St. Louis Board of Education

Last night, Rebecca Rogers reported on the progress being made towards
creating full service schools in St. Louis. This shows that the community
can make positive things happen in St. Louis Public Schools.

Nearly a year ago, when the SAB was considering recommendations from their
facilities consultant for draconian cuts in the number of schools, the
community demanded that schools should be kept open and turned into full
service schools. American Federation of Teachers Local 420, the St. Louis
chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and the elected St. Louis
Board of Education all reflected the community’s wishes in formal statements
supporting full service schools. Superintendent Kelvin Adams took up the
call and developed his own recommendations for the SAB, recommending
reducing the number of school closings by more than half and starting 13
full service schools. The SAB responded to the community’s pressure and
approved Adams’s plan. That was a real victory for citizen action.

Following is Rogers’ report on progress that has been made since then.

Report on Community Education Full Service Schools
Rebecca Rogers
Delivered at Elected School Board Meeting, November 10th, 2009

In October of 2009, I requested an update from Mr. John Windom on the status
of the ³full service community schools² in SLPS. As a reminder, the purpose
of community schools or ³full service schools² is to provide comprehensive
services to meet student, family, and community needs as determined by the
community being served. Using the existing 13 community education centers in
SLPS, the full service school concept represents an expansion of current
services being offered. The expansion commenced during the 2009-2010
academic school year. There was overwhelming support for the ³full service
school² concept across the community as a way to provide enhanced services
rather than closing schools because of declining enrollment.

In preparation for the expansion of the ³full service schools,² during the
2008-2009 school year, Mr. Windom¹s office carried out a multi-stage
research project where they evaluated the resources and the needs of the
communities of the schools. In the spring of 2009 there was a resource fair
where the community liaisons from each school connected with service
providers. This school year (2009-2010) is the first for integrating
community services into the schools with the goal of creating ³full service
schools.²

Currently, there are 13 community education centers that are in the process
of being expanded into ³full service schools.² Please see the list of
schools below. They full service community schools operate within the
existing community school structure of SLPS but have expanded the services
this year. The budget for the 2009-2010 school year is included below. What
follows is a brief description of some of the services that have been
integrated into the full service schools:

· St. Louis Agency on Training and Employment (SLATE) has established a
satellite site at Lyon @ Blow and is working on the logistics associated
with opening a second satellite site at Walbridge.

· Missouri Department of Social Services is pursuing a plan to place 50
social workers from the Division of Children¹s Services at Community
Education Full Service Schools. Though they can not officially make this
move until the 2010-11 school year, plans are being put in place to place
small teams of Social Workers in CEFSS sites 2-3 days per week through the
2009-2010 school year.

· Gateway to Oral Health will begin delivery of free and insurance-based
dental services to community residents at CEFSSs between the hours of 4:00
pm and 8:00 pm in October and continue 2 days per week at each of the 13
CEFSSs, rotating every 13 weeks.

· Human Development Corporation, (HDC) is establishing a Sub Station at
Yeatman-Liddell Community Education Full Service School. All HDC Services
will be available at Yeatman-Liddell. HDC is also considering a proposal
that would provide job readiness and community leadership development
services at all 13 CEFSS.

· City Homeless Services Division will open 4 Satellite Sites at
Community Education Full Service Schools, to deliver 1.2 million dollars of
direct services at each site related to preventing community members from
becoming homeless and working with school staff and councils to reduce
student mobility rates. Services include, rental, legal, utility, financial
literacy assistance.

· Planning has begun with Healthy Kids Express to develop a
comprehensive immunization blitz at CEFSS sites during the Summer of 2010 to
assure students are ready to start the school year in August.

· The City Health Department will establish two pilot CEFSSs as delivery
sites for the Health Institute that includes a wide variety of health
related prevention and education programs.

· St. Louis Public Schools Student Support Services Division will use
Community Education Full Service School sites to develop student centered,
needs-based systems and policies that pilot the a data­driven, comprehensive
model to fully support the delivery of wrap around services for SLPS
students and families that engages a wide variety of community partners.

