No Shortage of Plans for School

No Shortage of Plans for School, But Little Common Ground
By Brian Werner

“I don’t give a *&#@ about state takeover.”

Mo Costello is never one to mince words, and she is passionate about the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS). She’s the owner of Mokabe’s coffee shop on Grand and Arsenal where she often talks politics with costumers.

While much attention has drawn by the State’s impending takeover of the St. Louis District, Costello’s more concerned about what changes are needed to turn the district around.

“You can develop condos all you want, but you need to fix the schools.” Costello sees improving education as a key part of development in St. Louis. As new residents move into the city, some will be looking to send their children to public schools. Even those who don’t have children in the system will want to see their tax dollars being spent effectively.

Costello challenges the aldermen to become involved in education. Even though they have no power over the schools, as citizens’ most direct access to the government, she thinks aldermen could be strong advocates for the schools.
Jim Shrewsbury, President of the Board of Aldermen, is the only alderman who has some direct influence over the schools, as he will appoint one of three members of the board that will administer the schools if the State takes over the district. As far as aldermen being involved more in education, he says that they already do listen to their constituents concerns about the schools.

“The city government has nothing to with education,” says Shrewsbury, “but that’s what everyone asks about.”

He says the best that aldermen can do is to pass the concerns of their constituents along to the School Board.

Besides the three-member board that would run the District if there is a takeover, the State Legislature will have the largest opportunity to influence the direction of the district. Local legislators are working on a number of different initiatives to address what they see as they biggest problems facing the district:

Nasheed Fights Takeover, Targets Social Promotion
Representative Jamilah Nasheed has been a vocal opponent of a state takeover, a move she calls, “an effort that the Republican Party is pushing...so that they can push their agenda on school choice.”

Nasheed believes the appointed board would be ineffectual because it is opposed by many within the district. She thinks that State takeover could be overturned in court, pointing to the recent ruling of a California court that the Mayor of Los Angeles’ attempt to take over the School District was unconstitutional.

Nasheed sees “social promotion” as the biggest problem facing the St. Louis Public Schools. Social promotion is the practice of passing unprepared students onto the next grade level despite.

“If child is reading at the third grade level, why would you pass them to the fourth grade” says Nasheed. “That’s the biggest problem plaguing the St. Louis Public Schools.”

A number of States including Missouri have instituted laws to limit social promotion. In 2001, the Missouri Senate passed legislation sponsored by the late Paula Carter that, according to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education website, requires school districts to:

…assess and determine the grade-level reading ability of students in grade 3 and students in grades 4-6 who transfer in during the year…School districts must develop an individualized “Reading Improvement Plan,” to be implemented during grade 4, for any third-grader who was determined to be reading below second-grade level… The reading plan MUST include, at a minimum, “30 hours of additional reading instruction or practice outside the regular school day during the fourth-grade year.

Both the State and Federal Department’s of Education stress the importance of additional help for struggling students, recognizing that simply forcing students to repeat a grade is not effective in and of itself.

However, Nasheed claims the law is not being followed. She wants to amend the law so that schools risk losing funding if they do not follow the statute.

Nasheed also wants to extend school hours, arguing that because of poverty and other issues children in St. Louis face, they start out behind and need more class time to catch.

Hubbard Pursues Voucher Initiative
Representative Rodney Hubbard agrees with Nasheed about the need for extra instruction, saying we need more money for Head Start and after school programs. Hubbard, who supports a State takeover, says the biggest problem for the schools is a lack of qualified teachers. He says we need to make a more conducive environment for teachers through higher pay and other incentives. Where Hubbard disagrees with Nasheed and other Democratic legislators is his support of school choice.

“People want to say it’s a Republican issue, I think this is a people’s issue,” says Hubbard. “Why would anyone be against putting all options on the table?”

Hubbard touts himself a product of school choice. He attended Mehlville High School through the voluntary desegregation program. Hubbard believes that students would benefit from school choice, and competition would spur public schools to improve.

“I’m not trying to destroy the system, I want to empower the system” Hubbard is a sponsor of House Bill 808, which recently died in the House. The bill would have established a scholarship fund for low-income students in St. Louis and Kansas City. Individuals or corporations would receive an income tax credit for donations to the fund. Recipients would receive $5,000 a year to spend on tuition or other educational expenses at a school of their choice. The program is similar to one started in Iowa in June of 2006.

