|
|
|
New address for Schools Watch blog
By Antonio D. French
Lost a Contract, Seeks a Charter
By Peter Downs
by Peter Downs
January 25, 2006 -- The audience at Tuesday's St. Louis Board of Education meeting were treated to two shows in one: posturing from school board members desperately trying to show that they are not in love with charter schools; and a shadow play from a private company looking for a contract, but willing to settle for a charter school.
The backdrop for the first school is an election campaign. Two incumbent board members are running for reelection. They had already backpedaled on charter schools once. Facing stiff public opposition to an earlier proposal to set-up a structure for sponsoring charter schools, they had withdrawn the proposal, for now.
A request for sponsorship of a new charter school put the unpopular charter school issue back on the agenda in the middle of election season. Under state law, the group requesting sponsorship was owed an answer within a certain number of day. This particular request got a thumbs down from the staff and the superintendent. The board could have let the superintendent handle it but this was too perfect to avoid playing politics. Here was a chance to show the public that incumbents, who had spoken in favor of charter schools, weren't going to accept just anything.
Here was a chance to say "No" to a charter school group and support the superintendent at the same time. And that is just what they did. After a short meeting, the board voted unanimously to accept the superintendent's recommendation and reject the application to sponsor the self-styled "Centers for Academic Success."
There was another show within the school board's show, however. The charter school application was itself a show, an effort to use the charter school law to coerce a contract out of the school district.
David Camden, president of the board of the Centers for Academic Success and former director of the Charter School Information Center, said he and his colleagues were only applying for the charter because the superintendent had ended the district's contract with ACE Learning System in June 2005. "We would not be here if that contract were still in force," he said.
Camden's group included Gene Reynolds, founder of ACE Learning System.
ACE had a small contract with the school district that started in 2001. When the school board hired non-educator William Roberti to run the district in 2003, however, he canceled the school district's own alternative programs and sent many more students, and many more dollars, to ACE.
Camden and Reynolds repeatedly said it would be better for the district to resurrect the contract with ACE than to sponsor the charter school.
As a private school under contract to the St. Louis Public Schools, "you decide which students to send us," Camden said. But as a charter school, "we have to take whoever comes to us."
Left unsaid, but certainly implied, was that the school board can control the size of the contract, but it cannot control how much money it has to funnel to a charter schools. ACE had gotten paid less per student than charter schools get.
And, as a private school under contract to the school board, "we can graduate students with 18 credit hours, and that helps your graduation rate," Reynolds said. "As a charter school we'll have to follow the district's requirements," which are 24 credit hours. Some students "will be in your schools until they are 21," if they are required to get 24 credits to graduate, he added.
Camden's and Reynolds' presentation was probably the first episode in a continuing story. In future episodes look for them to negotiate with other potential sponsors, such as Mayor Slay or one of any number of colleges. Expect them to keep the school board informed as those talks progress, for that will increase the pressure for what they said they are really after, a contract.
Work Halted On Public School Sports Stadium
By Peter Downs
by Peter Downs
January 18, 2006 -- An ambitious private plan to build a sports stadium to serve St. Louis Public Schools and St. Louis City residents has ground to halt.
The Community Stadium Project, the nonprofit organization that was to build and maintain the stadium, suspended development work after St. Louis Public Schools Superintendent Creg Williams changed his mind about the plan.
The Community Stadium Project, backed by the St. Louis Rams, had proposed to build and operate a modern, multipurpose stadium to serve the public school system and the larger city community at no cost to the school district. The plan, formally proposed to the St. Louis Board of Education by Williams in May 2005, called for a 10-acre stadium, plus parking, that would include an artificial turf field for football and soccer; an 8-lane track; pole vault, high jump, long jump, discus, and shot put facilities; sports lighting; bleacher seating for 3,000; concession stands; rest rooms; locker rooms; and security.