· National Council of Jewish Women will open in January 2010, two
Community Kids¹ Clothes Closets at Walbridge and Mullanphy Elementary Full
Service Schools.

In addition, each of the full service schools continues to identify service
providers that will meet the unique needs of their school community.

This is a very positive and encouraging start to creating full service
community schools. I will continue to follow the development and report back
to the board. If there are questions or additional data points that are
requested by the board, please let me know and I will request the
information.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Rogers, Ph.D.

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 5 Comments »

At the June 9 meeting of the Elected Board of Education, officer elections were held.  The Board officers for 2009-2010 are:

President:   Peter Downs

Vice President:  Donna Jones

Secretary:  Katie Wessling

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 3 Comments »

RESOLUTION POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE AUDITING AND PUBLIC REPORTING POWERS RETAINED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AFTER JUNE 15, 2007.

WHEREAS,   Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 162.1100, the Board of Education for the State of Missouri voted to reinstate the “Transitional School District” within the City of St. Louis Public School District; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Mo. Rev Stat. 162.1100, the Board of Education for the State of Missouri appointed a three member “Special Administrative Board” for the district to supervise the assets, financial operations and educational programs; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 162621.2, the Board of Education for the City of St. Louis Public School District retains audit and public reporting powers at all times; and

WHEREAS,  The Board of Education finds and determines that, the auditing and public reporting powers provide authority for the access to certain information about the St. Louis Public School District; and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education finds and determines that, a defined practice and procedure would allow for an efficient implementation of the auditing and public reporting powers; and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education finds and determines that, the auditing and public reporting powers allows the Board of Education the opportunity to provide written advice, recommendations and/or input to the Special Administrative Board.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AS POLICY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ST. LOUIS SCHOOL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, as follows:

            For each calendar year, the Special Administrative Board, through the office of Superintendent of the St. Louis Transitional School District shall:

1.        Establish and create a budget for recommendation the Board of Education to carry out its responsibilities of auditing and public reporting powers.  Include within this budget a dedicated administrative assistant to the Board of Education to ensure timely and efficient activities relating to its responsibilities of auditing and public reporting powers.

2.       Within forty-five (45) days after the Special Administrative Board establishes a budget for the Board of Education to carry out its responsibilities of auditing and public reporting, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations regarding the recommended budget.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

3.       Provide to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the Agenda for the monthly scheduled Special Administrative Board’s meeting.

4.       Appoint a member of the Board of Education to a seat on each committee within the Transitional School District.  The appointment of this seat carries no voting power on its respective committee, but assists the Board of Education in carrying out its responsibilities of auditing and public reporting powers.

5.       Each quarter of the calendar year provide to each member of the Board of Education a summary of all legal matters regarding the St. Louis Public School District.

6.       Make available to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the certified annual audit report after its completion.  Direct the contracted auditing firm to provide in-person summary of the report to the Board of Education.

7.       Within forty-five (45) days after the copy of certified annual audit report is made available to the members of the Board of Education, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations regarding the certified annual audit report.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

8.       In January of each calendar year, the Special Administrative Board shall make available to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the first draft of the upcoming school year budget.  Direct the Department of Finance and Budget to provide in-person summary of the recommended proposed budget.

9.       Within forty-five (45) days after the copy of the first draft of the budget is made available to the Board of Education, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations regarding the first draft budget.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

10.   Direct the Director of Finance and Budget to give the Board of Education and in-person quarterly briefing/update on the existing school year budget.

11.   Make available to each member of the Board of Education a District Organizational Chart and provide a monthly written update on all key personnel changes.

12.   In March of each calendar year, make available to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the District’s Transportation Study.

13.   Within forty-five (45) days after the Transportation Study is made available to the Board of Education, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations relating to the improving the St. Louis Public Schools Transportation Systems.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

14.   In August of each calendar year, the Special Administrative Board shall make available to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the compiled State Academic Scores and other relevant academic reports.

15.   Within forty-five (45) days after the compiled State Academic Scores and other relevant academic reports are made available to the Board of Education, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations relating to improving the results on the State Academic Scores and other related academic reports.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

16.   In November of each calendar year the Special Administrative Board shall provide to each member of the Board of Education a copy of the report on the Facilities and Grounds of the St. Louis Public Schools.

