Why the ACC Endorses Clinkscale, Buford
I've gotten a fair amount of grumbling from "progressives", about the ACC endorsement for Clinkscale and Buford.
Just about everyone who I've had a discussion of any length with ends up in shrugging agreement. Here how the conversation usually goes.
The two arguments against the slate are 1. Roberti is/was a jerk. and 2. The APR points have declined from 64 to 39.
Both are true, and meaningless in terms of moving the school system forward.
Here's what matters:
1. We do not have a functional system.
We do not have a functional system - Our school system sucks and it's a sin. In my book, it's a go-to-hell kind of a sin to let kids pretend to go to school and then send them out in the world hardly able to read.
And I overstating the terrible shape 30 years of neglect has had on our schools?
No. Look at the numbers.
10th grade reading - 6.2% met the state standard for proficiency or better. The other 93.8% failed.
Guess what? That was better than math or science MAP scores at the high school level. They were 3.5% passing and 1.4% respectively.
Yes, you read that right. 98.6% of our 11th graders failed to meet the state's standards for proficiency in the subject of science.
With respect to education, I share nothing ideologically with anyone who looks at those numbers and thinks that ANYTHING - jobs, schools, ANYTHING - is more important than creating a system where kids can learn.
Those numbers suck. But what's astounding (more on this in point 3) is that those scores are all higher now than when the reform slate took over in 2003.
Yeah, tests scores have improved under this board majority. Still anyone who's satisfied with them or thinks there should be any other goal than improving academic achievement is plain wrong.
2. The reform slate has one agenda: getting a functional system. Not preserving jobs, making those jobs easier, or preserving schools. They have one agenda - They're trying to give African American kids in St. Louis a shot at life.
“Progressives” who rail angrily about high-handed, high-paid administrators cutting low-wage jobs etc, are missing the real injustice. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING progressive about a school system that dooms youth to unemployment and crime.
3. It's working - already, which two years ago I would not have expected. I would have thought that with the shock - closing a $90 million deficit, shuttering half-empty schools, implementing a district-wide curriculum – of changing the direction of a district that accepted crap results for so long, test scores would have declined during the transition.
They haven’t. On the whole they’ve risen. 8 of the 9 MAP categories have seen improvement in test scores since the reform slate took over. That’s amazing and heartening.
More important than the progress of the past two years is the progress in the pipeline. They passed a pay increase to bring teachers' salaries in line with those of the surrounding school districts. They hired a first-class superintendent who is implementing a strategic plan that has lots of intuitively common sense elements - taking 9th graders out of the high school to give them special attention, uniforms, reinvesting in curriculum (something that wouldn’t have been possible if the majority hadn’t rationalized the schools operations (closing empty schools, managing warehouse inventory).
The question most people ask at this point is: Why, since nearly all academic test scores have risen, have APR numbers gone down?
Look here to understand the APR numbers. It's not simple, but it is understandable. And after spending some time with the numbers - the MAP test scores, the rolling averages that determine APR numbers - you'll see that the APR is not an accurate reflection of the progress that's been made.
Honestly, there aren't many people - I think I've found three - that have spent the time to look how APR scores are determined. By my reading, the big reasons for the decline: 1. ACT scores. 2. Drop-out rate.
On the ACT scores - the bad news is that they're going to continue to go down. Rather than just give the test to the best students and thereby artificially raising scores, the plan is for every student to take them. The good news - that's the way a school should work.
Yes, it hurts us on the APR numbers, but going to college should be the expectation we put on every child in the district. Part of that expectation is that everyone takes the ACT.
Finally, there's the drop-out rate. Drop-outs are a huge problem.
Why is drop-out rate important? The unemployment rate for African American men in their 20s who are high school drop-outs is 72%. It may not be totally surprising then that by their late 20s, among this sub-group, more are in jail than at work. By their 30s, 6 in 10 have been incarcerated at some point.
So why has drop-out rate increased? It looks like it's a result of better record-keeping in a better functioning school administration.
A friend of mine who's dug into the numbers a bit, looks at the drop-out and graduation rate and finds them incompatible during the previous several years before the reform slate took over. He thinks that there was shoddy record-keeping: kids that didn't show up were just counted absent for months and months and months and not "dropped out."
I don't know for sure except that it made the APR numbers go down and needs to be fixed because these kids need to stay in school and need to get a good education..
So that's my reading of the state of the schools and the direction of the reforms. I'm voting for Clinkscale and Buford. I think you should too. With them on the board, the pieces are in place to keep the district moving forward.
Thanks for reading.
dave.
Dave,
Thanks for your post. You have obviously been thinking about the issues more than I have. I have been an instinctual supporter of Clinksdale, and I have only paid attention to this race through the PD and the occasional on-line rant. Do you take it as a given that Buford and Clinksdale are more likely to be loyal to the reform position than either of the other persons running, and what about the others convinces you? There appears to be some contestation of this argument by Syl Brown and others recently.
It also appears to me that your argument might not just be about who should be on the board but also the function of board members in the face of a competent superintendent and a competant plan. Clearly, no one wants unproductive craziness on the board; however, isn't there a place for a critical but not disruptive voice on the board of education?
Will Winter
Posted by Will Winter on Fri., Mar 31, 2006 at 3:41 PMThanks Will.
Hopefully there is always critical and thoughtful discussion at the board level.
Having gone through the most painful part - lay-off, school closings - of the reforms, I think the discussion should now be how best to implement the superintendent's strategic plan, how to raise the money needed.
I worry some candidates are focused more on the past and settling scores (read, for example, Mahoney's endorsement on the Union web-page, http://www.stltu.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=94).
The board needs to focus on the future.
While Downs and Jones have attracted people with ulterior motives to their causes, so have Clinkscale and Buford (after all, they have the mayor supporting them!). I think that it's inevitable that opposition candidates will attract strategic support from those who have fallen out of power or want it themselves and see support of challengers as a way of getting even or getting back into power. Downs and Jones may be guilty by association when it comes to the past of SLPS, but by no means are they advocates of returning to the bad old days. Their platform of restoring cuts to the schools is rooted in a concern for the reources that a once-again-grwoing city needs, not in a concern for getting ex-bureaucrats their old jobs back.
