By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, August 28 at 4:34 PM
Slightly above 7 out of 10 St. Louis City kids attended the first day of school today. That's according to Interim Superintendent Diana Bourisaw, who told PUB DEF that while she considers the school district's Back-to-School campaign a success, she is not satisfied with more than a quarter of students missing the first day.
"We're not satisfied until we have 10 out of 10 attending," said Bourisaw. She said that SLPS attendance has typically been around 80% by the end of the first week. "We are well on our way to exceeding that 80% number," she said.
Bourisaw also addressed a concern brought forward by some of our readers about confusion surrounding a later start date for some Early Childhood students. She said that historically those students have started a week after other students (Sept. 5 this year). "We need to change that," said Bourisaw. "They need to start from Day One like everyone else.
34 Comments:
In 2003, with Peter Downs and company actively trying to keep students away on the first day, attendance was 76.4%. In 2004 it increased to 79.5%. With Creg Williams at the helm in 2005 first week attendance was reported at nearly 91%.
The new board fires Williams and manages to get 72% to show up on the first day. That's less than in 2003 when some of the current board members were actively organizing a boycott.
Heckuva job there O'Brien.
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:07:00 PM
Why don't parents send kids to school?
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:11:00 PM
Because they are using them to prove a point. Divorced parents use their kids for stuff like that all the time. That's why there is a need for a place like "Kids in the Middle".
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:22:00 PM
well spoken tim. and i heard bourisaw on tv saying that she hoped to have 80% by weeks end.
so let me understand this, 91% last year and this years goal for first week attendance is 80%?
where is the outrage there? oh yeah, all the noise the last few years have been from the district employees
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:36:00 PM
I was very impressed with the back to School Rally at the Monsanto YMCA. I have five kids and all my kids received free haircuts, school supplies and my son won a computer. The event was amazing and helped me out tremendously!!!
Also, I am impressed with Michael Johnson the Director and he did a great job relating to the kids. The rally was really great and I hope they contunie to do these events.
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:43:00 PM
They did a good job. However, it was too many people. I heard close to 3,000 and it seemed the adults were getting more than the kids.
The new school boss shared some encouraging words and I agree with the previous the YMCA is doing good work.
Monday, August 28, 2006 5:46:00 PM
I agree with you Tim! Do you think anyone is listening to the parents now?
Monday, August 28, 2006 6:35:00 PM
The 2005 figures are first week rather than first day and come from a press release on the SLPS website.
http://www.slps.org/spotlightnews/index_083005.htm
91% first week attendance last year and now the goal is 80%?! How is that anything other than a miserable failure??
It's the board's responsibility to have an administration in place that can help get kids to school the first day. This board fired Williams after he managed the best first-week attendance in a decade. they should be held accountable for the outcomes of their actions, including reduced attendance.
Monday, August 28, 2006 6:44:00 PM
As a former student of the Saint Louis Public Schools from kindergarten to 12th grade, I can't understand how anyone can blame anyone other than the parents when children don't show up for the first day of school.
We were poor, five of us in three room flat upstairs. Yet our parents valued education as did most parents in those days, African American, Caucasian, Asian, recent European immigrants, etc. When will people start addressing the real education problem--parents who are poor parents and who care less about their children than their alcohol, dope, boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, and on and on.
All one can do, as the old adage states, is "lead the horse to water." They can't make it drink. The Saint Louis Public Schools Board of Education members (at least four of them), the administration (particularly the superintendent), the principals, teachers, and school staff have done all they can do. Any failure in school attendance must be placed on the parents.
And by the way, Tim, why do you refuse to acknowledge that Williams resigned abruptly after an audit of how expenses were being handled? He was not fired. Regardless of how often people say he was fired, the truth is he wasn't fired but resigned of his own free will.
Monday, August 28, 2006 7:04:00 PM
Has there ever been a year where there was this much bad publicity about the slps?