17.   Within forty-five (45) days after the report on Facilities and Grounds are made available to the Board of Education, the Board of Education will submit to the Special Administrative Board written comments/recommendations relating to improving the facilities and grounds of the St. Louis Public Schools, including recommendations related to Capital Improvements, School Closings, other major expenditures, and/or property transactions.  Such written comments/recommendations will be placed on the Special Administrative Board’s Agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Special Administrative Board.

In addition to the above, the Board of Education states;

1.       That should any sentence, clause, part or provision of this Policy be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Policy as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.

2.       That all Bylaws of the Board of Education, Policies, Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict with this Policy be amended at a time when appropriate as deemed necessary by the Board of Education.

3.      That this Policy shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

       THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

By:       ___________________________________

X’Its:    ___________________________________

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 1 Comment »

The following was presented by Rebecca Rogers,  Ph.D., St. Louis Board of Education Member, to her fellow Board members at the May 12 meeting.

Pilot Schools: An Overview

Rebecca Rogers

Presented at the St. Louis Public Schools Board meeting

May 12, 2009

Pilot Schools

In the next few weeks, SLPS plans to announce plans for 5 new Pilot Schools for the Fall of 2009. 10 schools were identified to write proposals for the Pilot School Model.

What are Pilot Schools?

In 1994, Dan French and the Center for Collaborative Education in the Boston Public Schools (BPS) created a new model for urban education reform (www.ccebos.org/). They referred to their innovation as Pilot Schools. Pilot Schools are public schools under the local school district but, in an effort to decentralize authority, Pilot Schools are given autonomy over:

• Governance
• Budget
• Staffing
• Curriculum & Assessment
• School Calendar

The idea for Pilot Schools was a direct outgrowth of the charter school movement and attempted to create choice and competition within the traditional public school district. They are marketed as creating an alternative to charter schools, within the district structure. Their instructional goals include:

• Small schools
• Professional and collaborative culture between teachers
• Low student-to-teacher ratios
• More instructional time
• Time for collaboration between teachers
• Wraparound student services
• Graduation through mastery (including: exhibitions, portfolios, internships, demonstrations versus final grades alone)

They are also marketed as a collaboration between districts and teachers unions. Teachers in Pilot Schools can be members of the union and receive the same salary, benefits and accrual of seniority within the district. However, teachers in Pilot Schools must sign “work condition waivers” which give them the “freedom from management and union working rules.” Their working conditions – the number of hours of work, professional duties are all outlined on a school-by-school basis. The contract generally includes a clause that states “other duties as assigned by the Administrator.” In Boston and in LA teachers are cited as having to make a choice between “flexibility in what they teach and how” – or professionalism – or fair working conditions, due process as stipulated in the union’s contract.

Operation of Pilot Schools

Pilot Schools are part of the district. Each Pilot Schools establishes a Local School Council or Advisory Board that is responsible for: governance, budgeting, hiring and firing. They are allowed to hire teachers within and across the district.

Results in Boston Public Schools (BPS)

Pilot Schools have been in operation for over 15 years in BPS. The achievement data demonstrates that students in Pilot Schools perform about the same academically as students in traditional public schools. There were modest gains in some academic areas as measured by standardized test scores – 10^th grade Math and English Language Arts – for example. One would expect such increases because of the length of the time that reform has been in place (15 years). The other indicators of student achievement in Pilot Schools in BPS are higher than traditional district schools: graduation rates, student engagement and college placement rates. However, they also show that special education and ELL enrollment in these schools are down (selective enrollment).

Pilot Schools in SLPS

SLPS appears to be operating from a “conversion model” whereas existing public schools are turned into Pilot Schools versus new schools being turned into Pilot Schools. In other districts, when schools are “converted” into Pilot Schools, the teaching staff need to vote for the conversion by 2/3 of the vote of the teachers in the school. On April 1, 2009, ten elementary schools in SLPS were invited to “submit proposals for converting their current school to Pilot School status.” Proposals were evaluated by a district level team. According to the timeline (posted on SLPS website), on May 13^th 2009, selected principals will be notified if they were chosen to become a Pilot School. They are given one week, May 15^th-May 22^nd 2009 to select their Advisory Board. In most cases, the Advisory Boards are made up several people from the business community, a parent, community member and teacher. During this same week (May 15-22^nd), the staff are asked to sign their “work condition waivers.” It is important to point out that the teachers must sign their “work condition waiver” forms before they know who their advisory board will be. On May 26^th, the recommendation of the pilot schools will be made to the SAB. 

