St. Louis Public School Board lifts deed restrictions on charter schools
Charter schools will now — at least in theory — be able to buy shuttered St. Louis Public School buildings.
The St. Louis Public School Board voted last night to lift the deed restriction that barred charter groups from buying the former city schools.
District CEO Rick Sullivan said that the board simply bent to legislative pressure.
“The legislature felt very strongly that the provision was unfair or not appropriate,” he said. “We worked with legislative leaders to reach an understanding that I think is good for all parties.”
The ban had angered charter leaders searching for homes for their new schools, as well as dozens of state politicians tired of seeing the old buildings sit unattended in their districts, drawing crime and vandalism. (See prior coverage HERE.)
Word began to leak out at last night’s meeting that board members, in closed session, had voted to lift the ban. St. Louis Public wouldn’t confirm the news, but charter supporters began whispering.
Then, this morning, St. Louis Public made the news official.
State Rep. T.D. El-Amin, a Democrat who represents much of north St. Louis, said so many people were leaning on the board, it was just a matter of time. “We knew it was a levy bound to break,” he said.
Charter school advocates began celebrating early.
“This is a win for families in St. Louis who are seeking better education options for their children and for all of the taxpayers in the city who paid for these buildings,” said Earl Simms, state coordinator for the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri, a charter advocacy organization. “These buildings can now be sold to organizations seeking to open public charter schools. That not only gives more education options to parents, but the sale of these buildings will also provide more dollars to educate the district’s students.”
Others said the decision will help charter schools open more quickly.
“Charter schools often find alternative facilities to serve students - empty commercial space or other buildings constructed for purposes other than education,” Aaron North, director of the state charter school association, said this morning. “Making unused public school buildings available for purchase or lease will provide new and existing charter schools with more options to best serve the students and families in their charge.”
Still, the practical implications of the board’s decision are unclear.
The move doesn’t require the district to sell to charters, just to consider their offers.
Besides, Sullivan said, the district now has a plan to grow.
It may very well still need some of those buildings.
This is clearly a step in the right direction. Now the question is whether the district will sell these buildings to the highest bidders, or whether they’ll fall back on the unofficial policy of refusing to sell to potential competitors.
Great news for Saint Louis.
I am embarrassed to admit that i do not know the difference between a charter school and a public school- and i am from the city. Do you still go for free to charters? who runs them, are they accredited, etc…? Thanks in advance
This is a sad day for SLPS. Hopefully they will make the purchase price so high that Charter School can’t afford them. Most Charter Schools fail anyway. Ask any teacher who has left SLPS and returned because the real failure to educate.
This is just more conservative politicians’ pressure to privatize public education.
When the Post-Dispatch starts reporting on and editorializing the failure of so many charter schools along with the many others that barely meet the same standards of the SLPS, perhaps then people will see the agenda behind this.
The mayor has reportedly been wanting to open up four Muslim charter schools. Eat your heart out, conservative Christians.
Charter schools are privately-run schools that get government funding. They are usually accredited and they are free to attend, although some are more selective than others. Their degree of success is as wide as the different charter schools out there.
I find it interesting that this site can generate comments. Since yesterday I’ve been trying to comment on the future of the city schools but am unable to pull up the comment box. Anyway, yesterday’s story discussed 10.4 million dollars will be spent on “academic coaches”. These “coaches” will show the teachers what “good teaching looks like”. How insulting can you get? Does everyone out there believe that every teacher in the city schools is incompetent? If so, then the PD & Slay have done their job. I would like to see Dr Kelvin spend a week at my high school and show us how well he responds to what we face everyday.
Toastedravs-
Charter Schools are . . .
• Public schools funded with public dollars.
• Free and open to all students.
• Accountable to a sponsoring entity for specific results.
• Only allowed to operate in the Kansas City and St. Louis city school districts.
• Governed by an independent board.
Helen, we report on the failures of charter schools — and all failing schools — quite often. To suggest otherwise is simply untrue.
Slay is opening 4 Muslim Schools? Uhh, that comment is obviously designed as a scare tactic. As one who used to teach in a charter school and currently works for a charter support organization, I can tell you that Slay has no such plans. In fact, the Mayor’s office is working on ways to open only high quality charters (public schools, can’t be Muslim/Christian/Hindu…whatever) and to close down under performing charters (which there are some). Want to have larger discussion on this? Get my e-mail from http://www.mocharterschools.org.
Yaz, Your offense at the teaching coaches issue may be a problem of translation, not intent.
Adams told me the coaches are meant to focus on modeling good teaching. I did not get the impression he was suggesting all teachers need help.
Still, though, even expert craftsmen can get better at their trade, no?
So that takes care of one road block; facilities( still I’ll believe it when I see it) Let’s hope universities step up and sponsor new schools or the legislation permits the mayor’s office to authorize, as is allowed in many cities. St. Louis is well behind in the charter school movement,not to mention many social services.I am originally from Florida,our academic achievement the last decade has been because of charter schools. We were once at the bottom of the list of states in education, now FL is in top tier.
This is all about power. The SAB isn’t really accountable to the St. Louis, and so the people who wanted to change this policy had to run around to the legislature to get the power needed to change a local policy that affects their neighborhoods. It may be harder to get active and get change, but it’s all the more important to make sure the SAB realizes they can’t form a little oligarchy and rule the roost on policies that affect the education of St. Louis children, safety, economic development and neighborhood stability.
eb,
While I agree with you that it is something of a problem to have an unelected board making decisions for the district, keep in mind that a member of the elected board (who frequently comments on this blog) has suggested that the elected board thinks the public strongly FAVORS blocking the use of these buildings as charter and private schools. If you are against the deed restrictions, it would probably be best to let the elected board know so that they are not re-imposed when the elected board resumes control of the district.
Thank goodness! I grew up in the St. Louis area and I’m happy to hear the city is moving in this direction. As someone who has worked in public education in Philadelphia, Chicago and New York, I can say that charter schools, particularly in the inner-city, provide great educational opportunities. I hope SLPS doesn’t prohibit charter schools from buying buildings through a series of price wars.
It is wrong to assert that a small unrepresentative group of Muslim activits tried to Islamicise a state primary school in Woking. The silent majority of Muslim parents would like to send their children to state funded Muslim schools. They are not extremists who want to change of ethos of those schools where Muslim children are in majority. It is the democratic right of every Muslim parents to see that their children recieve balanced education, so that when their children grow up, they do not find themselves cut off from their cultural roots and linguistic skills. It is a question of common sense, humanity and reason that bilingual Muslim children must be educated in state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Politicians like Damian Green and David Blunkett believe that those children who speak two or three languages are the cause of problems in education. The whole world believes that people who speak more than one language is a vital economic asset.Pupils awho speak more than one language do not cause difficulities. It is the politicians and monolingual teachgers who are the problems for bilingual pupils.
Funding Muslim groups is not going to prevent anger, frustration and extremism. Muslim youths have been educated in a wrong place at a wrong time. They have been mis-educated and de-educated by state and church schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers during their developmental periods. Muslim youths are being detained without trial in the war on terror. The policy of detention is radicalising young people in the United Kingdom.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk