State intervention in St. Louis Public Schools may soon make a bad situation even worse, and ultimately lead to a total collapse of the city’s public education system. That’s according to the city schools’ chief.
In a letter to the State Education Commissioner, City Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw warns of hundreds, possibly thousands, of white families looking to send their kids to St. Louis County schools on the city taxpayers’ dime.
“We are receiving calls from parents who are seeking entrance into county schools. Most of these calls are from Caucasian parents of children currently enrolled in private or parochial schools,” wrote Bourisaw in the letter dated April 2. “Since we do not have a budget for these students, is DESE setting aside funds to pay tuition?”
One of the consequences of the SLPS being stripped of its accreditation is that the already financially-strapped district will now have to pay for city students to attend a neighboring fully accredited County district. This is sure to make the budgeting process for the city schools next to impossible since there is really no way of knowing how many students will choose to attend city schools or how much county tuition the district is expected to pay every year.
Superintendent Bourisaw also warns of a disruption to the district’s acclaimed magnet program, which by law requires a racial balance of students. Waiting lists of black students wanting to get into these programs are already a regular occurrence because there are often not enough white students applying for seats.
“We anticipate the exodus of white students from within our magnet schools. Currently our magnet schools barely maintain the racial balance required by the desegregation agreement. Should this occur, our magnet schools will be out of compliance by fall. As a result, they may need to close,” wrote Bourisaw.
Bourisaw warns the exodus of white and black students due to unaccreditation and charter schools will place the district on the brink of insolvency.
UPDATE: The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education today issued a detailed list of questions and answers about the St. Louis Public Schools’ impending loss of accreditation and its impact on students, families and neighboring school districts.
The State Board of Education voted last month (March 22) to classify the St. Louis Public Schools as “unaccredited,†with an effective date of June 15, 2007. Under state law, St. Louis students may have the opportunity to transfer to an accredited district in St. Louis County, at the expense of the St. Louis district.
State education officials compiled the following information from questions they have received to date from parents, legislators and school officials.
1. Can the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) appeal the State Board of Education’s decision to classify the district as unaccredited? How long will an appeal take? Will an appeal change the date for the loss of accreditation?
The St. Louis Board of Education has 30 days from the date of the State Board of Education’s decision (March 22) to appeal to the commissioner of education. There is no prescribed time for a response. It is unknown whether an appeal might affect the June 15 date for the district to become unaccredited.
2. There have been reports that various parties may file lawsuits to challenge the state’s actions regarding the SLPS. Would such action change any of the events slated for June 15?
Litigation is always possible. We will not speculate about what impact a lawsuit might have on the future course of events.
3. There are many questions about the ability of SLPS students to transfer to other districts when the district becomes unaccredited. Where can they go? When? Will a single agency handle the transfer requests?
State law (Section 167.131) gives students in an unaccredited district the opportunity to transfer to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county. Accredited districts, however, have the authority to accept or reject non-resident students based on their own policies and on their capacity. For SLPS students, the opportunity to transfer does not exist until after June 15, 2007 – and, therefore, not until the 2007-08 academic year.
Each school district in St. Louis County must decide whether it will accept transfer students from the St. Louis Public Schools (in addition to any students the district may now be serving through the VICC program), and how many additional students it will accept.
State education officials are not aware of any efforts to create a “clearinghouse†to deal with these issues. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not plan to assume this function.
4. Who will be eligible to transfer from the SLPS? Students in private and parochial schools? Charter schools? Must they enroll in the SLPS first?
The law (Section 167.131) states that any resident student in an unaccredited school district has the opportunity to transfer at that district’s expense to an accredited district. (Emphasis added.) In the case of the St. Louis Public Schools, “resident students†include those presently enrolled in a public, private, parochial, charter or home school.
Although it is not mandatory that students formally enroll in the school district before they could transfer, the SLPS has the authority to establish a process for verifying the residency of students who seek to transfer out of the district.
Students who reside in St. Louis County and currently attend a magnet school in St. Louis may not attend a different St. Louis County school district after the SLPS is unaccredited.
5. Who is responsible for payment of tuition for St. Louis students who transfer to accredited school districts?
According to state law (Section 167.131.1), the St. Louis Public Schools will be responsible for such tuition payments. The SLPS also may be responsible for the cost of transportation for transfer students, consistent with the provisions of Section 167.241, RSMo.
