This city is so self-destructive. There is a simply solution that I think Al Gore would even like. Let’s end the use of wasting fossil fuel on buses that get 4 mpg and the polution savings with all that wasted money to rebuild St.Louis city public schools so that they are as nice as the Rockwood school districts that the busing money built. People would then be happy to re-locate to the city wherein they could live closer to their jobs and less fuel would be wasted. Sounds like such a sane solution to me. People should work and go to school nearby giving themselves a sense of pride in their community.

I keep trying to figure out why SLPS should help out organizations that not only misrepresent district performance but also their own. Whenever I talk with someone who works for one of these charter schools, one of my first questions is how does the performance of your students compare to those in SLPS on the standardized test. The answer invariably is, “OH, we are improving.” Of course that doesn’t answer my question. Or, “We don’t have to take those test.” My next question is something along the lines of why not.
Charter schools are a nice option for people that want to make money off the public education system. They are a nice option for those lucky few that actually find a charter school that is better than most public
schools (I still haven’t found one better than Metro HS). They are also a nice talking point for politicians who are either unable or unwilling to adequately confront the problems facing many of our schools. Has anyone noticed that whenever Mayor Slay talks about charter schools, he NEVER mentions their performance, just that they are a nice option and that they provide prents with a choice.
Public schools are not and never have been perfect. What they are is a way to provide a quality education and to provide for the transfer of knowledge and culture to a group {children} that has little ability to gather it on their own. It provides an assist for parents who, for the most part, have neither the knowledge nor resources nor time (both parents work) to provide a quality education for their children.

Noneone,
Parents have the knowledge, resources, and the time to teach their children. They often do not perform their duties as they should. If a child does not receive the education they ought to there are two people to blame and they should take the whole of it: Mom and Dad.

This you think would give the “St. Louis Public School” system a lower student to teacher ratio and a better education for the students in the district. This could be made into a plus, couldn’t it?

The old school buildings are loaded with lead paint hazards. They were not built to modern earthquake safety codes and still probably have a lot of asbestos. The school board is doing the children of St. Louis a favor by not selling those unair conditioned brick ovens full of environmental hazards to the charter school.

If the Mayor’s Office really wants to help children, it could start by discontinuing its relationship with the lead industry lobbyist it has used for PR. Geri Dreiling had a rather interesting piece in the RFT a number of summers ago about that. Not surprising that the Mayor’s office which supports charters would disregard the lead hazards in those building.

Nice try, “noone.” Fact is, if the public schools weren’t being outperformed by the competition, they wouldn’t need the deed restrictions. City schools are a failure, they are a large part of the cause of the city’s general difficulties, and this is just a slap in the face of the taxpayers and residents of the city. Is the state board behind this? If they don’t agree with it, they need to do something ASAP.

The data doesn’t show that charter schools are outperforming public schools. In fact, most honest analyses of test scores show that there is very little difference in the performance scores of public charter school and regular public schools when student and parent characteristics are taken into account. But, test scores really shouldn’t be the point, and the discussion around them is silly. Strong local schools, whatever the type, should be the goal, and the performance of local charter schools shows that they typify both the best and worst of local schools. Two charter schools have bit the dust, others have had very public feuds with their management, and others have performed quietly and well. Even by saying that public schools could learn something from the best charter schools–just like charter schools could learn something from the best public schools–doesn’t take any from the fact that it is absurb to expect that the SLPS will be able to negotiate change and reform without chaos in the face of mounting fiscal insolvency, a situation that in the short term charter schools are only exacerbating.

This deed restriction is the most immature, illogical and—most importantly—community-damaging proposal St. Louis has ever seen!

The public school system wastes their time and money on these illogical proposals—instead of directing their attention to the reform of their own schools—to stop those who actually care about the education of St. Louis children (such as charter school founders). If SLPS put this type of effort into actual reform measures, therefore improve their failing status, then families would not seek other school options and everyone (most importantly the children) wins.

But instead buildings remain vacant—which raises a whole other issue for the city. This is an obvious waste of land and directly counteracts the beautification and commerce St. Louis needs.

These buildings were designed to be schools—the SLPS board bearcats should not be able to so severely cripple the city and children for the selfish and illogical reason of maintaining their failing status quo.