What are Issues to Consider with Regard to Pilot Schools?

Funding

First, is the continued problem of the under-funding of our nation’s public schools.

The argument for Pilot Schools is that the monies are more likely to be used to meet school-based needs if managed at the school level. However, budgeting is only as good as the Advisory Committee. As outlined above, SLPS Pilot Schools are given one week to select their Advisory Committee. Whereas public schools are chronically under-funded, Pilot Schools will likely not have enough funds to meet all of their needs. For instance, questions arise as to where the schools will receive funds for start up curriculum and assessment initiatives, etc. In other districts, Pilot Schools have had to supplement their state funds with grants from private investors. This puts overworked teachers, administrators and staff in a position of looking for external dollars to pay for routine programs.

As a result of the “working condition waiver,” teachers will be paid less for working more hours. They do not have bargaining, due process or workplace protections. Teachers are given one week to sign their “work condition waiver” forms. They sign the forms before knowing who their Advisory Board members are.

Weak Governing Boards/Local School Councils

In Boston Public Schools, one of the biggest problems has been with the inconsistency of the governing boards. Dan French, founder of Pilot Schools, has himself, stated (2008) the following:

[G]overning boards have been one of the most uneven components of the Pilot Model. While some Pilots have strong governing boards, with clear decision-making roles and ample representation from community groups, other Pilot boards have struggled. Some have been ill-equipped to take on principal hiring and annual evaluation, others to engage in long-term strategic planning, still others to facilitate the annual process of revising and approving the election-to-work agreement for faculty”

                                    (Charter Schools: Keeping the Promise? pp. 75).

Similarly, Chicago Public Schools, although using a different model for school reform, has used Local School Councils and have run into difficulties with the extent to which the local school boards actually had hard decision making power in terms of funds and governance issues.

SLPS Pilot Schools are only given one week to select their Advisory Board members. There are a number of unanswered questions about the selection of the Advisory Board: Who is selecting the Advisory Board members? What is the criteria for selecting an Advisory Board member? How long will a Board member serve? Who will Advisory Board members be evaluated? Why are half of the Board slots set aside for businesspeople?  Lack of clarity to these questions could cause long-term problems with regard to the operation of the Pilot Schools.

District Mandated Pilot Schools

Pilot Schools are meant to be voluntary and chosen by the communities in which they were intended to serve. In other districts/states, when schools are converted into Pilot Schools, the conversion must be voted on by 2/3 of the teachers in the building. No such process occurred in SLPS. While teachers will be given a “choice” in conversion schools as we are seeing in SLPS, it is unclear if they will be given another assignment in the district if they choose not to sign the “working conditions waiver” forms.

Narrowing of the Curriculum

Issues have been raised that Pilot Schools narrow the curriculum and focus on test preparation in some academic areas, at the expense of a well-rounded, inter-disciplinary education. Focusing on test preparation at the expense of learning may result in short-term gains as measured through annual standardized test scores but is highly unlikely to contribute to the depth of knowledge and understanding across subject areas that should be expected of our students.

Enrollment Issues

Pilot Schools have been criticized in some districts because they are not neighborhood schools. Overall, the enrollment of students who need special education services or ELL students has been low in Pilot Schools in BPS.

Lack of Defined Intervention Process

Even in BPS where Pilot Schools have been in operation for 15 years, they still do not have a model for intervening in weak of ineffective Pilot Schools.

References:

French, D. (2008). Boston’s Pilot Schools: An Alternative to Charter Schools. In. L. Dingerson, B. Miner, B. Peterson, S. Walters (Eds.) Keeping the Promise? The Debate over Charter Schools. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Publications.