Posted by Michael Allen on Fri., Mar 31, 2006 at 5:08 PM"reources" = "resources"
"grwoing" = "growing"
No time for spellcheck when 5 o'clock rolls around.
Hate to sound like I am beating farts out of an Army mule...(all you get in the end, is farts) ...but someone has to get the parents involved. To expect the teachers to stand over the kids at 8:30 at night to make sure that the homework is getting done is absurd. To expect the teachers union to be accountable for anything but the welfare of the teachers is naive. To expect the kids to sit down and perform without any structure is unreasonable. WHO is going to hold the parents accountable?
As soon as the parents demand excellence from their children and accountability from the SLPS, the problem will solve itself. The rest is just politics.
Posted by TimR on Fri., Mar 31, 2006 at 5:46 PMGROWING UP OR GROWING DOWN?
Spin Control and the Alarming Slide In State Accreditation Since 2003 Majority Took Control
St. Louis Schools' Steady Decline Under Slay-Backed Board Majority undermine claims behind Mayor's Costly Campaign To Continue Control
In perhaps the most costly campaign in history to elect a School Board slate, backers of Mayor Francis Slay's hand-picked candidates are claiming that the schools were failing when his favorites took over the system in 2003 and that there is a plan to move the schools forward.
The facts show an entirely different picture, Worse, the current disarray of the system makes any improvement in the immediate future most difficult. Superintendent Creg Williams is trying his best to reinstate many of the successful programs that were eliminated by the board majority.
Before looking at the three-year record of the Board majority it is important to emphasize that, in truth, the St. Louis Public Schools were at the time making a sharp upward advance toward full State accreditation. Actually, the latest elementary school gains in 3rd grade reading on the state tests were merely a continuation of progress from 2003.
More important, effective programs were in place to address the academic needs of students. Many of those successful programs such as alternative schools and ACT preparation classes, were dismantled by the majority regime. And now, four superintendents later, our new leader, Dr. Creg Williams is attempting to reinstate many of those successful programs.
More recently an outside interest was hired to launch an impressive and expensive public relations campaign for the St. Louis Public School district. Slay's handpicked candidates are spending hundreds of thousands of civic progress dollars in an attempt to "buy the election." Multiple expensive attack type flyers produced by a Texas firm have been sent to targeted households. Most of the propaganda has gone to South St. Louis.
The best public relations campaign would promote academic achievement by helping the district regain the 25 points lost over the last two years on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's performance report. This outside New York PR firm has done little to promote our children's progress. Instead, a lot of money has been spent to promote Superintendent Creg Williams so that Slay's candidates could campaign on Dr. Williams' coattails.
Slay's PR campaign team are attempting to persuade voters with trickery, cunning, craftiness and deceit that we, along with Donna Jones and Peter Downs oppose Dr. Williams reform efforts.
Dr. Williams does not need PR because he is more than capable of leading our district in the right direction. We continue to support Dr. Creg Williams' goal which is to provide an excellent education to all St. Louis Children. In fact, we voted to support the concept of Dr. William's new strategic plan for the district.
Competent school board members are not "rubber stamps" for anyone but are truly thoughtful representatives of parents, citizens, students and taxpayers. Competent board members ask questions and seek answers before voting on important issues.
ARE WE GROWING UP OR DOWN IN FULL STATE ACCREDITATION?
The State bases district accreditation on a point system where 66 points are required for full accreditation. The points awarded reflect an objective state assessment of attendance, dropout and graduation levels, of students' standard test scores, and of the range and level of education services and resources available to the students.
Following are the results reported by the State of the St. Louis Public Schools performance for 2003, the year before the Slay majority took control and the first two years they have been in office. The following information may be verified by consulting the Missouri Department of Education Web Site. There will be those who attempt to alibi, justify and rationalize the Slide however these accreditation numbers are true, accurate and factual.
The Slay campaign never cites any verifiable source for its claims. There is only one such source -- the State of Missouri's annual assessment of the performance of every school system in the state.
It is significant to note that the St. Louis district has been on the Slide since the Slay majority took complete control: Down to only 39 points. In 2003 St. Louis had 64 points.
http://www.dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/apr/2003s115115.html ST. LOUIS 2003
http://www.dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/apr/2004s115115.html ST. LOUIS 2004
http://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/apr/2005s115115.html ST. LOUIS 2005
Following is the year-by-year record since the 1999-2000 school year. A rating of 66 points or higher is needed for full state accreditation.
BEFORE SLAY MAJORITY TOOK CONTROL
1999-2000 32 points
2000-2001 48 points
2001-2002 55 points
2002-2003 64 Points
COMPLETE CONTROL BY THE CURRENT SLAY MAJORITY
2003-2004 48 points
2004-2005 39 points (TODAY)
In 2003, the year before the Slide, the St. Louis district had 64 points (only 2 short of full State accreditation) while today we have 39 points. You decide if we are better today than we were before 2002-2003.
The majority's first year, 2004, saw the loss of 16 accreditation points, lowering the district to 48 points.
The Slide continued in 2005 with the loss of an additional 9 accreditation points. Today the district has only 39 State accreditation points. If the State reviewed the district today we would be unaccredited.
Clearly, the board majority has moved the district in the wrong direction.
Dr. Creg Williams needs the support of PARENTS, teachers, citizens and school board members to continue the work to regain what has been lost.
Are we better off today than we were three years ago? In 2003, we had 64 accreditation points. Today we have only 39 points.
