In 2007, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan ruled against the school district plaintiffs in favor of the state and 3 taxpayer-intervenors.  Today’s concurrent ruling comes after the school districts appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court, and ends the long, expensive court battle.

The decision that Missouri is meeting its obligation to fund public schools is prudent and saves taxpayers from shouldering billions of additional blank-check state spending for public education.  It has, however, cost both taxpayers and students.  School district plaintiffs spent taxpayer dollars, and taxpayers also support state legal services that defended Missouri’s formula.  Students lost out on millions of dollars that could have been spent in a classroom, but were instead spent in the courtroom.

This trial and the resounding dismissal of the plaintiff districts’ claims offer several distinct lessons as Missouri pursues excellence in education.

The State Supreme Court will not be the “good cop” and circumvent the powers of the legislative branch to appropriate funds. When local tax levies and lobbying efforts failed to change the funding formula to the extent that these school districts desired and they turned to Constitutional arguments to secure more funding, the court had this to say:

“Notably, the introductory clause… concerning the ‘diffusion of knowledge’ outlines the purpose and subject of Missouri’s public education system. But, it provides no specific directive or standard for how the State must accomplish a ‘diffusion of knowledge.’ Plaintiffs are attempting to read a separate funding requirement into [the clause] that would require the legislature to provide “adequate” education funding in excess of the 25-percent requirement… Such language does not exist….

Reading a free-standing obligation to provide certain school funding into the introductory language… would be contrary to the specific flexibility afforded the legislature…”

More money does not equal better education. Missouri cannot spend its way to excellent, or even adequate performance.   State funding is merely one aspect of the framework set up to house public education: it is how we as a state move resources toward the goal of educating our children.  Those resources can be spent wisely or poorly.  They can be spent on programs, materials and staff that educate effectively, but they may be spent on methods that don’t work.  The structure into which we put our resources is at least as important as how much we spend.

A new era of education reform is coming. Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke in St. Louis last week, and presented a new way of thinking about funding education: tie it to reforms that work.

Announcing billions of dollars in grants available for education, Duncan gave caveats that grants would be awarded where innovation was the driving force. He stressed that Missouri should consider having a portfolio of options to offer children with different needs and strengths.

“In St. Louis, the city and Missouri the state has a chance to compete for unprecedented discretionary resources,” said Duncan. “In every one of the those applications, we’re going to look for capacity, we’re going to look for a visionary plan, we’re going to look for someone who wants to challenge the status quo and we’re going to look for folks who are willing to collaborate, and if St. Louis and Missouri can do that, you have the chance to do something very special in the years ahead.”

More than anything, the conclusion of the Adequacy Trial offers us a clear opportunity to shift our focus to a new way of thinking about improving Missouri education and also the way we can fund that goal.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/changedotgov/ / CC BY 2.0

Missouri Supreme Court Opinion available HERE.

Q I’m a school counselor in the Fox T6 district. President Obama, what do you feel is the biggest challenge facing our educational system today, and how do you plan on meeting those challenges?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, excellent question. I believe that we’ve got a multitude of challenges. So rather than just isolate on one, let me talk about several.

Our children are coming out of high school — in some cases, they’re not even graduating high school, but even if they graduate from high school — ranked lower on math and science scores than many other advanced industrialized countries. Nations like China and India are starting to turn out more engineers, more scientists. If we aren’t able to compete technologically we’re not going to be able to compete, because this is a knowledge-based economy. We can have some people who are really willing to work hard, but if the technology is coming from overseas and all we’re competing for is just our labor, then over time those countries will get richer, our countries will get poorer.

So we’ve got to upgrade across the board — not just in poor, underprivileged schools, but across the board — we’ve got to upgrade the performance levels of our young people. Now, in order to do that, the single-biggest ingredient is the quality of our teachers; single most important factor — (applause) — single most important factor in the classroom is the quality of the person standing at the front of the classroom. And that’s why our recovery package put a lot of emphasis on teacher training, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, professional development.

And I’ve got a terrific young Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who is — (applause) — and he is so passionate, but he’s tough, and he wants to push school districts to really do what it takes to give teachers the support that they need.

Now, that involves a whole range of things. It means that how we train and recruit teachers in the first place, how do we match them up with master teachers so that they learn best practices; how do we make sure that if they’re coming in and they don’t have all the professional background they need in something — a subject area like science, that we give them the training they need; and how do we recruit people who might be great teachers but didn’t go through the conventional channels. If there’s a chemist out there somewhere who wants to teach, we should be able to get him into the classroom in an expedited way, because he or she is bringing skills that we need.