For more information on the Pilot Schools project in SLPS, you can download a PowerPoint presentation on academic initiatives given at the April 16, 2009 SAB meeting http://www.slps.org/.

To see a sample “work condition waiver” form and to learn more about how the Pilot School process unfolds in other districts, you can visit the Aurora Public Schools website: http://www.aps.k12.co.us/schools/pilot/overview.htm

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 2 Comments »

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

PRINCIPAL SELECTION PROCESS

WHEREAS, the Missouri Board of Education has given the power to direct administration to a special appointed board called the “SAB”; and

            WHEREAS, the SAB has advertised for applicants to fill openings for principals at ten (10) schools; and

            WHEREAS, principals at other schools have been told their contracts will not be renewed, which will create even more openings for principals; and

            WHEREAS, the recognized best practice for hiring a principal for a school involves a multi-stage interview process in which, in addition to an interview by district administration, a committee of parents from the school interviews and evaluates the top candidates for principal and makes a hiring recommendation and a committee of teachers from the school interviews and evaluates the top candidates for principal and makes a hiring recommendation; and

            WHEREAS, St. Louis Public Schools have not always followed recognized best practice;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AS FOLLOWS:

            Section 1:     The Board of Education hereby finds and determines those matters set forth in the foregoing recital paragraphs as fully and completely as if set out in full in this Section 1.

            Section 2:     The Board of Education urges Superintendent Kelvin Adams and the SAB to follow best practice; include a committee of parents and a committee of teaches from each school with an opening for principal in the interview and evaluation process of the top candidates for principal at their school with the expectation that each committee will make a hiring recommendation.

            Section 3:     The Board of Education further urges Superintendent Kelvin Adams and the SAB to follow best practice and also include a committee of parents and committee of teachers from each school with an opening for assistant principal in the interview and evaluation process of the top candidates for assistant principal at their school with the expectation that each committee will make a hiring recommendation.

            Section 4:     The officers, agents and employees of the Board, including the President, Vice President and Secretary shall be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to execute all documents and take all such steps as they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to carry out and perform the purposes of this Resolution.

            THIS RESOLUTION shall be dated April 14, 2009, and shall become effective immediately upon its passage.

                                                                        THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

                                                                                         CITY OF ST. LOUIS

                                                                        By__________________________________

                                                                        Its________________________________

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 1 Comment »

The April municipal elections attracted a varied and qualified field of candidates to the School Board Elections, and three new members were elected, have been sworn in, and have begun to carry out their duties on behalf of the citizens of St. Louis.

Chad Beffa is the parent of children in SLPS and a long-time watcher and activist regarding district affairs.

Emile Bradford-Taylor, R.N., is the mother of a child at Metro High School.

Rebecca Rogers, Ph.Ed., is a professor of Education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We welcome these three new members to the Board and are grateful for their decision to serve the citizens of St. Louis in this way.  Please come to a meeting soon and meet these wonderful new board members.

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | No Comments »

Superintendent Kelvin Adams¹ school closing recommendations show that he
listened to many of the comments from the community. Will the SAB and Mayor
Slay?

Adams recommended closing 17 school buildings, down from MGT¹s
recommendation to close 30. Three of the closings are contingent upon
constructing two new schools by 2011, for a net loss of 15 school buildings..
More on that later.

The 14 schools to be closed this year under Adams¹ plan consist of nine
elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools:

Elementary Schools:
Ashland Branch
Baden
Clark
Des Peres Big Picture
Mark Twain
Meda P. Washington
Scruggs
Shepard
Simmons-Marshall

Middle Schools:
Blewett
Stowe
Turner Big Picture

High Schools
Humboldt 9th Grade Center
Kottmeyer Big Picture

In essence, almost every school whose families protested against closing
plans to Adams and the SAB got removed from the closing list. The one
exception is the Kottmeyer Big Picture school. Adams said he is evaluating
the Big Picture programs and, if he keeps them, they will be moved to other
sites.

