Archives for category: Missouri

Multimillionaire equity investor Rex Sinquefeld doesn’t like public education. Apparently he doesn’t like teachers either. He doesn’t think teachers should be evaluated by their administrators but by the standardized test scores of their students. Evidently he doesn’t know that this method of evaluating teachers has failed to work wherever it was tried; evidently he doesn’t know that even the District of Columbia, which was first to implement this method, has put it on hold. Mr. Sinquefeld also seems unaware that about 70% of teachers don’t teach tested subjects.

He was unable to get these ideas adopted by the Missouri state legislature so he created a Constitutional amendment, which will be on the ballot this fall. It is called Constitutional Amendment 3.

If it passes, the problems and costs will begin. Missouri will have to develop tests for every subject that is taught and administer them at the beginning and end of each course. How will Missouri measure the effectiveness of art teachers, music teachers, physical education teachers? Vast new sums must be spent to create and administer dozens of new tests.

Experience in other states shows that teachers in affluent districts will get higher ratings than those who teach children in poor districts and those with disabilities. The tests measure advantage and disadvantage, not teacher quality.

The bottom line with Mr. Sinquefeld’s proposal is that it will be very costly and it will not identify the best and worst teachers. It will reward teachers in high-income districts and punish those who choose to work with students who are English learners or have disabilities or are homeless.

It will take decision-making power away from local administrators and shift it to a centralized bureaucracy. It has been tried and failed in many districts. It demoralizes teachers by reducing their jobs to nothing more than test scores.

There are research-proven ways to improve education, such as early childhood education, reduced class sizes for the students who need extra help, regular access to medical services for those who can’t afford it, and experienced teachers. These strategies have a solid research base.

Missouri should do what works, rather than investing many millions of dollars in proven failure.

Rex Sinquefeld is a billionaire (or maybe just a multi-millionaire) who has poured millions of dollars into political campaigns in Missouri.

He is not satisfied with what he has. He wants lower taxes, less government, and the privatization of public schools. He doesn’t want workers to have any rights.

Read about him and his political activities in these reports prepared by the Center for Media and Democracy: here, and here, and here.

What does Sinquefeld want?

Here is a quote from the third reference:

“Sinquefield is doing to Missouri what the Koch Brothers are doing to the entire country. For the Koch Brothers and Sinquefield, a lot of the action these days is not at the national but at the state level.

“By examining what Sinquefield is up to in Missouri, you get a sobering glimpse of how the wealthiest conservatives are conducting a low-profile campaign to destroy civil society.

“Sinquefield told The Wall Street Journal in 2012 that his two main interests are “rolling back taxes” and “rescuing education from teachers’ unions.”

“His anti-tax, anti-labor, and anti-public education views are common fare on the right. But what sets Sinquefield apart is the systematic way he has used his millions to try to push his private agenda down the throats of the citizens of Missouri.

“Our review of filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission shows that Sinquefield and his wife spent more than $28 million in disclosed donations in state elections since 2007, plus nearly $2 million more in disclosed donations in federal elections since 2006, for a total of at least $30 million.

“Sinquefield is, in fact, the biggest spender in Missouri politics.

“In 2013, Sinquefield spent more than $3.8 million on disclosed election-related spending, and that was a year without presidential or congressional elections. He gave nearly $1.8 million to Grow Missouri, $850,000 to the anti-union teachgreat.org, and another $750,000 to prop up the Missouri Club for Growth PAC.

“However, these amounts do not include whatever total he spent last year underwriting the Show-Me Institute, which he founded and which has reinforced some of the claims of his favorite political action committees. The total amount he spent on his lobbying arm, Pelopidas, in pushing his agenda last year will never be fully disclosed, as only limited information is available about direct lobbying expenditures. Similarly, the total amount he spent on the PR firm Slay & Associates, which works closely with him, also will not ever be disclosed. These are just a few of the tentacles of his operation to change Missouri laws and public opinion.

