St. Louis Schools In the Middle of Political Infighting
Will the soap opera that is the St. Louis Board of Education ever end? We’ve basically evolved into two opposite camps that both claim to be working in the best interests of the educational system yet I find it harder and harder to believe it. Much like Republicans and Democrats on the national level that back themselves into ideological corners, our school board members as well as others such as Mayor Slay continue to fight to defend positions and political turf.
I had high hopes for the school board when the majority changed from one camp to the other. I can see now that the camp supported by Mayor Slay is still able to inflict damage on the new majority, at least from a PR standpoint. Maybe it is the fault of the new majority — might they be as cold and calculating as the majority they replaced? This may well be par for the course.
When Downs & Jones were elected to the board and power shifted I did not expect them to just give into Superintendent Creg Williams. When I voted for this pair I wanted them to challenge and push Williams, not to make him leave but to work for a better school system. We all like to be challenged in our jobs. Without a challenge we have nothing to work towards and most often, we can do better.
Some say the board majority is micro-managing. Perhaps. If so, why? When Williams submitted his budget last month it was $4 million in the red with the full expectation we’d be $50 million in the red next year. When board members, expected to vote on a budget questioned expenses, Williams was not direct but was contentious (and yes, I was there). The four members of the board majority were doing their jobs when questioning why the budget was not balanced and looking at expenses to either justify deficit spending or ways to cut since the well-compensated first-time Superintendent failed to do so on his first budget.
Williams this week submitted a balanced budget. See, it was possible. The three dissenters on the board that were willing to pass the deficit increasing budget should be a little more than embarrassed for not going along with the other four to ask for a balanced budget. I expected the board to take fiscal responsibility of our tax dollars. If they cannot do that, they should resign.
A football basketball coach was effectively fired by the board this week as his department, as I understand it, was eliminated. Some are calling this a retaliatory act against coach Irons. Others say it was simply a way to send a message to Williams at the expense of Irons. The board says it was the responsible thing to do. Frankly, I don’t know that I care anymore.
No matter what actions, good or bad, the new board majority will take to correct the schools it will be spun to be an act to run out Williams or to give in to the teacher’s union or any other thing they think of to discredit the members. I’m certainly no stranger to spinning things as I am certainly opinionated on this site. However, I like to think I take an even approach to issues while still maintaining my urbanist values. The spin around the school board, possibly from both sides, is coming from different motivation. It is about defending political turf and discrediting the actions of your enemy. That my friends will not save our school system from ruins. Children, not Williams or coach Irons, are the victims here. In the big picture, we are all victims as not educating our youth will have long lasting effects on our region.
Had Clinksdale & Buford won the election rather than Down & Jones I don’t know that we’d be in any better position than we are today. We’d most likely have an approved budget that was in the red. We’d also have political fighting and energized board meetings. Either way I don’t really see us moving forward. I’m losing all confidence in Williams to show leadership in the face of adversity. If he cannot handle questions about a budget now how will he be next year when we face a $50 million deficit. If he is our best hope, we are in worse shape than I thought.
The best thing might be for the state to take over our schools. I don’t know the implications of that statement but I don’t see the new majority being able to accomplish anything if the mayor and Post-Dispatch are going to turn on them for every decision, regardless of merit.
The system is seriously broke. Financially and otherwise.
Our buildings are crumbling, our students population is decreasing and our costs seem to escalate. We do have some bright spots. Some of our schools have very high ratings in the region, state and nation. All those responsible should be pleased with their work. I’m not sure any credit should be given to this board, prior board or the current superintendent for these successes as this may have been coalescing for some time.
It would not surprise me if the teachers union was acting in their own interests, possibly protecting teachers and positions that should be eliminated. Nor would not surprise me if the Slay-board would have done things for political gain. We’ve gotten ourselves into this us vs. them situation and I don’t see a good solution to move past the political fights into thoughtful and reasoned solutions to the challenges facing our educational system.
Although the short-term embarrassment of having the state come in and take over the schools might painful it may well be the best long-term solution. If it were to happen, Williams should go out with the board. Start fresh all around. Leave none of the political fighters in place. Then, and only then, can we set about creating a sound educational system for the City of St. Louis.
– Steve
Some of us have been advocating for a state takeover for years.
Maybe the odyssey of the past few years was just our way of getting there.
How long would State ownership last?
Lets not forget Missouri is pretty low on education quality, and our budget is pretty tight.
This whole school issue is getting more convoluted by the day.
The SLPS has one of the highest per student spending rates in the state, doesn’t it?