Even in the new proposal, some recommendations probably are less
controversial than others. Ashland Branch, for example, was closed in 2006.
There are no students assigned to the school, but the district has let a
vendor use space in it. Meda P. Washington was converted to district offices
and a small preschool (fewer than 50 children) in 2007. Humboldt was made a
ninth grade center when Roosevelt was out of control. Terry Houston has
turned Roosevelt around and maybe he¹s ready to take back the ninth grade.
Humboldt itself is surrounded on three sides by industry. Only one quadrant
from the school is mainly residential, so it is not in a good site if the
district is trying to get back to schools that are centered in
neighborhoods.

If Big Picture can work where it shares a facility with another program,
then there might be little disagreement about closing three buildings and
moving those programs into other, half-empty facilities. Big Picture has
been controversial in the district because it uses a consent model of
alternative education ­ students and their families have to agree to enter
the program or they don¹t get in. That may work well for getting those
children to embrace education, but what about the disruptive children who
say Œno¹? Many people in the district want a more coercive model of
alternative education in which disruptive students are removed from their
home schools whether they want to go or not, so they cannot remain where
they were to bully or prey on other children. Adams said he is looking at
reopening two of the closed schools as more traditional alternative schools
(bringing the net reduction in buildings to 13, 12 if one excludes already
closed Ashland Branch). We have yet to see if he thinks there is room in the
district for both consensual and coercive approaches to alternative
education.

The eight other functioning schools would be the focus of any controversy. A
year ago, protests against the closing of Mark Twain school removed that
school from the closing list. This year, little has been heard from that
quarter. Even the state legislator for the area, T.D. El-Amin, has been
quiet about the proposed closing, preferring to focus on the sideshow issue
of a deed restriction barring sale of the building to a charter or private
school.

Perhaps more important than the specific numbers, however, was Adams¹
complete break with the philosophy and strategy embedded in the earlier
report from MGT. Adams has outlined a new strategy that fully embraces full
service schools, which are schools that offer more than just educational
services, but through partnerships with other government agencies,
nonprofits, and community groups also offer other services the community
needs. A wide array of groups in the community, including AFT Local 420 and
the elected board of education, had urged the SAB to embrace the full
service school model. Adams has shown he was listening.

Adams said the 13 community education centers are transitioning to full
service schools. Every other school has been told to set aside a room for
community use and create a community council. John Windom, the director of
community education, who is spearheading the transition to full service
schools, said the creation of community councils is the first step in the
creation of full service schools, because the community for each school then
has a means for deciding what services it wants in its school. And Adams
said the district can continue to keep open middle and high schools that are
only 50 percent full of students if other community services share the
building space.

If the SAB adopts this policy, people will be watching the implementation
closely. Some observers already have expressed concerns it might be too
rigidly and bureaucratically applied. The process for converting all the
community education centers to full service schools, for example, does not
seem to distinguish between those schools that serve a distinct area and
those schools which are magnet schools and draw students from all over the
city, yet the two types of schools can have very different relationships
with their surrounding neighborhoods. Even more worrisome is the decision to
close Mann School in 2011. Mann and Sherman schools would be replaced by a
single new school in 2011. (Cote Brilliante would be replaced by a new
school on the north side at the same time.)

Mann is seen by many people as a model of a full service school, but it got
there organically, from the bottom up, not from a top down policy. The
previous principal, Janis Wiley, joined the existing neighborhood council
and found out what the neighborhood wanted from the school. The current
principal, Brian Zimmerman, has extended that relationship. Twelve nonprofit
agencies work in the school providing an array of programs from before the
start of the formal school day until well after the formal school day ends
in the afternoon, and the school supplements those activities with a food
pantry and clothing for impoverished families.

Several observers already have said that they hope principals will have the
freedom to follow Mann¹s path — the freedom to join neighborhood councils,
where they exist, and so strengthen neighborhood institutions ­ and they
will not be required to set-up parallel institutions that ignore or compete
with existing neighborhood councils.

And they have said that if Adams is serious about the full service model, he
should keep Mann school open and celebrate it instead of planning to close
it.

More fundamentally, in embracing the full service school model, in saying we
can keep schools open and anchor communities, Adams is challenging the
citizens of St. Louis and the city¹s political leadership to work with the
school district to strengthen city neighborhoods.