“Even more revealing is how Sinquefield behaved when Missouri was operating under laws to limit the amount of donations one person or group could give to influence elections. In order to bypass those clean election laws, he worked with his legal and political advisers to create more than 100 separate groups with similar names. Those multiple groups gave more, cumulatively, than Sinquefield would be able to give in his own name, technically complying with the law while actually circumventing it. That operation injected more than $2 million in disclosed donations flowing from Sinquefield during the 2008 election year, and it underscored his chess-like gamesmanship and his determination to do as he pleases. (Sinquefield is an avid chess player.)

“Shortly after that election, the Missouri legislature repealed those campaign finance limits, with his backing. Those changes benefited Sinquefield more than anyone. As a result, in 2010, Sinquefield made disclosed political donations more than ten times greater than what he spent in 2008…..

“In Missouri, Sinquefield’s strategy has been to focus on a few issues dear to him.

“First, he spent lavishly to try to prohibit some cities in the state from imposing an income tax. He shelled out more than $11 million underwriting the “Let Voters Decide” ballot proposition in 2010, which won by a two-to-one margin. He spent about $8.67 a vote.

“The proposition required Kansas City and St. Louis to hold a referendum on whether to keep the municipal income tax in 2011, and every five years after that. To Sinquefield’s dismay, in April 2011, citizens voted overwhelmingly to keep taxing themselves, with 78 percent in favor in Kansas City and 87 percent in St. Louis.

“But he hasn’t given up.

“Now Sinquefield is trying to do away with the 6 percent state income tax. Doing so would enrich him personally, since the investment firm he co-founded still manages more than $200 billion in investments, some of which he may still own. Plus, if the business is ever sold, he stands to make a windfall.

“To help replace lost revenue from the income tax, Sinquefield favors an increase in the sales tax (and a broadening of it to include such things as child care). A study he commissioned also recommends increased taxes on “restaurants, hotels, cigarettes, and beer,” while “shift[ing] the major tax burden from companies and affluent individuals,” like Sinquefield. And it recommends selling off the public’s assets, like the St. Louis airport, trading a short-term infusion of revenue in exchange for giving for-profit corporations access to decades of revenue.

“He doesn’t want an increase in property taxes. Can you blame him? He has a 22,000-square-foot house on an estate of hundreds of acres in the Missouri Ozarks, and another home in St. Louis worth at least $1.78 million, replete with a private elevator. He also owns a lot of cars, including a 2008 Bentley Continental Flying Spur that retailed for $170,000.

“Sinquefield’s taxation proposals would necessitate cuts in the state’s provision of services many people take for granted as part of living in a modern, civil society: public education, public libraries, and other public goods.”

One of his major goals is the privatization of public education.

Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri, signed a bill to review and revise Common Core. It will remain in place for next two years,

[I am reposting this because the original post earlier today seems to have disappeared.]

Sixty years after the landmark Brown decision, school segregation is on the rise. The nation marks the anniversary of the decision every ten years but neglects its promise to end racial segregation. One of the most egregious examples of malign neglect occurred recently in the Normandy school district in Missouri. That district had been a high-achieving all-white district in the 1950s. After years of white flight, the district became all-African-American. As its test scores fell, the state of Missouri put the district on provisional accreditation. Help was definitely not on the way. After 18 years of provisional accreditation, the state merged the struggling Normandy district with another struggling, all-black district that had been under state supervision for five years. After the merger, the new district was stripped of accreditation.

Dr. Stanton Lawrence, who wrote the post below, was appointed superintendent of the Normandy school district in 2008. At that time, it was the second lowest-performing district in the state of Missouri (98% African American students/94.5% poverty) and had been provisionally accredited for 15 years. Two years later, the State Board of Education merged Normandy with the only lower performing school district (100% African American students/98% poverty) in the state, Wellston School District and stripped Normandy of its accreditation two years later. Dr. Lawrence wrote me to say, “My understanding is that this has never happened anywhere else in the country. There was a much higher performing district adjoining Wellston, but there would have been an atomic explosion if the African American students had been sent to University City School District.” The new district, like the old one, will be nearly 100% African American.

