State Senator Harry Kennedy has joined State Senator Maida Coleman in opposition to a takeover of St. Louis Public Schools.
In a letter written to Education Commissioner Kent King, Kennedy says, “I am writing to you to place in record my opposition to the possible vote eliminating the accreditation of the St. Louis Public Schools by the Missouri State Board of Education. Loss of accreditation could then lead to a complete takeover of the St. Louis Public Schools by a transitional board
under the authority of the desegregation statute. I believe an extension of provisional accreditation is the answer everyone is seeking to most favorably influence the successful operation of the St. Louis City public schools.”
Kennedy goes on to say that an extension of provisional accreditation would allow the State Board of Education to be on record that the St. Louis Public School system is operating below standard.
“Extending provisional accreditation would allow DESE the ability to officially monitor and advise the current elected school board and superintendent. Assistance we all agree this board desperately needs,” said Kennedy.
Kennedy, whose district is made of parts of St. Louis City and St. Louis County, joins Sen. Coleman in opposition to the takeover which is being pushed by Mayor Francis Slay and School Board President Veronica O’Brien.
“Immediate intervention of the state, without exploring every option available to local authorities could undermine and delay future success,” said Kennedy.
State Senator Harry Kennedy has joined State Senator Maida Coleman in opposition to a takeover of St. Louis Public Schools.
.
It’s about time are elected officials listen to the citizens of this city,if our mayor truly wanted to help our childrens education,he would have supported the newly elected board members regardless of who they are.Instead,2 days after that election he cried and stated that he had other options that he would seek,(state intervention).(Dig up that interview)A strong leader would have jumped on board and showed that he could work with any board regardless of who they are,he could have brought ideas to the table,instead of being a poor looser and crying.I know you may say that only 12% of the citizens voted,well only 11% voted in the mayor race,so as a previous supporter of the mayor I say good luck getting reelected in 09,because buddy failure is all around you,from this new tax deal for the old stadium property wich I believe is fraud to the tax payers of this state,you have not enforced the demolition codes of this city,you are giving this city’s tax base away.You are done mayor.
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 10:12 AMThere is a certain logic to the way the parties are falling into place regarding the proposed takeover. Democrats should generally be against it. Republicans should welcome it as a precious gift which will allow them to do what republicans like to do in busting unions, sneaking in voucher schemes and rewarding corporate buddies with no bid contracts not unlike some of the shenanigans which have happened in Iraq.
I can even understand Slay’s desire to have a chance to try and do things to erase the embarrassment of his actions regarding the schools.
The real shame belongs to people who should know better—–like the editorial board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch—-who today published one of the most disgraceful editorials they have ever written.
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 11:31 AMI, for the life of me, can not understand why anyone would continue to subject the children of the City of St. Louis to a below average education.
Next Harry & Maida will be passing legislation saying that people who receive Section 8 vouchers can only use them in what what is left of the “projects” in the City. People are allowed to use those vouchers in privately owned housing to open up the possiblity of finding quality housing. If the landlord fails to maintain the property the person can then use the voucher to move somewhere else. (The only problem being the lack of housing available.)
Next will be legislation to limit the places where people with food stamps can shop. After all why should they be allowed to go to Straub’s or Whole Foods – let them shop at Big Boy’s and Sal’s Meats & Groceries.
The Democrats in this city are much to liberal for my taste and I have voted with the Democratic Party for all of my adult life. I will not be doing that in the future though.
People, I encourage you to pull your children out of this burning building (St. Louis Public Schools). You can return after the fire is put out and the building has been re-built. Don’t let your children burn up while these legislators (and other people with means) keep their children out of harms way.
Chek the D@** records to see where they went to school and where they send their children. THINK, THINK, THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Check the records for where they send their children | 02. Feb, 2007, 12:56 PMANON 2:56-
Do you have school age children? and if so where do they attend?
Because I’m wondering if you are connecting the dots- – If we all pull our kids out of SLPS, and re-enroll them after it is “fixed”……
exactly how do you propose it will get “fixed”…cause where the kids go the $$ follows them…so what will be left to fix the SLPS???…
SLPS has the same probs any other inner city school district has..when you called it a “burning building”, I got a picture of chicken little running around yelling that the sky is falling… a little over dramatic I think.
