COMMENTARY
The editorial board of the Post-Dispatch told its urban readers yesterday that they don’t give a damn about what they think about the future of their public schools — and neither should the state.
“Let’s get real,” said the editors condescendingly. The editorial says that sure, at the first and only opportunity the public has had to let its feelings be heard about this matter, hundreds of people showed up to clearly, and often very articulately, express their opposition. But what do they know?
The Post says the public should not trust in the ability of the current superintendent, Dr. Diana Bourisaw, but rather in the wisdom of Mayor Francis Slay (who brought us such figures as Veronica O’Brien and Dr. William Kincaid) and the sensitivity of Gov. Matt Blunt (who’s said that nobody in their right mind would live in St. Louis City).
The Post says the parents, voters and taxpayers of the City should trust that what is being threatened will only be “temporary” and in ten years the politicians will give us our rights back. Kind of like state control of our police department was just a temporary action when the nation was gripped in civil conflict.
The Post joins its partner the American in asking the public to have faith in something for which their is no proof; that the State of Missouri or any three people it empowers can do what has, so far, been very difficult for us to do locally: get parents, teachers, school board members, political leaders, civic leaders, the business community, the general public, and the media to focus on the needs of young people in the City of St. Louis and help them, in all parts of their lives, prepare for a better future.
Just one problem: There’s nothing about how to do that in the Danforth-Freeman report. A takeover in no way guarantees success. In fact, no plan at all has been presented on how the state plans to improve the district. But Dr. Bourisaw has.
And the reality that DESE, the Danforth-Freeman committee, the Post-Dispatch, and the American never seem to acknowledge is that SLPS is just recovering from one takeover. From 2003 to 2006, the district was under the de facto authority of the mayor’s office. And during that time, things got worse.
During the same period, the Wellston school district was under the authority of DESE and the Governor’s office. And things got worse.
So what now, by bringing these two failures of leadership together, are the people and parents of St. Louis promised in exchange for turning over their power, tax dollars and children?
And as one speaker at last week’s public forum asked so appropriately: If ten years from now we find ourselves in the very likely situation of having a failing, state-operated school district, then what? Will they hand it back to the voters? What is the exit strategy?
There are few times in history that power is given up and given back without a fight. The editors at the Post-Dispatch and the St. Louis American must excuse us if we don’t share in their faith in the abilities or promises of politicians.
It is up to the people and parents of the City of St. Louis to make right our own house. The state can aid in that by: better funding public education across the state, passing Sen. Maida Coleman‘s bill to allow for the recall of school board members, and respecting the rights of the citizens of this city as you do those of people elsewhere in this state by allowing our vote to mean something on April 3, 2007.
I think MS. OBRIEN IS ON THIS BLOG AND HAS BEEN POSTING,,,, O’BRIEN YOUR NOT SLICK, I see the writing on the walls, Your skinny ass is trying to drum up support for a takeover, but it aint happenin!
Posted by WAKE UP MUTHER FXCKERS | 05. Feb, 2007, 10:14 PMIt seems to me that if the teachers solution is to increase the funds to the district, why don’t they put
THEIR money where their mouth is. They could easily choose to give or loan the district the money to get out of debt from the 1 billion they have. This certainly would go towards helping the district with its financial situation. If they trust Bourisaw so much, I am sure they could broker a deal that she could help with. I am sure that if the district showed signs of removing their debt, that would indicate some level of financial accountability. If Bourisaw has a plan as you say, with some teeth, this would go a lot further than just the talk that is going on. I mean, if the plan had some deadlines, accountability, real numbers, and consequences for all involved.
The truth is the children are at the hands of politicians and unions, and no matter what they say, they have their own reason for doing and saying whatever they do or say. It is also evident that while individuals may have the children’s interest at heart, the organizations that are involved clearly do not. If they did, they would spend more time trying to find solutions where all can benefit instead of shooting down others ideas for solutions. You really have to ask yourself if your actions are part of the solution….or the problem.