Maybe an unusual number have changed to private schools---or maybe an unusual number--mindful of chaotic situations such as the president of the board needing, or thinking she needs extra protection, awareness of a former student being executed for reasons which are not yet clear----maybe an unusual number thought it might be a good idea to wait a couple days or a week, just to be on the safe side.
I do not know.
Monday, August 28, 2006 7:17:00 PM
Spiro, "to wait a couple days or a week" is against the law if your child is 7 or older. Those parents are contributing to the delinquency of a minor by allowing the child to be truant unless the child is sick. Of course, that doesn't even address the fact that they are setting a terrible example for the child by not imparting the importance of "showing up" when you are supposed to be there. These children become the teens and adults who don't understand why they can't just show up for work when they want to.
Monday, August 28, 2006 8:10:00 PM
There is no way that 91% of the students were in attendance the first day of school last year.
Monday, August 28, 2006 8:11:00 PM
According to Tony Sanders, a SLPS spokesman (a position he also held in Dr. Williams' administration), the district has not released First Day numbers in many years. Only First Week numbers.
Monday, August 28, 2006 8:17:00 PM
To Tim
It's the board's responsibility to have an administration in place that can help get kids to school the first day. This board fired Williams after he managed the best first-week attendance in a decade. they should be held accountable for the outcomes of their actions, including reduced attendance
.
Williams couldn't manage a snow cone stand ,I COMMEND THE NEW BOARD,SUPT. AND TEACHERS FOR A GREAT START.
So Tim go back under Slay's desk and be quiet please...
Monday, August 28, 2006 8:42:00 PM
Face it, Tim, all of the disasters that were predicted by your buddies did not come to pass, so now you have to harp on the fact that the media smear campaign they engaged in which scared parents into keeping their kids home is somehow the fault of the victims of the forked tongues. That is some seriously twisted logic, dude.
Monday, August 28, 2006 9:06:00 PM
With George Wallace in the Mayor's Office, death threats, and incompetent SLPS board members concentrated on political infighting or racial divisiveness, I certianly wouldn't feel compelled to attend school.
The children are affected by what they see on T.V., and what their parents tell them. If the media is doing their job reporting such events, and the parents have lost confidence, then of course children will as well.
The only thing that will get attendence back to 90% is unity and a focus on personal responsibility and effective leadership.
All levels of government must end the political fighting and parents must feel confident in the SLPS. The children will follow.
Monday, August 28, 2006 10:17:00 PM
I don't have a problem with a later start date for early childhood. What I do have a problem with is not being informed of that fact. All contact from the district, from my daughter's school assignement papers to the numerous recorded phone calls made to our home, stated that school began on August 28th. This is her first full year (maybe) at SLPS so as a parent I was not aware that EC "historically" starts a week later than the older students. Now do you want to get me started on transportation issues with the district??!! After almost 3 weeks of trying to make address corrections we still have gotten no where and I know we can't be the only parents with transportation (bus) problems. And some wonder why some parents don't send their kids to school. Perhaps they are waiting for their serious issues with the district to be resolved. I really had high hopes that this year would be different but I am experiencing the same rude employees and ineptness that I did when my daughter began school (special education) in early 2006.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:51:00 AM
Doug, I don't think it's necessarily "the kids" that aren't showing up. I agree with sillygirl 100%. It is the parents responsibility to make sure they are there. Just like they don't see fit to attend PTO meetings, parent/teacher conf, or volunteer even one day at school for anything, here we go again this year. Apathetic parents are the problem here. Until they understand and value what an education can give a child, we will continue to see these types of #'s. Williams was all about creating an image and a lot of parents wanted to follow that "image". Education isn't about image. Dr Bourisaw drove around in her small sedan (not a limo-and no driver) in traffic with the rest of us yesterday, from one school to another, trying to get the word out about how important it was to be in school. Aside from all the preparations made at the schools and her visits to community churches, rallys etc over the weekend. From what I could see, at least in my little part of the world, my children got off to school on time, first time in years that transportation was on time first day/first week. The schools were clean and prepared for the most part and the children that did attend were happy to be there. I say congrats to the parents, administration and educators that made that much happen. There were a lot of naysayers that didn't think that would even occur. Now let's move on to the tragic numbers our district shows on tests etc. These are the numbers that trully need to be addressed. What are they for the prior year and how are we (not how are they)as a community going to make a difference in our childrens live THIS year. We all need to make that OUR OWN priority. That's when we will really see a change.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:59:00 AM
Helen,
Saying that Williams resigned and wasn't fired is like saying the Triangle Shirtwaist women committed suicide by jumping from the windows.
