DESE finds Ferguson-Florissant attendance changes

DESE finds Ferguson-Florissant attendance changes

FLORISSANT, Mo. (KSDK) – The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education found changes to Ferguson-Florissant district's attendance, according to a letter from DESE to the acting superintendent.

DESE Deputy Commissioner Ronald Lankford writes that the department found files had been changed on or around Aug. 6, 2012 to increase the attendance rate of Ferguson-Florissant.

Last week, the Ferguson-Florissant Board of Education President Paul Morris wrote in a letter to parents and community members that the board was required by law to notify DESE of serious information regarding Superintendent Art McCoy.

RELATED: DESE investigating Dr. Art McCoy

McCoy was put on administrative leave on November 7.

RELATED: Dr. McCoy sends letter to DESE

Lankford writes that DESE will assist in making the needed data corrections. He also states that once corrections are made, the district could further be contacted about financial impacts.

The Ferguson-Florissant Board of Education met in a closed meeting to discuss the preliminary results.

Union: MO education commissioner too involved with lobbyist backing teacher tenure initiative

Union: MO education commissioner too involved with lobbyist backing teacher tenure initiative

November 21, 2013 By Mike Lear

The Missouri chapter of a national teachers’ union says the state’s education commissioner went too far in working with lobbyists creating a ballot initiative to eliminate teacher tenure and institute evaluations based on student performance.

The Missouri-National Education Association obtained a series of e-mails from September of last year through March of this year between Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro and other Department of Elementary and Secondary Education officials and staff members and Kate Casas, state policy director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri, a group backed by political activist Rex Sinquefield.

MNEA Political Director Mark Jones says those e-mails show Nicastro editing the proposed initiative and making comments to expand its scope. He says the e-mail communications, “show a disturbing level of collusion and cooperation between a high-ranking official and a paid lobbyist.”

In one e-mail, Nicastro instructs DESE Counsel Mark VanZandt to bring copies of the proposed language to the closed session meeting of the State Board of Education and not to include it in the publicly posted agenda.

After the ballot initiative had been submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office, Nicastro changed a proposed cost estimate to be submitted to the State Auditor from reading local governments could face the “potential for significant unknown costs” to reading “cost unknown.”

Three analyses were done by local school districts in Missouri of the costs of the new evaluations the initiative would require. The Cape Girardeau District says the tests could cost it more than $2.6 million up front and more than $105,000 annually. The Hannibal District put those costs at more than $1.7 million initially and more than $79,000 annually. The Rockwood School District said the initial cost would be more than $10 million, with an annual cost of nearly $557,000.

Jones says MNEA also submitted a cost analysis.

“We estimated the initiative requires high stakes, standardized testing in every subject and every grade,” Jones says, “and will cost at least $200-million, and the upward cost is actually several billion dollars.”

The summary of the Auditor’s fiscal note for the initiative reads, “Decisions by school districts regarding provisions allowed or required by this proposal and their implementation will influence the potential costs or savings impacting each district. Significant potential costs may be incurred by the state and/or the districts if new/additional evaluation instruments must be developed to satisfy the proposal’s performance evaluation requirements.”

Attempts to reach Casas for comment were not responded to by the time this story was posted.

The State Board of Education in a statement says, “It is the duty of Missouri Commissioner of Education to serve all members of the public not just select groups. It’s unfortunate that special interest groups want the Commissioner to choose sides in debates that serve the interests of adults not children.”

MO Education Commissioner addresses e-mail controversy (AUDIO)

MO Education Commissioner addresses e-mail controversy (AUDIO)

Missouri’s Commissioner of Education says she and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education did nothing unusual in working with a lobbyist on the development of a ballot initiative.

Chris Nicastro testifies in a House Committee Hearing (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

The Missouri chapter of the National Education Association obtained and released e-mails exchanged among Chris Nicastro, staff members at DESE and Kate Casas, state policy director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri. MNEA Political Director Mark Jones says those e-mails, “show a disturbing level of collusion and cooperation between a high-ranking official and a paid lobbyist.”

The ballot initiative Casas was working on would eliminate teacher tenure and institute teacher evaluations based on student performance. The campaign has been financed by political activist Rex Sinquefield.

