This edition of the Watch is given over to the Transition Report which the Board of Education will submit to Danforth Freeman Special Advisory Committee. The Board of Education requests feedback from readers prior to finalizing the report. Please read it and contribute your thoughts.
June 15, 2010
Dear Parents, Students and Citizens of St. Louis,
The future control of the St. Louis Public school district is once again under consideration. Will the citizens of St. Louis control public schools through democratically elected representatives, or will our schools continue to be controlled by political appointees?
Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro has reconvened the Special Advisory Committee to evaluate next directions for the St. Louis Public Schools. For the past three years, a State Appointed Board (SAB) has governed the district. This is a politically appointed board, whose members are appointed by the Governor, the Mayor, and the Chair of the Board of Alderpersons.
While you may not hear much about the elected school board in the media, we have continued to exist and work together over the past three years, as per state statute. Our primary responsibilities have been to audit and monitor the State Appointed Board. We have worked together diligently to champion the educational interests of St. Louis children. Here are some of the things we have been working on:
- We have consistently met as a board on the second Tuesday of the month to analyze and monitor national, state and local educational policies and practices.
- We have written many resolutions on school district issues.
- When called upon, we have consulted with members of the SAB.
- Members of the school board routinely meet with Superintendent Adams to stay current on school district issues.
- We communicate with the public about school district issues.
- Members of the school board have continued with their own professional and leadership development; building our capacity to govern, so that we will be ready for a transition to an elected school board.
- We developed a “transition report” that will be used to inform and advocate for the return to the elected school board as the governance of the school district.
In this report, we advocate for a return to a democratically elected school board as the governance structure of the school district. We are advocating for the following:
For a period of 30 days beginning 30 days prior to July 1, 2011 or whatever date the State Board of Education suggests to DESE (whichever is sooner), will be the period in which all district operations are reviewed, updated and prepared by the Missouri School Boards Association in collaboration with the elected school board for the return of elected governance to the St. Louis Board of Education.
As we demonstrate in this report, there is evidence that the school district has fared better academically and financially under the governance of a democratically elected school board. However, we also recognize that no governance model is the magic solution and that appropriate state and local supports are necessary for the St. Louis Public Schools to regain and maintain accreditation, financial stability and stability in leadership. Thus, in our report we discuss the conditions necessary for attaining and maintaining accreditation and preparing the district for success.
Also included in the report is the ‘Strategic Plan’ for the school district. This was developed by the elected board of education out of ideas generated by the public in a forum held in 2008 where hundreds of parents and community members generated ideas for strengthening the school district.
The board needs the continued input, feedback and support of the public. I ask that you read this report and provide us with your comments, suggestions and questions. You can email these suggestions to our board email address:
Please join us for our board meeting on July 13 or August 10 2010 at 7 pm at Carr Lane Middle School (1004 North Jefferson Avenue) to share your comments during the public comments portion of the meeting.
We will collect ideas from the public and consider our report in their light.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Rogers, PhD
President, Elected School Board of SLPS
I. RATIONALE OF THE REPORT
The State Appointed Board (SAB) was put in place as an Interim governmental body of St. Louis Public Schools, according to state statute 162.1100 developed for the desegregation lawsuit settlement. The terms for the takeover were outlined in state law but an end date for the takeover was never specified. Further, the conditions for school governance following the state takeover were not specified in the state statute. Thus, after reviewing the literature in state takeovers – the successes and challenges as school districts that have been “taken over” and transition back to local governance – we present the findings in this report. We will conclude that the state takeover has not and cannot address the systemic problems that impede quality education for the children of St. Louis. We offer our recommendations for meeting these challenges under the governance of a democratically elected school board. The report also outlines a plan and timeline for a transition back to full local governance by the democratically elected school board.