On Jaco show on Saturday, Downs did not dispute Jaco's assertion that Williams jumped when board pushed him. No sane person thinks that Williams suddenly decided to leave and that the board majority didn't push Williams very hard to resign. Did Downs violate the legal agreement with his statements on Saturday? Downs campaigned on platform of working with Williams. It's sad that he wasn't honest beforehand about his plan to force him out. I voted for Downs, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, board majority members do seem to feel that Williams was intentionally trying to dismantle public education. Downs and Archibald interviews on Jaco show was very intereting.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:21:00 PM
The fact remains people-the guy left. They can't and won't discuss why, as this is a human resource issue. If you left a company or were asked to leave, would you want that company airing all YOUR dirty laundry? Or would you prefer to tell people what you want them to know yourself? When are we finally going to get off this kick? The fact remains, the schools opened ON TIME, when no one thought they would. The schools were clean and ready for most students who chose to attend or whose parents HAD them attend. The students who did attend had a fine first day. Why can't we focus on that? Someone please tell me why? Why do we always have to focus on the negative of everything in this school district? Maybe if we try to focus on the positive issues, we can finally move FORWARD.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:20:00 PM
Why can't we finally move forward?
I guess because everyone has to have their turn...just like on the playground...to "spin" the story
(just like the merry-go-round) in the direction that suits them.
Was the first day positive last year? Was the first day positive this year? It depends on who is writing the story!
And it seems to me that everyone is
cheating at this little game.
I think we need some new rules on the playground!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:34:00 PM
Well, I think we need to get off of the playground and back to class. We are a pretty bad example for the children when we whine and complain about everything that doesn't go our way. Let's get back to healthy debate and drop the "hooray for my side" posturing.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:04:00 PM
I think the majority of you are missing the fact that quite a lot of people had confidence in Williams. They feel they have been wronged, there has been no information given as to why he left. I think he was pushed out, if I am wrong give me the facts. Allow me to form my own opinions, as I do not take kindly to anyone forcing their opinions down my throat. O'Brien and Downs wanted him to leave, he is gone. I do not believe we elect public officials to determine what is best for us, we elect them to act on our behalf, we have not been given the opportunity to come to our own conclusion that these efforts were on our behalf. There has been so much discord in the past, we as parents accepted Mr. Williams as our leader, we put our confidences in him and he was taken from us, it was not our choice, it was the board majority's choice and the union's choice.
As parents of children attending the SLPS we are emoionally involved, how many of you who believe all of the theatrics this summer were in the best interest of our children are actually parents of children attending the SLPS?
Kudos to the parents that sent their children to school yesterday, I did. If you are a parent that did not send your child to school yesterday and you feel you took a political stance, good for you, as our board members appear to be in this for political notoriety and not the welfare of our kids. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Those of you who believe this is all in the best interest of my son, well you are going to have to prove it to me. 80% attendence in the 1st week is shooting too low, I have higher expectations than that.
Last year I saw people on the street corners passing out flyers to motivate children to attend school the 1st day, this year I received numerous annoying pre-taped telephone calls reminding me of the 1st day of school. I also received a pre-taped phone call from Ms. Jones urging us to volunteer at school, that is the most I have heard from her since she was appointed to the board.
