Another scandal for the Missouri Commissioner of Education.
Strange. I seem to remember Rex Sinquefield's front group CEAM actively rooting for the failure of the Kansas City public schools as well.
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Monday, January 24, 2011
What's the Cost of Local Control?
Like most St. Louis residents, I'm in favor of St. Louis having control of it's own police force, at least if provisions are included that ensure that the city can't raid police officers' pensions. Why should our police, unlike pretty much any other group in the country, be accountable only to a state board that might not care about the city of St. Louis and might not be familiar with it even if they do care?(I'm not saying this is true of the current board: only that the potential exists) So, in my mind, local control makes a lot of sense.
However, I do want to raise a few red flags about the coalition that has been organizing around this issue. Jamilah Nasheed, who was once described as one of Mayor Slay's "fiercest critics," is now retweeting Slay and Jeff Rainford regularly. Maybe this is not a big deal. As they always say about people trying to get things done in politics: "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies: only permanent interests"
But slightly more suspicious is the support of the effort from Rex Sinquefield and the Missouri GOP. Rex, of course, is behind the earnings tax repeal that would gut St. Louis City government, and behind efforts to eliminate income tax in favor of increases in sales taxes, which would gut state government and place a much larger burden on the poor and working class while allowing Rex's fellow millionaires to continue to stockpile money.
There are different ways of viewing Sinquefield. One might think that he views the Missouri political system as one of his chess matches, and he cynically uses his money to move politicians around like pawns. In this case, I think we'd want to be very suspicious of this new collaboration, and ask what exactly he's getting in return. On the other hand, you might look at Rex and think that he really is a True Believer in his right-wing anti-government ideology, and is more misguided than cynically trying to manipulate things. In this case, you might think that he just donated $300,000 to the local control cause because it fits with his ideals about government, and he's not necessarily expecting anything in return.
But even if you think that Uncle Rex might be willing to do some good for St. Louis without asking for some pints of blood in return, you couldn't possibly think the same about our current GOP controlled legislature. They are led by birthers, conspiracy theorists, and people with extreme hatred of anything to the left of Sarah Palin. The Republican house already voted in favor of local control; why would they do this unless they expected something in return?
What might be the exchange? I have no idea, but there are certainly extremely important issues up for discussion and Republicans are only a few votes away from a veto-proof majority. Is local control important? Yes. Is it more important that stopping the sales tax? No way. Is it more important than stopping Republicans from destroying our unions by making Missouri a right-to-work-for-less state? Definitely not. Is it more important than making sure Republicans don't game the redistricting process? Nope. I don't know if this new coalition has anything to do with these issues, but it's worth keeping an eye out.
The new "grassroots" group that is funded by Rex's $300,000 is called "A Safer Missouri." Their facebook page, which has been around for a while, only had six members when I checked. Two of those members were local Democrats Martin Casas (of the Young Democrats of St. Louis) and Nancy Rice. Ben Muehleisen has worked with Sinquefield's groups in the past.
Both Casas and Rice, along with Rainford and Slay, are big supporters of the move to charter schools and away from public schools, one of the issues Sinquefield is best known for. My guess is that this collaboration might have something to do with future cooperation on pushing for the charter school movement, arguably at the expense of public education.
I don't want to sound all "the sky is falling!" here. I'm in support of local control, and I don't have any evidence that Rex's support is in exchange for some blood money. However, I think it's important to raise the flag now, so that our future understanding will be informed. If there is any indication that some of the Democrats involved in this process fail to push back against Rex's right-wing agenda (like many did during the Prop A campaign), this will be useful background.
Update: Here's a response from Martin Casas, which makes sense to me:
However, I do want to raise a few red flags about the coalition that has been organizing around this issue. Jamilah Nasheed, who was once described as one of Mayor Slay's "fiercest critics," is now retweeting Slay and Jeff Rainford regularly. Maybe this is not a big deal. As they always say about people trying to get things done in politics: "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies: only permanent interests"
But slightly more suspicious is the support of the effort from Rex Sinquefield and the Missouri GOP. Rex, of course, is behind the earnings tax repeal that would gut St. Louis City government, and behind efforts to eliminate income tax in favor of increases in sales taxes, which would gut state government and place a much larger burden on the poor and working class while allowing Rex's fellow millionaires to continue to stockpile money.
