Charter Schools Serve up Education with Ice Cream on Top!

How sweet it is! While Kansas City and St. Louis Public Schools lose their accreditation, the emerging success of charter schools brings the promise of hope to children in St. Louis. Kids who, prior to attending charter school Lift for Life Academy, were not performing at grade level were accelerated and put back on the path of educational advancement. Some of the children at this middle school are performing at high school levels by graduation. By being empowered to respond rapidly to immediate needs, the schools' administration is able to address individual concerns and steer the school with pinpoint control and quick response to concerns of parents and the needs of children. Something as simple as an ice cream treat can provide incentive to children and a teacher can make the request and in mere moments walk away with a check in hand for 12 ice cream cones--no red tape and paperwork filled out in triplicate. Read more from the St. Louis Post Dispatch about Lift for Life Academy here: "St. Louis in midst of charter school boom" .

Also from the Post Dispatch:

CHARTER SCHOOLS

St. Louis is in the midst of a charter school boom. The mayor has called for dozens more of the privately run, tuition-free public schools. National networks are already targeting the city. Five charters opened this year alone. Now 15 campuses serve 7,700 students. This story is the first in a periodic series profiling each. Charter schoo

ls are only one of many educational alternatives that are causing Americans to rethink how we educate our children. With their continued success here in Missouri, the hope of bright futures shines for those who avail themselves of these new opportunities. Now, how about some charter schools in the county?!

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Doing Something for Education

We all know that a great education is important. I think some people may not realize a child's elementary education can and will affect their high school achievement, which will then affect if they attend college and how successful they are. According to DESE, fewer than 24 percent of the graduates from St. Louis and Kansas City public schools attend four year colleges and fewer than 40 percent of graduates from rural areas attend either a 2 or a 4 year college. According to DESE, in 2005, fewer than 5 percent of two-year college students transferred to public four year colleges.

Earlier this year, The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation donated $1 million to advise Missouri students in the college process. MU was one of only 10 colleges throughout the country to receive this grant.

"We are squandering a huge national resource when millions of America's best high school graduates never get to college, or fail to advance beyond a two-year community college program," said Foundation Executive Director Matthew J. Quinn. "Our Foundation is committed to addressing the college enrollment gap by providing crucial information to promising students facing financial barriers."

The grant will target rural and urban high schools that do not have Missouri A+ School designation and that fall below the state average in the percentage of their graduates who go to college.

Children in rural areas face certain challenges when it comes to education, whether it be elementary, secondary, or at the collegiate level. Missouri students in rural areas need help. While there are many ways to address these issues, this grant is a great start.

The day for Columbia to Decide

December 10th, the Columbia Public School Board will meet to decide if they should remain part of the adequacy lawsuit. The lawsuit has already cost Columbia over $81,000 and that total will just get higher. According to the Committee for Educational Equality in this Missourian article, total spending would be less than 10 percent of what has been spent on the appeal thus far. Although, when the case started several years ago, it was said that Columbia would only several thousand. Obviously, they were wrong then, why should we trust them now? Additionally, many districts, such as Francis Howell, St. Joseph, and Liberty have dropped out of the case, which will make the remaining districts bear an increasing share of the bill.

Anyways, that is a moot point. Columbia, not to mention the other districts, has no business being in this suit to begin with. The cost so far is over $4.6 million. The involved districts are using tax dollars to sue the legislature, and the A.G.'s office is using tax dollars to defend the state. Suing the state with its money to get more money, really?

The plaintiffs clearly lost this case, and it is ridiculous to keep fighting it. The Missouri Constitution requires free public schools and that the state must devote at least 25% of revenues towards education. The judge was shown how that is clearly accomplished.

Columbia may actually end up worse off if the case were won. It is a wealthier district and it could very well lose money if the state were to reallocate funding to other districts. And there is more...other state programs would hurt too. If the state is required to give more money to education, it will be at the expense of other programs. MU, Medicare, social services, and others, could they survive with a huge budget cut? It would be very hard and more people would suffer because of it.

One major point I would like to get to is that more funding is not directly correlated with increased achievement. In layman's terms, the students will not do better with more money.

There are countless reasons why Columbia and Missouri should not be a part of this case. I hope, for the sake of our children, they stop wasting their money. I hope for the sake of the state and all the services it provides, they stop wasting our money.

School board votes to discontinue statewide school funding suit

Columbia Missourian

By Tori Moss

Columbia Public Schools will not participate in the Committee for Educational Equality's future appeal of the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling on the statewide school funding lawsuit.

The school board voted to discontinue association with the CEE during its Monday night meeting.

