MayorSlay.com is "MiniPoll-ing" education right now: http://www.mayorslay.com/polls/20060105schools.asp

The st louis public schools are unsalvageable so who cares

I care. I want kids to have the same opportunity I had to get a quality public education. I think we are on the right track now. But I also think we need more politics in public education in the form of a school board elected by district, instead of at large, and by partisan elections (party or run independent), meaning a primary and then general election.

Dave, You are wrong on that one. I find your attitude discusting, racist, and just plain ignorant.

If there is one thing that is keeping St. Louis from becoming the next Chicago, or the next emerging top tier city, it is the SLPS.

District seats intead of at-large? Maybe. But partisan elections for school board? You've got to be kidding!

Niether of those ideas are good ones. The Schools are not a partisan entity, and it wouldn't even matter in the city which is over 80% democratic.

And district seats would only foster turf wars on the board for which district gets funds. Also it would create more political fifedoms in a city that needs less.

Candidates for president, governor and Congress and the national and state political parties stake out positions on education. Political party affiliation is required for appointment to State Board of Education and no more than one appointee per county or congressional district is permitted under state law. The Lege, elected by political party and districts, has a great deal to do with public education. Electing local school board members at-large from slates organized for a single election creates a great disconnect from the partisan politics that permeates the rest of the governing of public education. This local structure does not foster accountability of school board members as individuals or as members of a group.

Here's one idea for compromise between an at-large school board and district plan that retains a seven-member board:

Divide the City into three equal districts, reapportioned by population, with one mostly north, one mostly south, and one central corridor and nearby areas. Elect two school board members per district, plus one school board president city-wide.

The schools are the whole city's problem keep the board members elected by the whole city. Dividing it up doesn't make for better candidates, merely the appearance of better candidates. If you want the schools to do better put the smartest people with the best ideas on the board. I think in the past it wasn't about the best candidates but in the last bunch of years the issues have been coming out and real solutions seem to be surfacing.

Considering voter registration/turnout, three districts plus one at-large president means 3 of 4 positions would be filled from the City's far west. South seat to 23 or 16 (no one from 12 would really be interested). Central seat to 28. President would come from 28, 23, or 16. This would not provide appropriate representation of the City's diversity.

Dividing the City among three board members would create an unworkable amount of turf for each member. It might be more reasonable to create 7 districts, each equal to the size of four wards. Roughly something along the lines of, as example only: Dist 1 - wards 11, 12, 13, 16; Dist 2 - wards 14, 15, 25, 20; Dist 3 - wards 6, 7, 9, 19; Dist 4 - wards 2, 3, 5, 21; Dist 5 - wards 1, 4, 22, 27; Dist 6 - wards 17, 18, 26, 28; Dist 7 - wards 8, 10, 23, 24.

The relationship between School Board members and voters should be something far more than bold face at a soiree sighting.

We need school board members who work the rooms at local meetings (PTAs, neighborhood and business groups, ward organizations, police public affairs, fish frys) and walk school halls and school playgrounds unannounced on a regular basis and get to know the principals, teachers, kids, parents.

We need career school board members who mentor new members and pass on both the history of successes and failures so that neither are forgotten, create relationships with diverse shareholders, and who perceive their School Board tenures as an important part of their legacies and not short term noblesse oblige stints in the worst jobs in town.

We are not going to get that unless we embrace the political environment that can make it all happen.

With turf and constituency responsibilities, School Board members should get a salary, maybe similar to aldermen or state lege.

The School Board should be run more like an elected lege body and less like the appointed Bi-State Commission. School Board committees should hold hearings similar to the Board of Aldermen or Lege and that is where the public is heard. School Board sessions should be where Board members debate and vote. The Gripe Mic/Mike would be forever retired.

School board elections by district might create some interesting new political opportunities. Some forced into retirement by term limits legislators might take their experience to the School Board. After several terms, a School Board member might try for the Lege. A School Board candidate who ran, lost, but did well in his or her home ward might try next for alderman. The GOP might pick up a seat in the far southwest corner.

As for the local Democratic Party, nonpartisan School Board elections have allowed the Party to avoid responsibility for this important quality of life issue. The Party, ward organizations, elected officials get behind bond issues and, depending on the election year and the slates put together, push or make the appearance of support for certain candidates. But in the big scheme of things, the Party cannot be held accountable for the condition of things and that would change with partisan district elections.

To increase turnout and interest, it would make sense to schedule School Board primaries and general elections on the same dates that we have primaries and general elections for other officials.

I do not think our local public schools are in horrible shape. Things are headed in a better direction than in a long, long time. But this is largely due to Mayor Slay being the first mayor in a long, long time to put his political capital behind turning things around. But what happens when he moves on? Who will fill the leadership void? As I see it, we have two options. 1) Partisan district elections. 2) Get rid of an elected school board, let mayor have the responsibility.

The poll on Slay's website was poorly designed. It mixed charter school and St. Louis Public schools in the same question. Additionally, the magnet system and the neighborhood system are perceived to be two different systems by most parents.