Failure to do so will result in a mass of children from the unaccredited St. Louis Public School district transferring to accredited schools in St. Louis County districts virtually overnight.  The ruling also appears to allow students from the unaccredited Riverview Gardens School District to transfer to schools in neighboring St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin counties.

Missouri currently has nine provisionally accredited districts, two of which, Kansas City and Normandy (St. Louis County), are close to being unaccredited.  One district, Hickman Mills in Kansas City, is on track to go from accredited to unaccredited by 2011.  With an additional eight districts on track to losing full accreditation by 2011, this ruling could have a drastic, statewide impact on the future of problem schools and districts and their neighboring schools and districts.  Three significant reforms could alleviate the burden that these districts will no doubt feel as a result of this court ruling.

First, the legislature must remove the geographic caps on opening public charter schools beyond the St. Louis and Kansas City School districts.  Allowing for quality, accountable charter schools to open in all areas of the state will give parents of children who are stuck in failing school districts many more options than just transferring to another zoned school site.  Expanding charters across the state will provide an incentive to many of the high performing charter school operators to open schools in Missouri. Just as critical, the legislature should pass laws to increase accountability on charter school operators and sponsors.

Second, the legislature should pass legislation expanding the private sector’s current use of tuition-assistance programs for disadvantaged families in Missouri.  The St. Louis region has an effective and efficient way of providing immediate scholarships to families located within the City – through programs such as the Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation.  In the last three years alone, more than 1,700 children have found alternatives to government assigned schools – without state assistance.  With enabling legislation allowing private charitable contributions to a state program available to other families in financial need, Missouri could join other states like Florida and Iowa that have successful private contribution-based, tuition assistance programs.

Finally, open enrollment legislation across school districts should be enacted into law.  Open enrollment would allow for the orderly transfer of public school students wishing to find another public school option nearby.  Both Iowa and Arkansas have flexible working policies that Missouri lacks.  These laws and rules provide for early, reasonable transfers to other public schools of choice without litigation to any school district or the State Board of Education.

While this case was remanded back to a lower court for further review, the court was clear that Missouri law was written in “straightforward and unambiguous language” allowing students in unaccredited districts to transfer to a school in the same, or an adjoining, county at the cost of the unaccredited district.  To not undertake significant education reforms in the 2011 legislative session that allow for expanded parental choice in educating their children could result in a free-for-all of transfers to schools in neighboring counties.  With 18 districts scattered across the state provisionally accredited, or close to losing full accreditation, how long will it be before such a costly free-for-all spreads statewide?

Since 1875, the Missouri State Constitution has said the General Assembly “shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state.” (Article IX, Section 1(a)).  The children of every zip code, not just those residing within 63105 (Clayton) or 63124 (Ladue), deserve the best our state can offer.

This piece was published as an OpEd in the outlets linked below:

St. Louis Beacon 7/28/2010

St. Louis Post Dispatch 7/29/2010

Columbia Missourian 8/7/2010

Kansas City Star 8/15/2010

CECM and our allies felt the pending legislation left many unanswered questions about the merger. The House Higher Education agreed and decided to not take a vote on the merger during the last week of the session. Instead, the committee will request that the Joint Education Committee study the issue during their interim meetings.

We hope that the interim study will provide details about how the merger would work. We will watch this issue closely during the interim and next legislative session.

Tuesday, May 25th

Mike Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri, has been tapped to work with former President George W. Bush on education reform issues.

The George W. Bush Institute announced the appointment of Podgursky and two other fellows to support the institute’s educational reform mission. Also appointed were Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas and Matthew Springer of Vanderbilt University.

Initially, the institute will work to find ways to improve the leadership of school principals and strengthen middle schools. Podgursky has studied teacher pay and retirement structures, school finance and school productivity.

The OpEd was published in the outlets below:

St. Louis Post Dispatch/ STLToday.com

Kansas City Star

St. Louis Globe Democrat

Examiner.net (Independence, Blue Springs, Grain Valley)

Columbia Missourian

St. Louis Post Dispatch/ STLToday.com

Sedalia Democrat

Missouri’s $743.5 million application was hit hard in critical areas, including limits on charter schools and overall conditions for reform in the state.  Delaware and Tennessee were the only winners in the first round.  Delaware was awarded more than $100 million and Tennessee, a state in the same suggested bidding range as Missouri, was allotted more than $500 million.

