parents, once they discover that the heralded charter school in which they have enrolled their children is not better than the SLPS, often move their children to other charters or back to the SLPS in a never ending search for better schools. 40% of the children who enrolled in the SLPS in January came from charter schools.
Annually during the last decade, state legislatures nationwide have been bombarded with bills to expand school choice by expanding charter schools or vouchers, including Missouri’s. This political activity is being driven by school choice fanatics. Fanatics are people motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm for a cause. Choice fanatics believe that expanding choice leads to an improved education system, no matter evidence to the contrary.
Adams’ goal is to “improve the quality of education options available to all children in the City of St. Louis.” That’s ambitious. No longer limiting himself to the student body of the SLPS, Adams is now looking after all of the city’s children educated at the taxpayer’s expense. There are 40,000 city children in public schools, including approximately 9,000 in charters, and almost 6,000 in county schools through the VICC. He wants to improve the quality of options for all of them. That’s an admirable ideal but the devil is in the details.
The notion that choice will improve schools appears to have evolved from the Darwinian concept of natural selection. Natural selection results in species that are more adaptable and more successful in survival but, it also remove individuals from the gene pool.
Children are not held accountable for their choices in our society until they reach maturity. So, why should they have to suffer the consequences of bad choices society provides their parents regarding their education? How can giving their parents educational choices that can subject their children to less fulfilled lives remove the greater community from responsibility for their outcomes?
Adams says he wants to sponsor charter schools because, “Several new innovative educational programs have a proven track record of success in academics, but require a certain degree of autonomy and flexibility,” and “Other urban school districts have effectively sponsored and implemented charter schools to provide a variety of educational opportunities to children and families.” That may be true of school districts which did not have magnet schools. In St. Louis, however, magnet schools provided considerable variety during the deseg era. As soon as deseg ended, as part of the very legislation which facilitated the end of the deseg case, charter school proponents began their campaign to replace integrated magnets with segregated charters. People opposed to deseg were perfectly happy to give parents choice so long as it wasn’t in integrated schools.
Adams neglects to mention that the SLPS has sponsored a charter school, the Construction Careers Academy, whose academic performance is dreadful. His intention is to sponsor charter schools, “with proven programs that are innovative and fill unmet needs”, claims he will hold them accountable for academic performance and wants the authority to be able to close them if they do not improve performance. SB184, sponsored by State Senator Robin Wright-Jones (D-St. Louis), would give him the power to close a poorly performing charter school after 2 years. The assumption that some will merit closing is galling. History has shown however, that like the undead, charter schools are hard to kill. There is nothing to stop them from finding another sponsor. And State Representative Tishaura Jones (D-St. Louis) would help prolong their lives with a bill she is sponsoring, HR 473, which expands the pool of charter school sponsors to non-profit organizations and the mayor of St. Louis. Mayor Slay salivates for authority to sponsor charter schools.
It should be noted that originally only public universities in the same or contiguous counties could sponsor charters. Once the statute was changed to authorize private universities to sponsor, both St. Louis University and Washington University hired an administrator to oversee the charters they would eventually sponsor within a month of each other. It is highly likely corporate donors used their influence to motivate both universities to sponsor charters. Non-profit organizations, which are also dependent on corporate largess for their existence, will find that influence difficult to resist as well.
Adams has admitted that, “only 3 to 4 of the existing charters have higher achievement results than the SLPS.” But he thinks that if we “look at the accountability issue” we can get better results. The best way to do that, “is to start our own”, he said. Given that the SLPS has not been successful raising achievement with the one charter school it already sponsors, what justification is there for optimism that the district will do better sponsoring more than one? A gambler might point to the odds.
It just doesn’t make sense. After ten years of experimentation with charter schools in St. Louis, it is apparent that this education model is not an improvement over traditional public schools. There is no rational reason for opening more of them. It is downright strange that Dr. Adams would rather expend ever diminishing resources on opening new charter schools rather than on improving our existing schools. It looks like he has given up on our schools.
In addition to the district sponsoring charter schools, Dr. Adams proposes that the SLPS sell or lease vacant buildings to charters not sponsored by the district. Doing so will leech students away from the district, reduce district funding and force the closing of more schools. During a panel discussion at Washington University April 13, Dr. Adams was asked if charter schools are, “a positive alternative or a drain on public resources?” His response was an astounding, “Both.” Only a problem gambler, one more impressed by the illusive attraction of another chance, would continue to risk children’s futures.