There are different ways of viewing Sinquefield. One might think that he views the Missouri political system as one of his chess matches, and he cynically uses his money to move politicians around like pawns. In this case, I think we'd want to be very suspicious of this new collaboration, and ask what exactly he's getting in return. On the other hand, you might look at Rex and think that he really is a True Believer in his right-wing anti-government ideology, and is more misguided than cynically trying to manipulate things. In this case, you might think that he just donated $300,000 to the local control cause because it fits with his ideals about government, and he's not necessarily expecting anything in return.
But even if you think that Uncle Rex might be willing to do some good for St. Louis without asking for some pints of blood in return, you couldn't possibly think the same about our current GOP controlled legislature. They are led by birthers, conspiracy theorists, and people with extreme hatred of anything to the left of Sarah Palin. The Republican house already voted in favor of local control; why would they do this unless they expected something in return?
What might be the exchange? I have no idea, but there are certainly extremely important issues up for discussion and Republicans are only a few votes away from a veto-proof majority. Is local control important? Yes. Is it more important that stopping the sales tax? No way. Is it more important than stopping Republicans from destroying our unions by making Missouri a right-to-work-for-less state? Definitely not. Is it more important than making sure Republicans don't game the redistricting process? Nope. I don't know if this new coalition has anything to do with these issues, but it's worth keeping an eye out.
The new "grassroots" group that is funded by Rex's $300,000 is called "A Safer Missouri." Their facebook page, which has been around for a while, only had six members when I checked. Two of those members were local Democrats Martin Casas (of the Young Democrats of St. Louis) and Nancy Rice. Ben Muehleisen has worked with Sinquefield's groups in the past.
Both Casas and Rice, along with Rainford and Slay, are big supporters of the move to charter schools and away from public schools, one of the issues Sinquefield is best known for. My guess is that this collaboration might have something to do with future cooperation on pushing for the charter school movement, arguably at the expense of public education.
I don't want to sound all "the sky is falling!" here. I'm in support of local control, and I don't have any evidence that Rex's support is in exchange for some blood money. However, I think it's important to raise the flag now, so that our future understanding will be informed. If there is any indication that some of the Democrats involved in this process fail to push back against Rex's right-wing agenda (like many did during the Prop A campaign), this will be useful background.
Update: Here's a response from Martin Casas, which makes sense to me:
Coalitions are a beautiful thing, but they are different then a circle of friends. THIs IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, and it's a civil rights issue. People frequently disagree on many issues, but when there is a common goal we have to come together and fight for it. This is the kind of thing we ask our representatives to do: to put the welfare of the people ahead of any of their personal feelings. Adam, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about this.I can understand why Martin supports this. But what still puzzles me is why Sinquefield, the MO GOP, and even Carl Bearden (formerly of Koch brothers funded Americans for Prosperity) would support this. I'd really like to know what they're trying to get from this.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Public Schools and Urban Renewal
I've been a resident of St. Louis for six years. For the past two years, I've lived on Lindell Boulevard, just across the street from SLU's law school, where I am a student. Before that, I was a student at WashU and lived mostly in campus housing. My senior year, I ventured out into the real world and got a place in Clayton about a block from campus. I always thought of myself as a relatively well-informed citizen- I read the student newspaper and the Post-Dispatch, occasionally caught the local evening news. But I realized how sheltered my experience had been when I read this New York Times article.
The article is about a student who attends Beaumont High School, part of- as the article put it- "a city school system in which poverty, politics and mismanagement so closely conspire against the likes of her that the state recently decided to take it over." I knew the public schools in the city had some problems, I even knew that they had lost their accreditation, but I didn't know that Beaumont High School is two miles from my apartment.
Two miles away, and I had never heard of it or the problems its students face. The audio slide show accompanying the article explains that Beaumont administration officials estimate that 1 in 10 students is homeless, 2 in 10 are precariously housed, and 3 in 10 will be homeless at some point in the school year. Eighty percent of the school's students qualify for free or discounted school lunches.
Those statistics make the poverty component pretty clear, but what other problems do the schools face? A 2007 report from the Missouri State Teachers Association explains that there are 14 performance standards that contribute to accreditation. A school must meet nine standards for full accreditation and six for provisional accreditation. St. Louis Public Schools met four, and its accreditation was rescinded.
After losing accreditation, state law dictated that a three-member Special Administrative Board be appointed. The elected members of the former school board brought suit against the state, arguing against the appointed board, but the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state takeover.