Here is what some of the reviewers of Missouri’s application had to say:

• “The state has a charter school law that only allows charter schools to operate in Kansas City and St. Louis.  Although a considerable percentage of students in these locations are in charter schools, the effect of this law limits the educational choices available to students who do not live in these cities.”
• “Low points are given to the Missouri proposal on this subsection concerned with charter law because the Missouri charter school law has limits on both geography and sponsors.”
• “The applicant makes almost no effort in this section of the application to describe the extent to which the State, in addition to information provided under other State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or resulted in other important outcomes.”

These statements paint a dire picture of the current state of education reform in Missouri.  The real question is: Will Missouri learn its lesson from missing out on the first round of money and work toward reforms now that will make us seriously competitive in the second round?  Applications for Round Two are due June 1^st, with winners being announced in September.

It is obvious from the comments above that expanding charter school options outside of the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts would dramatically improve the chances of being competitive for part of the $3.4 billion remaining to be awarded.  But, two bills in the Missouri legislature that would expand access to charter schools to most of the state, SB 838 and HB 2200, have yet to even receive a committee hearing.

Missouri should take note that both first-round winners made moves to expand access to charter schools before submitting their first-round applications.  Furthermore, states that finished close to the Round One winners already have passed, or are currently debating, legislation that would expand charter schools as a way to cross the finish line and stand on the podium with the other expected 10 to 12 winners in Round Two.

The Missouri House’s budget made significant funding cuts to Missouri education, and the Senate’s budget borrowed from stimulus funds held for next year to restore those cuts.  While legislators will continue to sort out the budget mess in Jefferson City, it is clear that education funding in Missouri is on shaky ground.  This program would be a good way to implement needed education reforms in the state as well as bolster the state’s coffers.  This unprecedented pot of money is likely a once in a lifetime opportunity.  It would be a disservice to the children of this state if we let it slip away.

The original amendment exempted the districts of St. Louis and Kansas City, but Representative Don Calloway, a Democrat from the St. Louis County area of Bel- Nor, successfully added an amendment that would have included the St. Louis Public School District.  Representative Calloway argued that St. Louis is the “flagship failing school district” in the state and children there should be able to leave the district if they choose to do so.  Representative Dieckhaus was in favor of this amendment and also asked a Representative from Kansas City to propose an amendment that would include that city’s district as well.

Opponents of the amendment argued hypothetical, and often seemingly one in a million chance, problems with the policy of open enrollment.  These objections ranged anywhere from schools not being able to plan budgets to concerns that students would essentially endlessly jump around from school to school.  This despite the fact that students have to apply to the receiving school well in advance of the next school year and students could only go open enroll to a school outside of their assigned zone district one time.  Opponents even tried to call this a voucher system which is ridiculous considering that vouchers are illegal under the Missouri State Constitution.  Proponents of the amendment stuck to the simple philosophy that a child stuck in a school district that is failing or not a good fit should have an opportunity to go to another district.

While the amendment failed by a vote of 34 – 122, the debate on the issue put education reform and school choice front and center in the Missouri House for most of the day’s session.  The issue is not dead for the year, as there is an Open Enrollment bill in the Senate Education Committee that has been heard, but has yet to come up for a vote.  The Children’s Education Council of Missouri hopes that the debate on this important issue continues sometime during the session.  Children trapped in failing schools deserve the opportunity to look for alternatives in order to receive an appropriate education.

“Demonstrating Other Significant Reform Conditions”

Average of scores: 0.4 out of 5 possible points

Reviewers of Missouri’s $743.5 million Race to the Top application had numerous negative comments for the state’s application as it related to conditions in the state for significant education reforms.  Below are some of the comments taken directly from the review forms.

