This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 18, 2011 - Earlier this year, St. Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams announced initiatives, called "Creating Great Options," that include district-sponsored charter schools, closing traditional schools for poor performance, investment in programs for teen parents and preschoolers and an increase in school choice through an open enrollment program for 8th graders.
There are several very strong proposals in the initiative. I applaud the intended emphasis on early childhood education programs, programs for teen parents and African-centered programs in the St. Louis Public Schools. Indeed, these proposals are well supported in research as improving academic performance and can be integrated into existing schools.
However, I am opposed to the initiatives that are not evidence-based including: district-sponsored charter schools, open enrollment and school closures based on academic performance. I ultimately urge the public and the SAB to reject these initiatives.
I recommend the district stay focused on improving the current initiatives: Community Education Centers, neighborhood schools, magnet schools and Pilot Schools.
District-sponsored Charter Schools
Evidence clearly demonstrates that charter schools continue to consistently underperform academically. The supposed flexibility they offer in terms of programs and teachers is not without cost. Charter schools hire fewer certified teachers. There is a lack of transparency and accountability in reporting attendance or finances, which results in wasted resources. Further, they selectively enroll higher-performing students, fail to offer appropriate special education services and can return students to the traditional public school system at any time.
In addition to considering the evidence base, I want to appeal to common sense: It simply does not make sense to sponsor charter schools at the same time the district is closing schools. Is this not a recipe for draining much-needed resources from existing schools? Why, instead, wouldn't the district focus on improving the programs available within existing schools? What we have learned from other districts is that siphoning resources from traditional public schools results in fewer choices, not more.
The elected school board supports placing a moratorium on opening new charter schools in St. Louis until the district's enrollment and related teacher-staff/student ratio stabilizes and the district commits to not close any additional schools.
Second, parents and taxpayers do not know whether the superintendent's prior initiatives -- "Pilot schools" and "Turn Around Schools" -- have been effective. Data suggest that these initiatives are not working the way they were intended. For instance, one of the pilot schools that was set up as a Literacy Academy actually decreased in Communication Arts scores this year. This is not meant to single out any one school but to point out what those in the educational research community know: educational reform takes time. Rather than invest human and monetary capital into new projects, I strongly recommend that the district stays focused on improving the current initiatives: community education schools, Pilot Schools, magnet schools and neighborhood schools.
Open Enrollment for 8th Graders
The superintendent has also proposed what he refers to as an "open enrollment" plan for 8th graders in the district. This proposal would allow 8th graders to choose the high school they want to attend. This is, in essence, a recipe for further starving the most under-served schools of much-needed resources.
Many parents do not have the cultural, social and economic capital to "shop" for a school for their child. We have a collective responsibility to provide free and equitable public education for all. All of our public schools should be desirable schools. The plan for open enrollment will further privilege those children and families who have the resources to decide on a new high school. Many families will not have this advantage. The result is that fewer dollars will flow into some schools leading them toward closure.
Closing Schools Based on Academic Performance
The superintendent's proposal also includes more school closures based on academic performance and enrollment. This kind of initiative has been roundly criticized in the educational community because of its over-reliance on test scores and punitive sanctions on schools that need the most resources. The logic of the proposal is that schools should be held accountable for meeting high standards. If they are not, they should be closed.
The problem is that the schools most in need of the extra funding that the federal government offers (e.g. Race to the Top) cannot receive it because their scores are not high enough. In this way, NCLB perpetuates the problem by withholding additional support until after a series of disciplinary actions have been taken. This is counter-intuitive. Rather than offer immediate support to struggling schools, funding is withheld and threats of school closure force teachers and principals into teaching to the test, ultimately watering down the curriculum and de-educating our children and youth.
We need to question the ways in which a history of racism, declining resources and lack of support set up the conditions of these "failing schools." We must have a two-way form of accountability. Schools, teachers and children can only be held accountable if other social policies such as health care, fair wages and affordable housing are also held accountable.
Closing schools hurts youth academically. Research into school closings in other urban areas indicates that the transfer of students into unfamiliar neighborhoods, coupled with the stress experienced by transferred students, contributed to increased discipline problems, violence and concerns about safety. This research also indicates a climate of uncertainty, demoralization, tension and stress affecting students, teachers and families due to school closings, threats of further closings and student transfers.
Further school closings will destroy our communities. Schools serve as anchors for neighborhoods, strengthening communities and families. Closing schools will adversely impact neighborhoods that are already impacted by declining populations.
Evidence-based Reform
Superintendent Adams is, undoubtedly, in a difficult position. In this era of accountability, resource starved school districts are pressured into making drastic reforms. However, there is limited research to support these proposals. I would urge the superintendent to focus, instead, on solutions that are evidence-based and to healthy urban school districts such as Atlanta Public Schools for solutions. Many of these solutions may be embedded within the existing public school structure:
Teacher quality and professional development. Professional development is at the heart of educational reform. Professional development should be based on teachers' expressed needs and be integrated into their teaching lives through professional learning communities and coaching.
Small class sizes. Rather than close schools, focus on the benefits of decreased class size. Research demonstrates the academic and social benefits of small schools and high teacher-student ratios.
Stop ability grouping and tracking in classrooms. Ability grouping begins in elementary school and creates de-facto "tracks" with students remaining in the same groups throughout their academic careers. There is clear evidence that tracking has detrimental effects on students.
End disciplinary policies that mitigate educational opportunities. Disciplinary policies should be reviewed to ensure that they are not creating a "school-to-prison" pipeline. Evidence indicates that African-American youth, particularly males, are the subject of racial profiling through disciplinary policies that do not help them acquire the behaviors and conventions necessary to succeed in school. The result is a domino effect of grade retentions, school drop out and academic failure.
End the disproportionate representation of African-American students in special education. Research indicates that African-American youth are over-represented in special education and under-represented in gifted education as a result of bias in referral and testing and inequities in opportunities.
When the Special Administrative Board votes on the superintendent's proposals, I ask that it accept the proposals for early childhood education, programs for teen parents and African centered programs that can be integrated into existing SLPS schools. I ask that it reject the proposals for district-sponsored charter schools, open enrollment for 8th graders and additional school closings based on standardized test scores.
Rebecca Rogers is an associate professor in the college of education at the University of Missouri St. Louis. She is president of the elected Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools. The opinion is her own; not a statement from the board.
She recently served on the board of directors of the Literacy Research Association and the National Council of Research on Language and Literacy and is the author of six books and more than 50 articles and chapters focused on teacher education, classroom discourse and literacy studies.
Note: This article also appeared in the St. Louis American.