Following Williams' recommendation, the board of education endorsed the plan eight months ago. After months of evaluating sites and negotiating options with city government, and meeting with community groups, the Community Stadium Project and city officials agreed to put the facility on 20 acres at the east end of Fairgrounds Park.
Then, Williams apparently changed his mind. He doesn't want one stadium, he wants two – one for the North and one for the South – and he doesn't want them to be a gift to the school district. He wants taxpayers to pay for them.
In a written statement, Ross Woolsey of the Community Stadium Project, Williams' plans, "while still evolving, apparently call for a city-wide bond issue to raise money for school improvements. We have been told that two stadiums, one on the North Side, one on the South Side, are to be included."
School board member Bill Purdy said that Williams dropped his bombshell in a meeting with representatives of the St. Louis Rams earlier this month. Purdy added that Williams has never brought the idea of a bond issue to the school board.
Given the superintendent's change of mind, the Community Stadium Project indefinitely postponed the survey and subsurface investigation of the Fairgrounds Park site that was supposed to begin last week.
School Board Approves Neighborhood Preference for Magnet Schools
By Peter Downs
by Peter Downs
The St. Louis Board of Education on January 17 approved a fundamental change in the way students are admitted to magnet schools. The board voted 4-1 to give preference for admission to magnet schools to students who live within walking distance of the schools.
Superintendent Creg Williams said the new neighborhood preference "will tell Whites that they have access to magnet schools." The majority of magnet schools are said to be in majority White neighborhoods. Williams said the neighborhood preference will kick in after the continuity preference, which allows students in a magnet program to advance in that same program, and the sibling preference, which allows brothers and sisters of a magnet school student into the same school.
The new neighborhood preference sets aside 35% of the seats in each magnet school to students who live within walking distance of the school. Louis Kruger, director of recruitment and counseling for St. Louis Public Schools, said "if we reach the 35% level [for neighborhood residents], then we will go on to the general applicants."
Williams said the change was necessary to fill the magnet schools. Under the settlement of the desegregation lawsuit filed in 1980, the school district is supposed to have 14,100 seats in magnet programs to promote integration. The school district classifies students as either "white" or "black," and tries to maintain a student ratio in each school of 40% "white" students and 60% "black."
Kruger said there are approximately 3,300 empty seats in magnet schools, but approximately 4,000 students on the waiting list to get into magnet schools. Williams said the seats remain empty because white students are not applying to magnet schools, so the district has to exclude interested black students in order to maintain the 40/60 ratio. Williams illogically insisted that the state absence of white applicants shows that whites do not have access to the schools.
School board member Bill Purdy said that if Williams' explanation for the empty seats is true, then whites in the neighborhoods could get into magnet schools now if they want to, so there is no reason to think that the new set-aside program will increase the number of white applicants.
Kruger, however, reported that black applicants account for about three-quarters of the waiting list, which means there are nearly 1,000 white students waiting to get into magnet schools.
Several board members asked good questions about the proposal. Ron Jackson asked how many children applied to get into their the magnet school in their neighborhood. Kruger said, "We don't know."
Flint Fowler asked how much the vacancies were tied to particular types of magnet schools, and the waiting lists to other types. Williams said he could not answer that question.
Robert Archibald was the only board member to voice whole-hearted support for neighborhood set asides, claiming that they will fill seats, pull down barriers, and serve more African Americans.
Purdy, who called the proposal "tinkering around the edges of the problem," wanted the board to table the proposal and take a closer look at problems in the magnet programs, and then decide how best to address those programs. Although Fowler and Jackson questioned the rationale for neighborhood set asides, and voiced support for Purdy's call for a thorough look into the magnet programs, they voted with Archibald to approve the set asides. Darnetta Clinkscale cast the fourth vote for set-asides. No one offered a resolution directing the administration to sort applications, waiting lists, and vacancies by type of magnet program and report it back to the school board at a future meeting.
State Board of Education Revises Scoring Standards for MAP Exams
By Peter Downs
The State Board of Education Thursday approved new standards for the expanded Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) tests so that more students score at the "proficient" and "advanced" levels this year.