Posted by Put your money where your mouth is | 05. Feb, 2007, 10:18 PMjim heger said…
liberal catholic
Not trying to start a fight, but I am curious who is included when you say:
“I beleive that those who have children in the district or have a particular interest or direct stake inthe district should be able to govern the district as you see fit.”
I’m wondering exactly where the line is drawn with who has a “particular interest” or “direct stake”. Maybe everyone does.
2/05/2007 9:12 PM
Jim, though we disagree on my previous posting regarding new teachers required to live in the city, I do agree with you here.
EVERYONE has a stake in the schools. Those who sit back and say they don’t because they don’t have kids in the system are fooling themselves.
They have an interest when the neighbor’s kids are in the system. They have an interest when they have to hire kids for their first job and they can’t fill out an application. They have an interest when juvenile crime is high (in their neighborhood and the city). They have an interest when their tax dollars are squandered on wasted efforts. I could go on, but you get the drift.
For the record, I am a Catholic. I don’t always agree with the Archbishop, but the Archbishop is not the Church. I do not have children in the system, but I have relatives, I have neighbors in the system. I hire the results from the system. I could find other things to do with my time, but I care enough about the city and my neighbors to try and improve what we have.
When children are taught self-respect and pride, we will see the unwed mother and abortion rate decrease, along with a host of other ills.
Maurice
‘the board needs a saint’
Posted by maurice St. pierre | 05. Feb, 2007, 10:35 PMToday, my child told me that she learned that the district would be destroyed and teachers are going be fired if the state takes over. She obviously planted her own fears and issues into her classroom lesson. This is unacceptable. It is time to put down the fear of politics. The fear of terrorist. The fear of changing the status quo. The fear of something different. The fear of parents choosing. The fear of whatever. Fear has never achieved any lasting results. It does not heal nor does is bring togetherness or understanding. Its only product is destruction, division, and hate. While each side battles for who is right, the children still suffer. The test scores still do not improve. The students still fall in the cracks. The only real solution is to bring all factions together to try to come to a solution. There has got to be some give and take. There are some ideas that will have to be surrendered. Everyone says they are for the children. Why don’t you demonstrate to them how “adults†should behave when faced with conflicts. So far, all they have done is act worse than the children.
Posted by Africasdaughter | 05. Feb, 2007, 10:39 PMDear Africasdaughter,
I totally agree with you that people manage by fear. fear of loosing what they have rather than the potential of something better.
Another innocent victim has been claimed. What possible lesson plan could have included what she heard? And why wasn’t there an opposing opinion be offered so that a balanced view could be discussed? Because then there would be no fear.
Sometimes I wonder if we adults shouldn’t step aside and place some children on the board. I think we could get better results.
Maurice
Posted by maurice | 05. Feb, 2007, 11:10 PMAfrica’s Daughter, in order for me to believe your daughter was taught that, come up with the school and the teacher. I don’t believe everything I read or hear because so much is made up by the Mayor’s office and O’Brien to stir up fears.
Come forth with the genuine facts so we can all believe you. Also, the district administration would deal with it pronto.
I guess this is a “put your money were your mouth is” request. Otherwise, it is simply baseless and unfounded innuendo.
Posted by Anonymous | 06. Feb, 2007, 6:29 AMMr. Dalton: I understand your argument about not requiring those receiving food stamps to shop at certain establishments. However, there are still some basic criteria about what those vouchers can be used for and EVERYONE follows those rules. If we instituted vouchers, would ALL schools that accept those students be willing to take the state MAP tests and have their ability to stay open based upon the scores of those scores? That would be similar to your analogy. Also, the welfare of society and it’s future is not dependent upon where one “shops” for groceries….as it is upon public education.
Posted by SillyGirl | 06. Feb, 2007, 10:54 AMPUT MORE MONEY INTO PUBLIC EDUCATION STATEWIDE!! PROBLEM SOLVED.