Stanton Lawrence asks in this post, “Has the Brown v. Board of Education Decision Been Institutionally Annulled?” He describes the actions of the state of Missouri as “punitive disparity.” Did any civil rights organization sue the state of Missouri? No. Did the U.S. Department of Education intervene? No. Did Secretary of Education Arne Duncan use his bully pulpit to demand desegregation and support for the children in the Normandy School District? No. The children in this district were essentially written off by the state of Missouri, and no one cares. Where is the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, Democrats for Education Reform, StudentsFirst, and Students Matter? Why aren’t the billionaires saving these children?

Stanton Lawrence writes:

On May 17, 1954, the United State Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, lawsuit. This landmark ruling stipulated that “de jure” segregation, racial separation that is required by law, could no longer exist in public schools. Further, the high court ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”. The reluctance of many southern school districts to enforce this new law resulted in many school districts receiving federal desegregation court orders mandating that they desegregate their schools. In recent years, despite Brown v. Board, many of these school districts have once again become more segregated than they were prior to 1965.

Nearly fifty-eight and one-half years later, on September 18, 2012, the Missouri State Board of Education decided to reclassify the Normandy School District as unaccredited. On its face, there was nothing unusual about the decision. The school district had been provisionally accredited for nearly eighteen years, and the dismal academic performance of its students was largely to blame. One could certainly make a strong case that the time had arrived for the state board of education to take meaningful action and send a clear message that a change was imperative if Normandy students were indeed deserving of a high quality educational experience.

But what was kept strangely quiet during the two hours of deliberations preceding the Missouri State Board of Education’s vote was the fact that only two years earlier, this same Board decided to merge a failed school district into the Normandy School District. That fact was never mentioned even once, almost as though it had never happened. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education had exercised oversight of the Wellston School District for five years. When the state determined that there was insufficient progress in Wellston, they decided to lapse the school district and merge it into the similarly struggling Normandy School District.

Again, the decision would have been considered unremarkable, however, with a couple of critical exceptions. Every student in the Wellston School District was African American, and ninety-eight percent of those students received free or reduced price lunch, the federal threshold for determining poverty. In fact, Wellston was the only school district in the state of Missouri that was 100% African-American. Ninety-eight percent of Normandy’s students were African-American, and ninety-four and one-half percent of those students were from impoverished families. In essence, both communities were experiencing concentrated poverty and racial segregation. Was this decision made to effectively segregate the students in both school districts?

Not surprisingly, a trend line of longitudinal academic data of all school districts in the state of Missouri, when juxtaposed on a trend line reflecting the percentage of African American students from impoverished families in each school district, offers some distressing reflections. There is a near perfect match which reflects that the school districts with the highest percentage of impoverished African American students were performing least well on the state assessment. One can easily make a relatively compelling argument that the state could have easily projected that the Normandy-Wellston merger would, in essence, be disastrous from the outset and that it would not turn out well for any of the students involved.

The decision of the Missouri State Board of Education becomes problematic at best when one considers that no state board of education in any state has ever made a decision to attach two failing school districts (both characterized by concentrated poverty) as a remedy for poor performance. Routinely, such a decision would involve merging the failed school district with one that is performing quite well academically and, at the same time, a school district that is fiscally viable. A fitting example is the recent merger of the North Forest Independent School District (Texas) into the Houston Independent School District. In September, 2013, the Houston system received the $1 million Broad Prize for Urban Education, which implies that it is the best urban school district in the nation. It would have been nearly impossible for the poor academic performance of 5,500 students from North Forest to adversely impact the progress of Houston’s 203,000 students.

In essence, what has occurred is indeed a disturbing political precedent. In the 1950s, Normandy School District was one of the preeminent school districts in the state of Missouri. Concentrated poverty was not on the horizon, and not one African American learner attended school in the district. However, the white flight trend that occurred in the seventies in suburban communities across the country signaled dramatic residential shifts in the racial makeup of the school district. Normandy alumni who graduated prior to the 1950s have an extremely difficult time identifying with the circumstances that prevail in the district today. A front page headline in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 5, 2013 proclaimed in two inch-high letters, Normandy High: The Most Dangerous School in the Area. The school reform of punitive disparity in the form of the Missouri State Board of Education proclaimed that the Normandy School District would be closed, effective June 30, 2014.

