By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, July 20 at 11:38 AM
The Metropolitan Association for Philanthropy will hold a teleconference today at 1:00 to discuss the state of the St. Louis Public Schools. A quick call to MAP confirmed that no one from SLPS was invited to participate. That rubbed at least one school board member the wrong way.
"I am extremely disappointed that you have not contracted district officials to advise us of your efforts and seek answers to questions that you have raised," wrote Bill Purdy in an email to MAP and forwarded to several reporters and an aide to Mayor Francis Slay.
"Surely your efforts are not directed in the direction of discouraging potential funders of programs for our city children. Surely this is not an effort on your part to politicize the education of children so as to promote a state take over of the school district," wrote Purdy.
A representative from MAP told PUB DEF that this meeting was just for its members. She said that not even members of the mayor's staff had been invited. She called the teleconference a first step and said representatives from the community would be invited to future meetings.
16 Comments:
If they take anything that goes directly to the students, who wants them anyway. We need unconditional caring for our kids!
Thursday, July 20, 2006 6:42:00 PM
It must be a sad group of old farts sitting around that table. If their money is going to the kids, what difference does it make what the fools at the top do. If their philanthropy depends on whether the board members make nice to each other, they need to re-evaluate why they are making the contributions in the first place.
Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:24:00 PM
Geeze, talk about jumping to conclusions...MAP does not make contributions directly to anyone, but is an association of many organizations/foundations/corpora-
tions that do. How can you be demeaning of a group that it is apparent you know nothing about?
Personally, I think Prudy's response to the group was a bit "over the top". Actually, that is what seems to be at the root of this whole school board debacle.... too many conclusions 'drawn' and actions taken based upon associations and rumors, and not enough careful studying of the issues.
And finally, why shouldn't this group sit down to consider where and with whom its money should be spent? It is, afterall, the "fools at the top" who will have control over it before it gets to the kids.
Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:33:00 PM
Anonymous #2 get real! These "old farts" are just being fiscally responsible (which is what made them able to be philanthopic IN THE FIRST PLACE). It makes all the difference especially if they are giving it to an organization (district) where they are now paying for 3 superintendents (williams predicessor, williams and now bourisaw). They want their money spent WISELY (for the purpose of the kids) NOT unwisely (on maybe a 4th surperintendent?!).
Anonymous (but a teacher in the district)
Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:41:00 PM
IF MAP DOES THIS THEN MANY OF THE NATIONAL COMPANIES COULD APPLY SANCTIONS TO THEIR LOCAL BRANCHES. SURLEY BIG BUSINESS WILL NOT LET SLAY GET THEM IN "BIG" TROUBLE. I ENOURAGE ALL TO WRITE ANY NATIONAL MEMBERS ALERT THEM TO THIS ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE OUR CHILDREN OF AN EDUCATION. I ALSO BELIEVE WE NEED TO ALERT THE NATIONAL MEDIA OF THIS MOVE.
Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:09:00 PM
I think we should alert the national media about Veronica O'Brien and tell them about how she is a disgrace to our community and an embarrassment to those families who have loved ones in St. Louis Public Schools. Veronica you are so messy and your way of doing things will only come back to bite you later. I know that being on the board is the only way that you could really make a name for yourself and that's o.k...enjoy your time while you have it because when you are gone we will soon forget your name, your face (including those bags under your eyes, frowned lips and uncombed hair) and we will try to move on and repair what you have done to our children in our community. The same communities you are suppose to care about but you can't even relate to our kids (not because you live on Lindell) but because you are not connected with reality and what is going on to those who live in the inner city. If you really cared please tell me why SLPS didn't open high schools as cooling centers and instead of you focusing on Floyd Irons (and the drama that surrounds that situation) but you should be checking on our children to see if they water, and a cool place to spend the day. "Like a good neighbor...Veronica you are NOT there"
Friday, July 21, 2006 10:38:00 AM
Is there any chance this group has this meeting every year, but it just doesn't get publicized, since it is a members meeting? Maybe they get together at the begining of their financial year and decide who gets how much. Don't know but just a thought. If I gave away large amounts of money each year I would decide each year where my money would do the most good, since I do that with the money I give away each year already.
Friday, July 21, 2006 1:26:00 PM
No, Reparation, courage would have been to stand up in front of the cameras and say WHY she fired Creg Williams.
Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:57:00 AM
If she did that she would be breaking a lwgal agreement that would ultimately cost the distrcit even more. It will probably come out eventually.
Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:43:00 PM
No, Reparation, courage would have been to stand up in front of the cameras and say WHY she fired Creg Williams.
Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:57
There is not a lot of mystery here. An article published in rft last November detailed the difficulties O'Brien had getting information she had a right to from Williams about Floyd Irons. (including how he got an appropriation signed by a woman who had been deceased for nine months). Look it up.