Endorsements for Peter Downs
Maida Coleman, Missouri State Senator 5th District
Rita Heard Days, Missouri State Senator 14th District
Amber Boykins, State Representative 60th District
Juanita Head Walton, State Representative 81st District
Robin Wright Jones, State Representative 63rd District
Ester Haywood, State Representative 71st District
Jeanette Mott Oxford, State Representative 59th District
Yaphett S. El-Amin, State Representative 57th District
Suburban Newspapers
Janet Becker
Pub Def Weekly
Mattie Moore, State Democratic Chairperson and 2nd Ward Committeewoman
Arthur (Chink) Washington, Committee Man 21st Ward Organization
Irene J. Smith, Former Alderwoman
6th Ward Democratic Organization
22nd Ward Democratic Organization
Kenneth Jones, Former Alderman
22nd Ward Committeeman James “Jay” Ozier
22nd Ward Committeewoman Fay Davis
17th Ward Democratic Committeeman Robert Hilgemann
18th Ward Committeeman Jesse Todd
15th Ward committeeman Greg Thomas
15th Ward Committeewoman Alice Nicholas
25th Ward Democratic Club
26th Ward Democratic Club
26th Ward Democratic Committeeman Joe Palm
26th Ward Democratic Committeewoman Pat Moss
5th Ward Committeeman Republicans Isaiah Hair, Jr.
Jeffrey L. Boyd 22nd Ward Alderman
22nd Ward Democratic League
Black Women's Political Action Coalition
Retired Employees of the City of St. Louis
8th Ward Democratic Club
Steve Patterson
Percy Green
Jamala Rogers
John Curtis, Community Leader
St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council
St. Louis Teachers and SRP Union, Local 420
AFT 691 in Kansas City
St. Louis Area Labor Council
St. Louis City Labor Club
Operating Engineers Local 02
Laborers local 509
Workers for a Labor Party
Workers International League
Action Re Union 2006
Organization for Black Struggle
George Cotton
IBEW Local 1
Two Rivers Greens
Gateway Green Alliance
Progressive Party of Missouri
Veronica O’Brien, School Board Member
Bill Purdy, School Board Member and former President
Dr. Rick Bender, Former School Board Member
Dr. John P. Mahoney, Former School Board Member and President
Bill Haas, Former School Board Member
Harold Brewster, Former School Board Member and President
Dr. Amy Hilgemann, Former School Board Member
Dan Kinney, Former School Board Candidate
Citizens to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse
Carpenters Union
Ellen Todd, Student Body President at Harris Stowe University
Retired Employees of the City of St. Louis
Chip Clatto, Educator
Katherine Wessling, Board Member of the Women Lawyer's Association of Greater St. Louis and SLPS parent
Dr. Sheryl Davenport, Former President - St. Louis Teachers & SRP Union, Local 420
Warren Work Retired School Employee
Byron Clemens Proud SLPS Teacher
Helen Lynch, Former Trustee Public School Retirement System of St. Louis
Hal McGhee, former principal in St Louis Public schools
Endorsements for Donna Jones
Maida Coleman, Missouri State Senator 5th District
Rita Heard Days, Missouri State Senator 14th District
Amber Boykins, State Representative 60th District
Juanita Head Walton, State Representative 81st District
Robin Wright Jones, State Representative 63rd District
Ester Haywood, State Representative 71st District
Jeanette Mott Oxford, State Representative 59th District
Yaphett S. El-Amin, State Representative 57th District
Suburban Newspapers
Pub Def Weekly
Mattie Moore, State Democratic Chairperson and 2nd Ward Committeewoman
Irene J. Smith, Former Alderwoman
John Curtis, Community Leader
Percy Green
Jamala Rogers
18th Ward Committeeman Jesse Todd
22nd Ward Democratic Organization
Kenneth Jones, Former Alderman
22nd Ward Committeeman James “Jay” Ozier
22nd Ward Committeewoman Fay Davis
17th Ward Democratic Committeeman Robert Hilgemann
4th Ward Democratic Organization
15th Ward committeeman
15th Ward Committeewoman
15th Ward Committeeman Republicans Isaiah Hair, Jr.
Black Women's Political Action Coalition
St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council
St. Louis Teachers and SRP Union, Local 420
AFT 691 in Kansas City
St. Louis Area Labor Council
St. Louis City Labor Club
Operating Engineers Local 02
Workers for a Labor Party
Workers International League
Organization for Black Struggle
Action Re Union 2006
Steve Patterson
George Cotton
IBEW Local 1
Two Rivers Greens
Gateway Green Alliance
Progressive Party of Missouri
Veronica O’Brien, School Board Member
Bill Purdy, School Board Member and Former President
Dr. Rick Bender, Former School Board Member
Bill Haas, Former School Board Member
Dr. John P. Mahoney, Former School Board Member and President
Harold Brewster, Former School Board Member and President
Dr. Amy Hilgemann, Former School Board Member
Dan Kinney, Former School Board Candidate
Citizens to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse
Carpenters Union
Ellen Todd, Student Body President at Harris Stowe University
Chip Clatto, Educator
Katherine Wessling, Board Member of the Women Lawyer's Association of Greater St. Louis and SLPS parent
Dr. Sheryl Davenport, Former President - St. Louis Teachers & SRP Union, Local 420
Warren Work Retired School Employee
Byron Clemens Proud SLPS Teacher
Helen Lynch, Former Trustee Public School Retirement System of St. Louis
Hal McGhee, former principal in St Louis Public schools
All you Francis Slay Kool-Aid drinkers...
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!
Thanks Bill.
Bill,
I going to assume as a board member you understand how APR is calculated.
So speak to my post.
Since 8 of 9 MAP test scores have gone up, how is APR an accurate reflection of how our district is doing?
Should we administer the ACT only to our best students? or to every student? Should this decision be based on how it would affect our APR score?
In some categories, APR points for SLPS (because of our dismal performance) aren't awarded against an objective state standards (like they are for other districts), but against our own previous own past performance. Do you think that paints an accurate portrait of the state of the district?
What would give citizens, who don't know as much about the district and don't understand the APR as well as you, a better understanding of the district?
What should be done about the drop-out rate? I know Creg Williams' plan on the drop-out rate is supported by Clinkscale and Buford. Do you support it?
You're a board member, Bill. I want to know what you think should be done. I want some real discussion from you, not a lists of endorsements I can get from any number of website.
