By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, November 28 at 10:51 AM
While other urban mayors are fighting to take the reigns of their city's failing school districts, Mayor Francis Slay continues to push instead for the state's Republican governor to take over St. Louis Public Schools. And he's finding an ally in the woman he first appointed to the school board.
"A State takeover of the district is a needed first step," the mayor wrote on his website Saturday.
"If legislation is needed to make the law clear and to protect a takeover from legal challenge, the Missouri General Assembly should pass a bill the first month it is in session -- and the Governor should sign it."
The current school board president, who Slay appointed to the board in 2004 after former member Rochelle Moore was removed because of her erratic behavior, has joined Slay in calling for state intervention.
Veronica O'Brien said that while she doesn't yet support an all-out "takeover," she does think the state should do away with the superintendent's office.
O'Brien also has begun to undermine the credibility of the very woman she abruptly introduced as superintendent just four months ago.
"Dr. [Diana] Bourisaw does not have the experience to handle some things in this district," O'Brien told Channel 5. She said she once believed Bourisaw had the "potential to grow," but no longer.
O'Brien said she doesn't believe she personally deserves any of the blame for the current state of the district. "I don't think I bear the burden of many years of the district falling apart," she said.
In that regard, she and the mayor are again on the same page.
For three years, between April 2003 and April 2006, Mayor Slay enjoyed unprecedented influence over St. Louis Public Schools. Under the direction of his original slate of candidates -- Vince Schoemehl, Bob Archibald, Ronald Jackson and Darnetta Clinkscale, who later became the heavy-handed board majority -- the district embarked on an expensive experiment, overseen and co-directed from the mayor's own office, that turned control of the district over to a New York City-based corporate turnaround firm and a superintendent that had absolutely no prior experience in education.
When the dust settled, the district was left in debt, the community was even more divided, and the New Yorkers where back in New York preparing for their next adventure in New Orleans.
"It would be controversial to give up local control of the St. Louis Public Schools, but it would be plain wrong to allow the district to continue to betray the futures of thousands of students," Slay wrote today on his website. "It's past time for a state takeover. Why not just say that?"
If Slay and O'Brien get their way, it would put St. Louis City residents in the very unique position of being perhaps the only city population in America with no control over either its own police force or its own public schools.
Now the commentary:
It is not leadership to jump to the front of a steady march and join in the chorus. Indeed, it is cowardice for elected leaders to abandon their mission and turn over the power voters invested in them to outsiders -- whether they be from New York City or Jefferson City.
If Mayor Slay wants to be a good leader and if he truly wants someone to have the authority to "put the district in the hands of a strong administrator with a mandate to stabilize the district and start it on the long road to recovery," as he says, then he should ask for that power, not pass the buck to a governor who has repeatedly voiced his own insensitivity to this state's urban people.
Instead of giving our power over to the state, the mayor should ask for control over his city's schools -- as mayors have done in Chicago, Cleveland and Los Angeles, and as is currently being considered in Seattle and Washington D.C.
It would be controversial, but no more so than if a governor who is not directly accountable to St. Louisans was given control.
And at least there would finally be one person the voters of this city could hold accountable for the future of our public schools.
13 Comments:
The School Board, which is elected by the citizens of St. Louis, currently runs the schools under the direction of the state.
If the School Board fails at that job (and it sure looks like it has), then the law provides this:
"In the event that the state board of education shall declare the school district of a city not within a county to be unaccredited, the member of the governing board of the transitional district appointed by the governing body of the district as provided in subdivision (1) of this subsection shall, within ninety days, be replaced by a chief executive officer nominated by the state board of education and appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate. The chief executive officer need not be a resident of the district but shall be a person of recognized administrative ability, shall be paid in whole or in part with funds from the district, and shall have all other powers and duties of any other general superintendent of schools, including appointment of staff. The chief executive officer shall serve for a term of three years or until his successor is appointed or until the transitional district is dissolved or terminated. His salary shall be set by the state board of education."
That's "state takeover."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:05:00 AM
Please state the number of the law and where it can be found so we can see it in its total context.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:57:00 AM
== Instead of giving our power over to the state, the mayor should ask for control over his city's schools -- as mayors have done in Chicago, Cleveland and Los Angeles, and as is currently being considered in Seattle and Washington D.C. ==
Only problem is any time the mayor gets within 10 feet of the schools, it causes a public uproar. I'm sure the mayor would love to take the schools and try to turn them around. He just knows he'll be accussed on playign power games for his own benefit. The environment in St. Louis now is such that he can't touch the schools.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:10:00 PM
"state the number of the law and where it can be found"
Yes, ma'am.
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1620001100.HTM
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:24:00 PM
first, that section quoted is part of the deseg settlement, and relates to a governing board of a transitional, which I believe isnt relevant here; also, if we do become unaccredited, under current law, we have two years to regain at least provisional accreditation, also per the deseg agreement.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:47:00 PM
I thought people might be interested in my submission to the State Committee currently reviewing the St. Louis School District. The Post wouldnt run it as an oped (altho he's a god to me, Eric Mink seems not to like anything I ever say or write; also that would make less room for the 12 articles he wrote on the Forest Park issue - a good cause, to be sure, but as best I can tell, they were all the same, tho since no one read them, we're not sure), and the American hasnt yet.