Here is a first for this blog: Governor Jay Nixon joins the honor roll for his courage in promising to veto a voucher bill passed by the State Legislature.

The State Senate has enough votes to override his veto, but the House does not.

Governor Jay Nixon recognizes that the state has an obligation to provide quality public education for every child. It must meet that obligation by providing every school with the resources and staff it needs, not by sending public funds to private schools.

Governor Nixon may also be aware of the overwhelming research showing that private schools do not get better results than public schools when they enroll the same children.

The bottom line is that Governor Nixon bravely stood up for the principle that the public has an obligation to support public education.

Now it his responsibility to fight for adequate funding and oversight to improve schools that are struggling. In most cases, the schools need more help for children and families that are in need, not just academic programs. The most reliable predictor of low test scores is poverty. Missouri, like other states, must avoid the pursuit of illusory quick fixes. Vouchers don’t “work” better than public schools. Missouri must improve its public school system for all.

Thanks to Governor Jay Nixon for protecting one of the basic democratic institutions that made our country great.

Bruce Baker of Rutgers University is well known for his candor and scholarly acumen.

Here he dissects the new plan to destroy public education in Kansas City and shows what an outright farce it is.

He writes:

This past week, the good citizens of Kansas City and Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education were graced with one of the most vacuous manifestos on education reform I’ve read in a really long time. Yes, on my blog, I’ve pontificated about numerous other vacuous manifestos that often take the form of blog posts and op-eds which I suspect have little substantive influence over actual policies.

But this one is a little different. This report by an organization calling itself CEE, or Cities for Education Entrepreneurship Trust, in collaboration with Public Impact, is a bit more serious. No more credible, but more serious, in that it is assumed that state policymakers in Missouri might actually act on the report’s recommendations.

I’ve had the displeasure of reviewing several reports by Public Impact in the Past. Their standard fare is to establish a bold conclusion, and then cite (including self citation) materials that support – with no real validation- their forgone conclusion, cite other stuff that’s totally unrelated, and cite yet other stuff that doesn’t even exist. Thus, they are actually able to construct a report with a few graphs here and there and lots of footnotes, without ever validating a single major (albeit forgone) conclusion (see for example, this one, by the same author, under a different organizational umbrella, or this one).

Is the plan original? No, he says, it is the same old song, which has no research to support it, just a mountain of assertions and assumptions. Here goes:

Here’s a synopsis – call it an advanced organizer – of the story line crafted in the report:

  • Urban districts don’t work (and aren’t stable)
  • Kansas City is an urban district, therefore, it doesn’t work (even though we find it has stabilized)
  • Privately operated charter schools in Newark, New Jersey, New York City, Texas and New Orleans are producing miracles – yielding incredible graduation rates and high test scores while serving comparably low income and otherwise needy children (even though they really aren’t serving similar kids, and many have far more resources)
  • Thus, the same can – no must – work in Kansas City (even though it hasn’t)
  • Somewhat tangentially, decentralized financing – driving money to schools for site based control – is necessarily good (even though reviews of the research suggest otherwise)

Therefore, the only solution is to deconstruct the entire failed urban district, turn control over to a non-government authority which shall loosely govern a confederation of private non-profit entities that shall compete with one another for students, choose which market niche and geographic space within KC they wish to serve and be evaluated on the test scores and graduation rates they ultimately produce.

None of the assertions and assumptions are true, but so what? That is what it will take to tear apart the KC school district and hoax the fools who buy the story.