I choose to focus on what is happening now, however, how many of you can guarrantee me this isn't going to happen again? There isn't one of you that can as this political infighting is part of SLPS history. It is childish, it is ridiculous it is embarrassing! You will not convince me that 6 superintendents in 3 years is progressive or productive. This is it for me, this is my last year, if it does not improve I will sell my home and rent in a great school district, my child deserves more than the political aspirations of our board members can offer.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:07:00 PM
Ms. Jones was elected to the board, not appointed. If you attend board meetings, you will see her asking questions and expressing concerns.
How often did you hear from Ron Jackson, Flint Fowler, or Bob Archibald...please let us know how these men have reached out to you and your children. Most parents say they never receive a response from them, as do teachers and staff.
She is a parent of children in the SLPS and has been active as such for some time.
Critical spirits that don't compare to what other board members did or didn't do only hurt the dedicated efforts being made to move forward and upward.
Did Vince Schoemehl or Darnetta Clinkscale ever take time for any of you as parents?
Tim, you are misrepresenting the facts to the point of verging on libel. I cannot recall one current board member actively organizing a boycott. Veronica didn't. Peter didn't. Donna didn't. Purdy didn't. Who are you talking about?
And, Tim, why don't you address the issue of the previous board's success in leading the district to lose the most accreditation points of any board in the history of the St. Louis Public Schools?
I voted for some of those previous board members and wanted reform that they promised. They did not deliver. Let me repeat, I voted for them! What regret on my part.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:52:00 PM
Anonymous said...
I think the majority of you are missing the fact that quite a lot of people had confidence in Williams. They feel they have been wronged, there has been no information given as to why he left. I think he was pushed out, if I am wrong give me the facts.
a lot has been said--this goes back to a pd article from July 17th:
Williams may have inflicted many of the wounds himself.
Despite repeated pledges to work with those who publicly questioned his leadership, Williams resisted entreaties to provide pertinent or promised material to board members. For Purdy, that meant repeated requests for line items detailing the 2007 budget - requests that went unanswered.
For Downs, it meant an unfulfilled promise of providing teachers with flexibility as they struggled to balance the standard curriculum with the needs of individual students.
And for Jones, it meant constantly bringing up a key component of her campaign - smaller class sizes - to no avail.
Some critics also questioned Williams' commitment to St. Louis itself. Most of his top lieutenants came from other cities.
"The whole point seemed to be, if you were from St. Louis you weren't good enough to help the schools," Armstrong said.
The issues between Williams and the board ignited a week ago, when the board voted to fire Vashon basketball coach Floyd Irons. By speaking out against the dismissal, Williams disobeyed a board edict that he remain mum on the subject.
There was also a story from therft last November about Williams refusal to provide financial info abnout Irons to then minority members of the board---which they remembered when they became part of the majority.
Are these reasons valid? I don't know. My opinion is that Williams brought it upon himself with his arrogant disdain for people who were elected.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:23:00 PM
Helen, is that similar to the regret others in St. Louis are now experiencing after voting for candidates who pledged to work with Creg Williams and then forced him out?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:22:00 PM
No, Tim, because the impact of what they might have or might not have done isn't as detrimental to the children and staff of the schools and because they now have a better and much more highly qualified and experienced superintendent.
Also, there is time for them to learn what a prudent move this was. It appears some know a bit more of what transpired behind the scenes and are leaking some of that information.
Dr. Bourisaw is much more responsive and less arrogant toward parents and staff. And with a family locally, she definitely won't be out of Harrah's and padding expense accounts for personal whims. And she won't be paying a distric security guard overtime pay to wait for him while he is gambling. Can't even picture Dr. Hammonds practicing such behavior either.
Does that answer your question Tim?
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:11:00 AM
Spiro's comment . ."By speaking out against the dismissal, Williams disobeyed a board edict that he remain mum on the subject"
Kind of reminds me of "...Malcolm received criticism for a comment he made regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. "[Kennedy] never foresaw that the chickens would come home to roost so soon," said Malcolm. After the statement, Elijah Muhammad "silenced" Malcolm for 90 days. Malcolm, however, suspected he was silenced for another reason" [taken from The Offical Web Site http://www.cmgworldwide.com/historic/malcolm/index.htm]
Was williams silenced for other reasons too?!! This town has a way of attempting to castrate Black men in positions of influence. Freeman Bosley as Mayor, Ron Henderson as Polcie Chief, Kahtib Waheed as Police Board Commissioner, Jet Banks as Pro Tem of the State Senate - the list is a long one, Williams just happens to be the most recent.