There was a little noticed article in the PD on July 17th by Steve giegerich which echoed the same theme---Purdy was having difficulties getting the secretive Williams to provide him with information regarding items in the budget--remember that Purdy graduated from Stl. public schools, taught and became a principal in them over thirty years, then served on the board for 12 years, and ran again when he saw things coming apart. (he also bragged about his children and grandchildren attending and teaching in the public schools--the basis for the frivolous suit against him)Williams was unusually active for a superintendent in the election--and Slay's candidates which he wanted and who outspent the winners 7 to 1 lost.
This is representative democracy---the worst form of government in the world except for all the others---in action.
Williams had never been a superintendent anyplace else. His resume is nonetheless impressive----but I recomend this article to did a little deeper on just how much some of the reforms were corporate marketing.
http://www.thenotebook.org/newsflash/2005/may/model.htm
Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:49:00 PM
First Williams resigned the only thing O’Brien has to do or not do announce the resignation. She didn’t force Williams to resign who the day before was vowing to carry out his contract.
Second Williams called O’Brien to have an emergency board meeting. O’Brien did called the other board members.
O’Brien did what she was suppose to do. Why haven’t the people demanded Williams to state why he resigned especially after he just said he was going to fulfill his contract? I am sure you will want everyone know why you get fired/resigned from your job(s). This is a personnel matter and we may never hear the factual meaning of why Williams decided to resign. I will let you decided who the real hypocrites are, but one person talked a big game about education and another is actually playing the big game about education.
As I look back on these past few weeks, all of the rumors that I heard during the 2005-06 school year have now come true.
Saturday, July 22, 2006 3:38:00 PM
The average person doesn't need to have the reason they were fired/resigned to be public knowledge.
But, Creg Williams was the head of a taxpayer-funded urban school district that is responsible for educating 34,000 children and he made $250,000 per year, which also came from the taxpayers. Why he left is something the public deserves to know.
Monday, July 24, 2006 9:59:00 AM
I was not on the MAP call, but as usual, the problem isn't so simple. The problem isn't that funders want to take anything away from kids, it is that they want to ensure that resources are being invested responsibly: i.e., consistently, responsibly, measurably, and in a way that ensures long-term impact. Unfortunately, SLPS politics in recent years—and especially in recent weeks--has made that desire for responsible investment nearly impossible.
Here's what's been happening to the funding community: a district administrator/principal/teacher goes to a philanthropist or corporate/foundation leader to describe the latest and greatest idea, program, equipment, or curriculum tool that will change the lives of children. After being convinced of the idea’s merits, the funder writes a check to fund it, assists with implementation, and waits for results. However, in the meantime, the board changes, a school closes, a principal moves/retires, or a new idea surfaces, and the program is immediately abandoned for the NEXT greatest idea by the next school official in the revolving door. The funder is left with no results shown and many dollars wasted, and students are lead down another path. This happens dozens of times each year, and both the current board/superintendent and every board and administration that has been involved in the SLPS during past 10 years are guilty of this practice.
Finally, I must remind that although they act with both philanthropic kindness and future self-interest, the funding community is generally under NO obligation whatsoever to the general public to share its resources. On the other hand, it IS responsible to its employees, trustees, and shareholders to invest its resources with organizations that use its funds WISELY. Given that assumption, the funding community has had little evidence that the SLPS is a place that it should invest wisely. Fortunately, St. Louis has an unusually generous philanthropic base (look it up), and their efforts will continue to serve kids in many important ways, even if it is not directly through the dysfunctional SLPS.
(As an aside, I’m increasingly disturbed by the ability of St. Louisan’s to engage in meaningful public policy dialogue that results in cooperative, and productive solutions. Too often, voices become harsh and shrill, and sides are chosen without thoughtful discussion. Again, many are guilty…it just makes me sad.)
Monday, July 24, 2006 3:25:00 PM
I fully agree. All the reason to hold annual audits (with an independent accounting firm) and hold those accountable when questionable spending arises or money is not accounted for. This district has to develop a much better checks and balances as oppose to sweeping questionable spending under the rug.
Monday, July 24, 2006 4:39:00 PM
Veronica, I wholeheartedly believe you have denied our children an education. I am the parent of a child attending the SLPS and right now it is in total chaos! Worse than it has been for the past 2 years. I honestly believed it could not get any worse.
Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:19:00 PM
yes,this whole year has been a nightmare for all of us that work for slps,we did not have meaningful professional development and the what we are now sitting through is a waste of time. Yet, we must focus that all the turmoil was caused by superintendent williams. It is unfair to blame Veronica and the current superintendent who are trying to clean up after him. Lets face it, this current school year can not be any worse than last year. What do you have to loose? Give the Veronica and the New Superintendent a chance to see what they can do.
Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:52:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home