But then again, maybe you’re getting your info from the post..
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 1:25 PMThere is nothing anyone could say that would be over dramatic about the failings of the St. Louis Public Schools.
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 1:55 PMAnonymous said…
There is nothing anyone could say that would be over dramatic about the failings of the St. Louis Public Schools.
2/02/2007 1:55 PM
It would be crazy to give appointment power to the same person who chose so many people in 2003 who have contributed so much to the current problems. It would be crazy to trust the same people managing Wellston to be expected to solve SLPS’ problems.
Hope that is not too “over-dramatic”.
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 2:30 PMMoving from the current system of 7 elected board members to a 3 person board, named by politicians solves what problem? What educational strategies are they planning to implement to improve achievement? Is this a matter of fiscal/policy control or student achievement?
Posted by Anonymous | 02. Feb, 2007, 2:41 PMTo Anon 1:25pm:
You didn’t address one of the main points of my writing: These same legislators and a majority of the teachers, don’t send their children to SLPS. But you couldn’t refute the truth so you resort to that same old tired approach of attacking someone. BUT . . . .
Yes I have children in the district, it’s not important where they attend. I also have nieces, nephews and cousins who attend St. Louis Public Schools. I also have relatives who have opted out of this system for various reasons.
It may not be “fair” to you for me to take my children out, but it is even more unfair for me to leave my child in a failing system; AND I HAVE A BIGGER OBLIGATION TO MY CHILD THAN TO YOU, YOUR CRONIES OR THIS SYSTEM!
As for where I get my information; I follow the legislative activities in the State Congress, online news articles, as well as participating in various community groups.
I am not ANTI–Public schools. I believe that public schools (especially SLPS) should get their fair share of state funding. I believe that the state, through Jay Nixon) should release all deseg funds owed & entitled to SLPS. I believe that their should be partnerships which help the district to deal with the disciplinary problems in the schools. I aslo believe that deseg was one of the biggest cons every perpetrated on a people. All that money that was sent into the county should have been spent in the City.
But, while we work on correcting these deficiencies, I must do my part to make sure that my (all)children receive a quality education. After all, it is those children who will one day have to lead themselves.
While you see my anology of a burning building as overly dramatic. I see that statement as an indication you don’t spend much time in the schools themselves or you would know just how bad the situation is.
Get your head out of the sand and get into some real work.
Posted by Check the records... | 02. Feb, 2007, 3:59 PMCheck-the-Records I agree with you. I think the arguements you make about the Section 8 vouchers & Food Stamps is quite apropriate. I thought this site was just for those who support the teahers’ union.
My two-cents:
(1)People should be able to send their children to schools which best suit their needs.
(2)If the teachers are concerned with being treated fairly in non-traditional or non-”public” schools tehy should work to organize in those situations.
(3a)I am against a state take-over because I believe that people should have the beneifit of working with the group they helped to empower. (3b)But just because they have a right to their desires, I – as a parent/tax payer/citizens – also should have a right to mine; and the ability to take advantage of that right should not be limited to my financial ability to do so.
(4)As a side note I should mention that neither Harry nor Maida made endorsements in the last 3 school board elections. I am also not aware of any public schools visited by either of them.
(5,6,7,8, . . .)Lastly, if they feel so strongly about thier position I would like to see them put forth legislation requiring teachers and legislators to educate their children in the public school district in which they live! It could be tailored after the same statutes that require a legislator/alderperson to live in the district which they represent. It could also tie into the push for retaining the rule that city police officers live in the city.
(*?*?*)How about it Maida? Harry?
Posted by Finally, Someone else who cares | 02. Feb, 2007, 5:26 PMI would support that any new hire teachers for the schools be required to live within the City limits for at least the first 7 years.
Maurice St. Pierre
candidate
Posted by Maurice St. Pierre | 02. Feb, 2007, 8:38 PMMr. St. Pierre,
With all due respect, that statement illustrates a glaring lack of understanding about the district you are seeking to represent as a board member. The SLPS are struggling to find enough qualified teachers and have been for many years.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to keep teachers who don’t live in the city out of the system. It seems that a teacher who is willing to commute and work under what can be “somewhat less than ideal circumstances” shows a commitment that would want to be ENCOURAGED. It would be MUCH EASIER and more profitable for me (and many other teachers) to work in the county. I chose to work for the SLPS because that is one of the places where the need is greatest.