The structure of this report is as follows:
I. Transition to an Elected School Board
A. Why should governance of SLPS return to a democratically elected school board?
B. How would the district return to local control?
II. Discussion of Necessary Conditions for Attaining and Maintaining Accreditation
A. Addressing Persistent and Remaining Challenges through State Support
B. Preparing the District for Success
III. Appendices A. WHY SHOULD SLPS RETURN TO LOCAL CONTROL via A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD? (1) Local Capacity
The SLPS is well poised to return local control to the democratically elected school board because the elected school board has continued to operate under the state statute. This is important because findings in West Virginia, a state that took over three school districts and then returned the districts to local control after four years, demonstrated that key in the process of returning to local control and for the achievements gained during state takeover was the continued existence of the local school board (Bushweller, 1998).
The elected school board of SLPS has remained active in its auditing and reporting powers, designated under the state statute. Each month, the school board meets to analyze policy issues, offer recommendations to the SAB and inform the public about issues germane to the school system. A monthly meeting between the superintendent and an elected board member is held. In addition, several elected board members communicate with a member of the Special Administrative Board on ongoing events in the district. The board consists of seven people who are knowledgeable and committed to public education [see Appendix A for the bio-data of each elected board member]. Each board member is certified by the Missouri School Board Association and is prepared to regain full governance of the district.
(2) The Importance of Local Governance
Democratically elected school boards play an important role in the community. School boards balance community goals and values in making decisions about the education of students and are often more responsive to community needs. A system run by political appointees or politicians is fraught with political baggage and runs the risk of governance by people who are not fully committed to public education. A school board member has one responsibility: public education. Further, when a district is run by the state, there is a very wide gap between parents and community members and the people who are making decisions about their schools. Decisions are often not transparent, effective or accountable. Under local control, school board members – and their decisions — are accountable, accessible and transparent. The process of democratically electing representatives to a school board also deepens the engagement of students and parts of the community in schools. The flight of families from the schools and the soaring dropout rate since the state imposed an appointed board on the district both testify to the increasing alienation of people from their schools when the schools are run by political appointees unaccountable to the people they are supposed to serve.
(3) State Intervention is Unsustainable
A state run school system, in the long-term, diminishes the capacity of a community to govern itself by removing leadership and decision-making from the community. The literature in educational reform clearly demonstrates that changing the management of schools (from elected school boards to a state appointed board) will not address the complex and difficult instructional problems that require educational expertise (Houston, 1998) nor the financial and systemic issues that confront urban schools.
In district after district, the research on state takeovers indicates that the biggest indicators of success with state takeovers tends to be in the areas of budget and management, not in the area of student achievement (Johnston, 1998; Hendrie, 1998). However, it is important to note that districts that made improvements financially were often provided with increased funding from the state as was the case with Baltimore & Kentucky (Hunter, 1998) or were relieved of their debt to the state. In the case of SLPS, after three years of state intervention via an appointed board in SLPS, the unrestricted operating fund deficit has increased fourfold from $13 million to $69 million. Meanwhile, families have ‘voted with their feet’ and pulled students out of district schools in droves with nearly one in five students abandoning the district in the period of government by a state-imposed appointed board.
While it may seem logical to extend the term of the State Appointed Board to six years, the literature in state takeovers warns against the effectiveness of a prolonged state intervention. It is unreasonable to expect appointed people to continue to govern a district in perpetuity. Appointing new people will lead to further instability. What is needed is a stable governance structure, one that is accountable to the people and gives administrators and educational leaders in the district the professional room to innovate with their teaching.
(4) Elected School Boards are State Law
An elected school board governs almost every public school district across this state. Having an elected school board is outlined in the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 162. Clearly the Missouri State Legislature saw the issues with the St. Louis Public Schools takeover and RSMo162.1100 and addressed this by passing SB291 last year and instituting Missouri Revised Statute 162.083 that applies to all other districts in the event of a takeover. It seems the desire and intent is to always maintain a local body of elected officials. However, since the SLPS was taken over using the desegregation statute RSMo162.1100, the elected board in St. Louis continued to exist in an auditing and reporting capacity. This is beneficial in that a continuing elected board is easier to transition into full elected governance more so than an incremental transition. According to legal scholars, taking away the elected school board runs the risk of violating the Voters Rights Act of 1965. The results of the school board election in April of 2009 clearly show that the voters care about their constitutional right of electing representatives to the school board.