6. What is the tuition rate for students attending an accredited district?
Each school district that accepts transfer students from an unaccredited school district may charge its current tuition rate, according to the provisions of Section 167.131.2, RSMo. The tuition rate may vary according to the students’ grade levels.
7. Who determines how transportation will be provided for St. Louis students who transfer to accredited schools?
Under Section 167.131, the district of residence (St. Louis) must designate a district or districts to which transportation will be provided at no cost for students who elect to transfer. The statute does not limit the number of students who may be transported.
St. Louis must designate at least one accredited district to which it will provide transportation, but it may designate more than one.
8. Does the loss of accreditation by the SLPS affect compliance with the desegregation settlement agreement?
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not in a position to comment about compliance with the settlement agreement. Guidance on this question should come from the parties’ own legal counsel.
9. What happens if there are financial shortfalls in the SLPS?
Budget issues that may occur within the St. Louis Public Schools will remain the responsibility of the governing body of the district which is in place at any point in time. State funds made available to the SLPS are determined by state appropriation and distributed according to the provisions of state law.
10. What impact does the reclassification of the St. Louis Public Schools have on agreements between school districts in St. Louis County and the Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation (VICC)?
The role of the VICC is a function of the desegregation settlement agreement. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not in a position to comment about compliance issues under that agreement. Guidance on this question should come from the parties’ own legal counsel.
11. Are St. Louis County school districts required to make space available for SLPS transfer students up to the class-size standards (minimum or desirable) set by the state?
Each school district in St. Louis County must decide whether it will accept transfer students from the St. Louis Public Schools (in addition to any students the district may now be serving through the VICC program), and how many additional students it will accept. Each St. Louis County district may use its own criteria to determine what its capacity is to accept transfer students in various grade levels.
12. Could a county district establish a “satellite†location in the city for purposes of accepting transfer students from the city?
State law (Section 177.091.3) provides that a board of education may acquire additional grounds when needed for school purposes. If the directors of both school districts involved agree, such grounds may be located outside of the boundaries of the district and operated for school purposes.
13. In light of possible appeals and legal challenges, what is the likelihood that the SLPS will remain unaccredited during 2007-08?
The Department will not speculate about what impact a lawsuit might have on the future course of events.
14. If the SLPS remains unaccredited for 2007-08, when will it be reviewed for possible reclassification?
Review of the classification of the St. Louis Public Schools will be based upon academic progress within the district. District officials also may request a re-review of the district’s status at any time they believe it may qualify for provisionally accredited or accredited status.
15. Will summer school be required for all under-performing students in the St. Louis Public Schools this year?
No.
16. Will the SLPS be required to retain students who are performing below grade level in their current grades for the upcoming school year?
No.
17. Do parents have to wait until June 15 to contact St. Louis County school districts about possible student transfers?
No.
18. Will students be able to transfer to non-public schools at the expense of the SLPS?
No.
cweguy,
“The less fortunate are less fortunate because of bad choices, either by them or their ancestors. I voluntarily donate my time and money to help and educate those children in order to break that cycle, but, at the end of the day, it’s their own fault.”
The above is cold hearted. Your choice as to who gets vocational training and who doesn’t is cold hearted. How do you select SLPS to be the training ground for people who do manufacturing and servile work?
What is cold too, is that you really believe that no one is victimized or oppressed; that everyone in life started out just like you and made wrong turns along the way.
You really seem to believe that having a significant number of unemployed (by choice if I think the way you do) and undereducated in our society will not impact your life.
I’ve heard others say quite easily, I got mine and my kids are taken care of. F*** everybody else.
I put time and resources into my son’s life. I’m not satidfied with that. I want him to live in a world that is better.
If Slay and Blunt get their way, I believe our kids are going to look around someday and say, “What happened? How did things get this way?”. There will be a significant number of peope they won’t be able to communicate with. Even now, reviewing these threads from the past few months it’s clear that many people are unable to think critically and formulate and answer questions accurately. I shudder to think of it being worse.
Posted by snead hearn | 11. Apr, 2007, 7:33 AMAriel writes:
> My question is, why would DESE
> not post this information in a
> fair way in the first place?