Be careful about interpreting MAP test scores. The incidence of false test scores does not get the attention it should. In the book "Freakonomics" [recent best seller] a high amount of teacher falsifying of student state tests is documented for Illinois. Missouri is not likely to be terribly different.
Posted by anonymous on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 10:54 AMThe Downs and Jones endorsement page looks like a who's who of nutballs. As for the Accredidation I will take kids learning over the accredidation score anyday. As the kids learn accredidation will get better. And if Purdy is on their side I am against them. He was president of the board when the budget crisis started and the test map test scores were going down under him. I think Clinkscale and Buford have the best chance to continue to improve this thing, because the Mayor's "slate" has shown a willingness to put money into the classrooms. And for the teachers' union to complain about this board is outrageous. This board gave them a raise and the best contract they have had.
Posted by Haas Watch on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 11:04 AMSt. Charles School Board Race - Parents Welcome
St. Louis School Board Race - Parents Unwelcome
A Tale of Two Cities
Two cities named for two different French kings and saints are holding two very different school board races on Tuesday, April 4. The only similarity between these two races is five people are running for two seats. This is a tale of two cities.
Not many miles divide the city and county of St. Charles from the city of St. Louis, though an important river does. Yet lining up the two current school board races side by side, a great divide appears. If an investigative reporter were to ask how much money is being invested in the two races, one would be astounded. St. Louis appears to be a major political race with a tremendous amount of money invested in two candidates as opposed to the other three. One would think those highly flushed candidates were running for a state legislature seat rather than for a local school board.
If that same reporter were to investigate and report the mayors' involvement in each of the races, again St. Louis would surpass St. Charles and the Francis Howell School District's race. Little, if nothing, is reported of Mayor Patricia York's involvement or meddling in St. Charles' school board race. Not so of St. Louis. Mayor Francis Slay's photo appears with two candidates in the major newspapers as well as in their campaign literature. The candidates are rightly called "Slay's Slate." Across the river, there are no "York's Yes Men."
What divides this race more than any other factor, however, is the involvement of parents. In the St. Charles school board race four of the candidates' children attend the Francis Howell District schools. The fifth candidate's two sons graduated from the district's schools. From all appearances, parents are not only welcome on the school board, they are the most logical participants. St. Charles sends a clarion call: "Parents are wanted and welcomed to serve on the school board." Neither the area's largest newspaper nor any of the alternative local newspapers are choosing to oppose parents in this race.
In St. Louis it is a different story. Out of five candidates, only two have children in the Saint Louis Public Schools. Contrary to St. Charles, the major newspapers, particularly the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The St. Louis American, and others are sending a different message: "Parents are not wanted and are not welcome to serve on the school board. Parents need not apply." In fact, most of the mudslinging taking place in this race is aimed at the parent candidates.
Here is a modern day tale of two cities, two very different cities. Despite similar beginnings as French settlements along two great rivers and just as these two great rivers depart from their confluence into two very different directions, so these two cities depart in their directions when it comes to educating their children.
Out of the two, which city's school district will experience the tender love and concern that only involved and engaged parents can bring to the education of its community's future-its children? Just as St. Charles is booming and outshining St. Louis as to livability, the future of its schools appears more promising because parents are welcomed on the school board.
A response to St. Charles/St. Louis School Board Races
I received emails from the two of you about the Tale of Two Cities. What I find interesting is that in the district where I live (Ladue) and the district that I retired from (Ritenour), parents are usually the ones that are on the school board. I know that they all have their motives for getting on the board and that motives is to make sure that schools provide the best opportunity for their children to be successful. In doing this, they are also providing an opportunity for all students to be successful. That is because they are promoting quality education for all. It is not about providing opportunities for large corporation to make money off of the district.
The last two years that I worked for Ritenour, it was chosen as one of the Best Places to Work. I have heard that they will also receive that award this year. It is based on how the employee rate their working environment. I wonder if the teachers and staff of St. Louis Schools were given the opportunity to rate their place of employment, what the results would be? I am thinking that the district would not get the award.
A former St. Louis Public School Teacher, Administrator and Coach (20)
Retired Ritenour High School Assistant Principal (10)
In Brackets is the number of years with each district. I am receiving retirement from both districts. I might just add that what I recieve from the state is twice as much as I receive from the St. Louis retirment system. In my last year, I hired a very good math teacher away from St. Louis. She lives in the city and wanted to teach there. When I showed her the figures, it was in her best interest to leave the city. Not only for the salary that she would be getting, but the opportunity to receive a much higher retirement package in later years. Good math teachers, especially African American are hard to find. What incentive does the district have to keep the good young ones?
Tim makes a good point. Parents should demand as much from their children as they do from this the school board and the superintendent. Part of the strategic plan as I've seen it on slps.org, Williams wants to establish parent Universities. I don't know if the Downs/Jones team supports this or not.
I know for a fact (because I heard it straight from the horse's mouth at a forum this week) that Peter Downs does not support the extended school year proposed in the strategic plan. Downs said, "even if you keep kids in school longer, they still ain't gonna learn." Nice attitude to have - who the hell thinks this guy will strive for excellence in our schools?
Posted by a parent on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 12:25 PMHelen Louise, it is aparent from your letters that you have a desire to help children. You say you were a teacher for many years. But how does living in the county, and teaching in the county make you an expert on who should be on the St. Louis city schools. Now I have read a few things you have written and all I ever see is criticism of Mayor Slay and the current majority on the school board. Where does your hatred of Mayor Slay and dislike for what this current board is trying to do come from? This board has improved things from where they were. Also All of the "majority" are parents. So how can you say parents aren't welcome? I just don't understand why you feel the need to tell city residents what they need.
Posted by Haas Watch on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 1:36 PMHaas Watch, Read again. Your reading comprehension is a tad off. Where did you go to school? That was not me saying that, that was someone else. I just posted the response. There is no hatred; just disagreement. If you want hatred, look at the mailings and slime directed at parents of children int the school district running for this office.