(6) Considering SLPS in the context of other State Takeovers in Missouri
There is very little evidence that suggests that state takeovers have long-term success in stabilizing school districts. What is clear when looking at the effectiveness of the takeovers across the nation is that takeovers can moderately impact management and finances but rarely impact student achievement. As Lewis (1999) notes, “student achievement takes time.” In Missouri, it is important to note, the Wellston School District, a district of around 600 students lost its accreditation in 2003 and was taken over by the state in 2005. It closed this year and was merged with Normandy. The governance of the district had little bearing on the performance of the district after the state was involved for seven years with advising and with an appointed board. This flawed philosophy that state intervention can guarantee better results may be aborted in favor of letting those closest to the problem fix the problems. It is apparent now to all parties that the philosophy behind NCLB to obtain results from schools is warranted. However, it is equally apparent to all those involved in education that the methodology and results are impossible to achieve given the lack of additional resources. Every school district in Missouri will be unaccredited or failing to meet Adequate yearly Progress (AYP) after the 2014 target year to have every child scoring at the advanced or proficient levels on state standardized tests if testing remains the primary focus on district accreditation and AYP.
B. HOW WOULD THE DISTRICT RETURN TO LOCAL CONTROL?
For a period of 30 days beginning 30 days prior to July 1, 2011 or whatever date the State Board of Education suggests to DESE (whichever is sooner), will be the period in which all district operations are reviewed, updated and prepared by the MSBA in collaboration with the elected school board for the return of elected governance to the St. Louis Board of Education.
II. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ATTAINING AND MAINTAINING ACCREDITATION
At this juncture in the school district, many persistent challenges remain. Our plan for a return to an elected school board acknowledges the challenges that exist and the additional state supports that will need to be put in place in order for the transition plan to be effective. Of paramount concern is avoiding old patterns that resulted in the state takeover. What follows is an assessment of the challenges that the district faces and our recommendations.
(1) Finances
In many state takeovers around the nation, where the takeover was for financial reasons, part of the solution was debt forgiveness (Sullivan-Brown, 2009). In Kentucky and Baltimore, state intervention in school districts was coupled with significant increases in state funding to improve educational programs (Hunter & Swan, 1999).
We recognize that as the State of Missouri is struggling with its own budget problems and that practically and politically the legislature will not feel able to come up with more money for St. Louis Public Schools. A pot of money already exists, however, that could help: the money set aside for desegregation capital expenses. It cost considerably more to educate a student who faces the challenges of living in an urban environment: high unemployment, lack of health care, lack of financial resources, lack of stable and affordable housing, etc.
Recommendation Recommendation:
Thus, we propose a transition plan that would include a proposal to voters to return funding to the previously voter approved rate and increase local funding for education by a tax increase to undo some of the Hancock Amendment rollbacks, which would only go into effect with the commencement of the transition to a democratically elected school board.
Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: (2) Academic Achievement & Accreditation
It is important to note that the biggest gains in student academic achievement, as measured by scores on the MAP, occurred under a democratically elected school board (before FY 2004). “Reforms” initiated when the district was under mayoral control by proxy slowed and then reversed gains. MAP scores have stabilized under the appointed board initiated by the state, and in some cases they have increased slightly, but not as rapidly as under a democratically elected board.
Student retention was consistently higher under a democratically elected board. After emerging from federal court oversight, the democratically elected board drove the dropout rate down every year until it was replaced by mayoral control by proxy. The dropout rate increased each year under mayoral control by proxy. The dropout rate dropped again in the 2006-2007 school year when the majority of the board was again democratically elected, and has risen each year since under the appointed board imposed by the state, hitting 27.5 percent last year.
The current accreditation process has no regard for how well schools actually educate their students in that it fails to consider student progress. Every school should have the goal of developing every child’s intellect, regardless of their starting point.