Maybe they’re posting it in the way the legislature has told them to post it. Maybe they’re posting all the data they have. Maybe they think they are posting the information in a fair way. It looks fair to me. Tell me where it isn’t fair. I agree that the data they post is often misunderstood and often misused by people who can’t distinguish a mean from a median, but that’s not the data’s fault.
> To continuously compare SLPS
> unfavorably with districts
> which DO NOT SERVE SUCH CHILDREN
> is UTTERLY UNJUST AND
> FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.
Yep. I try to compare the performance of non-special needs kids graduated by the SLPS with the performance of the non-special needs kids graduated by other districts against norms that are not re-leveled in the face of decling performance.
Even if we look only at Metro, its apparent performance is just a tick better than the average public education district. Note the average public education district can’t select its student body the way Metro can. I am not all that impressed with Public Education in Missouri generally — the average Missouri district performs below the national average, and I’m told the national average isn’t what it was 50 years ago. I think this has more to do with an increasingly anti-intellectual culture than it has to do with the amount of money spent.
In any case, about 40% of the kids that start high school in SLPS don’t finish, and the majority of those that do finish can’t figure the price of a pair of sneakers. Most can’t compose a coherent English paragraph either. This is apparently true as well for a minority of kids graduated from Metro. I think it should be untrue of any kid holding a high school diploma. For that matter, I think it should be untrue of any kid in the ninth grade.
A related question hinted at by Mr. Snead’s comment about vocational education: faced with five hundred illiterate 13 year-old children of 30 year old illiterates who may not be engaged in the least, what’s best for the children? Shall we pretend they’re going to Harvard, or even to Meramac? The great majority, at best, are going to work in low-skill occupations.
Snead Hearn writes:
> I have no idea what you are
> referring to in what I write
> as “sneering”.
Sneer quotes express disdain. In your first reply to me, your repeated enclosure of the word facts in them is a prime example, especially in a context where hundreds of facts are provided and you can find only one, for which you demand a citation. When a citation is provided, it isn’t so much as acknowledged — you simply change the subject. That’s what I mean by sneering. Its all based in behavior. I hope this is clear enough for you.
> Then the facts that I present
> you discount as “anomaly”
I have shown you what I mean by sneering. Maybe you can show me where I have discounted anything you have said.
> As I said before no one is
> writing that the SLPS doesn’t
> need fixing.
Sure they are — cweguy for example. To an extent, I agree with him. If there is a mission for a government school, it seems to me it should have a mission nobody else can do, or is willing to do. I think I would fix the SLPS by changing very radically its mission, and freeing anyone not so well served by that new sort of institution to choose something else.
> Slay, Shoemehl and the Roberti
> Wrecking Crew have made a mess
> of the SLPS.
Horsefeathers! SLPS was a mess long before Mr. Schoemehl was first elected mayor much less to the school board, and if you have been paying attention, you know that. Kids for at least 30 years* have been held hostage to in the SLPS because Jeffersonian idealogues want to control for their own ends all primary and secondary education everywhere, declaiming all they while “it all about the chilllll-dren” when its really about the ideology. So hogwash! It simply isn’t true that SLPS has been recently wrecked by nefarious profiteers or powermongers. It was conceived in a bad ideology, and has been wrecked by bad ideology.
*actually much longer than 30 years, more like 150 years. It took a Supreme Court decision to finally establish that they shouldn’t be allowed to hold kids hostage, so the idealogues have arranged public financing of education to ensure that only people who have a choice are rich enough to pay twice. And being idealogues, they’re still at it.
Even the much-hated Mr. Schoemehl wanted to prop-up this crumbling edifice. Maybe Mr. Slay wants finally to demolish it and build a new one — if he does its fine with me so long as people, even poor people, have a wide range of choices about where and how to educate their kids. No school (private, homeschool, whatever) should be discriminated against with respect to funding, and if it takes an amendment to Missouri’s constitution to make it legal, let’s have the amendment. If there remains a need for a government school, then let’s have that too.
> Do you remember who the
> superintendent was in ’01? What
> were your complaints about SLPS
> then?
It does not matter who is superintendent, but I think it was Hammonds. My complaints were the same place they are now, and they haven’t changed since. Now, back in the 1980′s I would’ve argued even against public subsidies to parents for education of their children, but I was wrong then. What is wrong now is state-sponsored educational monopoly, and the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms.
