Recent History in St. Louis Education (David Stokes)
In 2003, after years of decline and poor performance in the Saint Louis public school system, the business community and many civic leaders, including St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, joined together to support a new slate of candidates committed to implementing controversial reforms designed to increase student performance and administrative accountability. The city schools have tenuously held onto provisional accreditation from the state of Missouri for some time. The four members of the slate, Vince Schoemehl, Dr. Robert Archibald, Darnetta Clinksdale and Ronald Jackson, all won decisively and established a new majority on the board. The new majority replaced the retiring superintendent, Cleveland Hammonds, by hiring the turn-around firm of Alvarez and Marsal to implement major changes under the direction of interim superintendent William Roberti.
Then things really got messy. In order to close an enormous budget gap, schools were closed, services were privatized and jobs were cut. Protests by unionized school employees, long used to the school district providing good jobs to the community, became a regular occurrence. A board member not a part of the new majority, Rochelle Moore, put a voodoo curse of the Mayor at a school board meeting. Moore also began to post strange comments on local web sites, was arrested for creating a public disturbance, and was finally removed from the board by the court in 2004. Her replacement, Veronica O’Brien, was appointed by the mayor as a reformer who was expected to join the new slate in pressing for change. Instead, O’Brien quickly joined with the faction attempting to block the majority’s reform efforts. Around this time, interim superintendent Roberti sued school board member Bill Haas for libel over Haas’ calls to investigate the sale of a school building to St. Louis University and insinuations that there were back-rooms deals involved in the sale.
After Alvarez and Marsal completed its work, the board majority hired Creg Williams to serve as the new superintendent. Williams quickly made a powerful impression on the wider community with his decisive actions and direct manner, but just as quickly offended the teacher’s union and their political supporters with those same attributes. His critics on the board attempted to obstruct Williams at every opportunity. In the elections of April 2005, the members of the majority “reform” slate were not up for reelection. However, the three open seats were all won by critics of the majority’s policies and William’s leadership. These newly elected board members had the strong support of the teacher’s union and minority groups, which felt the school closings and firings had disproportionately affected their community. While the reform slate still had the majority, there was a great deal of tension among board members. Around this period, reform slate member and former mayor Vince Schoemehl, who had become a lightning rod for opponents due to his blunt manner, resigned and was replaced by James Buford.
The union-backed faction got their revenge and gained the school board majority in the school board elections in April 2006. Two members of the reform slate, Clinksdale and Buford, were defeated by candidates supported by the teacher’s union and other angry community groups. The new board majority appointed O’Brien as board president and hired Diane Bourisaw to review the operations of the district. Bourisaw has previously been a controversial superintendent of a rural Missouri school district, and the arrangement of having the new majority’s chosen replacement auditing the reform slate’s superintendent worked just about as well as anyone could have predicted. Within weeks, the new majority forced Williams’ resignation and hired Bourisaw to serve as superintendent.
Soon after becoming president, O’Brien instigated the removal of legendary Vashon High School basketball coach Floyd Irons over accusations of accounting irregularities during the time Irons’ doubled as principal of Vashon. Coach Irons’ numerous supporters in the community staged protests outside of O’Brien’s home which led to competing restraining orders and charges of physical threats from the various parties involved. Not helping matters, O’Brien was soon no longer on speaking terms with new superintendent Bourisaw. Due to the dispute between the superintendent and the board president, the new board majority was forced to give the board secretary authority to sign contracts and other important documents because O’Brien would no longer sign them in a timely manner.
All this has taken place under the watchful eye of the State Board of Education as pressure grows for Missouri to take over the troubled school district and replace the elected board with an appointed one. On February 15, 2007, the State Board of Education appointed a transitional school board that will take full control if the city schools lose accreditation, which is up for review next month. The same groups that opposed reform in the first place are, of course, opposed to this move as well, apparently content to live either in an illusory world where the children of St. Louis receive a quality education or, more likely, a cynical world where their jobs are protected and the district’s payroll is still stacked with their allies.
David Stokes is a writer living in University City, Missouri.
Comments
Join the conversation
While reading Gadfly’s comment, I was amused that he or she took me to task for attacking teachers when teachers themselves were never even mentioned in the article. The above article is a recount of recent events on the St. Louis Board of Education, backed up by newspaper accounts, web reports and other information. Except for the closing paragraph, there was very little opinion in it, and certainly no scapegoating of teachers. I have no doubt that if teachers as individuals were empowered to make changes and reforms that they would greatly benefit the children of St. Louis. However, their union, and unions representing other employees of the district, have been activley opposed to the reforms offered by the slate elected in 2003. Gadfly may think those reforms needed to be opposed, I think the proposals, particularly those of Dr. Williams, needed to be enacted and expanded. As often happens in big cities, groups opposed to change, including politicians, unions, citizen groups and rabble-rousers were able to stop change from occuring. I feel many people would love to see the teachers union propose genuine reforms other than simply throwing more money at the situation as it is.
While reading your article; I was amused by your take on the city teachers. You seem to think that teachers care more about pay than teaching. Since you report from your comfortable enclave in University City–I can clarify your misunderstanding. When Roberti was appointed as ‘Superintendent’–no such cry of foul came from the community–except the teachers. (Ironically, since then Roberti’s firm has create havoc in New York with school bus schedules which force young children to cross major intersections to catch the bus–and in New Orleans where schools are still unfilled. So much for corporate competence.) When individuals use the term ‘reform’–I wonder if they mean ‘revenge.’ How can you reform something that has never been examined by the majority of practicioners in the profession? Teachers have never had any authority over decisions in the district. While a series of disastrous decisions were made by politicos and administrators–teachers were never consulted. I have no problem with accountability for decisions made–I do have a problem with the scapegoating of teachers by the political hacks who fail to mention that the teachers had no role in this series of decisions leading to this disaster. Accountability has to do with truthfulness–not propaganda. When you are interested in the true account–then contact the teachers.