Last, Dr. Adams is going to implement a reconstitution or closure policy based on school performance. Instead of closing buildings based on age, state of repair, cost of operation, and enrollment, the new factors determining closure will be benchmark tests, MAP tests, attendance rate, free and reduced lunch meal applications (presumably the rate of compliance in collecting them versus the need for them), course offerings and graduation rate for high schools.
This amounts to educational Darwinism, survival of the fittest schools. The weakest students will be condemned to a continuous cycle of opening and closing schools rather than the stable, well-resourced schools they need. Students will be sent to schools which were better performing before they arrived, but will the better performers remain so if they are continually crowded with low performing students from closed schools? Or will a ripple effect contribute to the calculated closing of schools? Especially given the exit visa extended by facilitating the expansion of charter schools, by selling and leasing district buildings to them? Charter school addicts, like gambling addicts, seem to believe the next throw of the dice is going to be the winner, the next school opened is going to be the jackpot.
Lacking a rational reason for their expansion, there must be an ulterior motive for opening more charter schools. Permit us to speculate. Perhaps it has to do with dismantling a community’s ability to form alliances and work for its betterment as a whole. The powers that be would certainly find anything that deflected attention from the stranglehold they have on our economic and social wellbeing useful. After all, it is the wealthy corporate elite that support and promote charter schools. Communities and social networks develop around the schools and school districts their children attend. Charter schools have become a useful wedge issue, a tool that divides people and communities and prevents them from acting in a unified manner for their own self-interest. They disinvest citizens from their public school district, Balkanizing the constituency for public schools and creating conflict between them as they compete for inadequate funding. By dividing the constituency for public schools, no one constituency is large enough to galvanize enough power to acquire adequate resources. Instead of communities working together for the benefit of their public schools, they are split and competing against each other, the charter school parents concerned only for their own school and public school district parents diluted and weakened.
It is beginning to look like the people at the top of the pyramid really don’t want our education system to improve. A well-educated middle class is no longer needed in this country. With the globalization of the economy, even many white collar jobs can be outsourced and as markets develop in other countries, producers are less and less dependent on the American market to maintain their income.
So by giving the peasants, who can’t afford private school tuition, charter schools, boutique schools that have the feel of private schools, the powers that be can neutralize some public school parents, those happy to have the sop of choice, from attacking the powers for being unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes to support public education adequately for all.
There’s something inherently wrong with this picture. Expanding charter schools, enlarging their constituency, validates a failed model and increases the unlikelihood of ever eradicating them. What we will get is just another road to failure instead of applying resources to create good schools.
Meanwhile, Superintendent Adams gives the appearance of being productive, coming up with plans, and doing something. Some parents may be dazzled to have more options. Whether those options will result in better outcomes for our students remains to be seen.
An Open Letter To The SAB and Dr. Adams From Rebecca Rogers, PhD, President Of The Elected School Board February 7, 2011 This letter is a response to Superintendent Adams’ Initiatives that were reported to the SAB on.January 22, 2011. In sum, the initiatives that the Superintendent refers to as “Creating Great Options” include: district sponsored charter schools, closing traditional schools for poor performance, investment in programs for teen parents and preschoolers and an increase in school choice through an open enrollment program for 8 th graders. I will begin by pointing out that there are several very strong proposals in the initiative. I applaud the intended emphasis on Early Childhood Education programs, programs for teen parents and African centered programs in the district. Indeed, these proposals are well supported in the research literature as improving academic performance and can be integrated into existing schools. However, I am opposed to the initiatives that are not evidence-based including: district sponsored charter schools, open enrollment and school closures based on academic performance. In this letter, I highlight the lack of evidence-base and contradictions embedded within the Superintendent’s proposals. I ultimately urge the public and the SAB to reject these initiatives. I recommend the district stay focused on improving the current initiatives: Community Education Centers, neighborhood schools, magnet schools and Pilot Schools. District Sponsored Charter Schools The evidence-base clearly demonstrates charter schools continue to consistently underperform academically i . The supposed flexibility they offer in terms of programs and teachers is not without cost. Charter schools hire fewer certified teachers. There is a lack of transparency and accountability in reporting attendance or finances which results in wasted resources ii . Further, they selectively enroll higher performing students, fail to offer appropriate special education services and can return students to the traditional public school system at any time. In addition to considering the evidence base, I want to appeal to common sense: It simply does not make