Posted by Helen Louise on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 2:39 PMBy the way, Haas isn't running for the school board. You'll have to watch elsewhere, and I have never quoted him.
Posted by Helen Louise on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 2:41 PMHelen Louise, your second post reads like you wrote it. Anyway I went to city schools, and know that they can and will get better if Dr. Williams vision is allowed to come to fruition. Also I know Mr. Haas isn't running for school board. Though his shenanigans is why I started paying closer attention to the school board. And though I can no longer watch him mess up the schools, I can watch him run for State Rep. And if he happens to win, I will watch him in that endeavor also.
Posted by Haas Watch on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 2:50 PMHaas Watch, I was never a teacher, administrator, or coach. And I never worked in the Ritenour School District, nor live in the Ladue School District. I am not a Haas fan. Don't go there.
Posted by Helen Louise on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 3:34 PMWhat's with the continuing harassment of Bill Haas?
He can be silly, but he's far from influential. His antics don't hurt people. He isn't suing private citizens or handing out tax abatements to fast food franchises.
Better keep your eyes on who's really powerful.
Posted by Callow Watch on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 3:47 PMHey, Callow Watch, that's a good one. Cause Callow is one mean, nasty dude who doesn't care what he writes, says, or who he hurts! He needs to be watched more than the SLPS, Haas or anyone else. Perhaps his live-in girlfriend should watch him too.
Posted by Kevin on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 4:51 PM"a parent" may be confused regarding Downs' position on school year. Downs has clearly stated that he is against extending the school day [as are MANY parents]. I've never heard him oppose the extended year for schools of opportunity under Hammonds or the availability of summer school.
Posted by Anonymous on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 5:01 PMDave might also point out a story I wrote on the accreditation review before I stopped writing a lot on the topic.
There's strong evidence that students were being strung along the system so they didn't count as dropouts and instead aged out of the system. Adjusting for that also has an effect upon APR. No one likes to talk about that either.
There's a rather bizarre assertion above that having parents on the Board will bring about more parental involvement. Something like 10% or lower of St. Louis registered voters are parents of kids in the SLPS. This points out the larger issue that parents in the SLPS are really hard for anyone to reach. Saying electing two of them in addition to Ron Jackson, doesn't solve that problem in the least. And strangely, that argument wasn't made by some of the same folks with O'Brien and Purdy on the ballot.
While I don't have the most recent District wide numbers for MAP scores and Terra Nova, they track pretty well together. If there is a divergence we might be seeing some fraud, but the most recent comparable numbers don't show much divergence and that should be the first sign of cheating. Sure, both could be false, but it's a lot of work for the TN when it doesn't actually affect much in terms of scrutiny.
Finally, since Helen is such and advocate for the two of them, does Jones support biological evolution in the science curriculum and would she be against introducing intelligent design non-sense. I know Peter's answer--he's for science. I doubt Jones is bad on this issue, but given at least one vocal proponent it's always good to check.
Posted by ArchPundit on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 5:46 PMArchPundit, Ask her yourself.
Posted by Helen Louise on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 5:50 PMWhy, have you realized how damaging your argument is to the candidates you support? It's a simple question--is she going to side with fundamentalists over most of Christianity and science over the organizing principle of biology?
Posted by ArchPundit on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 6:43 PMGo Sylvester, go! For the schools, the business interest that matters is the people's business
By Sylvester Brown Jr.
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/02/2006
Sylvester Brown Jr.
[More columns]
[Sylvester's Biography]
"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."
Michael Corleone's infamous line from "The Godfather" came to me recently, after talking with political operative Richard Callow. Callow serves as spokesman for Educate St. Louis, the committee handling most of the public relations work for incumbent St. Louis School Board candidates Jim Buford and Darnetta Clinkscale. Callow is a long-time supporter of Mayor Francis Slay, who has raised oodles of corporate cash for Clinkscale and Buford. If they win the election Tuesday, the mayor's slate will maintain control of the school board.
Callow and I discussed the brochure his group sent out last week attacking Peter Downs, one of the candidates challenging Slay's picks. They targeted Downs because of his "name recognition" with voters, Callow told me. Apparently, Downs, a publisher with two children in the school district, is a viable threat to Buford and Clinkscale, who have no children in the city's schools.
So, from a pragmatic, strategic perspective, the attack wasn't personal - it was strictly business, the business of electioneering.
Actually, the "business" angle gives me relief. I respect Buford, Clinkscale and other members of Slay's slate. Criticizing them always gave me a teeny-tiny jolt of guilt.
But, hey, it's not personal, it's business. It's just me questioning a group of rich businessmen and a well-connected politician who, three years ago, believed they had a better way, a corporate way, to run the city's schools. They threw big bucks behind candidates who, they felt, would run things their way. Those candidates neglected to inform parents, teachers or voters of their massive school reform plans in their campaigns.
Once elected, the slate played along. They stood silent as the mayor attacked teachers and employees and claimed that the previous administration spent $91 million "like drunken sailors." The majority slate didn't bother to mention that a huge chunk of the deficit resulted from millions denied by the state under the desegregation agreement.
They played along. After all, radical change is easier to sell under a manufactured cloud of systemwide malfeasance. Who'd question the closing and selling of school buildings, the mid-year rushing of children into crowded classrooms, the firing of longtime city workers or the multi-million dollar contracts awarded to consultants, executives and major corporations? Who'd dampen the slap-happy outsourcing party with the gloomy news that the district was fast becoming "partially accredited" because of a lack of focus on academics? Certainly not Slay's board.
The mayor's slate in 2003, and his current choices, consist of people who work for corporations or operate non-profit agencies subsidized by corporations. Members of the corporate team don't rock the boat.
That's why there's a desperate need for "regular" people with vested interests on the school board, if only for the sake of balance. Like Downs, candidate Donna Jones, who works for the St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition, has kids in the district. When schools are shuttered, when transportation needs go un-addressed, when violence erupts in classrooms or when the district slips in academics, "regular" people will ask "how will this affect MY CHILD?"