> reviewing these threads from the
> past few months it’s clear that
> many people are unable to think
> critically and formulate and
> answer questions accurately.
Seems a little pot and kettle to me. And what’s an accurate question?
t
Posted by Tom Leith | 11. Apr, 2007, 11:34 AM“”"Oh, I forgot, they already did when they skipped school and hung out in the Mayor’s office for a few days.”"”
Oh, those foolish, manipulated, irresponsible kids.
They were in the wrong office, for the wrong reason, making the wrong noise—
yet
somehow, an accident, an irresponsible squeaky wheel gets the grease reaction from the state——
somewhere along the line, the threat of an IMMEDIATE TAKEOVER was dropped, and the state QUIETLY set the takeover date for June 15th—after the protesting seniors graduate from an accredited school.
Oh the state taught them a lesson, all right.
Posted by kjoe | 11. Apr, 2007, 2:50 PM“”"Kids for at least 30 years* have been held hostage to in the SLPS “”"
desperation alert!
The takeover by the 3 person board will have consequences. Not doing the takeover will have consequences.
Generalizing about the last 30 (or 150) years is a convenient way to avoid the realities of what happened between 2003-2006, and contemplate whether voters have a right to do what they have been doing to reverse the bad things which led to a loss of accreditation.
Posted by kjoe | 11. Apr, 2007, 3:03 PMCheers to Tom!
It’s comforting to know there are other people out there with the courage to address reality.
Snead, the cold reality is the fact that we can’t keep throwing good money after bad to support people that refuse to avail themselves to the systems we have put in place.
EVERYONE in this country has the ability to PURSUE happiness. There is no guarantee they will find it.
All I ask is that my children have the same opportunity I, and I believe, every other adult on this blog had.
Now, 60 comments on this thread are enough. I’m done with this one. See you on the next interesting one!
Posted by CWEGuy | 11. Apr, 2007, 6:32 PM> All I ask is that my children
> have the same opportunity I,
> and I believe, every other
> adult on this blog had.
Oooooo! That was subtle. I like it.
If there’s significant Bright Flight, not White Flight, I can only applaud the parents who see an opportunity for their own kids and grab it.
t
Posted by Tom Leith | 11. Apr, 2007, 11:07 PMTom Leith
“I am not all that impressed with Public Education in Missouri generally — the average Missouri district performs below the national average, and I’m told the national average isn’t what it was 50 years ago. I think this has more to do with an increasingly anti-intellectual culture than it has to do with the amount of money spent.”
WE AGREE ON THIS. Does State takeover mean this will change? Even DESE can’t answer that. DESE might even admit they are clueless. And they ahve yet to present a coherent plan for the Fall of ’07. That by itself is incompetent.
“In any case, about 40% of the kids that start high school in SLPS don’t finish, and the majority of those that do finish can’t figure the price of a pair of sneakers. Most can’t compose a coherent English paragraph either. This is apparently true as well for a minority of kids graduated from Metro. I think it should be untrue of any kid holding a high school diploma. For that matter, I think it should be untrue of any kid in the ninth grade.”
This is one of a long list of criticisms not followed by a rational plan.
“Sneer quotes express disdain. In your first reply to me, your repeated enclosure of the word facts in them is a prime example, especially in a context where hundreds of facts are provided and you can find only one, for which you demand a citation. When a citation is provided, it isn’t so much as acknowledged — you simply change the subject. That’s what I mean by sneering. Its all based in behavior. I hope this is clear enough for you.”
> Then the facts that I present
> you discount as “anomaly”
“I have shown you what I mean by sneering. Maybe you can show me where I have discounted anything you have said.”
I can see that my attempt at diplomacy was ineffective. I suggested we are on different wavelengths ( If I wanted to “sneer” I would have stated that differently). The line you quoted from me was my example of what I call a discount. I followed that by saying that anyone can find facts to support their position. So, the facts become half-truth. One of my college professors put it well when he told us, “Statistics don’t lie. Statisticians can.” You discount my facts, I discount your facts and nothing is accomplished.
One of the benefits of this type of dialogue is that tone of voice and non-verbal behavior is removed. This removes static in communication. If you felt sneered at by my attempt to demonstrate that statistical data doesn’t always represent truth, it’s on you.