I just gave an award to the Teacher of the Year, who was a police officer, a cop — had gone to the — had become a captain in the New York City Police Department and then decided that he wanted to pursue his lifelong love of learning and went back to teach — and asked for the toughest-to-teach kids. Well, we want to encourage people like that who have a passion for teaching.

Now, I also want to increase teacher pay so that a lot more people want to go into teaching. (Applause.)

The deal I’ve got to strike with teachers, though — I may not get as much applause on this — (laughter) — is I would like to work with teachers and the teachers unions, because I’m a union guy, but I do believe — (applause) — but I do believe that it’s important for the unions to work flexibly with school districts in a consensual fashion to find ways so that if you’ve got a really excellent teacher, after 15, 20 years, they can get paid a little bit more — right? — if they’re doing a really good job. (Applause.)

And now the flip side — I’m telling you, I’m getting to the point where I’m not going to get applause. (Laughter.) If you’ve got a bad teacher who can’t — after given all the support and the training that they need is just not performing up to snuff, we’ve got to find that person a new job. (Applause.)

Just a couple more comments on education generally. A lot of schools still aren’t using technology as well as they could in the classroom. And one of the things we’re trying to do with the Recovery Act is to help schools get broadband, get computers, but then also train people to use it properly. I think we can do more with technology. Once kids get out of high school, making college affordable is absolutely critical. (Applause.) We have to redesign the college experience so that — not everybody is going to go to school for four years right in a row when they’re 18. Some people are going to work for two years, then go back to school for two years once they figure out something they’re interested in; go back to work, maybe five years down the road they need to retrain.

We’ve got to create a pathway for lifelong learning for young people — and not-so-young people — so that all American workers are continually upgrading their skills. (Applause.) So we want to put a lot more emphasis on community colleges and how they are working effectively together.

Let me make a last point because I don’t want to — I could talk about this stuff forever. One last point which I always have to remind people of — I said that the biggest ingredient in school performance is the teacher. That’s the biggest ingredient within a school. But the single biggest ingredient is the parent. (Applause.) So this is an example where, people are always trying to say, oh, Obama, is he liberal? Is he conservative? Well, I want government to do what it should do, but there’s some things government can’t do. That’s where I’m conservative. Government can’t force parents to turn off the TV set and tell your kid to sit down and do their homework. I can’t do that. (Applause.) That’s not my job. That’s your job. Well, it is my job with Sasha and Malia. (Laughter.) Those two, I’m responsible for.

But the other part of it is it’s not just making sure your kids are doing their homework, it’s also instilling a thirst for knowledge and excellence. It’s been noted widely that there are a lot of immigrant students who come from very modest backgrounds economically that end up doing very well. And why is that? Well, the difference is, is that in their families and in their communities a lot of times they’ve got that attitude that used to be prevalent, but sometimes we’re losing — sometimes I worry we’re losing — and that is, boy, it is a privilege to learn, it’s a privilege to discover new things, it’s cool to be smart. (Applause.) We want to reward kids for doing well in school. (Applause.)

And the community can help the parents. Listen, I love basketball. But the smartest kid in the school, the National Science Award winner should be getting as much attention as the basketball star. (Applause.) That’s a change that we’ve got to initiate in our community.

The SAB removed the policy yesterday, April 16th, but the lawsuit will continue to prove the unconstitutionality of denying equal protection under the law to those seeking to open Charter schools and the children and parents they might be able to serve.

There are many concerns that the policy end date will be arbitrary or that a de facto policy will continue, but both legislative and judicial actions in Missouri hope to expressly prohibit the restrictions.

Read the full text of the article HERE, or below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Eastern Division

Rex Sinquefield and W. Bevis Schock,
Plaintiffs,                                         Cause No.
___________
vs.
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
St. Louis Public School District, a/k/a
St. Louis City Public Schools,

Serve at:

801 North 11th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Special Administrative Board of the
Transitional School District of the
City of St. Louis,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Melanie Adams,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Richard K. Gaines,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Rick Sullivan,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

and Kelvin Adams,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Defendants

COMPLAINT
Come now Plaintiffs Rex Sinquefield (hereinafter “Sinquefield”) and W. Bevis Schock (hereinafter “Schock”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants St. Louis Public School District a/k/a St. Louis City Public Schools (“School District”), Special Administrative Board of the Tran¬sitional School District of the City of St. Louis (“Interim Board”), Melanie Adams (“M. Adams”), Richard K. Gaines (“Gaines”), Rick Sullivan (“Sullivan”) and Kelvin Adams (“Superintendent Adams”), state to the Court as follows.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The Court thus has ju¬risdiction over the subject matter of the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343.