The board unanimously approved the new test-scoring guidelines during its regular meeting in Jefferson City. Commissioner of Education D. Kent King recommended that the board adopt the new standards, which were developed last month by committees of educators and citizens. King called the new standards "both rigorous and reasonable."
This is the first time the state has revamped the standards of the MAP program since the tests became mandatory for all public schools in 1998. According to the board's press release, a combination of federal and state laws required the revisions.
The federal "No Child Left Behind" law requires all states to have grade-level tests in math and reading/communication arts no later than this year. In addition, a state law enacted in 2004 required state education officials to align the MAP exams more closely with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Under this law, Missouri’s academic standards may not exceed those used with the NAEP tests.
Before this year, the MAP program has only tested math in grades 4, 8 and 10. Reading and communication arts were tested in grades 3, 7 and 11. Beginning this spring, both reading and math will be tested in every grade, 3 through 8. Math will be tested again in grade 10; reading in grade 11.
The revised MAP testing program will have four "achievement levels" to describe student performance, instead of the five levels used with the previous MAP tests. The four MAP levels are now the same as those used with the NAEP: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced.
Last month, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education convened more than 100 educators and citizens to review the new MAP exams and recommend the "cut scores" for each level of performance in every grade and subject area. The committees set cut scores that are expected to result, initially, in about 30-35% of students statewide scoring at the proficient level in math and communication arts in each grade. Approximately 10-15% of all students in the state would be expected to score at the "advanced" level in each subject and grade. Forty-four to 46% are expected to score at the "basic" level, and 10-15% are expected to score "below basic."
Schools and Home Prices
By Peter Downs
CNN reports it. BBC reports it. It is even confirmed by recent academic studies. Home buyers will pay extra for a house near a schools that has a reputation as a "good" school. More than just a good school district, home buyers want to be near particular schools.
In St. Louis, magnet schools are widely regarded as "good" schools. Up to now, it has not mattered where you lived in the city, it did not affect your chances of getting your children into the magnet school of your choice.
On Tuesday, after systematically moving magnet programs from north side schools to the south side, the school board is going to consider an administration proposal to establish a neighborhood preference for magnet school admissions. What affect will approval of the proposal have on city real estate and development? It will increase the value of houses in south side neighborhoods around magnet schools and decrease the value of houses in stable north side neighborhoods. That sucking sound you hear will be the siphoning of millions of dollars from north side neighborhoods to the south side.
Magnet School Change to Be on School Board Agenda
By Peter Downs
by Peter Downs
January 8, 2006 –– St. Louis Board of Education is moving quickly to neighborhood children preference for admission to the magnet school in their neighborhood. A proposal to set aside 35% of seats in each magnet school for neighborhood children is expected to be on the school board's agenda on January 17.
Magnet school applications sent out in December already specified the new neighborhood preference. Discussion of the change on the "St. Louis Public Schools Watch" segment of Lizz Brown's Wake Up Call on WGNU, however, initiated some frenzied activity at the school board office. Board attorney Ken Brostron informed board members and the superintendent that only the school board had the legal authority to make such a change in the magnet school program. As the board had not approved the change, it was quickly placed on the agenda for the board's next administrative meeting.
The St. Louis magnet schools were created as part of court-ordered desegregation. The settlement of the segregation lawsuit requires that the school board maintain certain magnet programs until the year 2009.
Over the last two-and-a-half years, the school board has closed magnet schools on the north side of St. Louis and moved programs to the south side. Only six of the schools system's 28 court-ordered magnet schools remain on the north side, and five of those are within a handful of blocks of the tradition north-south border.
Sources within the school district's administration said that the idea of the neighborhood set aside is to attract more white students into magnet schools so that the district can expand the programs to serve more black students. The proposal is based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of magnet schools are located in white neighborhoods.
If the school board follows its normal agenda, the public will have a chance to comment on the proposed neighborhood set aside at the January 17 meeting.