Personally, I do not believe the city will respond positively to that
challenge while Francis Slay is mayor. If we are to have any chance of
stabilizing our neighborhoods and improving our schools, I believe the
citizens of St. Louis have to throw Slay out of office and put in a mayor
who is interested in building up St. Louis neighborhoods instead of tearing
them down. That is why I urge everyone to vote for Irene Smith in the
Democratic Party primary on Tuesday.

Peter Downs

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | No Comments »

In the last month, the community has heard both the report from MGT, the consultants commissioned by the Special Administrative Board to do a facilities study, and now from Dr. Adams, putting in the academic viewpoint, on which schools in our community should stay open and which should close.

The Elected Board, at the February meeting, determined we could not comment regarding the MGT report as we had so many concerns regarding the data on which it was based.   We did not feel the data was trustworthy and thus could not make any recommendations based upon it.

We are glad the community took the opportunities given to them to offer their own feedback.  Much of it mirrored our concern with the data, and much of it was intelligent and eloquent defense of public education.  It is certain that there are many SLPS schools doing well at their job of educating, or they would not inspire such devotion in the public that they serve.  

While the SAB and Dr. Adams continue the discussion on closing schools, the EB continues to advocate community-based schools and finding uses for any empty space within them that complements the place schools have as neighborhood anchors.  Health clinics and certain government agencies could appropriately be based in schools.  District administrative offices could be as well.  Space could be refurbished to allow teachers to have apartments within schools, offering them a tax-free benefit while the school community benefits from the constant presence of teachers on site.  There are many possibilities, and the EB has been asserting this idea for over a year now.  While it has been met with “interest” by the district, no actual moves toward making it happen have been made; instead, schools continue to close. 

The Elected Board of Education urges the SAB and the administration to develop community based schools and to cease closing neighborhood schools.  One thing is certain.  When schools close, the district loses students, and eventually more schools will close.  We have heard the voices of the community and we know that is not what our constituents want to have happen. 

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | No Comments »

Today a rally was held outside the Wilkinson at Roe building (the school is Wilkinson ECC, but it was moved into the old Roe School building over the summer) to bring attention to the fact that SLPS children are still going to school in buildings which have high lead content. 

Wilkinson has become a figure in the ongoing controversy because the SAB voted last spring to move the program from the building in which it had been for years (and which was lead free) into the Roe School–they did not want to spend money air-conditioning the Wilkinson building and this was the solution.  Apparently they did not consider the cost, while doing their cost-benefit analysis and deciding to move the program, of the lead remediation required (among other things, but those aren’t the topic here).  Parents of the popular program learned two days before school was to start that aftercare for children under 5 would no longer be offered by the YMCA aftercare program because the building’s lead content was higher than the Y’s guidelines.  As Wilkinson is an early childhood center with children ranging in age from 3-8, this not only directly affected a large portion of the school’s population, but caused great concern the parents of children over five, as well, knowing what we do about the dangers of lead poisoning.

Wilkinson parents banded together and went to protest at an SAB meeting.  They were told it would cost about $80,000 to fix the building and there may not be money.

Wilkinson is not the only school in need of lead remediation, and it is a crime that the words “it costs money” would even leave the mouths of the three political appointees who now lead the district.  Those words were not uttered when they put the district through yet another superintendent search, unnecessarily.  Those words were not uttered when the first action done by the SAB upon taking charge was to hire a $300/hour attorney.  Those words were not uttered when the SAB hired yet another consulting firm to come in and determine which schools should be closed next.  No, there appears always to be money for those types of business expenses.  It is only when it is something for the children, be it lead remediation, enough teachers, librarians, or something else that directly affects the children, that concern about money comes up.

The children of this city deserve safe buildings in which to go to school.  The Board of Education thanks those who participated in the rally today to bring attention to this crucial issue.

Filed under: Uncategorized  | | 1 Comment »

Transportation Breakdown

A Report of the School Climate Committee of the St. Louis Board of Education

Summary: Overall parent and student experience with student transportation in St. Louis Public Schools in 2008 is the worst it has been in years. No one factor explains the reduced accessibility and lower quality of student transportation, however. Instead, the growth of problems in transportation appears to be the result of changes in management, policy, and supervision.