The political material circulating for Clinkscale and Buford subtly diverts attention away from what the mayor's slate has accomplished toward what newly hired superintendent Creg Williams might accomplish. It's another slick, high-priced public relations maneuver. There's no reason to believe any of the candidates won't support Williams' worthy ideas. I'm all for a board that scrutinizes and questions, rather than one that blindly follows the whims of corporate St. Louis.
Yes, I feel another tiny jolt of guilt as I hesitate to join those wanting to give Slay's slate three more years of absolute control. But, hey, it's nothing personal. It's strictly business - the people's business.
Hey ArchPundit, why don't you pick that fight somewhere else. What are Clinkscale's and Buford's views. That subject hasn't even been addressed by any of these candidates.
Posted by Kevin on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 6:47 PM===why don't you pick that fight somewhere else
It's a question about academic excellence. Is that out of place here? Interesting.
Both Buford and Clinkscale support actual science instruction as does Downs.
But, I did write a whole bunch more--care to address that Kevin?
Posted by ArchPundit on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 7:08 PMI have a problem... As long as people are allowed to lob grenades from the comfort of the anonymous bunker, this and all of the other venues for discussion will be suspect. As an outsider, that made a choice to move to the City of Saint Louis, where can I go for real answers?
Today, I carved out of my busy schedule, two hours to spend at the SLPS "parents as teachers" fine motors skills class at Compton-Drew School with my two year old. As professional and dedicated as the people that run that fine division of the SLPS are, I find it hard to believe the stuff that Kevin so easily professes about the rest of the SLPS. Many fights at the Jungle Gym of the Bristol Elementary School went unreported. Does that mean that the Webster Groves public schools are horrible and should be unaccredited? When is enough, enough?
As far as being a parent as the qualifier to being elected to the school board. I am telling you, that is NOT enough. Should I run for the school board. I can tell you that being a parent does not qualify me.
Helen, if someone posted a comment as you and the ACC does not block their URL next time. Then shame on them.
I am not really happy with any of the candidates.
Posted by TimR on Sat., Apr 1, 2006 at 8:22 PMHmmmm! Pray tell, TimR, what post and content should be blocked next time?! Go to any blog and you will find grenades being lobbed by one side against the other. Haven't you read The Southsider or Concerned Citizen on this blog site? The Southsider gets downright dirty and nasty.
It appears you prefer censorship to freedom of speech and opinions. With your closed mind, you won't learn anything you need to know to be an intelligent professional or parent.
Perhaps the ACC should become a "mutual admiration" society rather than a site for discussion and debate.
Please tell the rest of us what you find so offensive.
Posted by Dylan on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 7:25 AMIf someone posted a comment as Helen Louis and was not actually Helen Louis, that has never been covered by freedom of speech.
Do you really think that post #6 is from William Purdy? Someone popped the top on a canned speech and posted it as from him. Thus leaving him unable to defend post #8. That seems to be more the rule than the exception.
Is that enough of the offensive?
Perhaps it would be better if the "Big Unions vs. the Big Corporations" battle was played out without the needs of children as the battleground.
Posted by TimR on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 9:05 AMTim, Purdy did write Post #6, as he has been writing several messages (this was #9 in a serious) that he has sent all over the place. Call him at the school board, and he will verify.
Helen is a writer who has had articles in national newspapers and magazines. Post #11 was her's. Post #12 she began with that it was a response to Post#11. She didn't give the writer's name for his or her (I think it was a him since he claims to have been a coach) protection perhaps, but she did indicate it was written by "A former St. Louis Public School Teacher, Administrator and Coach (20)
Retired Ritenour High School Assistant Principal (10)." Many of us read with interest her article, "A Tale of Two Cities" along with the response it received from an educator.
Bill Purdy has posted on this blog in the past although he recognizes this blog is very biased.
Some of us think this is more a battle of ideas and ideals rather than your reference to big unions and big corporations. And if you really are a parent, you should hope parents ought also have access to the table where decisions are made regarding their children's education.
Posted by Dylan on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 9:33 AMDylan, did you mean me?
Posted by worried citizen on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 1:09 PMGo to the public defender website if you really want to read and discuss political issues.
Posted by veronica o'brien on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 1:33 PMWard 3 Pct. 3
Voters are Target of Disenfranchisement
It is alleged that an attempt is being made by Alderman Freeman R. Bosley to disenfranchise the voters in Ward 3 Pct. 3, of their right to exercise their vote for Peter Downs and Donna Jones on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. Mr. Scott Liendecker (Republican Election Director-St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners) admitted to moving the polling site for three pcts. in the 3rd Ward from Fifth Baptist Church (3736 Natural Bridge) to Beaumont High School at the request of Democratic Alderman Freeman R. Bosley.
It is alleged that the decision to move Ward 3 Pct. 3's polling place from a site that is fully accessible for elderly and handicapped voters to a busy high school was arbitrarily and capriciously made. In a phone conversation, Republican Director, Scott Liendecker, (314-589-6211) revealed that he had indeed moved the polling place as a personal favor to Democratic Alderman Freeman R. Bosley. In the same phone conversation, Scott told the voter that the polling place can only be returned to 5th Baptist Church, the site that is familiar to voters and facilitates an orderly decent electoral process, at the request of Alderman Bosley.
When Scott was asked if the Board of Election Commissioners intentionally collaborates with elected officials to cause mayhem on election day, purposefully intimidate voters by causing them to fear their polling site, and cause voters to not want to exercise their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice, he refused to respond.
However, further investigation reveals that some of the registered voters in the city's 3rd Ward allege that this is just another attempt by their Alderman to manipulate the electoral process to favor the candidates he endorses. These voters contend that they believe Alderman Bosley has once again acted with fore thought, malice and ill intent in moving the polling site of Ward 3 Pct. 3 from a fully handicapped accessible building to a busy public high school in the city of St. Louis. Beaumont High School, as other city high schools has been the subject of news stories. A recent attack by a student sent a member of Beaumont's teaching staff to the hospital.