No the problem is not solved. Throwing money into the mix does nothing without a plan as to how it will be spent.
Many administrations (not all) are overpaid and overstaffed while the class doesn’t have current textbooks or the copier is out of paper.
Maurice St. Pierre
school board candidate
“the board needs a saint!”
2/05/2007 3:01 PM
Well Mr. St. Pierre, you certainly reveal your abilities in this post. History has shown that you are wrong. And it shows that you didn’t read my post thoroughly.
We can’t afford to have quick and shallow thinkers on the Board of Education.
Posted by snead hearn | 06. Feb, 2007, 11:04 AMLiberal Catholic,
You write as though you have some information and experience with the SLPS. But, I doubt that you do. You seem very judgemental of students at SLPS and of parents who would send their children to a SLPS. This doesn’t strike me as being liberal.
I consider someone liberal when they at least demonstrate critical thinking skills. Liberals who post here and on other forum blogs state an opinion and then support it with facts. You haven’t written anything but your opinion which seems laden with personal morals.
I find it a little offensive when you write about public school students in that my son is a recent graduate. Also, he appears to be far more competent than his private and parochial school peers.
You haven’t given any facts to support your contention that private/parochial schools provide a superior education. I wonder if you are a graduate of such a school. That would be one way to measure quality.
The vast majority of parents of private/parochial/charter school students I have spoken with have ONE over-riding interest in sending their kids to these schools. It is not that they want a Catholic education for their kids. It is not that they want a better education for their kids. It IS that they want to alleviate their irrational fears aroused by the thought of sending their kids to school to mingle with minority students.
This issue is by far the one that is left unspoken here and on other blogs.
Posted by snead hearn | 06. Feb, 2007, 11:26 AMthe liberal Catholic said…
Anon8:09 –
Please ask someone for assistance and then go back to my post at 7:42 . .
I was wrong. I apologize.
Posted by Anonymous | 06. Feb, 2007, 12:05 PMBack to the original topic…the Post.
I see today they have once again chosen a headline that pushes for the mayor’s agenda (Mayoral Control of St. Louis City Schools is Best, Report Concludes) while the article itself points out how biased the “report” is.
The Post continues to insult the intelligence of its own readers by assuming they will form opinions based on headlines without actually examining the sources or content of the story. Trouble is, it seems to work for those who just want to trash the schools without facts to back up their talk.
How about a headline that actually conveys the truth … maybe something like “Neoconservative Group Lobbies for Dismissing the Right to Vote”
Posted by jim heger | 06. Feb, 2007, 11:33 PMJim Heger, I’m with you on the Post. It’s disturbing how so many people simply rely on sound bytes and headlines above the fold. This forum reflects my FTF experiences when I attempt to engage people on the issue. Most people don’t or can’t discuss it in depth. I assume it’s because they don’t have enough information and/or don’t want any more information.
Posted by snead hearn | 07. Feb, 2007, 7:46 AMThe pd called me this morning to tell me my letter to the editor was under consideration for publication. I told them fine, but I do have a tendency to use local web sites to publish what I actually wrote to be compared to any version which is significantly edited to alter or weaken my points.
This is what I wrote—any predictions about whether it will or should be discarded or edited?
The state takeover of St. Louis schools is a bad idea
The Post Dispatch support of the state takeover of the St. Louis Schools is essentially a vote to preserve the status quo.
In 2003, Mayor Slay was able to take the schools in the direction he wanted by endorsing or appointing members of the school board. Ironically, the bizarre behavior and mistakes of those people are being used as justification to give the Mayor another round of appointment power——something he will not be able to achieve if free elections are held. Voters will make necessary changes, electing members to replace the obstructionists on the board, and giving Diana Bourisaw all the support she has earned during this difficult period..
I predict the first action taken by the appointees of Governor Blunt and Mayor Slay, (before they start playing the blame game against each other) will be to continue the tradition of having a revolving door of superintendents They will fire Bourisaw, just to make sure the parents and teachers know who is boss.