The district joined the lawsuit with the CEE, along with 259 other Missouri school districts, in December 2003. The school districts sued the state, reasoning that Missouri public schools do not adequately receive state funding as required by the Missouri Constitution.

Alex Bartlett, the attorney representing the CEE, spoke to the board on Monday about the appeal and suggested that no decision be made at the time.

Although several board members expressed appreciation for the attention the CEE has brought to school funding in Missouri, no member voted to continue the lawsuit.

Board member Michelle Gadbois said that the intent behind the CEE lawsuit was stellar, but she doubted the possibility for success.

Board member Jan Mees said there must be other ways to get more funding from the state.

Board President Karla DeSpain agreed that other funding sources need to be found and urged citizens to contact their legislators.

"I am not a fan of litigation," DeSpain said. "I would prefer to use other means of trying to accomplish those ends."

Representing in Springfield

Springfield Public Schools has employed a “consultant” Jerry McCall to offer solutions and suggestions about why school board members should vote in favor of an $8 million new school building. Many have been upset about his report, arguing that the numbers don’t add up and that his report isn’t feasible, responsible or well-researched. So why is he being paid [a lot of money] for unsatisfactory information?

I recall learning about Yellow Journalism and the powerful vehicle that press was in controlling public opinion. We all know that the press has gotten more and more pervasive and comprehensive along with knowledge in general, but I think the journalism of today is less “Yellow” and more “Transparent”.

A lot of the journalism I read from day to day is about occurrences like this that concerned citizens may need or want to know about and hold someone accountable for. It’s baffling that people in positions of responsibility would continue to be negligent. Part of that, I believe, is a disconnect between being outraged and actually holding someone accountable. I can say “Hey, Mister, I’m holding you accountable for this or that…” but when I don’t have a vote I can exercise or a way to actually punish someone for that negligence, how do I really act on that outrage?

I’d suggest making the press work for you and me. Write to those people who do have the power. Instead of merely saying “that upsets me” we can put it on paper, on a website, on a blog and say “that upsets me and Norm Ridder, Springfield City Council and School Board, you need to hold this person and the system you work within to a higher standard of accountability. Let’s make sure that the actions of our officials, especially in education and city government, is as efficient and effective as possible, so if an $8 million school is needed, that’s the most cost effective choice and we put the $10,000 that could have gone to a consultant to a better use that is more closely related to what that money was intended for.

Columbia School Board to Meet Tonight!

About three years ago, the Columbia Public School Board decided to join about 240 other districts to sue the state for more money. Interesting enough, they were using state money to sue the state for more money.

Tonight is the night for Columbia to decide if they will remain part of the appeal. TheColumbia Tribune describes the opinions of the board members. Several board members disagree with the case and will vote against appealing. Some other board members have expressed concern but have not said which way they will vote.

One concern is for a request on the April ballot. The district would like to seek an operating levy increase. If they continue with this case and waste more money, voters may see this as being inappropriate with their spending. And I agree.

I adamantly hope they pull out of this case. The money that has already been spent is over $4.6 million and that will just increase the longer the case continues. Our schools are facing hard times right now. We need to focus our energy on a solution, not throw money on top of the problem. Research has shown that more funding does not result in increased achievement or graduation rates.

Unfortunately, the money already spent on this case is gone. But there is still hope to not waste anymore. I guess we will see tonight how the school board votes.

Today is the day for Columbia to Decide

Today, the Columbia Public School Board will meet to decide if they should remain part of the adequacy lawsuit. The lawsuit has already cost Columbia over $81,000 and that total will just get higher. According to the Committee for Educational Equality in this Missourian article, total spending would be less than 10 percent of what has been spent on the appeal thus far. Although, when the case started several years ago, it was said that Columbia would only several thousand. Obviously, they were wrong then, why should we trust them now? Additionally, many districts, such as Francis Howell, St. Joseph, and Liberty have dropped out of the case, which will make the remaining districts bear an increasing share of the bill.

Anyways, that is a moot point. Columbia, not to mention the other districts, has no business being in this suit to begin with. The cost so far is over $4.6 million. The involved districts are using tax dollars to sue the legislature, and the A.G.’s office is using tax dollars to defend the state. Suing the state with its money to get more money, really?

The plaintiffs clearly lost this case, and it is ridiculous to keep fighting it. The Missouri Constitution requires free public schools and that the state must devote at least 25% of revenues towards education. The judge was shown how that is clearly accomplished.

Columbia may actually end up worse off if the case were won. It is a wealthier district and it could very well lose money if the state were to reallocate funding to other districts. And there is more…other state programs would hurt too. If the state is required to give more money to education, it will be at the expense of other programs. MU, Medicare, social services, and others, could they survive with a huge budget cut? It would be very hard and more people would suffer because of it.