Watch out Mike (McMillian, Rodney and Talib they'll be after ya'll soon !!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:19:00 AM
This community castrates black men?! Ron Henderson went on to be promoted to a federal position (and by the way had his sister hired on for a job for which she was unqualified). Jet Banks got caught with his hand in the till. Bosley chose the private sector for himself.
No black man experiences anything a white man or woman who is either on the up and up or down low and dirty experiences. You can't be watching the news or reading the newspapers to come up with such a statement.
And according to some black folk, some of these guys have their thugs to keep the rest of the black community intimidated and too scared to reveal what's going on.
Regardless of race or ethnic background, honest men and women are just that and gain such reputations. The crooks are the same and just as low down as any of any race.
Stop using the race card and race baiting and stick to the facts. People in the know know Irons for what he is; and, unfortunately, one had to be beaten and later murdered possibly because of that knowledge. Others in the know could tell you more about Williams but can't. And wasn't it a county white superintendent who was revealed for sexual harassment? Get over the false race card.
In this case, all it does is hurt the children who need the support and cooperation of all parties and all races.
Why some talk about the Slay gangster days as the Syrian/Lebanese mob.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:24:00 AM
Helen Louise, yes, Vince Schoemehl did help me when he was on the board, and I will forever be grateful for his assistance. Creg Williams also returned an email that I had sent to him. I have emailed every current board member with no response and I have emailed Mrs. Bourisaw with no response. Creg Williams and Vincent Schoemehl are the only two to respond and Mr. Schoemehl made a personal phone call to my home.
Therefore my experiences in the past were more productive than the current. Sorry to dissapoint you!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:14:00 PM
So I'm guessing you didn't realize that Creg had several assistants who answered his e-mails for him?
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:38:00 PM
I emailed Creg Williams twice and sent him a letter once; he responded to the email in which I complimented an employee and I got no response to the other two overtures, which discussed concerns I had as a parent. I emailed Dr. Bourisaw over the summer after she was appointed. I got no response until last week when two of her staff members contacted me apologizing that she had been so busy but now that school had started she wanted to hear from parents; her office asked when we would have a PTO meeting and she is going to come.
Last year when a large group of parents met at Mullanphy for a civil and productive discussion of the huge problems with bussing, Dr. Williams chose not to appear (although he had communicated that he would and his presence was indicated on the flyers that went out to many schools), the four who at the time were the Board majority did not appear. Purdy and Downs did. Both of them have responded to me when I have contacted them. While campaigning, Flint Fowler came to a meeting of parents who hoped to meet him and I give him credit for that, even if I haven't been always happy with his voting.
I would agree with the above anonymous that s/he should have gotten a response from Board members and Dr. Bourisaw, but my own experiences don't support the idea that the previous Board and Dr. Williams were open and respectful to parents. If they had been, the last Board election might have turned out differently.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:53:00 PM
Excuse me if I remain skeptical, as many parents did not consider Williams their superintendent and saw through the spin.
I have also learned a lesson in life, that being I cannot attribute motives to others when I am so far removed from the action. Sorry, but as a Christian, I believe only God knows hearts and motives. I can look at deeds, but not at the heart or ulterior motives.
Since your posting is so vociferous against these board members and almost fanatically negative (especially in light of the fact that they are parents too), I see your posting more as a support for certain parties than a valid parental concern. You may not like what I think, but I am telling you that is how I feel about what you have written. I have seen too much ugliness.
Even in my criticisms of past actions, that is what they are--criticism of past actions, not criticisms of people or personalities.
Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:40:00 AM
Helen Louise, who are you talking to in the above post?
Monday, September 04, 2006 7:43:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home