Hubbard has also introduced a bill that would create the “Missouri 4 For More Program,” which is intended to get parents more involved in the classroom. The bill would give tax credits to employers that granted their employees paid leave for up to four hours a month to work with their children in the classroom.

Smith Proposes “Teach for Missouri”
State Senator Jeff Smith also wants to look beyond the battle over control of the St. Louis School District.

“It’s not the time to be protesting,” says Smith about a possible State takeover. “We need to be realistic about where this process is. The district is doing everything it can do to obtain accreditation but that does not appear to be a likely outcome…the children can’t afford any more delays or more resources spent on anything other than their education.”

In early February Smith filed a bill to create the “Teach For Missouri” program. The bill would provide student loan relief to graduates of public colleges and universities in Missouri who agree to teach in under performing schools.
He says he will soon put forth a ten-point plan that focuses on improving the quality of instruction. The plan will include lengthening the school day and school year and money for after school programs. It proposes comprehensive early childhood education and uniforms in all schools. It would give parents the option of “mega-looping,” where teachers keep the same group of students for three years.

In order to attract and retain quality teachers, the plan would offer bonuses for teaching in certain subject areas, such as science. In addition, it would give teachers the choice of not being on a tenure track for the option of higher salaries that are based on performance.

Smith acknowledges that many new programs will require additional funding. He says the school funding equation shouldn’t change, but that more money will have to come out of the State’s budget.

Funding Inequities Persist
However, whether the State’s funding formula will remain unchanged is currently being challenged in court. Over 200 of Missouri’s 524 school districts are suing the State, claiming that education funding is inadequate and unequal.

In 2005 the Missouri Senate changed the funding formula for education. The goal of the new formula was to even out the amount of money spent per child across Missouri’s school districts. Even though the lawsuit was filed previous to this change, the suing districts have continued with the suit, contending the 2005 law does not rectify the problems with funding.

One of the important issues in the case, and generally in education funding is the assessment of property values. Property taxes are the primary source of funding for education. The amount paid in taxes is based on the assessed value of property, as determined by each county’s assessor independently. A variance between counties in the assessment level of properties could skew funding.

When the new formula was passed, the most recent study from the State Tax Commission of Missouri(STC), which oversees property assessment in the state, asserted that every county in Missouri had an assessment level above 90%, and that 22 of 27 counties had assessment levels above the 95% required by Missouri law.

According to a study by Public Policy Research Center at the University of Missouri St. Louis(UMSL), “Assessment level (level of assessment) refers to the percentage that the assessors’ appraised value is in comparison with market value. E.g. if the market value of a property is $100,000, but the assessor bases the assessment on an appraised value of $80,000, then the assessment level is 80%.”

The UMSL study, released in October 2006, called STC’s results “unreliable” and said “It appears that the process was designed more to produce acceptable results than to produce reliable results.”

The UMSL study was funded by the Coalition to Fund Excellent schools, a group of schools districts involved in the ongoing litigation. Steve Gardner, author of the UMSL study, is an expert witness for the school districts. (The case could end as early as this week.) Gardner found that contrary to the STC study, only 4 counties had assessment levels above 95% and that the average level for all Missouri counties was 79.2%.

The effect of this disparity, according to the study, is that, “districts lying within highly assessed counties are harmed, while those within lowly assessed counties are benefited through inaccuracy.”

The UMSL study found St. Louis’ assessment level in 2003 to be 72%, tied for the fifth lowest among all Missouri counties.

“We did have some catching up to do,” says St. Louis City assessor Ed Bushmeyer, and St. Louis is catching up. According to Gardner, “in 2005 St. Louis city assessments went up 33-34 percent which would have brought them in line with market values.” Bushmeyer says that assessment levels in St. Louis will be even closer with the 2007 assessment.

If the formula was redone, it’s unclear whether St. Louis would get any more or less money from the State, but Gardner says there would be more total funding for the State to distribute.

Mo Costello is one person who wants to have if her house assessed at what it’s worth and see her taxes go up as a result. If we want good public education, she says, we better be willing to pay for.