Recommendation: Recommendation: (4) Reforming the Electoral Process
Typical definitions of “free and fair elections” used around the world have many elements, including not just freedom from intimidation or coercion, universal sufferage, accessible polling places, and secret ballots, but also equitable and balanced reporting by the media and equitable access to financial and material resources for campaigning.
By such definitions, the flood of corporate money into school board elections in the 2003-2006 period corrupted the election process so that it was not free and fair. The corruption that produced those unfair elections led to political chaos and disharmony on the school board. Our strategy to reform the funding of school board elections, we believe, would help sustain a wide range of leadership from the City of St. Louis.
Recommendation: (5) Boards of Education – State and Local
In addition to becoming certified as school board members, there will be additional procedures in place for continued education of board members in their key roles as board members: approval of policies, approval of operating budget, hiring, evaluation and dismissal of the superintendent.
Recommendation: Recommendation: (6) Charter School Accountability Recommendation: Recommendation:
The sponsor of a charter school must annually conduct a Missouri school improvement plan assessment of each school it sponsors based on the State Board of Education’s standards. A sponsor of a charter school may revoke a school’s charter, or place it on probationary status, if the school fails to meet the standards under the sponsor’s annual Missouri school improvement plan assessment. A charter school sponsor must affirm or withdraw their sponsorship of the charter for the following academic year by December 31 of the year immediately preceding.
Please send comments and feedback to slpselectedboard@yahoo.com
References
Bushweller, K. (1998, August). Under the shadow of the state. American School Board Journal, 185(8), 16-19.
Reinhard, B. (1998, January 14). Racial issues cloud state takeovers. Education Week, 17, 1+. Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=18minor.h17
Hunter, R. & Swann, J. (1999). School takeovers and enhanced answerability. Education & Urban Society, 31, 238-255.
Murphy, J. (2000). Governing America’s schools: The shifting playing field. Teachers College Record, Volume 102 Number 1, 2000, p. 57-84.
Timar, T. (2004). School governance and oversight in California: Shaping the Landscape. Teachers College Record Volume 106 Number 11, 2004, p. 2057-2080.
Wong, K. & Shen, F. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78 (4), 89-119.
VII. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Bio-data of Elected School Board Members CHAD BEFFA
Chad was elected to the St. Louis Board of Education in 2009. He is a lifelong
St. Louis resident who grew up in South St. Louis and attended St. Mary Magdalen,
Gateway Christian, St, John the Baptist, St. Louis Community College at Forest Park,
Meramec, and Harris Stowe State University. His wife Jennifer is a veteran National
Board Certified St. Louis Public School Teacher who teaches at Kennard Classical Junior Academy. Two of his children attend Kennard CJA, where he is also a member of the PTO Board. Chad owns Beffa Property Acquisitions and Development LLC, which does residential real estate contract consultation. Chad is the Executive Director of the Missouri State Parent Organization and has been volunteering his spare time in Jefferson City for the past several years. He has testified on behalf of over 30 educational bills while helping to author and revise education legislation.
EMILE BRADFORD-TAYLOR
Emile Bradford-Taylor has been a registered nurse for over 25 years, 10 of which have been in educational settings. Emile has worked on behalf of parents and students in SLPS on issues such as: transportation, parent liaison issues, the IB program, the rights of students who are homeless, and advocating for a multicultural curriculum. Bradford-Taylor is a parent of a student in SLPS and a licensed foster parent. She was elected to the SLPS Board in 2009.
PETER DOWNS
Peter Downs is a full-time editor and writer. He previously worked machine set-up in the metalworking and woodworking industries, worked as a coatings technician in the protective coatings industry, and worked in the automobile industry. He has been active in health care, environmental, and democracy movements in St. Louis for the past 30 years. Mr. Downs has two daughters attending St. Louis Public Schools. He was elected to the school board in 2006. He is currently President of the Board of Education.
DAVID L. JACKSON JR.