The current 2008-2009 school year has proved a testing ground for the members of the Special Administrative Board, who had to deal with, among other things, a $30 million budget deficit. This Post-Dispatch editorial explains that the Board's first priority is "restoring order, stability, and a business-like approach to the district." The editorial is a little unclear about actual steps being taken at the moment, but does make a vague reference to "long-term structural and governance changes to the system." For now, it seems like the Special Administrative Board is doing its best to keep the district minimally functional.
The problems facing the St. Louis Public Schools are extremely difficult, and there are a lot of opinions with regard to the best way to fix it. One solution that's been in the news lately: charter schools.
Late last month, the Post-Dispatch's education blog reported that the state school board issued approval for two new charter schools to open in the 2009-2010 school year, Grand Community School and KIPP St. Louis. Grand Community will be sponsored by the University of Missouri-St. Louis and KIPP will be sponsored by Washington University. KIPP is part of a national program of charter schools and plans to eventually open five schools in St. Louis.
One major obstacle standing in the way of charter schools, deed restrictions on former public school buildings, was removed just last week. District-wide sale terms were set in 2007, prohibiting the sale of shuttered school buildings to charter schools for 100 years. The Riverfront Times reported on the struggles of one would-be administrator of a proposed charter school, St. Louis Language Immersion Schools. Rhonda Broussard had found an abandoned building perfect for her school, but it was subject to the 100-year deed restriction and thus unavailable for her purposes. On April 17th, the St. Louis Public School Board voted to lift the restrictions.
Charter schools are not a magical fix. This Slate article focuses specifically on KIPP schools, but a lot of its analysis can be applied to charter schools generally: many charter schools succeed by requiring more from their students. A lot more. Long hours, a high degree of parental involvement, rigorous coursework. That makes sense, since a lot of these students begin with significant educational deficits and it takes a lot of hard work to essentially "catch them up." So even with a lottery system in place, this tends to be a self-selecting group. Families unwilling or unable to put in the time and effort will choose not to utilize a charter school.
Personally, I don't think this is an argument against charter schools. I think it's important to recognize that they are not a system-wide solution, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that they can be a solution for some students and their families. At this point, we need all the solutions we can get.
What will solve the over-arching problem? Well, I think the first step is to not be like me- blissfully unaware of the problems facing the community in which you live. A 2006 school board election drew only 12% of eligible voters. Mayor Francis Slay concluded that "there's no constituency for urban public schools." That's shameful, it really is. As residents of St. Louis, we all need to be more invested in our community and aware of its challenges. Not just because it's the right thing to do (although it is...), but because the public schools in St. Louis don't exist in a vacuum. They don't only affect the families whose children attend. There will never be any meaningful "revitalization" of the city if the schools do not improve.
Steve Patterson, who writes the excellent Urban Review STL, wrote in 2006 that the problems that plague St. Louis schools are the problems that plague St. Louis City- "concentrated poverty, lack of nearby jobs and poor housing." I realize that the City is diverse, and this is a gross overgeneralization, but the current population doesn't really provide a sustainable model. It's largely downtown businesses, young (largely single, largely childless) people in rehabs and lofts, and the very poor. That isn't a viable community; the city needs mixed-income neighborhoods with all kinds of families. Those kinds of neighborhoods attract business and investment and jobs, which in turn attract more families. But that will never happen if the schools don't improve. People who have the resources to live elsewhere will not move to the city and send their children to the city schools if they continue to under-perform.
Educational reform is a complicated topic, and there are a lot of people better-qualified to propose solutions. I'm not an educator, I have no experience in school administration. But I do think it's important for people who care about St. Louis to recognize the integral role that schools play in the life of a community. Whenever the topic of urban renewal comes up, there are a lot of ideas tossed around-improved mass transit, historic tax credits, mixed-income housing, etc. Schools need to be a part of the discussion as well.
The article is about a student who attends Beaumont High School, part of- as the article put it- "a city school system in which poverty, politics and mismanagement so closely conspire against the likes of her that the state recently decided to take it over." I knew the public schools in the city had some problems, I even knew that they had lost their accreditation, but I didn't know that Beaumont High School is two miles from my apartment.
Two miles away, and I had never heard of it or the problems its students face. The audio slide show accompanying the article explains that Beaumont administration officials estimate that 1 in 10 students is homeless, 2 in 10 are precariously housed, and 3 in 10 will be homeless at some point in the school year. Eighty percent of the school's students qualify for free or discounted school lunches.