After a good deal of fascinating analysis of demography and statistics about results, Baker concludes:

While the authors of this report so confidently conclude that the obvious solution is to replace the failed urban district with an under-regulated, loosely governed confederation of benevolent non-profit actors, one might easily alternatively conclude from the evidence herein… that simply put, large scale chartering in urban centers like Kansas City simply doesn’t work. It never has and likely never will. It fails to serve the neediest children because “market forces” and accountability measures favor avoiding those children and the neighborhoods in which they live.

Further, large scale chartering leads to deprivation of important constitutional and statutory rights for children, primarily low income and minority children. Meanwhile, suburban white peers are not being asked to forgo constitutional protections in order to access elementary and secondary schooling.

Finally, large scale chartering has made far more opaque financial and governance accountability as governing institutions have created more complex private structures in order to shield their operations, records and documents from full public view.

Reporter Garrett Haake of KSHB In Kansas City reported that State Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro and the State Board commissioned a report that calls for a radical restructuring of the Kansas City school district.

“It calls for replacing the top-down district structure with a much smaller, near purely administrative entity called a Community Schools Office (CSO). The CSO would retain some functions of the current district, including facilities maintenance, enrollment and transportation coordination, but its primary purpose would be to set accountability standards for schools, which would themselves be free to run largely independently, so long as they hit those standards.

“The school system would shift its focus from operating schools directly to finding the best possible nonprofit operators, empowering them to run schools and holding them accountable for results,” the executive summary said. “Schools that succeed would grow to serve more students. Those that continually fall short would be replaced with better options.”

It adds:

“Kansas City students could choose any public school to attend, and while some would be charter schools, the report makes clear that most would not be – and pre-buts the notion that it is replacing public schools with charters. The report notes that Kansas City has several “high quality operators” of public schools already that fit the bill, including Lincoln Prep and Academie Lafayette.

“The report also identifies what its authors consider another glaring need, and proposes instituting universal pre-kindergarten for children ages 3 and 4 city-wide. The report says this can be done using funds reallocated in the reorganization of the district, without raising taxes.”

“The Missouri State Board of Education will hear a presentation of the draft report, which it paid education reform consultants CEE-Trust $385,000 after a controversial bidding process to produce, Monday afternoon.”

Over a month ago, some legislators demanded Nicastro’s resignation after hundreds of emails revealed that this plan was in the works since last April, funded by two local foundations.

“The e-mails show Nicastro and officials from the Hall Family Foundation and Kauffman Foundation working with Kauffman partner CEE-Trust as far back as April to develop a plan for the future of KCPS, should the district fail to regain accreditation.
Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by the education equality group MORE2 (More Squared), they show a series of meetings, conference calls and even budgetary discussions between Nicastro, foundation backers and CEE-Trust leadership designed to get a process in motion quickly – without going through a typical request for proposal project.

“District officials, including KCPS Superintendent Dr. Stephen Green, said they knew nothing of the discussions. A spokesman for Kansas City Mayor Sly James said he, too, was not informed.

“The Missouri Board of Education rejected the Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the group over the summer. But with coaching from Nicastro and her aides, CEE-Trust ultimately submitted a bid and won a contract to study options for the long-struggling district for $385,000.

“When the e-mails were first published in the Kansas City Star on Sunday, negative reaction to the back-room dealings came swiftly.

Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/education/calls-mount-for-nicastro-resignation-after-e-mails-released#ixzz2qJVmop9P

Conservative billionaire Rex Sinquefield does not believe that teaching should be a career. He doesn’t think that teachers should have any job security. He thinks that teachers should have short-term contracts and that their jobs should depend on the test scores of their students. He has contributed $750,000 to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment in Missouri to achieve his aims.

The campaign, in a style now associated with those who hope to dismantle the teaching profession, has the duplicitous name “teachgreat.org” to signify the opposite of its intent. The assumption is that the removal of any job security and any kind of due process for teachers will somehow mysteriously produce “great” teachers. This absurd idea is then called “reform.” This is the kind of thinking that typically comes from hedge fund managers, not human service professionals.

Sinquefield manages billions of dollars and is also the state’s biggest political contributor.

“The “Teachgreat.org” initiative would limit teacher contracts to no more than three years. It also requires “teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted, and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system,” according to the summary on the group’s website.