• “Missouri does not adequately answer this question.  It states in a 3 ½ line paragraph that Missouri LEAs operate special education cooperatives, alternative schools and technical programs.  However, Missouri does not explain in its application how these programs are reforms or innovations that have increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or have produced other favorable outcomes.  As a result, all points were withheld.” – Reviewer #2

• “The applicant makes almost no effort in this section of the application to describe the extent to which the State, in addition to information provided under other State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or resulted in other important outcomes.” – Reviewer #5

• “The state’s application presents only general information on its intent to create new models of innovation.  It does not effectively address this criterion from the perspective of specific legislative or policy actions.” – Reviewer #1

In summation, the reviewers of Missouri’s Race to the Top application saw conditions for significant education reforms in the state as poor.  Four out of the five reviewers gave the application zero points in this section.  The lone reviewer who awarded two points in this section did so based on parts of the application outside of this section.

It is not too late during the 2010 legislative session to pass significant education reforms to aggressively compete for Missouri’s share of this $4.35 billion fund.  June 1^st is the deadline for Round 2 applications.  According to federal legislation authorizing the Race to the Top fund, all money must be distributed to the winning states by September 30, 2010.  Round two is the State’s last shot at competing for this unprecedented pool of much needed money.

Full scorecards and review sheets can be found online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/index.html

Ensuring Successful Conditions for High Performing Charter Schools

Average of scores: 17.8 out of 40 possible points

Reviewers of Missouri’s $743.5 million Race to the Top application had numerous negative comments for the state’s application as it related to charter schools and state law restricting them to only the districts of St. Louis and Kansas City.  Below are some of the comments taken directly from the review forms.

• “Low points were given to this subsection because the Missouri charter school law has geographic and sponsor limitations.”  – Reviewer #4

• “Low points are given to the Missouri proposal on this subsection concerned with charter law because the Missouri charter school law has limits on both geography and sponsors.” – Reviewer #4

• “The state has a charter school law that only allows charter schools to operate in Kansas City and St. Louis.  Although a considerable percentage of students in these locations are in charter schools, the effect of this law limits the educational choices available to students who do not live in these cities.”  – Reviewer #5

• “Missouri’s charter school law is restrictive in that it limits the establishment of charter schools to locales with populations greater than 350,000 residents.” – Reviewer #1

• “The geographic restriction for charter operations imposed by state law, has the effect of establishing a low cap on the opportunities for more charter school operations.” – Reviewer #1

• “There are concerns about why charter schools are limited to two urban school districts…” – Reviewer #3

It is clear that in order to compete for Missouri’s share of this $4.35 billion federal program that the legislature must lift the geographic restrictions on charter schools immediately.  SB 838 and HB 2200 both significantly increase the geography where charter schools could operate and increase accountability standards for authorizers beyond what the State Board of Education has requested.  These two bills should receive fair hearings in each chamber’s education committees at the next available committee meeting.  The Children’s Education Council of Missouri fully supports the passage of both of these bills.

Full scorecards and review sheets can be found online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/index.html

One of the suggestions that is drawing much attention is a proposal to merge the Department of Higher Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Testimony in the committee hearing said that the merger could save $1 million. Senator Pearce reported that the committee supports the merger idea. The proposal is likely to save Missouri money, but will also align the government structure with the P-20 council, created in 2006, to focus on student learning from childhood through graduate school.

Other cost saving suggestions that the committee heard was an increase in virtual schools, implementing merit pay systems statewide, cutting money from the Regional Professional Development Centers and only allowing schools to accept 100% of the funding formula calculation. That proposal, according to Senate staff, would save the state $16.5 million.

The “reboot” meetings come on the same day that the Missouri House of Representatives voted to freeze spending on K-12 education. While education spending would remain the same from last year, the vote removes a $105 million increase that was scheduled to go into the phase in of the state’s funding formula. The measure came in the form of an amendment to the state’s budget bill, currently being debated by the full House. Amendment sponsor, Representative Maynard Wallace, told his colleagues that he didn’t want the state to promise schools money, then not give it to them. The state’s deteriorating budget situation has already caused a $43 million reduction in school funding for the remainder of the year.