I am a teacher in the SLPS and have been for 7 years. I do not live in the city and my kids do not attend SLPS schools. This is not because I chose to pull them out, but because they have always lived in another district.
The thought of leaving this district is on the minds of teachers often enough. We lose great teachers all the time from burnout. The fact is the SLPS cannot get enough teachers as it is and could NEVER get enough teachers if they were required to live within the city limits.
Please re-think your position.
Posted by jim heger | 02. Feb, 2007, 10:55 PMIn a recent posting, I did indeed say that I would support that newly hired teachers be required to live within the City for the first 5 -7
years of their employment. I would like to explain why I support
this.
First off, the teachers have already gotten a bad rap for not caring. I believe that many of the ‘bad’ teachers have already left the system. What remains are the most dedicated. Yes, there are
probably a few left that are just doing the minimum waiting till
retirement, but I believe these are few and far between. But with any employer, you will always have a few bad eggs.
So we have a pool of dedicated teachers. Now we need more.
Urban life is very complex. If you will forgive me for typecasting
suburbanites for the sake of brevity, it is one where you don’t just shut your door and forget your neighbors. In the city you live on top of your neighbors. You don’t pull the car into the garage and head directly into the house. You talk to your neighbors, you attend block meetings, you relish the life in the city. New teachers need to experience where the students are coming from. Perhaps I should have clarified better and said that by ‘new’ I meant new to teaching.
Experienced, seasoned teachers with years of expereince that have
developed a sucessful style could be exempt.
Teachers coming in from the suburbs might indeed have their heart in the right place…but what of their mind? Do we want teachers that think they will come in and ‘pity’ the children? Do we want teachers that when they see an inner-city teenager, they immediately think crime? But we have to face facts, many people in the suburbs think of the city as high crime and high drugs. That inner city children are not teachable.
And what does it say to the child? That my teacher doesn’t care
enough to live in the city? That my teacher is afraid of us? Why
bother if no one else cares?
So we are faced with the issue of getting new recruits. Do we, as a
district, sell ourselves short by taking the simple way and hiring
the few willing to apply? Or do we demand a high standard?
I’m not saying that those few are not qualified. But just because
they have a certificate does not translate into urban experience.
When the system is back on track, then I would see no problem in
letting teachers live where they want. But for now, we are in crisis
mode, and drastic times call for drastic measures. I would also
support a tax exemption for all teachers. They, more than any other
group of people, are responsible for the future of our great City.
Maurice St. Pierre
Posted by Maurice St. Pierre | 02. Feb, 2007, 11:14 PMMr. St. Pierre,
Do you realize how little credit you are giving to these teachers from the suburbs? You are basically saying that they are too naive to connect with or understand their students. That they are somehow living in a fantasy and cannot comprehend urban life. That is insane. I understand my students’ life styles just fine, thank you, and so does every other “suburban” teacher I know.
As far as what does it tell the children? It tells them that “my teacher cares and loves me so much that he/she is willing to travel very far (and sacrifice this wonderful, disconnected life in the suburbs you refer to) just to teach me.”
When I got hired I got my “urban experience” very quickly. Any teacher will tell you it doesn’t take long to figure it out. Those who don’t are quickly run out.
I know you aren’t trying to be but your views are quite insulting to the intelligence of teachers.
Posted by jim h. | 02. Feb, 2007, 11:56 PMThank you Jim, but I think you misunderstand.
I am not refering to experienced teachers from the county, but newly certified teachers that still need to develop their own style and technique in order to be successful.
As for a child understanding the sacraficing of that wonderful, disconnected life in the suburbs, all the dedication in the world will not help if the parent(s) at home have a disconnect with people from the county nor if the child does not know what a wonderful life is.
Posted by maurice st. Pierre | 03. Feb, 2007, 12:18 AMSo now you are saying that URBAN PARENTS can’t relate to suburban teachers? Doesn’t that insult the intelligence/tolerance for diversity of the parent? Exactly who IS intelligent enough to understand?
Posted by jim h. | 03. Feb, 2007, 12:29 AMps I have had trouble with maybe 1 or 2 parents in 7 years. (I am white, all of my parents have been of African descent so far)
Posted by jim h. | 03. Feb, 2007, 12:32 AMalso, sorry if the tone has gotten a little rough…this is important to me (and it’s getting late)
Posted by jim h. | 03. Feb, 2007, 12:34 AMThe State takeover is classic rural v. urban fighting. Rural politicians trying to further disenfranchise the inner city or possibly even undermine their educational system thus economic development. The worse off the City gets, so much better the suburbs and rural areas become. We loose tax payers, voters, and business to them. Urban political power becomes weaker in the State of Missouri. Rural Missouri gets their bigger take of both the State and Federal pie.
Posted by Doug Duckworth | 03. Feb, 2007, 11:13 AMIt is true that every parent has the biggest obligation to their children. That is why I, a parent of school age children who lives in and loves the city, send my children to a catholic school. I WILL NOT SACRIFICE MY CHILDREN’S FUTURE FOR THE CAUSE. I believe strongly in public education – schools should be palaces, teachers should be paid six figure salaries and exhaulted- but that’s not the way it really is, people. Our city schools are failing and the city schools board(s) for generations have failed our children. I will not subject my kids to the city schools and I am tired of being verbally abused because I care for my kids!
Posted by a parent's perspective | 03. Feb, 2007, 11:26 AMDoug,
Right. Also, the “us” vs. “them” thing is very destructive. I disagree with Mr. St. Pierre’s proposal because it only further divides people. Bad thing the last I heard.
Posted by jim heger | 03. Feb, 2007, 11:38 AMMr. St. Pierre -
Please don’t be swayed by the comments of Jim H., your idea is right on track. If those that are so afraid of change would take time to study something other than how to protect their jobs. “Jim H.” is actually a member of Local 420 (aka “the Union”) – his whole name is Jim Hamilton. Not even his fellow union members care for him, the only thing the have in common is the protection of teachers jobs. SLPS is not the “Peace Corp” or soem relic of “the Great Society”, therefore it is not supposed to be a jobs program!
Board member who actively work with state legislators to create legislation that benefits children. As someone who posted somewhere else said: “If the unions are all that they purport to be, let them organize” I have no problem with that. However when you check, you will find out not every teacher in SLPS is even a member of “the union”.
People like Percy Green, Liz Brown, and others cry about keeping the rule that requires City police officers living in the City I ask you – What is the difference?
Keep your position Mr. St.Pierre, if you let “the union” bully you now they will continue to bully you as a sitting school board member.
As a teacher in the district (who lives in the City) I can not begin to tell you the horrors of the teachers’ lounge conversation that deride the student, the parents and the City itsself.
I encourage you to attend as many community meetings as possible and get input from all parents, that’s the only way you will find success in your campaign. Those who support the status quo will never support someone who wants to make things better because they fear change – ND CHANGE IS NEEDED!!!
Posted by a teacher | 03. Feb, 2007, 1:01 PMSorry about the typing errors, I was in a hurry to make it to my block unit meeting.
Good luck MrSt. Pierre!!!
Posted by a teacher | 03. Feb, 2007, 1:03 PMDoug said. . .”so much better the suburbs and rural areas become. We loose tax payers, voters, and business to them.”
So let me get this straight, the legislators and others in rural Missouri are trying to get more Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians to move into their communities? You can’t be serious!
Just more of that us agaist them mentality that George Bush used to get us into this stupid a** war with Iraq. Black v. White, Rural v. Urban, Republican v. Democrat. Pro-Choice v. Anti-Choice (parental choice that is). Why can things not be done with the CHILDREN as the focus of our efforts.
a parent’s perspective said…”I will not subject my kids to the city schools and I am tired of being verbally abused because I care for my kids!”
I’m with you on that. Too many people are expecting us to sacrifice our children, but they have protected theirs (hear that Maida and Harry!!) These same “liberals” rail against Bush for sending other peoples children into harms way, while his daughters take vacation trips around the world; what’s the difference? Harm is harm, be it physical or mental.
Maurice St. Pierre said…”I would support that any new hire teachers for the schools be required to live within the City limits for at least the first 7 years.” The teachers that are already in the district can be ‘grandfathered in’, provided they agree to performance standards. I wish the local 420 would use the “urban experience” Jim H. has to connect to children and increase test score and stop whinning about disruptive children.