sense to sponsor charter schools at the same time the district is closing schools. Is this not a recipe for draining much needed resources from existing schools? Why, instead, wouldn’t the district focus on improving the programs available within existing schools? What we have learned from other districts around the nation is that siphoning resources away from traditional public schools will result in fewer choices, not more. The elected school board has taken the position that a moratorium be placed on the opening of new charter schools in the City of St. Louis until the district’s enrollment and related teacher staff/ student ratio stabilizes and the district commits to not close any additional schools ( www.slpsboe.org/ ). Secondly, parents and taxpayers do not know if the Superintendent’s prior initiatives — “Pilot schools” and “Turn Around Schools” — have been effective. Current data suggest that these initiatives are not working the way they were intended. For instance, one of the pilot schools coined as a Literacy Academy actually decreased in Communication Arts scores this year. This is not meant to single out any one school but to point out what those in the educational research community know: educational reform takes time iii . Rather than invest human and monetary capital into new projects, I strongly recommend that the district stays focused on improving the current initiatives: community education schools, Pilot Schools, magnet schools and neighborhood schools. Open Enrollment for 8 th Graders The Superintendent has also proposed what he refers to as an “open enrollment” plan for 8 th graders in the district. This proposal would allow 8 th graders to choose the high school they want to attend. This is, in essence, a recipe for further starving the most under-served schools of much needed resources. The reality is that many parents do not have the cultural, social and economic capital to “shop” for a school for their child. We have a collective responsibility to provide free and equitable public education for all. All of our public schools should be desirable schools. The plan for open enrollment will further privilege those children and families who have the resources to decide on a new high school. Many families will not have this advantage. The result is that fewer dollars will flow into some schools leading them toward closure. School Closings Based on Academic Performance The Superintendent’s proposal also includes more school closures based on academic performance and enrollment. This kind of initiative has been roundly criticized in the educational community because of its overreliance on test scores and punitive sanctions on schools that need the most resources. The logic of the proposal is that schools should be held accountable for meeting high standards. If they are not, they should be closed. The problem with this is that the schools most in need of the extra funding that the federal government offers (e.g. Race to the Top) cannot receive it because their scores are not high enough. In this way, NCLB perpetuates the problem by withholding additional support until after a series of disciplinary actions have been taken. This is counter-intuitive. Rather than offer immediate support to struggling schools, funding is withheld and threats of school closure force teachers and principals into teaching to the test, ultimately watering down the curriculum and de-educating our children and youth iv . We need to question the ways in which a history of racism, declining resources and lack of support set up the conditions of these “failing schools.” We must have a two-way form of accountability. Schools, teachers and children can only be held accountable if other social policies such as health care, fair wages and affordable housing are also held accountable. Closing schools hurts youth academically. Research into school closings in other urban areas indicates that the transfer of students into unfamiliar neighborhoods, coupled with the stress experienced by transferred students, contributed to increased discipline problems, violence, and concerns about safety. This research also indicates a climate of uncertainty, demoralization, tension, and stress affecting students, teachers, and families due to school closings, threats of further closings, and student transfers. v Further school closings will destroy our communities. Schools serve as anchors for neighborhoods, strengthening communities and families. Closing schools will adversely impact neighborhoods that are already impacted by declining populations. Situating Educational Reform in an Evidence-Base Dr. Adams is, undoubtedly, in a difficult position. In this era of accountability, resource starved school districts are pressured into making drastic reforms. However, there is limited research to support these proposals. I would urge the Superintendent to focus, instead, on solutions that are evidence-based. Further, the Superintendent might look to healthy urban school districts such as Atlanta Public Schools for solutions vi . Many of these solutions may be embedded within the existing public school structure: Teacher quality and professional development. Professional development is at the heart of educational reform. Professional development should be based on teachers’ expressed needs and be integrated into their teaching lives through professional learning communities and coaching vii . Small class sizes. Rather than close schools, focus on the benefits of decreased class size. Research demonstrates the academic and social benefits of small schools and low teacher-student ratios. Stop ability grouping and tracking in classrooms. Ability grouping begins in elementary school and creates de-facto “tracks” with students remaining in the same groups throughout their academic careers. There is clear evidence that tracking has detrimental effects on students viii . End disciplinary policies that mitigate educational opportunities. Disciplinary policies should be reviewed to ensure that they are not creating a “school-to-prison” pipeline. Evidence indicates