“The initiative also mandates that teachers be allowed to engage in collective bargaining for pay, benefits and working conditions, in an apparent move to appeal to teacher groups. So far, such organizations have been wary of the proposed constitutional amendment.

“Sinquefield gave $100,000 to Teachgreat.org this summer.

“Roughly 147,000-160,000 signatures from Missouri registered voters would be needed to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. The exact number depends on which six of the state’s eight congressional districts are used for signature collection.

“A similar ballot initiative – also backed by Sinquefield — was proposed for the 2012 ballot, but signature collection was never completed.

“This latest contribution sharply increases Sinquefield’s total 2013 donations to various Missouri causes and candidates to more than $2.5 million, according to the Ethics Commission’s tally.”

We have seen in state after state that conservative ideologues can buy politicians. But we will see whether they can also buy enough of the public, through advertising and public relations, to start the purge that Sinquefield believes is necessary.

I can’t help but be reminded of the time I spoke to the Missouri Education Association about three years ago. There were about 800 teachers there from across the state. Afterwards, when I signed books, I was struck by the number of people who said things like, “please sign this for my dad, he is a retired superintendent,” or “please sign this for me and my two sisters, we are a family of teachers.” So many of the teachers came from small towns where their family had been teachers for years. If Sinquefield has his way, who will replace them? Is there a long line of graduates from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton just itching to teach in Eureka and all the towns and hamlets of Missouri, to take the place of those who are fired? And who will replace them when they move on to their real careers?

Sinquefield despises public schools. In 2012, he had to apologize for a remark in which he said that the KU Klux Klan invented public schools to hurt African-American children.

Sinquefield founded a fund that now manages over $300 billion. He is also founder and president of the Show-Me Institute, a libertarian policy belief-tank.

A reader comments:

“I do the alumni newspaper for Normandy High School in suburban St. Louis, a school which has lost its accreditation and gotten nothing but grief from the state education folks and certainly no realistic help. I think, however, that is about to change. The state people finally brought in experts who told them no school district serving needy communities anywhere in this country has managed to get its test scores up where the standards demand they be. What is needed is not this myopic obsession with standardized teaching and test scores but an educational philosophy where the talents and dreams of each and every child are identified and educated with that in mind and communities get help TO help children who come from one-parent homes, broken homes, multigenerational homes and blended homes and start school with almost none of the cultural equipment kids in the well-to-do-suburbs have, not to mention parttime parenting, nourishment problems, health problems and emotional problems. The parents are often working multiple jobs to keep a roof over their families’ heads and food in the kids’ mouths and it drives me nuts when THEY are blamed as the problem. They are doing the best they can. I’ve written extensively about this. I am a journalist and a teacher in his 50th year of teaching (look me up on google).”

Wayne Brasler

A report from Missouri says the state auditor may launch an investigation of state Commissioner of Education Chris Nicasrto, who gave a contract to an Indianapolis firm that was not the low bidder. The firm is known for its love of privatization as a cure for big-city schools.

Teachers unions, legislators, and the St. Louis branch of the NAACP have called for Nicastro’s resignation.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

“Last week, the storm developing around Nicastro intensified after a release of department emails triggered questions about how it entered into a $385,000 contract with CEE-Trust, whose bid was three times higher than the next-highest of four bidders.

“The emails showed that Nicastro had been communicating with the firm’s executive director for four months before the contract was agreed upon in August by the state Board of Education.

“They also show that she tried to give the contract to CEE-Trust without seeking other bids, until members of the state board raised concerns about circumventing the typical bidding process.

“The contract is being paid by private dollars from two groups supportive of charter schools — the Kauffman Foundation and the Hall Family Trust.

“Late last month, other department records that became public showed that Nicastro had been consulting with Kate Casas, the state policy director for the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri, about how to craft a ballot initiative petition aimed at eliminating teacher tenure. Rex Sinquefield, the billionaire investor and school choice advocate, is a primary backer of the organization.”