The final analysis:
The State BoE should step back and let the April elections happen, then work with the legislature to ensure parental choice for education. That way, parents who want to stay in the district until things get better (while their children suffer) can stay, and those of us who want out can save our children. After all – it’s their right to sacrifice THEIR children if they want to.
Posted by Where do the legislators send their children? | 03. Feb, 2007, 2:24 PMJim H. doesn’t want rules/laws that tell him where to live, but he’s perfectly comfortable telling a parent where they should have their child educated. Kind’a make you sit back and say “Hmmmm”.
Posted by Anonymous | 03. Feb, 2007, 2:26 PMa parent’s perspective said: “I, … send my children to a catholic school.” So now, tell me how it is that you measure your child’s city catholic school against my daughter’s SLPS school. Are their MAP scores higher? Are the other M.S.I.P. measurements higher? Oh, right, your school doesn’t take the MAP test or meet other “No Child Left Behind” requirements. It doesn’t have to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” for every subgroup, including the subgroup of special ed. students and the subgroup of free and reduced lunch students. When I see the matching data showing me that your child’s catholic school is superior to my child’s public school, then we can compare them on a fair basis. Even districts like Parkway, Clayton and Ladue struggle to meet the “No Child Left Behind” goal scores for each and every subgroup. I can’t imagine that all of the catholic schools in the city would just breeze by those requirements – unless, of course, they are refusing to admit special ed. students, discipline problems, or the students who need free lunches (and tuition?). Without these groups, my daughter’s school would score far higher, too, but, sadly she would not be allowed to attend.
Posted by Anonymous | 03. Feb, 2007, 5:12 PMAnon 5:12 said “I can’t imagine . . .”,
You are right you can’t!!! You can’t imagine . .
what it’s like educating a Black child in an educational system that still teaches that Columbus discovered this land that is called Amerikkka;
. . .what it’s like educating a Vietnamese child in a system that teaches that Amerikkkans had to come save them from themselves;
. . .what it’s like educating a child in a system that teaches that Abraham Lincoln freed the enslaved Africans.
. .educating a child in a system that teaches a child the lie that George Washington never told a lie, a system that over looks the many contributions of people of color to the history of the world.
I want my child in a system that is truthful and one in which the goal is excellence, not mediocrity.
Posted by Anonymous | 03. Feb, 2007, 8:03 PMAnon 5:12 – If your complaint (or concern) is that all schools aren’t held to the same standard why not encourage your legislators to make sure those things are included in the laws that are passed?
I feel somewhat the same way about the choices that I have within the confines of the SLPS District. It is not fair to me that I have to rely on a “lottery” to get my children into quality schools. Nor is it fair that there are no magnet schools in North St. Louis. However I don’t run around saying that the magnet schools need to be closed or that the district should take that money and equally distribute it to all schools. I fight to make sure all schools are quality schools and that adequate funding is provided to everyone.
We should be striving for excellence in all schools, not settling for mediocrity and just barely achieving accreditation.
Why is it that soem of you settle for a dumbed down system? A system that year-after-year fails so many students? Why is it that these same teachers don’t show up in Jefferson City demanding that the Foundation Formula be changed so that all schools receive proper funding? Why is it these same teachers won’t start their own schools and unionize them if they are concerned about the way so called “non-public” schools operate? Why is it they never seem to have their children in public schools?
Posted by Finally, Someone else who cares | 03. Feb, 2007, 8:06 PMThe middle class which remains moves into the County while exclusionary zoning and job inaccessibility keeps the inner city poor, blacks etc., down and out. Classic haves and have nots. Now I am the first to be against “us vs. them” however our Country has a historical precedent of distrust and hatred towards Cities which began with Jefferson. This is blueprint of what we have today: the further erosion of urban political power.
Posted by Doug Duckworth | 04. Feb, 2007, 2:02 AMPlease don’t tell me who I am. My name is Jim Heger…not Jim Hamilton. We are two separate people. I give my name because I choose to and will not hide behind another name just to be able to say ridiculous things. I am a union member and a teacher. You don’t have to agree with me but please don’t confuse me with someone else.