that African American youth, particularly males, are the subject of racial profiling through disciplinary policies that do not help them acquire the behaviors and conventions necessary to succeed in school. The result is a domino effect of grade retentions, school drop out and academic failure. End the disproportionate representation of African American students special education. Research indicates that African American youth are over-represented in special education and under-represented in gifted education as a result of bias in referral and testing and inequities in opportunities. ix Town Hall Forums and SAB Vote on February 17 th ( From the editor— This was written before the date change for the SAB vote. They have not myet voted.) In the coming weeks, the SAB will hold two town hall forums where parents and citizens can express their thoughts about the proposals. I urge people to hold the SAB and Superintendent accountable to evidence-based reforms and urge them to reject the charter school, open enrollment and school closing proposals. During the vote on February 17 th , I ask the SAB to accept the proposals for early childhood education, programs for teen parents and African centered programs that can be integrated into existing SLPS schools. I ask that they reject the proposals for district sponsored charter schools, open enrollment for 8 th graders and additional school closings based on standardized test scores. Sincerely, Rebecca Rogers, PhD Rebecca Rogers is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. She is currently serving as the President of the elected Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools. She recently served on the board of directors of the Literacy Research Association and the National Council of Research on Language and Literacy. During the fall of 2009 she was a Fulbright Scholar at the Universidad de San Martín in Argentina. She is the author of six books and over fifty articles and chapters focused on teacher education, classroom discourse and literacy studies. Citations i The CREDO National Charter School Study out of Stanford University (2010) demonstrated that charter schools continue to underperform traditional public schools. Specifically, they found that 17 percent of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools, while 37 percent of charter schools showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46 percent of charter schools demonstrating no significant difference. http://credo.stanford.edu/ ii The percentage of teachers who need to be certified in a school varies across states but, in general, the percentage is lower than in public schools. Only 75% of the teachers in charter schools need to hold teaching degrees while the percentage is higher in traditional public schools (87). Additionally, charter schools are often free to hire and fire teachers based on an annual contract. These teachers are not provided with mentors or regular and ongoing professional development. As a whole, the charter school movement has rejected unions to avoid bureaucracy. However, it is important to remember that union contracts are the result of struggles fought and won to protect worker’s rights such as due process, adequate pay and decent working conditions. iii Cuban, L., Lichtenstein, G., Evenchik, A., Tombari, M., Pozzoboni, K. (2010). Against the odds: Insights from one district’s small school reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. iv Saddler (2005) points out that under current educational reform initiatives, African American children and youth are being de-educated. By this he means that African American youth are being systematically excluded from the education system or being systematically destroyed within that system. v Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni, K. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closings on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32 (3),407-429. Lipman, P., & Person, A. S. (2007). Students as collateral damage? A preliminary study of Renaissance 2010 school closings in the midsouth . Chicago, IL: DePaul University. vi Hall, B. (2010). A practitioner’s journey: Using the data every day, every way to transform Atlanta Public Schools . Lecture delivered at the 2010 American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado. vii Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press. viii Meier, K., Stewart, J. & and England, R. (1989). Race, Class and Education: The Politics of Second Generation Discrimination. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. ix Blanchett, W. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35 (6), 24-28. Harry, B. & Klingner, J. (2005). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools . New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B. & Anderson, M. (1994). Disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 63 (4), 602-619. Losen, D. & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequality in special education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Special Meeting There is a special meeting of the SAB scheduled for Wednesday, April 27 at 6 p.m. in room 108 ofthe administration building at 801 North 11th Street. Approval of the 2011-12 budget and Dr. Adams plan for the district will probably be on the agenda. The agenda has yet to be posted.
April 27, Wednesday, special SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108. The public is given time to address the SAB at all meetings. To speak, arrive before 6 p.m. and sign the sheet at the rostrum at the front of the room on the right. May 5, Thursday, regular bi-monthly SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108. May 26, Thursday, regular bi-monthly SAB meeting, 6 p.m., 801 North 11th Street, room 108. The public is given time to address the SAB at all meetings. To speak, arrive before 6 p.m. and sign the sheet at the rostrum at the front of the room on the right. 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
Calendar
-
blackjackblog liked this
-
en-ligne-pharmacie liked this
-
slpswatch posted this