New Orders: 'Stop Teaching and Start Cleaning'
By Peter Downs
by Disgusted teachers who must remain anonymous
The word is out in many of the St. Louis Public Schools! "Make sure your closet is clean and ALL children's coats and book bags are hung on hooks". "Dr. Williams is visiting schools and all he wants to see is if your desk is clean and if the above is accomplished"!
Williams, superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools, has visited schools this first week back after the Holidays and is looking for cleanliness - he is not interested in instruction or whether the class is engaged in learning - NOPE - he is looking for CLEAN and NEAT classrooms. We would like to see any research showing the correlation between a neat room and high student achievement. Does a neat room mean the teacher is doing a great job?
This is so ridiculous, it's sad! Teachers have been told to stop teaching so they can tidy up. Several teachers had to interrupt their lessons while Williams was in their classroom to straighten up the offending area he pointed out! Williams is not interested in commenting on the excellent lessons he has "inadvertently" observed (while he was searching for dust particles or untidy closets). Yes folks - our supreme leader is on the hunt for dastardly dirt! Yup - he's going to fix our schools all right!
This is disheartening to say the least. We had four days of school this week. Report cards are due today (Friday), and we are involved with the business of TEACHING - not CLEANING!!! If our rooms are somewhat disorderly, perhaps that is because we are busy using every meaningful manipulative or materials we can get our hands on. We don't feel it is in the best interest of our children to clean and tidy up during school hours with our students. This time is for teaching!
Perhaps Williams should stop being a neat freak and start looking at the real problems facing our children. There seems to be such a huge emphasis on surface appearances. We suppose the Administration and some Board Members think that if you print an expensive, glossy brochure, put in lots of photos of smiling children, and hire slick PR people to use just the right words, the people will believe it. And if our classrooms are tidy, that means we have everything we need (except a decent curriculum), and the students are doing great. We're not dumb. We will get the word out to our parents and anyone who will listen. We do not need a superintendent that is just full of wind and bluster - using the rousing catch words that are so often found in his sermons (er speeches).
We need real leadership in this District. Many of us love and care about the St. Louis Public Schools. Many of us have worked hard, long, hours for many years to help our children. Williams insults every teacher in the District by coming in classrooms and sniffing around with the white glove test. Look at us - look at what we are doing! We are teaching children in difficult situations! Do you even care a little? If you did, it seems you would be human enough to pat a teacher on the back and tell them they are doing a fine job - that you enjoyed their lesson - that their students seem on task, engaged, and well behaved. Instead, all we hear is that our desks need to be neater. Why in the world can't you ask us how things are going, if we need anything, if we have any suggestions, etc.
Mr. Clean (we mean Williams) needs to focus his attention on what we teachers are doing with our students - not how clean and neat we keep our classroom. What in the world is he thinking?
We are sick of the insults and the insensitivity toward teachers! Get out of the way if you don't want to help us help the children. If you don't want to get down on the floor with us and try to reach these children - get out of the way! We don't have time to waste - get out of our way and let us teach!
Phasing Out Magnets?
By Peter Downs
by Another Parent
It is interesting that the district is closing down magnet rooms, if not
entire schools, citing lack of enrollment. As a parent I received my
brochure in the mail announcing the Dec. 6th open house, on Dec. 17th. In
past years when the district really recruited, schools sent out notices of
the open house in advance,in addition to the mailing and newspaper ads. Now
the magnet school staff isn't even notified of open house days. Never fear
though, there is an additional open house day scheduled on Feb. 2nd, one day
before the lottery and four weeks after the deadline for five of the
schools.
It is also worth noting that the priorities have changed. Continuity, sibling, and a new 35% neighborhood placement will get the vast majority of the seats available. While neighborhood groups have long asked for, and been denied, access to a percentage of set-aside seats, 35% does indeed seem high. Of course,that will make it much easier to dissolve the whole magnet system in 2 years when deseg ends.