In any case, that pouting of mine nothwithstanding, here's my submission to the Committee, if anyone is interested:
"I speak as a former SLPS school board member (1997-2005) and someone who continues to be interested in the schools (I filed to run last year, then withdrew; may file this year).
So as not to "bury my lead" as journalists say, I will present my ideas I have long held and wish you to consider in your recommendations, and then follow with what is more or less background and prologue at the end.
I have long held the following 4 ideas as the panacea/silver bullets for urban education:
1. The reality is that any child not reading at grade level by third grade never catches up. We need to front-load the system to insure all reading at grade level by the third: mostly with volunteer tutors and smaller classes, reading specialists et al. Phased in over 3 years or so. Zero tolerance!
2. An eighth grade initiative, with the eighth graders being "adopted" by the business community: tutoring, mentoring, school year and summer jobs, a promise of a job after graduation or money for college if they stay in school and get the skills they need to compete. Zero tolerance for losing one eighth grader as a dropout for the following five years, taking the graduation (dropout) rate from 50% to 90+% in 5 years, with commensurate increase in test scores. Again, phased in over 3 years. Of course the business community would have to back it, but if they thought it would succeed, they will. City Hall behind it would help. Possible tax-credits instead of for vouchers. See also #4 below.
3. Widespread peer tutoring program for academic credit or compensation (coupons from stores as well as pay), with the older and better students tutoring the younger and less accomplished. And as Floyd Crues once said when I was suggesting such a program, "and we need a few thugs in it too"; very incisive. The point is that when you are teaching others good life skills, you tend to live up to your advice to them as well. Also teachers such as myself (Harris Stowe) know that to tutor or teach makes you learn the material better yourself.
4. Finally, and this is perhaps my favorite, lobbying the legislature to require companies to let parents/adults off from work 3 hours or so a month, with pay, if they go into the schools and visit their kids or tutor other people's children. It would be good for the parents and other adults, good for the kids, good for the families, and great for the schools. Tax credits equal to $10 an hour for time away from work would seem appropriate too, and again, better and less controversial than vouchers. Let them give all the scholarships they want, but tax-credits only for public education (or parents/adults who visit private and parochial schools, too, I suppose.
Last a word about board "governance", if I may, and the idea that boards should set policy and nothing else. Which has been much in the news lately, e.g. with respect to Atlanta.
This is a complex issue, I believe, but my position can be summed up in the paraphrase, "a foolish simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds."
More specifically,
1. Boards do set policy and goals, and superintendents do implement those, and by and large micromanaging can be bad and counter-productive. But letting the superintendent implement the goals without dialogue on means works only with proven superintendents, not new ones.
2. No one would wisely take that position who has ever been on the board of a large and complex district. One wants a superintendent who is smarter than the whole Board combined, but that rarely happens, and on complex issues, 8 minds are better than one.
3. Legally a board can get involved in whatever issues they want.
4. No individual board member should try to micromanage, but boards as a whole sometimes need to get involved, and the Floyd Irons situation for all its ramifications and complexities, would be one example. And a smart superintendent would seek board input before action, for political as well as practical reasons.
5. And most important, goals and policies are at one end of the spectrum, and implementation of strategies at the other. In between are the means and strategies to accomplish the goals. This is and should be an area of board and superintendent collaboration. Against 8 minds are better than one. I would want to be able to dialogue on the strategies I've suggested above with the Board and superintendent. The superintendent should give their input as to what they think of an idea and why, but if the board likes it and decides on it, the superintendent should run with it.
6. Generally, if the board is constantly second guessing a superintendent then it might be a bad fit, but boards and superintendents who work well together should be able to reach consensus on the means to accomplishing goals and policies, and all else being equal the benefit of the doubt should be given to the superintendent as it's their job on the line.
7. But just to establish goals and policies and then sit back and see how the superintendent does with them, would more often than not be a recipe for failure, where it takes 2-3 years to see how a superintendent is doing and then if it doesn’t work out, fire them. Who wants that system?! Even the SLPS never had that system. And without judging anyone, of the many superintendents I've served with (Hammonds through Williams, briefly), Bourisaw is the first one I would have confidence is ahead of the board's curve rather than has to be pushed somewhat around the curve. And even with Diana, constant dialogue on means and even how implementation is going has far more chance to help than hurt. But only if the dialogue is as a board and not individual board members trying to assert their will independent of the board.
Background and prologue:
To disclose any bias, I have long been affiliated with the group of four that have been in the majority of the school board since this last fall.
I was also one of those on the board who voted to hire Creg Williams. No one wanted him to succeed more than I.