Yet Jeff Smith suggests increasing the amount of funding for education in lower income neighborhoods, presumably St. Louis city and county.
Where would the money come from?
Nice post, Steve Patterson. In one sense, it is too many cooks for the soup. On the other, factionalization in the school system–and not just the board–represents the reality of the complexity of political forces impacting school policy. While in the best of possible worlds political differences could exist even in the context of a shared set of policies about how to provide quality education, this does not seem to have happened in St. Louis. In seems that the two approaches–on the hand a seemingly attempt to monopolize school policy by an energetic mayor and on the other a “community” attempt to save the schools–has not worked. What’s the solution? It certainly seems to be in the hands of leadership–school board, superintendent, mayor, community and political leaders–but there do not seem to be clear, credible voices asking for patience and prudence rather than more shouting. I have no sense of how critical the district’s financial situation is, but the best outcome could just be more time, under the current cast of characters, for some sort of stability to be built and for evidence on whether the superintendent’s current strategy is working. At least publicly, most of the current players don’t publicly seem to want Williams to disappear.
Why not let the Police Board run the schools?
After all, city school employees don’t have a residency requirement either.
My confidence level in the state taking over is very low. Missouri isn’t exactly progressive. I would like to see the Feds get involved, see how messed up things really are and just mandate a merge of St. Louis and St. Louis County. No more infighting and decisions made on race, just one big happy family. I know, it’s a pipedream….
The last thing the City needs is more state involvement in local issues. We know what needs to be done to fix the system, now we just need to do the heavy lifting to get there. And, if Board members get in the way of progress, they need to be replaced. Don’t forget that there are two seats up for election early next year.
Travis you keep harping on the two seats available while forgeting that two seats really mean nothing. There are five other members of the board and four of them basically ran on the same platform. Also I remember hearing the candidates for the school board saying that they only hire one person, the superintendant, and now I see that they have hired another employee. What happened to accountability. Where is your fiscal responsibility now. And how come everyone forgets the financial hole that Bill Purdy put us in to begin this financial hell we are in now.
Also why blame the mayor. He took a shot, didn’t like the outcome and is showing his displeasure. He is like everyone else, he saw what he thought was a better way and is trying to show everyone he was right.
I think DESE saying that we have many improving schools does show that the previous board had us moving in the right direction. You say what you want but test scores under the last board were higher than they had been in years and looks like this year will prove the same way.
Citizen:
I continue to mention those two seats as they are occupied by two blockades to progress.
As for your reference to what I believe is the auditor, that would not be an employee of the District, but rather a one-time consultant to perform an audit. We can’t know where we’re going unless we know where we’re at.
Regarding your comments about the Mayor, I’ve made no mention of the Mayor or those in his office. You must have me confused with someone else.
Finally, I would agree that things are looking up when DESE recognizes our schools as either high-achievers or having made significant progress. So, my question to you is why would the administration close schools on those two illustriust lists? That isn’t progress.
Travis,
Do you ever really listen to what Archibald and Jackson have to say, or do you tune them out because they’re part of the old majority? Their perspectives have value on this board. Maybe you should listen more closely.
Paul:
First, member Jackson never talks. You’re lucky to catch him paying attention or even awake at School Board meetings.
You are right that Member Archibald talks, and talk, and talks about fiscal responsibility, but that’s all he does. When given the opportunity to take action, Member Archibald runs the opposite direction. For example, Member Archibald voted against both reviewing the contract with Sodexho, a contractor who receives roughly $31 million per anum, and revisiting the spending in the central office administration, from where ultimately most of the reductions came in the revised budget submitted by the Superintendent.
Further, when the original budget that deepend the already $29 million deficit by an additional $4 million, rather than require the Superintendent to balance the budget, Member Archibald voted for the deficit spending.
Finally, when the revised budget was presented with a $3.5 million reduction in the deficit, Member Archibald said that eliminating $4 million in deficit spending and bolstering the coffers by $3.5 million ‘didn’t really matter.’
Member Archibald talks about fiscal responsibility but does not take the appropriate actions to ensure it. Member Jackson obviously wants to be somewhere other than at the School Board. This is why both members need be replaced.
What an embarassment. I hope supporters of the new school board members are happy now that Williams is out…big blow to the city, big win for the teachers union.
This is just sad.
I don’t remember seeing this on their campaign literature.
[REPLY – Downs & Jones may have won with the best of intentions and then faces a reality different than what they expected. I certainly hope this was not part of a long-term plan hatched prior to the election. – SLP]