Posted by snead hearn | 12. Apr, 2007, 7:27 AMTom Leith said,
“Maybe Mr. Slay wants finally to demolish it and build a new one — if he does its fine with me so long as people, even poor people, have a wide range of choices about where and how to educate their kids.”
I guarantee you Slay wants to destroy it and I guarantee you there will be only ONE choice for parents: charter schools.
” What is wrong now is state-sponsored educational monopoly, and the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms.”
So, let me get this straight: “what is wrong is a State sponsored education monopoly” and so your solution is to hand the responsibility of educating to the State. And you and cweguy want to stop “throwing good money after bad” and so your solution is to throw less good money after bad.
I repeat (please note this and tell me you understand it) all I read in your writing is one criticism after another and have yet to offer any hope or suggest any clear plan. If all you have to contribute is to demonstrate that SLPS are not performing, then do that and quit. There are other threads that are about saying positive things about SLPS, so this thread is about identifying a problem and discussing solutions. What is your purpose in continuing to repeat some data and some opinion? You can’t change my mind because if you read what I’ve written I think you’ll see that we agree that the SLPS need improvement.
You speculate a lot about other people in your posts. I’m not sure where you get your facts (verifiable evidence) that Shoemehl wanted to prop up the SLPS. I can show you what he’s actually done. I can repeat what Veronica O’Brien said during a campaign forum that would totally refute your speculation.
“if you have been paying attention, you know that.”
You don’t know what I know. You can only speculate. As I’ve written before, I spent 13 years fully involved in my son’s education. I think I’m qualified to speak about SLPS outside of what DESE posts on their website. I know students and parents on a personal level and I already know about the criticisms you’re writing. In addition, my nephew (now a H.S. chemistry teacher) was a SLPS student in the ’80s. When speaks often about the quality of his education at SLPS it is clear to me that there has been a planned decline since it was announced the desegregation program was going to end.
Posted by snead hearn | 12. Apr, 2007, 7:33 AMTom Leith said,
“the 6% turnout in the last election here in the city demonstrates that it fails even on its own terms.”
Our form of Democracy doesn’t count abstentions. I for one deduce that 94% of the voters either don’t care or are uninformed and therefore choose not to vote. That’s fine by me. I also deduce that those who did vote were informed and most likely parents involved with SLPS.
A 6% turnout says as much about those who didn’t vote as it does those who did.
BTW, since your only sources of information is the DESE website and possibly the Post-Disgrace, go back to those sources and see if you can get the facts on how much money the State OWES the SLPS. If you don’t find that data let me know and I’ll get it for you.
Posted by snead hearn | 12. Apr, 2007, 8:50 AMAt the U.S. Dept. of Education you can read findings of their ’06 study that shows that public education is no worse than private education and in some areas better.
At the NEA, you’ll find a study that shows that charter schools do not outperform public schools.
So, I conclude that the public education model is adequate and needs to be tweaked. So, I contacted a couple of BoE members to ask that they consider a radical restructuring as suggested by Tom Leith.
I question the validity of accreditation scores if colleges don’t care much about them. I also have heard a lot of complaints from teachers about frequent testing and the amount of time it takes. I suggest a serious examination of compliance with MAP testing, etc. along with the compliance to the NCLB unfunded mandate.
I also think the SLPS ought to demand payment of the deseg. money they have coming to them.
I have also been impressed with the idea of K – 8 neighborhood schools leaving 9 – 12 schools as they are (including a return to proper funding of the Magnet System).
Posted by snead hearn | 12. Apr, 2007, 9:20 AMIf I may be so bold to say–Mr. Leith and M. Hearn talking past one another. Mr. Leith is speaking about how to insure education of children. M. Hearn is trying to fix SLPS. The two are related but not the same thing.
I side more with Mr. Leith in that I don’t care if SLPS comes or goes, I just want every child to have a good education. However, I have a difficult time imagining such a environment without a vibrant public school system to educate a lot of the kids.
I know Milwaukee has done some ‘radical’ things, but it hasn’t shown to increase student achievement due to, I believe, a lack of study on the issue.
M. Hearn wants solutions for the SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a plan for education. Both are needed.
Posted by Papillon | 12. Apr, 2007, 12:44 PMPapillion writes:
> M. Hearn wants solutions for the
> SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a
> plan for education.