Mr. Jackson has been a resident of the City of St. Louis for over 30 years. He was educated in the St. Louis Public School system and graduated from Central High School in 1976. Mr. Jackson is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. He holds Bachelors of Science Degrees in Business Administration and Criminology from St. Louis University. Mr. Jackson is also a certified Property Manager and certified Occupancy Specialist by the National Center for Housing Management. Mr. Jackson was elected to the board in 2007.
Mr. Jackson has successfully completed and has been involved in over $200 million dollars in construction projects, both commercial and residential in the capacities of Project Administrator, Project Manager and Director of Programs. Some of his major projects include; the Residences at Murphy Park located at 20th and Cass Avenue and the King Louis Square Apartments at the old Darst-Webbe Housing Complex. In 2003 Mr. Jackson formed D.L.J. Construction Services, LLC, a firm which specializes in general construction, subcontracting, construction management and administration, minority and women owned businesses utilization and Section 3 development and implementation, as well as, workforce diversity.
DONNA JONES
REBECCA ROGERS
Rebecca Rogers is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. She received her Ph.D. in Literacy Education from the University of Albany in New York State. Rebecca is the author of 5 research-based books and over fifty chapters and articles in the areas of literacy education, teacher preparation, critical literacy and family literacy studies. She serves as an elected board member of two major professional organizations, the National Reading Conference and the National Council of Research in Language and Literacy. She was recently awarded a Fulbright Fellowship where she worked at the Universidad Nacional de San Martín in Argentina. Rogers is involved with several community-based groups in St. Louis including the ABC’s of Literacy, The Literacy Roundtable and the Literacy for Social Justice Teacher Research Group. Rebecca was elected to the SLPS school board in 2009.
KATIE WESSLING
Katie Wessling received her B.A. cum laude from Truman State University in 1993, and her J.D. from Washington University School of Law in 1996. She has been a resident of south St. Louis since 1995, and has two children enrolled in SLPS. Her community involvement includes being a P.T.O officer, a Girl Scout leader, and a volunteer at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center with the NICUPS (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Parent Support Group). She has been the Managing Attorney for Legal Advocates for Abused Women, a non-profit based in St. Louis City, since 1996. Locally, she has done community outreach and trainings on domestic violence and legal issues for community groups, universities, police departments, and attorneys. She has been the keynote speaker for the Jefferson County Family Violence Conference and Truman State University’s “Lend a Hand for Living” nonprofit conference. She authored “The O.P. Booklet” which is distributed in local courthouses and domestic violence shelters to explain the Order of Protection process to domestic violence victims. She has participated as faculty for the American Bar Association in national trainings on domestic violence and child custody issues.
APPENDIX B STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT Strategic Plan for St. Louis Public Schools: Better Schools for St. Louis Children April 12, 2008
Introduction
Over a period of nine months, members of the St. Louis Board of Education met with hundreds of parents, teachers, and community members to discuss ways of improving St. Louis Public Schools, capping the process with a three-hour forum with a panel of education experts. Elected school board members received thousands of comments from individuals and groups, some in person and some by email or telephone.
One idea was expressed in so many different forms and variations from so many people that it came through loudly and clearly above all the rest: the climate created by the district bureaucracy, the state board of education, and the governors of the school district does not encourage excellence from people in the district, be they staff or students.
There was an overwhelming consensus that if St. Louis Public Schools are going to make any meaningful improvement, the governors of the district and the district bureaucracy must start valuing people over programs. In short, the foundation for improving the school district is to organize operations around the idea that people make the difference, not programs.
There also was a common belief that school should help every child grow intellectually and socially every year; that the purpose of school is to annually improve each student’s understanding of how the world works so that as adults each student can have some mastery and control of his or her own life. Reading and math are some of the foundations for being able to understand the world, but not the only ones. Social studies, including history and civics; science; art; music; and drama all are ways of perceiving and understanding the world. Learning how to behave constructively with other people in work or play; economics; and practical lessons in democracy, including debate, voting, majority rule and dissent; all are part of learning how the world works and the rights and limitations of individual self-determination. Students should learn all these things during the13 years of K-12 schooling; and nothing that measures progress in just one or two areas is a valid measurement of whether a teacher or school is doing a good job.
