Does a state takeover/disaccreditation (is that the word?) mean that families (both black and white) living within the school district are given the rights/funding to move their child to another, accredited district?

I certainly won't defend the way things were handled by the board this past summer. However, the Mayor's Office and their board members are living in a huge glass house also. They would have more credibility if they would apologize for the negative effects that they have had on the district.

Two points away from full accredidation before Schoemehl and company was certainly not good enough. But Slay, Schoemehl, Jackson and company really blew an opportunity to help things.

Just goes to show for well intentioned people like Jackson and Clinkscale that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Slay and Wahby need to get a clue that they are just perceived as enablers of Civic Progress to feed at the economic trough of public funding. I think that they see a lot of black faces sitting at the desks and want to change that.

Things will never improve until both sides take responsibility for their mistakes. All seven of them have made big mistakes.

Let's also look at the elephant in the middle of the room. Slay's power base, white folks, in large part want schools full of white kids and won't send their kids to schools without a white majority.

Here's a question for supporters of public education in STL.

Too many kids in STL public schools have low test scores and bad grades. Starting somewhere around 2nd grade.

Then the same kid graduates through 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades, lacking basic skills.

Now bring in a kid from the outside. Someone moving to STL from Phoenix. That kid works at grade level.

What happens to the Phoenix kid when he enters a classroom of underperforming STL students?

Why would the Phoenix parents enroll their child into the STL public school?

This seems an impossible problem. It's not the schools, it's the breakdown of family structure and support at home for quality education.

No parent in their right mind would enroll their child in such a dysfunctional classroom setting.

Veronica O'Brien or Mayor Slay have nothing to do with it.

"Phoenix" has 325 public schools in 30 school districts, along with more than 200 charter and private schools.

The City of Phoenix draws students from 515 square miles of area and a population base of 1.5 million. I suspect that it has as many students performing below grade level as "St Louis."

The mayor said: "As I said the day the current board majority forced Dr. Creg Williams out of his job, a State takeover of the district is a needed first step. The State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education should 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."

One question: Did the mayoralso meet with Creg Williams at Harrah's for dinner and gambling too, and was he driven there by an overtime-paid SLPS security guard?

Yes, the school district needs help, but perhaps it needs time more after the mess he and his cohorts made of it.

===This seems an impossible problem. It's not the schools, it's the breakdown of family structure and support at home for quality education.

The problem with the notion of throwing ones hands in the air is that many schools with students from similar backgrounds are able to show improved achievement when schools have strong and stable governance.

==One question: Did the mayoralso meet with Creg Williams at Harrah's for dinner and gambling too, and was he driven there by an overtime-paid SLPS security guard?

Other than being an urban legend and denied by the guard, is there some reason this keeps popping up?

What about the first question posed in the comments to this thread?

If the school district is disaccredited, do parents in the district get a voucher to go outside the district until accreditation returns?

=Other than being an urban legend and denied by the guard, is there some reason this keeps popping up?

No urban legend. Seen by several eyewitnesses.

If you were given thousands of dollars in overtime pay and were able to buy a new home and enjoy other amenities because of such plum duty, would you rat on the one who gave you all that?

=The problem with the notion of throwing ones hands in the air is that many schools with students from similar backgrounds are able to show improved achievement when schools have strong and stable governance.

They probably also have parents or relatives who want them to succeed, something not enjoyed by all. Also, look at class size and if they are able to stay if they disrupt often enough or continue to exhibit severe discipline problems. "Similar backgrounds" is difficult to prove. Too many apples and oranges cases are cited and hinder accurate statistics and understanding.

===No urban legend. Seen by several eyewitnesses.

Several? Who? When the story started it was one person who claims to have seen them together at the casino.

===Too many apples and oranges cases are cited and hinder accurate statistics and understanding.

This is a cop-out and a rather odd argument. If you are correct than why care about who runs the District? At that point it is only a babysitting service and job program. Is your argument that there aren't any teachers better at educating students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

==If the school district is disaccredited, do parents in the district get a voucher to go outside the district until accreditation returns?

The simple answer is that it simply isn't possible to move 34,000 students into the surrounding districts or even a significant group of them. In the case of St. Louis there is a specific language to deal with the District if it were to become unaccredited.

"(2) 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."

Why doesn't Slay take control?

The SLPS is a disaster and I would rather see a local official in charge with the advice of the State.

Local officials need to become leaders when it comes to the SLPS. Instead of shirking responsibility when it goes bad while accepting praise when its good, take direct control.

Read about this:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6859153

ArchPundit,

Your putting out wrong information again. 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.

===n. First, that section quoted is part of the deseg settlement

It's Missouri Law. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1620001100.HTM

How is it irrelevant Bill?

As I read the deseg agreement, you only got the 2 year pass the first time. One of the sad stories about the SLPS is that the transitional board would have taken over after the deseg settlement other than the Board negotiated being given provisional accreditation even though it didn't earn it.