I think the new board slate tried their best to work with him, but he was disrespectful to them, didn’t follow their directives, and just wasn’t doing a good job otherwise, in my opinion. Tho he had some good ideas, many of them were old ones resurrected; also, as Freeman Bosley Jr. says, and I, too: "Leadership is action, not position." The key isn’t only good ideas; it's implementing them.
I think they were right to let me go; I'm sure it was a difficult decision.
I'm a big supporter of Diana Bourisaw, tho wasn’t very familiar with her before she was hired.
Although no one can be happy with the internecine public disharmony that has recently arisen between Diana, Veronica and Bill Purdy, [I've been working behind the scenes to encourage them all not to criticize each other publicly (or privately, perhaps), and to build board and superintendent consensus for courses of action], I am hopefully that they will work out their differences. In the meantime, I don’t think it should be used as a factor in your recommendations unless they decide to fire Diana. I don’t think that will happen, but if it does, even I will begin to despair, and I'm ever the optimist. To be fair, most of the changes of superintendents before Diana were to be expected, natural (some were interim in any case - 3, I believe), and most changes were made by the previous board majority. This board majority shouldn’t be held responsible for previous actions. I think they have stability now, even if it's a little rattled lately, and I expect Diana to be there at least 2-3 years.
The Slay board representatives were in charge for the last three years, and took Accreditation points from 66 to something under 40, I believe.
The new administration, board and superintendent deserve at least two years to get the scores back up to full accreditation, and it is my belief that they will succeed. Of course the goal should be 100 not 68.
thank you; I hope you will read and consider my ideas."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:51:00 PM
How does one go about submitting something to the "State committee currently reviewing the St. Louis Public Schools"? I have some things I'd like to share with them too. To whom would I address them, and where would I send it?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:45:00 PM
I am trying to figure out just why the Post Dispatch has been so consistently anti-Bourisaw and pro state takeover.
I had some e-mail exchanges with Bill McClellan about his attitude toward her and Williams. (he characterizes her as less than honorable). I have told him he needs to find out why she has a lot of support coming from teachers.
I took note of the fact that he has a daughter who teaches in a rough place in california---I have hopes that talking to real teachers from slps could make him look at the last few years differently.
He has agreed that he would like to talk to some teachers about the open court textbooks----I brought it up as something which seems to be a genuine sore point with real teachers.
Both Purdy and Downs have written e-mails to me----Purdy said this:
"From what I hear the vast majority of teachers who must use Open Court do not like the prescribed nature which fails to allow teachers to teach children with individual differences. As I understand it Open Court is very subscribed where all teachers are to teach according to a schedule. Peter Downs of our board has many anecdotes from teachers."
Both seemed to encourage me to pursue this idea.
Easy for me to propose that teachers talk to a reporter like McClellan---I have not been a teacher for a number of years--no consequences. But if a couple or three of you would like to talk to him about it, he is easy to contact at the PD.
I am an outsider--but the Open Court thing seems like a good point of departure which would lead very naturally to other concerns.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:53:00 AM
There will be a vote to Fire the supt at the next board meeting. This comes from two board members that are now in O'briens camp. It will happen because of the swing vote of one Flint Fowler. He has not approved of her since day one. He has also said to not trust her. This will further justify some wanting a state take over. This is part of the changes that Ms. O'brien speaks of in today's Post.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:33:00 AM
Fowler seems level headed enough to realize that firing Bourisaw now would lead to to much instability. I do think that Archibald is gleeful at the OBrien-Bourisaw rift. OBrien's resignation is not too feared as Slay isn't good at appointing people he can control.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:10:00 AM
Does Bourisaw have a 60 day contract?
Is it not possible that if they fire her, the state would take over, she would still be there, and they would be gone?
At least until the end of January.
We'll see.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:17:00 PM
To Anonymous (11/28-10;45 p.m.)
Although, I personally have not tried to contact the "committee" through these channels, these contact addresses were given to me by a wonderful and reliable source...www.slps-committee.org or via regular mail at SLPS Special Advisory Committee, P.O Box 8765 , St. Louis, MO 63101. Hope this helps!
To Mr. Haas...Thank you so much for staying involved, and sharing your ideas. They are very much worth discussing!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:44:00 PM
Anon who wrote,
"There will be a vote to Fire the supt at the next board meeting. This comes from two board members that are now in O'briens camp. It will happen because of the swing vote of one Flint Fowler."
If they fire the supt. again there needs to be a BIG TIME protest of some kind. (I would float the idea of a good ole' one-day walkout of employees, in combination with parents, to bang on a few windows at 801.)
Until now I have avoided the O'Brien soap-opera because I believe she just likes the attention. But enough already.
Also, I don't know who the mayor could appoint that would be worse! Everything O'Brien is doing is furthering the mayor's agenda anyway. Hmmmm...and who was it that appointed O'Brien again?
Oh yeah, one more thing...who the f*** thinks the STATE could do better? Are you frickin crazy? MORE BUREAUCRACY?!!! Yeah right...THAT'S JUST WHAT WE NEED!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:46:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home