Clear concise directions were omitted from the official "Election Notice" mailed to the voters by the Board of Election Commissioners. To add to the confusion, the official election notice did not direct voters to the entrance they should use to enter the busy high school or reveal the location of the room in which the voters should go to vote. Voters are expected to either climb a staircase to enter the building or enter through an "alley" like corridor, compete with students, staff, & parents for parking, wander through the building to locate the polling area, and contend with new voting equipment!
An anonymous source revealed that the 3rd Ward Republican Committeeman and Committeewoman were not consulted about this change which has bipartisan effects.
Voters in Ward 3 Pct. 3 have reason to believe that Alderman Bosley requested this change in polling sites to confuse the voters, reduce voter turnout (how many elderly people really want to enter a city public high school?), for Donna Jones and Peter Downs, thus giving an unfair advantage to the school board candidates he endorsed on the 4/4/06 ballot.
Many voters don't look at the polling site on the election notices mailed by the Board of Election Commissioners. Please help the voters is Ward 3 Pct. 3 know that their polling site has been changed in time for them to participate in Tuesday's election.
The Board of Election Commissioners will be requested to:
1. Place a sign at Fifth Baptist Church to inform voters of the new polling site
2. Assure voters that they will be safe
3. Use clear signage to direct voters to the polling site's entrance
4. Move our polling site back to 5th Baptist Church
5. Develop clear criteria for moving polling sites
Veronica from what I have read it was moved months ago. Since the board of election has already sent out its voter cards which tell you where your polling place is, wouldn't it be more confusing and disenfranchising if you moved it back the day before the election?
Posted by worried citizen on Sun., Apr 2, 2006 at 3:42 PMDylan, thanks for the clarification on Helen Louis. I was unclear. Still, you now have admitted that Mr. Purdy did not post his comment. If he had wanted to be a participant in this dialog he should answer post #8.
Thanks for the info Ms. O'Brien. Would you please post the public defenders website address for us.
Yes I am a parent. I am not hiding anything. My ideas and ideals mean just as much to me as yours mean to you. I see this whole charade as a power grab between the BIG UNION and BIG BUSINESS. It has no place in a local school board election. I still believe that JUST being a parent does not qualify you to serve on a school board that is in trouble. We as citizens should demand more from our elected officials. As I have said many times previously, parents should be more involved. Because if they are to be held accountable for little Timmy's poor performance, they must have an avenue to improve little Timmy's performance.
Should unqualified parents be allowed to make decisions that affect all of the children in the district? Should Corporations be brought in to do the same thing? (hint-corporations are only motivated by profit.)
TimR, I don't think you read me right regarding Purdy. Following is what I wrote: "Tim, Purdy did write Post #6, as he has been writing several messages (this was #9 in a series) that he has sent all over the place. Call him at the school board, and he will verify."
He posted his message, but he doesn't get into the back and forth discussions. Call him at the Board of Education, and he'll return your call.
It's been the policy of the election commission to try to use publicly owned buildings wherever it can so they are actually following their own policy. Not that they always do that. St. Ambrose on the Hill is used despite having a terrible accessible route that is out of sight while many public buildings with better accessibility are available in the region.
Posted by Chris on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 11:49 AMThe headliner of your editorial reads: "Why the ACC endorses Clinkscale, Buford". Your editorial reads like a chronology of the sins of the "system", but it doesn't address what it is that Buford and Clinksdale have done in the past....or will do in the future.... to improve the SYSTEM and, therefore, to win your endorsement. The BOARD can do only so much! Let's not forget that student responsibility and student responsiveness and student effort are mighty ingredients of the recipe for success!
Posted by Mike on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 2:29 PM"St. Ambrose on the Hill is used despite having a terrible accessible route that is out of sight while many public buildings with better accessibility are available in the region."
You will never, ever see the polling place move from St. Ambrose, the City Hall of The Hill.
Thank you Mike. Someone else in this city understands my posts. But don't forget the parents as well. In order to motivate the students, the parents must be the first job undertaken. However unpopular that might be.
Posted by TimR on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 4:39 PM== "a parent" may be confused regarding Downs' position on school year. Downs has clearly stated that he is against extending the school day [as are MANY parents]. I've never heard him oppose the extended year for schools of opportunity under Hammonds or the availability of summer school.
I am not confused - this guy has no interest in doing what it takes to educate kids. could it be that the teacher's union doesn't want an extended school year? Downs has only their interest at heart.
With all the crap people are throwing at each other, listen to what actually came out of Peter Down's mouth when asked if he supported the extended school year proposed in the strategic plan:
Downs said, "even if you keep kids in school longer, they still ain't gonna learn."
Horrible! If you don't want to believe what's in the papers, listen to what the candidates have to say. I'm sure one of Down's cronies video taped it. He said this at Metro High School last week at the Parent's Assembly forum.
Looks like he's really ready to invest our children - what a joke.
Posted by a parent on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 6:49 PMI too am an SLPS parent. The current Board majority offends me because they talk of the "parents" (as do many of you posting here)as a group of uneducated, uncaring people who just aren't spending any time worrying about their kids. I hold a law degree and as I sit here I can think of other SLPS parents I know who are: botanists at the MBG; SLU and UMSL professors; teachers (not SLPS teachers), a doula, salesperson, former probation and parole officers; business owners; mortgage brokers; development professionals; and that's just off the top of my head. There is a lot of talent among the parent community and if the Board would respect us enough to listen to us and tap into us as resources instead of ignoring us by classifying us all as incompetent parents, we might be able to get somewhere. The actions of this Board over the last two years speak louder than their words do, and when they say they want parental involvement I just don't believe it.
Being a parent may not, in itself, be enough to qualify one for the School Board, but how many people who aren't on the Board have been paying as much attention to what's been going on as Peter Downs has over the last few years? Last year I began pulling together a group of parents for the purpose of exploring why we have a school board with no parent representation (I believe Jackson may have kids in the SLPS but no one could possibly argue he is an independent voice for the parent perspective). I met Peter in the course of that effort and was impressed with his dedication. I admire him and Donna Jones for putting themselves out there and braving the mud being thrown at them.