There was widespread recognition that none of the disciplines mentioned above should be treated as freestanding silos. There is a dynamic interaction between the disciplines that drives learning forward. Reading can, but does not necessarily, lead to learning about history or art; and learning about history or art can motivate students to learn reading or math. The paths of learning are as varied as individuals.
There was a general awareness that students do not check their family, neighborhood, psychological, and social problems at the schoolhouse door. So, while teachers are the most important people for bringing the disciplines together in a way that advances student learning, they need support from a variety of other professionals, who are trained to handle emotional and behavioral problems, for example, so that teachers can teach.
And there was widespread agreement that even though schools collectively and the school district as a whole greatly need improvement, that does not mean that there is nothing in them that is working or working well. Simply put, change for change sake is probably more harmful than helpful; so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Anyone seriously wanting to improve public schools must analyze which things are not working and then focus on with those things that will have the greatest positive effect for the most students.
Summary
It should be the goal of the district’s governors and administrators to make sure that every student in St. Louis Public Schools has inspiring teachers in a clean, safe, welcoming environment teaching challenging and interesting curricula and introducing students to new environments, new ideas, and new situations, and helping students master them.
It has become very clear that to accomplish that goal, or any meaningful and broad-based improvement across city schools, two fundamental reforms are necessary.
One, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the St. Louis Public School district must adopt a way of measuring how much students grow intellectually and cognitively every year in every class and school. Whether one calls it a growth model or a way of measuring the value that schools and teachers add to a student’s growth, an objective way to measure whether anything does any good is necessary or everything that teachers do and that boards, superintendents, and legislators order is just fumbling in the dark.
The education school at the University of Missouri – Columbia claims to have the expertise to measure how much a class or school experience adds to a child’s intellectually abilities over a year. We do not know if their claim is true, but we think one of the first steps towards improving education for city students is to find out if it is.
Two, the command-and-control concept that underlies school district operations must be thrown out and replaced with the concept of school-based leadership. Regardless of whether people spoke in employment terms of empowering teachers, in political terms of creating a more democratic institution consonant with the values of a democratic society, or in business terms of encouraging more entrepreneurial activity at lower levels of the organization, they shared a common diagnosis of the district’s core malady: no large bureaucracy has the agility to respond quickly to changing school enrollment patterns, changing school populations, and changes in the experiences and growth of individual students during a school year. Only competent teachers and well-led schools can do that. The performance of St. Louis schools has been hampered by too much central control that deprives schools of the freedom necessary for responding to the needs of their students.
It is important to remember that the central relationship in learning is the relationship between teacher and student. Everything else about the school district should be organized to raise and support positive teacher-student relationships.
Recommendations Teachers, Teaching Assistants, Instructional Care Attendants
• Start scouting for good teachers, teaching assistants, and instructional care attendants
• Recruit early
• Provide targeted, quality professional development with a range of available topics, including:
- Training in effective classroom management
- Training in a full battery of methods to reach all children
- Training in how to spot emotional, behavioral, and learning disorders in order to request a classroom visit by support personnel
- Training in how to recognize and stop bullying
• Support teachers with appropriate teaching assistants and with the instructional care attendants needed to fulfill their students’ IEPs.
• Give teachers more leeway to respond to the learning needs of their students
• Evaluate teachers based on how effectively they help their students master their subject and develop their cognitive abilities during the year.
• Mentor new teachers and teachers who need improvement
• Develop improvement plans for teachers who need to improve
• Let go of those teachers who do not improve
• Give teachers a role in selecting the new principal for their school when the opportunity arises.
• Give teachers, in concert with their principal, a role in selecting new teachers for their school
Principals
• Reposition and re-think the principal’s role as an instructional leader instead of a building manager:
- Reduce the amount of paperwork principals must complete on things that are not directly related to instruction (e.g. free lunch enrollment forms)
- Reduce the number of out-of-building meetings principals must attend and reduce the amount of time spent in such meetings
- Have the district take on responsibilities for building maintenance, lunch, and other general, ongoing, non-instructional services.