One major point I would like to get to is that more funding is not directly correlated with increased achievement. In layman’s terms, the students will not do better with more money.

There are countless reasons why Columbia and Missouri should not be a part of this case. I hope, for the sake of our children, they stop wasting their money. I hope for the sake of the state and all the services it provides, they stop wasting our money.

Some States Have Choice for IEP Students

Florida and Ohio are a few of the states that offer choice to a child diagnosed with autism or another disability. A special education child has special needs that may not always be met by the schools they are in.

The bill in Ohio is to “provide to the parent of any qualified special education child a scholarship in order that he or she may receive special education and/or related services that implements the child’s individualized education program (IEP) and that is operated by a school district other than the school district in which the child is entitled to attend school or by another eligible public entity, or by a registered private provider.” An IEP student has a detailed and thorough learning plan. Teachers, administrators, parents, counselors, and children are all involved with the plan. If the school is not working, none of these people will be able to fix it. The child simply needs to option of going to another school, even if it is outside their district. Special education students deserve the chance at a decent education too.

Missouri needs something similar. The government created the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but unfortunately, it does not seem to reach every special education student. There need to be additional options to help these children.

Columbia School District sets it Priorities

Adequate funding for the district is the top priority of the Columbia School District. I hope that the board members think about this seriously. Obviously, funding is absolutely crucial for the schools. However, I find it slightly strange that so many districts around Missouri have found it necessary to waste the funding they were given on a lawsuit. Many districts seem so concerned about getting more money, yet total the lawsuit has cost over $4.6 million. This money could have been used in the schools, buying books, paying salaries, or doing renovations. Instead, it is sitting the bank accounts of lawyers.

Columbia has spent tens of thousands of dollars on this suit so far. As to whether they will stay part of the appeal is still up for debate. I was hoping to learn from the Tribune article that Columbia decided to pull out of it. My town, not far from Columbia, is thankfully not part of the suit. I still do not like to see the children’s education money being thrown away like it is. I know several school board members in Columbia would like to withdraw from the case, let’s hope they convince the rest of them. They need to pull out now before they waste any more money.

One other big priority for Columbia Public schools is asking legislators to oppose tuition tax credits and school choice. I think this is a huge mistake. Choice should be available for the parents and the children. Representative Ed Robb is for tuition tax credits and charter schools; he has and will continue to push for these. St. Louis and Kansas City are the only two cities in Missouri allowed to operate charter schools, but hopefully this will change soon.

Columbia is an amazing town, and I love having that type of community within 30 minutes of my rural home. Hopefully, they can make the right decisions.

Name Change

This blog, for reasons beyond our control, will undergo a name change. It will temporarily be called Missourians for Missouri Public Schools.

Is YOUR district still in?

We have alot of money being mismanaged in our public education system and the sooner we get a handle on it, the sooner our kids will benefit. Our public education leaders--the superintendents, the teachers and their unions, administrators--all need to get focussed on a new approach to education reform. For districts who remain committed to funding the appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court (see CEE vs. State of Missouri) the prospect of improving education is threatened.

Instead of looking at their school funding and finding the HUGE amount of waste that most certainly exists, as pointed out by Jack Wenders, a School Choice Activist, our educrats insist on suing taxpayers with their own money. We/they should, instead, be focussed on creative solutions to education reform including, but not limited to, parental choice and involvement, merit pay for teachers, charter schools, virtual education, support for special needs and competition in the public education system.

Only 61 cents of every tax payer dollar reaches the classroom (see First Class Education ). "By raising that figure just four cents to 65 cents on the dollar, we could have put an additional $272 million more into Missouri classrooms without a tax increase. That's an average of $304 per student or $6,080 for each class of 20."

Challenging the adequacy of school funding is just a distraction from the root cause of inefficient spending enforced by the public school bureaucracy. Missouri schools can and should do better.

Problems within Rural Schools

Rural education faces many roadblocks, ones that make it difficult to accomplish the job. On the college level, it faces several constraints as well. According to the Waynesville Daily Guide, the commissioners of Pulaski County has agreed they support vocational and technical schools in rural Missouri, but they could not all agree on how this should be accomplished.

Problems in rural education like this are quite common. Administrations have problems agreeing. Because of this, there seem to be problems with their accountability. Children in rural areas face certain hardships as a result. The schools need to be fiscally responsible and be sure their limited funds are allocated properly to best benefit the children. Many of the rural schools do not have funding to properly educate students with various needs so their managing of funds is even more crucial.

Unfortunately, children are stuck in those schools even if they cannot educate them well. The children, whose needs are not being met, should have the option of switching to another school. Just because they live in one rural school district, does it mean they are not entitled to a quality education?