Why in the world would parents want to destroy the district to which they entrust their own kids? Parents should be on the Board. Our perspective is important. We are the ones who see how this extended school day so many of you seem to favor takes over our childrens' lives, leaving them no time for other interests, swim classes, even just playing outside (we already have more instructional time than DESE recommends and than the County districts and Catholic schools have--they manage to educate in a humane amount of time). We are the ones wondering where our kids are at 7 at night when the bus hasn't brought them home yet--an issue that parents brought to the Board in February and which at the March adminstrative meeting the majority voted not to put on the agenda for public discussion. We are the ones who can see that this Open Court reading curriculum leaves something to be desired. We are the parents everyone blames for not taking time with our children, while you support a Board that wants to keep them in school longer and longer and then won't address the transportation problems that get them home later and later--how do we spend more time with them when they aren't home?
The writer a few posts back was correct that anonymous thoughts don't have much credibility. If you believe what you say so strongly, put your name on it.
Katherine Wessling
Posted by Katherine Wessling on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 7:27 PMEven though I seem like an anonymous voice I will still comment. I think that saying the extended school day should be removed because no one else has as long a day is ridiculous. If I am not mistaken we are one of the worst districts in the area, so if the old day didn't work why not try a little more class time. Just because some one else has a shorter day doesn't mean we should. And to say it takes away from swimming and other things is outrageous. If the kids are failing then they should be studying instead of those other things anyway. Maybe their grades and test scores would go up. I know no one wants to think it’s their kid that causes the problems but it has to be some one's kid and we should try to help them.
Posted by worried citizen on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 9:00 PMDave, great post. To all those whining phony progressives out there: If Urban Education Reform is not a Liberal issue, than I don't know what is. I am a stauch Labor Movement Supporter, but not at the expense of Children gaining a good education.
Sorry, no one is ever going to convince me that Public Schools exist to give people jobs. If the money was there, I would have been against the outsourcing too, but it wasn't, so when it's time to get down and dirty, I protect children over adults. And I'll take the gloves off for kids every time. I'm from the city and we play for keeps down here.
Posted by The Southsider on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 9:03 PMIf I put in an 8 hour day as an adult and I'm tired at the end of it, working a 10 hour day isn't going to make me more productive. Making small children like my 6 year old spend more than 7 hours a day in school isn't going to make them more productive either. My daughter already has as much homework each night as my friends who send their kids to the "good" private schools say their kids do in a week. Saying the kids will learn more if they spend more time for the sake of time itself is the outrageous position, in my opinion. Did you read the recent Post discussions about how when kids learn chess their attention spans and learning capabilities go up? These extracurricular activities have a purpose, as the Superintendent has acknowledged in his Strategic Plan by asserting that students need equitable access to art, sports, and music facilities. Sitting in a chair studying isn't the only way to learn, or even necessarily the best.
Don't you dare say I don't want to help kids when you don't even put your name next to your comments. I've been active at my daughter's school since the day she started, and many of those kids know who I am. I care about them too, not just my own. I work with low-income city residents as my profession. I understand the problems of poverty they face and the struggles. I want their kids to have opportunity. I don't want to see kids walking home 2 miles in December in the dark because the Board cut the transportation money and then makes school last until 4:30 or later.
I'm not interested protecting people who are fiscally irresponsible, or teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom, or administrators who aren't doing as they should, for that matter. I am interested in making sure my daughter has a good education, is safe, and has time in her life for more than going to school, coming home, eating dinner, doing homework, and going to bed. That's pretty much where we are right now.
Katherine Wessling
Posted by Katherine Wessling on Mon., Apr 3, 2006 at 10:47 PMUnfortunately, this board did not get rid of the incompetents. If anything needed to be outsourced, perhaps it was the Human Resource Department that allows police records to be shredded and other sad tales known to some close at hand. By the way, I heard Mike McMillan's mother was given a job there -- political handouts.
One department is ready to hire someone who wrote bad checks, cursed parents when she worked there before, and has misdemeanor charges, if not felonies. She originally abandoned her job, yet some are willing to bring her back. A relative of hers is on crack and came into the department often. That's what's going on today.
I was for reform before this board and even voted for two of them but became disillusioned after. I saw the jobs angle and the corruption, but it has only been intensified.
Until reform takes place in the Human Resource Department and the superintendent doesn't force his incompetent cronies ahead of genuinely qualified parties, the school district will neither be reformed nor succeed.
Southsider, you don't realize how naive you are about the jobs for adults.
Posted by Helen Louise on Tue., Apr 4, 2006 at 5:42 AMWal-Mart claims that the money is not there to give employees a better paying job and customers with the cheap goods they want.
I agree with them, and I agree with Southsider about the schools. When the money isn't there, let the workers work hard and fast and cheap for us rich white boys south of Delmar. Yee ha!
Posted by Phony Progressive on Tue., Apr 4, 2006 at 11:44 AM"If the kids are failing then they should be studying instead of those other things anyway."
So only wealthy suburban students should have extracurricular activities?
The worst enemies of the poor aren't Blunt Democrats but Slay Republicans!
Posted by anony on Tue., Apr 4, 2006 at 11:46 AManony, you said it yourself "extracurricular" if the children are not doing what they are supposed to in school why should they do the other things. If you get an athletic scholarship but don't keep up your grades you lose the ability to play basketball for that school. If you aren't doing well in school than what good is the other stuff. Now if your child is doing good in school then the other stuff should be done, but why take time study time away from children, it doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by worried citizen on Tue., Apr 4, 2006 at 1:53 PMtest, blonde ambition, 743, graceland pics, uabv, teen vogue model call, 51145, celtic woman you raise me up, =PPP, gay bookstores, txd, information on adoption wifes daughter in california, 86148, wood chip classifier, topo, sexy romantic love lettersd erotic, 264,
Posted by Albert on Tue., Jun 10, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.