Background: Members of the St. Louis Board of Education received so many complaints about student transportation, which has always been a troublesome activity for the school district, they decided to hold a public hearing on the problem. Many complainants said that the transportation service this year was the worst in years. Comments made at the hearing are attached.

The Climate Committee invited the Transportation Department and the bus company, First Student, to speak at the hearing or send comments, but both declined to do so. SLPS CEO Richard Sullivan and superintendent John Wright did respond briefly to complaints in a separate meeting.

Summary of Problems: Parents, teachers, and principals have made clear that there are always problems with student transportation, but this year they have been much worse. Gloria Perkins expressed the sentiments of many when she said, “I’m used to the buses being late on the first day of school. I take that as a given. But this year, every day for four weeks was like the first day of school.”

Problems included:

• buses running late or not at all;

• the inability to get through to the Transportation Department to get answers;

• the lack of responsiveness of the Transportation Department to parent questions and concerns;

• inconsistent answers from Transportation that parents interpreted as a lack  of truthfulness;

• drivers not knowing their routes or where they are supposed to go;

• drivers smelling of alcohol;

•  drivers stopping mid-route to conduct personal business;

• unreliable bus transportation for field trips;

• unreliable bus transportation for after school programs; and

• bullying on the bus.

Mr. Sullivan denied that problems were any greater this year and asserted that nothing should be different because the same people were running transportation and nothing had changed. We determined, however, that actually there were changes.

Causes of Problems: Changes in Management

The school climate committee determined that Mr. Sullivan’s assertion that the same people were running transportation was incorrect.

In previous years, SLPS employed Herman McGahee as a sort of ombudsman or troubleshooter to investigate problems and complaints and get them fixed. He left the district over the summer after what he perceived as encouragement to leave. SLPS has not replaced him. At the time of our investigation, the district had no one troubleshooting problems in transportation. This can explain why problems were not fixed promptly, but were allowed to linger instead.

This also is the first year in which First Student was the transportation company at the start of the school year. Although First Student bought the previous transportation provider, two experienced managers left since last year and were not replaced, creating a vacuum in management at First Student.

The combination of a vacuum in management at First Student with the lack of anyone troubleshooting problems for the district created the perfect opportunity for a breakdown in transportation.

Cause of Problems: Changes in Policy

It has been policy in the past that bus drivers drove their routes before school started to find out if they were driveable and make corrections if they weren’t. The practice was known as making a “dry run.” Dr. Wright said that was not done this year and he was going to change policy to make sure it happened next year. His comments, however, indicate that someone, perhaps the SAB, made a policy decision this year to forego the dry runs.

One policy change the SAB did put into affect was to lengthen the distance between home and school before the district would provide transportation. This also resulted in students walking farther to bus stops. Changes appear to have been made without regard for safety, such as the presence of abandoned homes or absence of sidewalks, or student disabilities. Such changes inevitably produced more problems and complaints.

At the same time, we were told that First Student stopped screening job applicants for drug or alcohol abuse. Although random testing is in place, there have been complaints this year of bus drivers smelling of alcohol when they showed up at schools.

Cause of Problems: Changes in Supervision

Parents produced a new complaint about bus service this year: drivers stopping mid-route to conduct personal business such as buying a few groceries or picking up a boyfriend. This suggests a lack of supervision and a lack of training in proper driver behavior.

Cause of Problems: Lack of Communication

One whole category of complaints has been about the lack of communication to parents: the failure to communicate when bus routes are changed, when a bus breaks down or is involved in an accident, and a failure to communicate when parents are just trying to find out where their children are. In a step back from last year, the district stopped posting bus routes on the web site.

This ties in with the district’s new failure to address problems. On one level, school administrators should have the resources and responsibility to communicate with parents whenever anything happens to interfere with delivering expected services to students. On another level, many complaints could be addressed if there was someone – a troubleshooter or ombudsman — charged with investigating complaints, solving problems, and getting back to parents.

Filed under: Uncategorized  |   Tagged under reports on district | 4 Comments »