2. This action also seeks declaratory relief in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

3. All causes of action alleged in this complaint arose in the City of St. Louis. Most, if not all, of the acts and omissions underlying this complaint occurred in the City of St. Louis. All or most of the Defendants reside in the City of St. Louis. Thus, venue lies in this Eastern Division of the Eastern Dis¬trict of Missouri. E.D.Mo. L.R. 3-2.07 (A) (1) & (B) (2).

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with Local Rule 38-2.04 of this Court, the Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all claims and issues in this action triable to a jury.

PARTIES
4. Sinquefield is an individual residing in Missouri and owning real property in the City of St. Louis. He has standing to bring this action as a tax-paying citizen of the State of Missouri and of the City of St. Louis. If the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not granted, it will result in a direct expenditure or loss of funds generated through taxation or an increase in levy in taxes or pecuniary loss to the School District and the taxpayers.

5. Schock is an individual residing in Missouri and owning real property in the City of St. Louis. He has standing to bring this action as a tax-paying citizen of the State of Missouri and of the City of St. Louis. If the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not granted, it will result in a direct expenditure or loss of funds generated through taxation or an increase in levy in taxes or pecuniary loss to the School District and the taxpayers.

6. Defendant School District is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri with its principal place of business in the City of St. Louis at 801 N. 11th Street, St. Louis, MO, 63101.

7. Defendant Interim Board (hereinafter, the “Interim Board”) has a principal place of business in the City of St. Louis at 801 N. 11th Street , St. Louis, MO, 63101.

8. Defendant M. Adams is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

9. Defendant Gaines is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

10. Defendant Sullivan is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

11. Defendant Superintendent Adams is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS & ALL PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
12. On or about April 4, 2008, the School District, acting with or through the Interim Board, executed a certain purchase and sale agreement (hereinafter, the “Green Lea Agreement”) with one North Tower Group, LLC (hereinafter “North Tower Group”), for the sale and conveyance of a school property at Green Lea Place in the City of St. Louis (hereinafter, the “Green Lea School Property”). A copy of the Green Lea Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. (North Tower Group is not a party to this action.)

13. Included in the Green Lea Agreement as ‘Exhibit B’ to that Agreement is the fol¬low¬ing Deed Restriction (hereinafter, the “Deed Restriction”), which, on the whole, the Agree¬ment establishes as a condition of any conveyance to North Tower Group:

1. For a period of one hundred years from the date of recording of this Deed, Grantee agrees and covenants that no portion of the Property shall be used for the following (collectively, the “Restrictions”), without the prior written authorization of Grantor: A primary, elementary or secondary school of any kind providing instruction for any grades kindergarten through twelfth; provided, however, that a center providing care for children outside of such primary, elementary or secon¬dary school setting shall be expressly permitted.

Grantee further agrees that the Restrictions shall run with the land as binding on the Grantee, its successors, and assigns. In the event of a breach of the Restric¬tions, the non-prevailing party, as determined by the Court, shall pay the reason¬able attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

14. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the inclusion of this Deed Restriction in the Green Lea Agreement was in accordance with a formal policy (hereinafter, the “Policy”) adopted officially by the School District or by the Interim Board, but adopted by the Interim board in any event.

15. The State of Missouri recently granted a certain third party, not a party to this action (hereinafter, the “Third Party School”), a charter to operate a charter school within the City of St. Louis for the purpose of teaching certain foreign languages to school students in the City.

16. Sometime after adoption of the Policy, the Third Party School, seeking to purchase one of a number of School District properties up for sale, approached a real estate agent retained by the School District (hereinafter, the “School District Realtor”) to commence negotiations for the purchase of one or more properties.

17. The School District Realtor questioned the Third Party School to determine the nature of its business, learned that it was an educational company holding a charter to conduct a charter school in the City of St. Louis, and immediately informed the Third Party School that the Third Party School would not be able to purchase any School District property to operate its school or for any educational purpose.

18. The Third Party School presently operates its school at one location in St. Louis; but it is seeking a second location and has identified a large number of parents and students waiting for it to expand its present facility or to acquire a new, larger school property.

19. The Third Party School wishes to acquire an existing school building as soon as possible, and most, if not all, of the existing school buildings in the City of St. Louis are presently owned by the School District.

20. The contract price for the sale of the Green Lea School Property to North Tower Group was substantially less than the Third Party School will have to pay in order to build a new school building or buildings to accomplish its school building goals.