Posted by Anonymous | 07. Feb, 2007, 12:49 PMSnead Hearn,
I don’t want to this to come across as a personal attack, and I don’t know your ethnicity, but you wrote that people overtly express racist tones makes me wonder what fantasy land I am living in. I am sad that you have a different experience.
Is it racist to say that I want my kids to go to school with people of wealth because I believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will make connections that will help them along in life? Or, I don’t want my kids to go to a school with lax disciplinary standards? Is that culturalism or classism? A mix? I don’t see racism in that.
Posted by armstrong | 08. Feb, 2007, 5:34 PMThe pd called me this morning to tell me my letter to the editor was under consideration for publication.
All the letters in the Saturday edition were against the takeover. Maybe the other point of view is so weak no one could write a coherent letter expressing it—or maybe there will be a page full of letters next week for the takeover, featured prominently just before the state board meets. I don’t know. The only thing they edited out of my letter was the parenthetical point hinting that the appointees of Slay and Blunt will eventually blame each other for any failures down the road. Everyone else wrote better letters than mine. I was glad to see them.
Posted by Anonymous | 10. Feb, 2007, 11:59 AMarmstrong said…
Snead Hearn,
I don’t want to this to come across as a personal attack, and I don’t know your ethnicity, but you wrote that people overtly express racist tones makes me wonder what fantasy land I am living in. I am sad that you have a different experience.
Is it racist to say that I want my kids to go to school with people of wealth because I believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will make connections that will help them along in life? Or, I don’t want my kids to go to a school with lax disciplinary standards? Is that culturalism or classism? A mix? I don’t see racism in that.
2/08/2007 5:34 PM
Being unspoken, it is covert not overt. And the racism is revealed by looking at the numbers and population demographics over the last 40 years or so.
The concept I write about is commonly called “white flight”. Now what would the opposite of “white flight be? I wonder… The Federal government’s response to white flight was desegregation in the form of a legal mandate.
Desegregation was effective for a while but, here we are. Now government officials are now talking about vouchers in the form of tax credits. But, again look at the numbers and tell me what percent of SLPS parents can take advantage of tax credits. Maybe 20%. Can we guess at racial demographics? And, since vouchers won’t be accepted by people if we have a true democracy, the State will have to rule over us an make vouchers the law.
This struggle isn’t unique to St. Louis and it has been written about by people more knowledgable than me. This is about oppression. It’s classist and racist.
This conservative movement may or may not be about you Armstrong. Only you know that. It gives people an opportunity to avoid looking at racism if this movement makes them feel better about the school their kids attend. They won’t feel compelled to point out racist policies because their kids are provided “safety”, kind of like hush money.
Posted by snead hearn | 10. Feb, 2007, 4:52 PMI accept your racist take on white flight, but I was thinking about parents, today, living in the city. They have a choice of a public school system that is not that good, or a school, private, parochial, whatever, that may be better. They are trying to do the best for their kids. I am going to call them racists for sending their kids to the schools with the best educational opportunity available to them.
Some may say that those kids going somewhere else is largely the reason that the education in the public schools is not that good. That may or may not be true, but it is the public schools’ job to provide something worthwhile, and many parents would say that the public schools aren’t doing that. Some parents are voting with their feet by leaving the city or voting with their dollars and sending their kids to another school. I would rather have them vote with their dollars, than their feet.
Posted by armstrong | 13. Feb, 2007, 3:55 PMDear Antonio, when was the last time YOU ACTUALLY ATTENDED a Wellston school board meeting or YOU ACTUALLY WALKED the halls of any of its buildings? My guess is it has been a LONG while…if ever.
I am personally embarrassed by your careless and IRRESPONSIBLE BLOGGING on the district. You do all of your readers a disservice by passing judgment on Wellston, a district that YOU CLEARLY HAVE MADE NO EFFORT to gain personal knowledge of.
Posted by SHAME ON YOU | 19. Feb, 2007, 10:25 PM