Posted by jim heger Ashland School | 04. Feb, 2007, 8:36 AMAnonymous said…
“Jim H. doesn’t want rules/laws that tell him where to live, but he’s perfectly comfortable telling a parent where they should have their child educated.”
Funny…I don’t remember saying that.
First part: No, I DO NOT want rules/laws telling me where to live…do you?
Second part: I don’t think I have been “perfectly comfortable” with anything since I began working for the SLPS! But I love it. I have worked to keep students in the SLPS but I am NOT trying to tell any parent how to best educate their children and apologize if I came off that way. In fact, I was defending the rights of parents (who also happen to be teachers and live in another district) to live and send their children to another school district while working in another.
The fact is that Mr. St. Pierre’s proposal won’t work. He can choose to add it to his platform but it will harm his chances to win, not help.
Posted by jim (not hamilton) heger | 04. Feb, 2007, 9:11 AMWell, let me first say that I am not above apologizing – I am sorry for confusing you with the other Jim. As a teacher, who does not agree with the union, I am not as comfortable exposing myself as you are though.
First Part: I live in the same community in which I teach. I chose to live here because I wanted to be an example by my actions not just empty rhetoric. Parents of children that I have taught have been to my house, my past students still come by to say “hi” and I have been to their homes. Can you say the same thing living out in the suburbs?
Second Part: I personally believe that the school that I work in can stand up to any “non-public” school, therefore I don’t fear our parents pulling their children out. We have a wonderful, caring & committed staff and when there is a “new” teacher that comes in who doesn’t benefit our children, we work togther to help that person fit in or we support the principal’s decision to have the person removed (often going against the shop steward).
I should also tell you that as a PROUD CITY RESIDENT I continue to support the idea that our police officers should live in the city. This is despite the fact that the votes here in the city are “non-binding”, it at least allows us to state our preference.
Your position on residency is relevent because of the Union’s stated position as being against “non-public” schools. If a tax paying parent is limited to where they are able to educate because of the fear that it takes money out of the district, that same tax-paying parent should be able to put clauses into the contracts of those that work for the district.
Lastly . .Mr. St. Pierre should not alter his platform simply because a union member says that it “will harm his chances to win, not help”. The union has already decided who they are going to endorse, therefore Mr. St. Pierre should continue to think outside the box in order to pull the votes of the many community members who do not agree with having Board members who are controled by the union.
In closing . .If legislators are so supportive of public schools it should be evidenced by where they send their children.
Posted by Anonymous | 04. Feb, 2007, 10:51 AMI certainly respect Mr. St. Pierre’s right to stand up for what he believes in! (and your’s) I appreciate your thoughtful response as well. That is what it’s all about.
My school has good staff, too. We (the SLPS) are taking a bum rap in many cases. There is a lot of good going on! But we can never stop trying to make it better.
Posted by jim heger | 04. Feb, 2007, 11:11 AMLast thing I promise…
I’ve known Jim Hamilton for about 4-5 years. I served with him on the Local 420 Executive Board for approx. 2 years. Proudly. I don’t want to drag Jim into this so let’s not. But I want to say MANY 420 members love him for his complete dedication to the welfare of everyone. Myself included.
Posted by jim heger | 04. Feb, 2007, 12:45 PM‘Finally, Someone else who cares’ says to write to legislators about the standards being equal. The problem with that is that the legislature has no control over non-public schools, and can enact any laws they want, but these schools need not comply. Where did you get the idea that it was possible? Unless a school receives State or Federal funding, there is no means for legislators to control them. The consequences of not meeting NCLB requirements are all financial impacts.
Posted by Anonymous | 04. Feb, 2007, 1:53 PMThe post at 2/02/2007 1:55 PM says it all.
Most people are grossly uniformed and don’t want any more details about the reality of the situation. How typical to simply rely on sound bytes so that a minimum amount of time is spent being thoughtful about education.
We must value the education of children EVERYWHERE and invest in their education. We have to create standards for public education Statewide and fund schools well enough for them to meet those standards.
History has shown time and time again that the solution to poor academic performance is adding resources. Period. If you don’t care about educating kids or you prefer to educate on the cheap just say so and stop acting like you have an interest in educated people.
Posted by snead hearn | 05. Feb, 2007, 9:12 AM