• Give principals more leeway to respond to the needs of their students
• A main role of a principal should be to help teachers improve their teaching with advice and counseling
• Principals shall arrange appropriate professional development for school staff
• Principals should work with their community and neighborhood to cultivate more parent involvement in the school, neighborhood support, and attract students
• Principals shall each organize and work with a school advisory board composed of representatives from staff, parents, and the neighborhood(s).
• New principals shall be selected with input from teachers and the advisory board
• Principals shall get professional development in how to evaluate each teacher annually based on how their students mastered their subjects and grew their cognitive abilities
• Principals shall get professional development in how to develop improvement plans for teachers that need to improve
• Principals shall get professional development on when and how to dismiss teachers who do not improve
• Principals shall get professional development in how to implement an effective no-bullying policy
• Principals shall get professional development in character education
* Principals shall get professional development in effective leadership
Schools
• There should be universal access to free pre-school starting at age 3
• Schools should be staffed to meet Missouri’s desired pupil/teacher ratio: K-5 = 20/1, 6-8 = 22/1, 9-12 = 28/1
• Schools should be staffed to provide instructional care attendants to all the special education students who need them for the amount of individual time each one needs.
• All schools shall conform to standard configurations of grade levels across the district, such as PK-5, 6-8, or 9-12 or some other agreed upon configuration based upon bona fide objective research.
• Each school shall have a library and classrooms well stocked with books for children to borrow and read
• Schools shall be run by their local people: principals, in conjunction with staff, parents, and their communities, shall have the leeway to make decisions regarding what works best in their school community within the confines of their budget.
• Each school can adopt a particular academic theme or unique focus (similar to that of a magnet school) with the authority to develop and adopt a curriculum for that theme.
• All schools shall be able to accept students from anywhere in the city as long as neighborhood children have first preference for enrollment. There shall be no racial quotas.
• Schools that have more than 350 students shall be divided into “houses” or “academies” within each school to provide every student with the close attention of a small school experience.
• Each school that requests it shall have an in-school suspension option available run by professionals with experience and training in successfully counseling students how to change their behavior.
• There shall be a full time art, music, and physical education teacher in each elementary school and a computer specialist in each building, as well as social worker, counselor, and a nurse.
• Schools shall have mentors available for students
• Each school shall have the freedom to pursue a relationship with a local company or group of companies to augment its financial and volunteer support
• Each school shall have the freedom and budget to promote or market itself to attract students in the neighborhoods it serves
• Every school will have a parent advocate/ombudsman trained to answer parent questions, to help parents get answers, and to build positive relationships between parents and school
• Every school will have the means to offer after school programs, including tutoring and homework help and extracurricular activities.
• Every school will include character education in its curriculum
• Students shall be able to remain at the school where they start the year even if the student’s family moves during the year. Students shall be able to remain at the same high school for four years even if the student’s family moves.
* Schools shall have the resources to enable teachers and staff to engage families through home visits and calls.
District
• District offices need to be re-thought and repositioned from command roles to largely consultative and support roles.
• The position of Education Officer shall be eliminated and replaced with advisors/consultants who will help principals and teachers interpret data about student growth and, after extensive observation and interview, give principals and teachers advice on how to improve their practice.
• The Recruitment and Counseling Office shall be eliminated as each school shall become responsible for its recruitment and enrollment.
• The school board and superintendent shall spend less time approving three, five, 10, and 20 thousand dollar expenditures as individual schools shall get the authority and responsibility for their own expenditures, but the school auditing capabilities of the Treasurer’s office shall be beefed up.
• An assistant superintendent for elementary schools and an assistant superintendent for middle and high schools shall supervise the principals at each level of instruction.
• Assistant superintendents will evaluate their principals each year, with input from teachers and parent/neighborhood panels.