Those statistics make the poverty component pretty clear, but what other problems do the schools face? A 2007 report from the Missouri State Teachers Association explains that there are 14 performance standards that contribute to accreditation. A school must meet nine standards for full accreditation and six for provisional accreditation. St. Louis Public Schools met four, and its accreditation was rescinded.
After losing accreditation, state law dictated that a three-member Special Administrative Board be appointed. The elected members of the former school board brought suit against the state, arguing against the appointed board, but the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state takeover.
The current 2008-2009 school year has proved a testing ground for the members of the Special Administrative Board, who had to deal with, among other things, a $30 million budget deficit. This Post-Dispatch editorial explains that the Board's first priority is "restoring order, stability, and a business-like approach to the district." The editorial is a little unclear about actual steps being taken at the moment, but does make a vague reference to "long-term structural and governance changes to the system." For now, it seems like the Special Administrative Board is doing its best to keep the district minimally functional.
The problems facing the St. Louis Public Schools are extremely difficult, and there are a lot of opinions with regard to the best way to fix it. One solution that's been in the news lately: charter schools.
Late last month, the Post-Dispatch's education blog reported that the state school board issued approval for two new charter schools to open in the 2009-2010 school year, Grand Community School and KIPP St. Louis. Grand Community will be sponsored by the University of Missouri-St. Louis and KIPP will be sponsored by Washington University. KIPP is part of a national program of charter schools and plans to eventually open five schools in St. Louis.
One major obstacle standing in the way of charter schools, deed restrictions on former public school buildings, was removed just last week. District-wide sale terms were set in 2007, prohibiting the sale of shuttered school buildings to charter schools for 100 years. The Riverfront Times reported on the struggles of one would-be administrator of a proposed charter school, St. Louis Language Immersion Schools. Rhonda Broussard had found an abandoned building perfect for her school, but it was subject to the 100-year deed restriction and thus unavailable for her purposes. On April 17th, the St. Louis Public School Board voted to lift the restrictions.
Charter schools are not a magical fix. This Slate article focuses specifically on KIPP schools, but a lot of its analysis can be applied to charter schools generally: many charter schools succeed by requiring more from their students. A lot more. Long hours, a high degree of parental involvement, rigorous coursework. That makes sense, since a lot of these students begin with significant educational deficits and it takes a lot of hard work to essentially "catch them up." So even with a lottery system in place, this tends to be a self-selecting group. Families unwilling or unable to put in the time and effort will choose not to utilize a charter school.
Personally, I don't think this is an argument against charter schools. I think it's important to recognize that they are not a system-wide solution, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that they can be a solution for some students and their families. At this point, we need all the solutions we can get.
What will solve the over-arching problem? Well, I think the first step is to not be like me- blissfully unaware of the problems facing the community in which you live. A 2006 school board election drew only 12% of eligible voters. Mayor Francis Slay concluded that "there's no constituency for urban public schools." That's shameful, it really is. As residents of St. Louis, we all need to be more invested in our community and aware of its challenges. Not just because it's the right thing to do (although it is...), but because the public schools in St. Louis don't exist in a vacuum. They don't only affect the families whose children attend. There will never be any meaningful "revitalization" of the city if the schools do not improve.
Steve Patterson, who writes the excellent Urban Review STL, wrote in 2006 that the problems that plague St. Louis schools are the problems that plague St. Louis City- "concentrated poverty, lack of nearby jobs and poor housing." I realize that the City is diverse, and this is a gross overgeneralization, but the current population doesn't really provide a sustainable model. It's largely downtown businesses, young (largely single, largely childless) people in rehabs and lofts, and the very poor. That isn't a viable community; the city needs mixed-income neighborhoods with all kinds of families. Those kinds of neighborhoods attract business and investment and jobs, which in turn attract more families. But that will never happen if the schools don't improve. People who have the resources to live elsewhere will not move to the city and send their children to the city schools if they continue to under-perform.
Educational reform is a complicated topic, and there are a lot of people better-qualified to propose solutions. I'm not an educator, I have no experience in school administration. But I do think it's important for people who care about St. Louis to recognize the integral role that schools play in the life of a community. Whenever the topic of urban renewal comes up, there are a lot of ideas tossed around-improved mass transit, historic tax credits, mixed-income housing, etc. Schools need to be a part of the discussion as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
