St. Louis Public to sell school buildings to charters? Not so fast
Legislators expressed hopes at a press conference this morning that they’d be able to get a bill passed forcing the St. Louis Public School Board to lift its deed restriction on the sale of old school buildings, thus allowing charter schools to buy them more easily.
But Senator Jim Lembke, the sponsor of Senate Bill 439, said it’s going to be a fight in Jeff City.
And St. Louis senator Robin Wright-Jones, who stymied Lembke’s first attempt to reprimand the St. Louis school board, said over the phone today that she’d fight against Lembke’s new bill, too.
Why, she asked, should the legislature get involved in the St. Louis Public board’s business?
“They’re the property owner,” she said. “It’s their right.”
Besides, she said — echoing teachers association protesters at this morning’s press conference — the buildings are full of lead and asbestos and can’t be used by charter schools before such dangers are removed.
“That abatement is expensive,” she said. “Who would bear the expense of that?”
A sales contract could force the St. Louis Public School Board to clean up the lead and asbestos before completing the sale, she said.
But Lembke and others at the press conference called that a “straw man” argument.
The burden to abate the buildings falls on the buyer, they said, and is a poor reason to ban selling the unused buildings to charter schools.
Even Wright-Jones eventually admitted that it is unlikely district board members would agree to any contract that made the district lose money. “No, they wouldn’t do that,” Wright-Jones said. “That’s true, too.”
Still, she said, there’s no reason to interfere with board business, in this case. Deed restrictions are common in real estate.
Besides, she said, she doesn’t think the bill will even get that far.
Indeed, the bill was just passed to the Senate education committee last week.
Go Jim! Stand up for Taxpayers. It’s NOT the City’s schools… It’s our (the taxpayer’s) property!
Am I to understand Senator Wright-Jones’ argument? SLPS is the owner of these buildings and its “their right” to hold such a restriction? As Willie, aluded to, these buildings were built with tax payer money to help educate public school students. Charter schools are public schools (free, open to all).
Additionally, it seems that Senator Wright-Jones is turning a blind eye to the blighted, empty school buildings in her district ( http://www.senate.mo.gov/09info/members/maps/district_05.pdf), while Senators Smith and Lembke seems to be taking a stand. As polititians from different sides of the aisle, its good to see both men come together for a common good. I’m sure they have many political differences but they can put those aside for what is best for the city of St. Louis, for the families, and for the children. Robin Wright-Jones seems as if this doesn’t matter as much to her.
I am part of a family with children in the city and I don’t want the buildings sold to charter schools. There are plenty of closed Catholic school buildings they can buy if they want to. Thanks. Sen. Wright-Jones, for protecting the kids who attend SLPS.
Katherine,
I am undoubtedly a supporter or charter schools (as my previous post implies), but I am a larger supporter of public education. I don’t understand why we have to inact archaic laws, rules, and restrictions that so called “support” some forms of public education, but hurt other forms.
Currently, we have bad charter and SLPS schools and good charter and SLPS schools, with some in the middle. Why can’t we begin to replicate what is working in these good schools and have them across the board? The opening up of these abandoned schools can accelerate this process, help keep a neighborhood stable, and eventually draw families back into the city.
With all due respect, the view that we need to “protect SLPS” seems to be a bit shortsighted as a great city could have equal amounts great district, great charter, and great private/perochial options.
there is plenty of city to go between the public schools, the charter schools, and the catholic school… but what there isn’t plenty of is tax dollars! If the sale of the schools means we have to pay to have the asbestos removed I say sell the schools with it! It didn’t stop us from attending them when we were kids.
Please note that Lembke and the crew are taking campaign funds
from billionaire right winger Rex Sinqufeld. 28 schools are
still contaminated. If Lembke really cared about the kids
he would pass a bill to clean up the lead and asbestos.
Funny Senator Smith’s charter Confluence Academy received
$23 Million in CDA grants from City Hall - more than
enough to clean up all the lead and some of the asbestos in
all the schools.
For the kids my eye.
Majority of Sinquefield contribution recipients supported vouchers, removal of contribution limits, analysis finds
Billionaire conservative political activist Rex Sinquefield was successful at influencing the legislative process this year through political contributions, at least that’s the charge from a report today compiled by the Missouri Citizen Education Fund.
The report indicates that 86 percent of the Missouri House members who received contributions from Sinquefield voted in favor of a repeal on contribution limits while 79 percent voted in favor of legislation to support school voucher programs.
While the report isn’t the best written analysis in history, the compilation of data from the Missouri Ethics Commission succeeds in linking campaign finance and voting records in an easily understood format.
The report did not include analysis of votes in the Missouri Senate linked to school vouchers or the removal of campaign finance caps.
Lembke, Cunningham and El-Amin all got their share.
El-Amin - $35,000 enough to clean up the lead in one SLPS school.
Arne Duncan Secretary of Education says “Any school’s 1st. order of business to to keep children SAFE!” This means that before students open a book to read or look through a microscope they should be in a safe environment. No one is talking about child safety with respect to them being exposed to lead and other indoor polluntants in these closed buildings.
If these building are sold to charter schools, will they have the same accountability to make the indoor environments safe as they have for academics. Yes NONE! We know we can’t count on Mayor Slay to keep kids safe.
Sen. Cunningham have any school children been exposed to lead in Chesterfield,(NO) but when it comes to African American children it does not matter. She is only trying to pay back her contributors who support “Vouchers’ and “For profit charter schools”. Safety comes before all else.
Community schools are the best option for these closed buildings. They offer programs and services provided by the city and state agencies(job for state senators and Rep’s to spend their time funding these agencies), universities and businesses—all under the school roof–that are designed to help students and familes with the greatest need. Nearly 90% of St. Louis Public are on free/reduced lunches. (best predictor of proverty)These child and their families need services. Sen. Lempke is not spending any time trying to fund additional services for these families. These legislators supporting this bill don’t care about child safety First!!!
Seriously? The comments on this post border on absurdity.
Ms. Wessling simply says she doesn’t WANT those schools sold to charters, and offers a vague suggestion that blocking charter schools from empty district facilities “protects” the kids remaining in SLPS. Protects them from what? Alternatives?
Byron points out that Rex Sinquefield contributed to the campaigns of some of the legislators pointing out how stupid it is that SLPS would rather give up these properties for $1 than let a charter school pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix them up and make them usable. Mr. Sinquefield’s support of these legislators doesn’t make the District’s position any more reasonable.
And “child safety first,” child advocate? If safety is really the concern here, the simple way to deal with it is to require that any of these buildings must be brought into code compliance before they can be occupied by ANYBODY, charter school or otherwise. What does a deed restriction do to remedy any potential health hazards in these buildings? Would you really have these allegedly dangerous buildings sit around as empty, hazardous nuisances when charter schools could come in, clean them up, and use the buildings for their original purpose - teaching the neighborhoods’ kids?
These deed restrictions are about one thing only: blocking out competition. The fact that the school district is so terrified of having to compete against charter schools just confirms for me not only that the school district doesn’t believe in the quality of the traditional schools they’re providing, but that they’re willing to game the system to keep this city’s children from having a better chance to succeed. Those who created these deed restrictions should be embarrassed.