Yes, prescisely. Papillion sees immediately the outlines of a plan where Mr. Hearn sees only criticism. Nobody is so blind as him who will not see.
Mr. Hearn says:
> At the U.S. Dept. of Education
> you can read findings of
> their ’06 study that shows that
> public education is no worse
> than private education
I am plesantly surprised to learn from this that the U.S. Dept. of Education understands that the standard by which Public Education ought to be measured is Private Education. Jolly Good! And now that we an authoritative decision about what the standard of excellence really is, surely Mr. Hearn and Ms. Ariel will drop their insistence that families ought to be forced by financing dispairties into the Public Schools.
> At the NEA, you’ll find a study
> that shows that charter schools
> do not outperform public schools.
Hmmmm. “On the UAW website, you’ll find a study that shows that Ferraris do not outperform Corvettes.” I am not inclined to believe producers when they compare their own products to their rivals’. I bet Mr. Hearn isn’t either.
I want all families to be free, within due limits, to educate their children as they see fit. Mr. Hearn doesn’t. It is as simple as this.
t
Posted by Tom Leith | 12. Apr, 2007, 5:37 PMPapillon said… 4/12/2007 1:44 PM
“If I may be so bold to say–Mr. Leith and M. Hearn talking past one another. Mr. Leith is speaking about how to insure education of children. M. Hearn is trying to fix SLPS. The two are related but not the same thing.”
“I side more with Mr. Leith in that I don’t care if SLPS comes or goes, I just want every child to have a good education. However, I have a difficult time imagining such a environment without a vibrant public school system to educate a lot of the kids.”
M. Hearn wants solutions for the SLPS, Mr. Leith is offering a plan for education. Both are needed.”
Yes, I have mentioned a couple of times that we are on different wavelengths. I’ve read Mr. Leith’s posts carefully and from what I’ve read you and Mr. Leith are also on different wavelengths.
It looks to me that Mr. Leith wants a good education for some but not all. It looks as if Mr. Leith wants to the State to takeover (WITHOUT a
plan).
So, maybe I missed it, Papillon, where is Mr. Leith’s “plan”. All I ever read in his posts are criticisms of SLPS, some of which I won’t quibble with, and counter-reactions to my posts, sometimes laced with sarcasm. Please point out some of the details of his plan. I’ve asked him to do it and gotten nowhere. It was the same with cweguy (unless you count his idea of utterly destroying the entire district and starting from scratch).
BTW, I listed some suggestions for a plan just prior to your last post. Do you have any comments about that?
I very much want a quality education for ALL children. Kids who leave the district will have to at least have their own transportation. The State requires the SLPS to provide transportation to one district only. My guess is that it will be Wellston. This is as much an issue of social justice as it is education.
If the SLPS are funded properly the idea of choice becomes moot. The success of the Magnet Schools proves what can be done with proper funding. This thread is about actions that will create further hardships for the SLPS, not improvements. If the State really cared about kids and their education, they’d spend the necessary amount of money starting with the millions they already OWE the SLPS.
Posted by snead hearn | 13. Apr, 2007, 7:50 AMTom Leith said…
> ‘At the NEA, you’ll find a study
> that shows that charter schools
> do not outperform public schools.’
All the data from other sources I’ve read since then supports the NEA findings.
What did you find? Maybe the DESE website has some data.
Posted by snead hearn | 13. Apr, 2007, 8:04 AMTom Leith said,
“I am plesantly surprised to learn from this that the U.S. Dept. of Education understands that the standard by which Public Education ought to be measured is Private Education. Jolly Good! And now that we an authoritative decision about what the standard of excellence really is, ”
I spoke today with a friend who is active in her S. County parish. She was sharing her disappointment in the closing of 2 parochial schools and the merging of students into a third school. Declining enrollment as the reason given.
Afterwards and with some effort to jog my memory, I dimly recalled the following schools:
DeAndreis
St. Thomas Aquinas
Mercy
Augustinian (Vince Shoemehl’s alma mater?)
McBride
I have no idea why these schools closed. I don’t recall any media hoopla and don’t recall any outrage or outcry from parents. I can only assume it was also due to declining enrollment. I guess their students went to school elsewhere (Trinity in the case of Aquinas and Mercy). Maybe they were seeking a better education or a school with larger class size.
Posted by snead hearn | 13. Apr, 2007, 5:00 PM