• Assistant superintendents shall help principals obtain materials and funds they need to improve their schools
• Assistant superintendents shall prepare improvement plans for principals who need to improve
• Assistant superintendents shall remove principals who do not improve
• The district shall maintain alternative schools for students who need more intensive behavior modification and counseling than is available at their school of choice
• The district shall maintain vocational/technical schools to offer capital-intensive technical and vocational education to students from many base high schools
• The district shall investigate presenting a special education tax proposal to the voters
• Food service will be brought back in-house and the quality and freshness of food will be improved
• There shall be two tiers of school start times instead of three
• The district shall launch and coordinate district-wide marketing efforts
* The district shall encourage schools to increase their use of electronic communications as appropriate to communicate with their parents
* The district shall develop a revenue-sharing mechanism so that schools with wealthy benefactors share some of their good fortune with poorer schools
Curriculum
• The district shall maintain a uniform curriculum based on state requirements
• The district shall make a variety of curriculum materials available to schools; teachers shall be involved in selecting those materials
• The district shall maintain an internal web site of curriculum materials for teachers to download and use and to which teachers can contribute
• The district shall maintain an on-line teacher “chat room” where teachers can discuss classroom problems and how to handle them without fear of discipline
• The district shall make a variety of quality professional development options available to schools and teachers
• The district shall renew an emphasis on social studies including civics, citizenship and history
• The district shall develop a fitness curriculum for physical education
Building Maintenance
• The district shall maintain all buildings in good condition
• The district shall stop violating court orders relating to the stationary engineers
• The district shall bring building custodians and building maintenance back in house
• The district shall assign a district employee other than the principal to each school building to supervise all building maintenance and improve the efficiency of building operations
• The district shall appoint a qualified building commissioner with an engineering or architectural background to supervise all building supervisors and all building maintenance in the district.
• The district shall investigate presenting to the voters a proposal to create and fund through its own dedicated tax a quasi-independent historic building and cultural commission to maintain and preserve historic school buildings for use by SLPS
* The district shall help schools convert more of their paved area into green space and play grounds. When pavement is replaced with new pavement, the new pavement shall be of the porous (“Pervious”) variety
Transportation
• Principals will enforce the code of conduct on school buses.
• There will be an appellate procedure through which bus companies may appeal to an assistant superintendent if a principal fails to enforce the code of conduct.
• Escalating gas prices and probable greenhouse gas legislation may make continuing a massive transportation program based on gasoline or diesel fuel unsustainable in years to come. The district should begin investigating alternatives from encouraging more attendance at neighborhood schools to the availability of alternative fuels for schools buses such as biodiesel.
City
• The city shall reform its authorizations for TIFs to provide for some pass-through revenue to the school district
• The city shall stop holding school taxes back from the school district
• The city or the city mental health board shall pay for independent assessments of students, whom teachers believe suffer from undiagnosed behavioral deficits.
• The city shall start supplying trash pick-up at public schools.
• City development policies shall encourage the development of a diverse mix of housing options in the neighborhoods around each school.
• The city will fund health and social services in each school
State
• The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education shall adopt a way of measuring how much students grow intellectually and cognitively every year in every class and school, and use that measurement in place of MAP testing to evaluate school performance
• The state will fully fund the foundation formula
• The state will fully fund special education
• The state will fully fund school transportation
• The state will fund pre-school starting at age 3
• The state will put a moratorium on the creation of more charter schools
• The state will stop discriminating against public schools and apply one uniform set of rules to all publicly-funded schools
• The state will not authorize any private school vouchers or tax credit program
• DESE will stop discriminating against St. Louis in transportation funding
• DESE will stop discriminating in the A+ program against St. Louis students and students from other majority black school districts
• The state will dissolve the transition district and return to the citizens of St. Louis the right to elect representatives of their own choosing to govern their school district
• DESE will acknowledge accreditation by other sources as equivalent to its own
* The state legislature shall reform state law to provide that no political jurisdiction shall be able to take tax revenue from another political jurisdiction without the latter’s permission
Calendar 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
-
slpswatch posted this