I attended school board candidate forums last year when EVERY candidate expressed support for the magnets as the jewel in the crown of the system. But that was BC (before Creg).
The Superintendent Vs. Roosevelt High
By Peter Downs
by A Roosevelt Teacher
January 3, 2006 –– On the last Friday before Christmas break, Superintendent Williams sent a letter home to parents of Roosevelt students detailing sweeping changes that would take place in the school in January. Williams wrote that it was the teachers and staff at Roosevelt that came up with these new ideas, and that we are "energetic" about implementing them.
Nobody I know had, or knew, anything about them. We were told two days before the letter that there will be a "New Perspectives" Alternative School within the building at Roosevelt - with a separate entrance, a separate lunch, separate rules, etc. There is nothing in writing, only one new teacher, and no mention of any resources to support it. It is supposed to have a community service component, but no community service sites have been set up yet. And teachers will be teaching two new Kaplan curricula without training. At this point, it doesn't seem like the alternative school has any real support - just another quickie experiment.
Mostly, I am upset about these directives that come down about which we cannot voice our opinions or needs, yet we are the ones assigned to work with students every day who are encountering a number of serious problems.
One of the problems is the Kaplan curriculum we are forcing down their throats. Williams sent a message back to the school, however, that "negative comments about Kaplan must cease." How does he expect anything but negative comments when the curriculum says teachers can spend a maximum of 93 minutes teaching the U.S. constitution and its role in law and the Supreme Court; or a maximum of three days on the Civil War, including its causes, how it was conducted, and the effects it had on the subsequent history of the United States?
Even worse, there are many contradictions between what the curriculum teaches and the actual practices in the school, in the city at large, and in the state. We would not be doing our job if we didn't talk about that. But, Williams' response is that Kaplan will stay, but teachers who are doing their job can go.
Several weeks ago, some teachers in my team reported police came into their rooms searching for a bomb. Only about half even knew anything about it, and the other half didn't have their rooms searched. Now, I'll bet if there folks making $100,000 or more were subject to a bomb threat - they'd be evacuated. Not many teachers or students at Roosevelt were even informed. The same thing happens when the city health department discovers Roosevelt students with TB or whooping cough.
I am really getting tired of living and working like this. And, the kids, they've really had enough!
SLPS Superintendent, President Stonewall School Board Member
By Peter Downs
by Peter Downs
January 1, 2006 –– As the year 2005 wound to an end, the culture of deception at the top of St. Louis Public Schools continued. On December 23, 2005, St. Louis Public Schools superintendent Creg Williams apparently said one thing to one audience, and denied it to another.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that day ran an article about the district hiring a New York public relations agency as part of a $450,000 plan to "buoy a sinking image," with the Greater St. Louis Community Foundation paying the bill. Williams was quoted as justifying the plan, saying, "I'm in crisis mode."
In a letter dated the same day, from the school board's director of operations Charles Burton, Williams said he has no information about relationships with any public relations firm. His broad answer even denied knowledge of the district's contract with a St. Louis public relations firm, UNICOM-ARC, which the board hired shortly after Williams' debut in St. Louis.
Burton's letter was in response to December 7 request from school board member Bill Purdy for information from Williams and school board president Darnetta Clinkscale. Purdy's request were motivated by a news release the night before from "Friends of St. Louis Public Schools" that inaccurately reported on a closed executive session of the school board that same night. The news release claimed that a statement was read at the meeting exonerating Floyd Irons of any wrongdoing at Vashon. Purdy and other board members said no such statement was read, although Williams did unveil plans for school audits. Williams and Clinkscale later made comments to the press similar to the phantom statements reportedly made at the closed meeting.
Purdy, in an official request under Missouri's Sunshine Law, wanted to know, among other things, who was responsible for the press release, what public relations firms were working with the school district and who was paying them.
To every one of Purdy's requests, the answer was, "The district administration of the St. Louis Public Schools is not in possession of any documents that are responsive to this request."
|
|
|