Count I
Violation of Rights (Speech, Expressive Association, and Assembly) Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution

21. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty (20) as though fully set forth herein.

22. The Deed Restriction and the Policy which it reflects and implements violate the Free Speech, Free Association, and Free Assembly provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

23. The Deed Restriction and the Policy deliberately place a substantial obstacle in the way of any parties, such as these Plaintiffs, wishing to set up a school in competition with the schools operated by the School District and in the way of any children wishing to attend such competing schools; and it does the same to the parents of all such children.

24. The Deed Restriction and the Policy are not authorized by any governing statute or regulation of the State of Missouri; if they are so authorized, they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America in any event.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count I in an amount to be determined at trial, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary, or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

Count II
Violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

25. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty (20) as though fully set forth herein.

26. The Deed Restriction and the Policy which it reflects and implements violate the Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

27. The Deed Restriction and Policy deny equal protection of the laws to these Plaintiffs and to all charter schools and to all private educational institutions who wish to provide the services of primary, elementary, or secondary education to the public in competition with the schools operated by the School District, and who will be adversely and disproportionately impacted by the resulting lack of suitable facilities in which to provide their services.

28. The Deed Restriction and Policy deny equal protection of the laws to many children wishing to attend charter schools and private schools within the City of St. Louis rather than the public schools operated by the School District; and they deny the same protection to the parents of all such children.

29. The Deed Restriction and the Policy are not authorized by any governing statute or regulation of the State of Missouri; if they are so authorized, they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America in any event.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count II in an amount to be determined at trial, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

Count III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violation

30. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty-nine (29) as though fully set forth herein.

31. Defendants are all state actors so as to be liable for the deprivation of rights or liberties under the Constitution of the United States of America.

32. In adopting and enforcing and in continuing to attempt to enforce the Deed Restriction and the Policy, each one of the Defendants has, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri, subjected or caused to be subjected each one of the Plaintiffs and each of the third-parties whose Constitutional rights are implicated in this action to the deprivation of the Constitutional rights alleged herein and to the deprivation of other rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count III in an amount to be determined at trial, for their attorney’s fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

The Schindler Law Firm, P.C.

____________________________________
Joshua M. Schindler, Bar No. 22593
141 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 201
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 862-1411
(314) 862-1701 Fax
josh@schindlerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Protestors get what they want — chance for charters

Kevin Killeen Reporting
kakilleen@cbs.com

ST. LOUIS (KMOX Radio) — A crowd of protestors marching on St. Louis public school headquarters errupted into cheers this morning, as they learned the district will allow the sale of empty school buildings to groups seeking to set up charter schools.

The three-member state board running St. Louis public schools made the decision last night in closed session,
reversing a long- standing district policy against selling school buildings to rival educational institutions.

Among the protestors, State Representative T.D. El Amin called the decision good news for students and neighborhoods.

“Charter schools are public schools and this is America,” El Amin said, “We believe that competition should make you better, not bitter.”

The head of the three-member state panel acknowledged that the decision was influenced by state lawmakers who have been pushing for a change in the deed restriction rule.

“We have worked with our elected leaders at the state capital in resolving this issue, and we appreciate their support in finding a resolution where we can enhance the education for all our city students,” said Rick Sullivan, President and CEO of the SAB.

Right now there are ten vacant school buildings in the district on the real estate market. The district has 71 other active school buildings. Plans are in the works to close another 14 schools at the end of the school year, but not all the closed schools would be sold, according to District spokesman Patrick Wallace.

“We have to keep some buildings on hold for future needs and the possibility that enrollment could go up,” Wallace said. Currently there are some 27 thousand students in the district, down from 43 thousand a decade ago.

The district is also struggling with money problems — a current budget deficit of 36 million dollars. Superintendent Dr. Kelvin Adams has announced plans to present a balanced budget for the fiscal year that starts July first.

Closing fourteen more buildings at the end of this school year would save the district about 15 million dollars, according to Wallace. That would leave another 21 million dollars to make up somehow, possibly through the sale of some school buildings.

Those attending the rally in favor of charter schools said they don’t know of any immediate plans to purchase district buildings and open charter schools.

Open Enrollment opens up a choice to parents to move their child to another, neighboring public school district. For Missouri, this reform measure makes sense: many district boundaries are no longer aligned with population centers, and this would allow families to choose a closer school or a more appropriate school for their child. In the case of St. Louis Public Schools, as the video mentions, it is the easiest way to help parents seek an accredited public education.