Nicastro tells Missourinet her office routinely reviews proposals from individuals and organizations from varying points of view to make sure they don’t conflict with the State Board of Education’s vision for education in the state.

She stresses DESE was not working with Casas on the tenure issue.

“We made it very clear from the beginning that we did not have a position on tenure and would not weigh in on that topic,” she says.

Nicastro says her staff instead focused on the student performance testing component of the initiative and how that might mesh with what DESE is doing regarding educator evaluations.

“We’ve been working on that with all of our education partners, including the NEA, for three years and we wanted to make sure that whatever they put in the petition, should that prove to be passed at some point, that it didn’t conflict with that work.”

See our earlier story on MNEA’s release of those e-mails

Jones keys on two points in the e-mail communications. In one, Nicastro instructs DESE Counsel Mark VanZandt to bring copies of the proposed language to the closed session meeting of the State Board of Education and not to include it in the publicly posted agenda.

Nicastro says there was “nothing nefarious” or unusual about that.

“We do not post things that go into closed session. That’s certainly in compliance with the law,” says Nicastro. “The reason we would do that in executive session is so that the Board’s attorney could brief them on the implications of that initiative petition relative to the Board’s role in dealing with evaluation or other issues that might come up legally, related to that petition.”

Jones also criticizes Nicastro for changing a proposed cost estimate to be submitted to the State Auditor from reading local governments could face the “potential for significant unknown costs” to reading “cost unknown.”

Nicastro says her change made the wording more concise, and was meant to keep DESE’s input on the fiscal note objective.

“Any time we do a fiscal note we have to be sure that we can document exactly where those numbers came from,” she explains.

She says the costs of student testing in support of new staff evaluations could vary widely across Missouri’s 520 school districts and more than 50 charter school local education agencies.

“If they choose to adopt the state model as it exists, if they choose to use all the forms and procedures that we’ve outlined, if they choose to use the training that we’ve provided, their cost could be zero or very little. If, on the other hand, a district were to choose … which they can … to develop their own model aligned with the seven principles that we’ve put forth and do their own development and their own training, their cost could be quite significant,” says Nicastro. “In a case like that we would simply say we don’t know. ‘Cost unknown.’”

Nicastro says she does not know if at the time she changed the fiscal note, information was available from the cost analyses of cost of the new student testing the initiative would require.

In those analyses the Cape Girardeau District said the tests could cost it more than $2.6 million up front and more than $105,000 annually. The Hannibal District put those costs at more than $1.7 million initially and more than $79,000 annually. The Rockwood School District said the initial cost would be more than $10 million, with an annual cost of nearly $557,000.

Nicastro says, “I wouldn’t be privy to that.”

The State School Board President has revised its statement in support of Nicastro. It asserts, “The Commissioner and her staff routinely respond to requests for review of legislative proposals. In this case the primary focus was on alignment with the Department’s work on a state model for educator evaluation.”

Listen to Mike Lear’s interview with Chris Nicastro:

Blue Springs mother outraged school district allowed to investigate alleged abuse internally

Blue Springs mother outraged school district allowed to investigate alleged abuse internally

BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. - Should a Missouri state law that allows school districts to internally investigate child abuse allegations against educators be changed?

One Blue Springs family is questioning whether the current law allowing school districts to do just that serves the best interest of children in the Show-Me State.

Jake Livingston looks like the average 9-year-old boy next door.

“(He) likes to write jokes and tell stories. Just overall if you met him, you would think he’s a normal kid,” said Susan Wolfe, his mother.

Jake has childhood alopecia. The disease caused him to lose his hair. He also has a high-functioning form of autism and ADHD. His school, Sunny Pointe Elementary, offers him some extra individualized help through its Special Education classroom.

But Wolfe said an incident in that classroom on May 7 came as a complete surprise.

Wolfe said it started as a misunderstanding between the special education teacher and Jake regarding a school assignment.

She said Jake believed he had completed the assignment the night before. The special education teacher believed it was not completed. The teacher brought Jake a new worksheet and asked him to complete it.

Wolfe said Jake ripped up the paper. That’s when she said the teacher crossed a line.

“She actually grabbed him by the back of his neck and the arm and pushed him to the floor out of his chair,” said Wolfe.

Jake had a small mark on his head from the incident. Wolfe took a picture and reported the incident to the child abuse hotline. However, she said she was surprised to learn the school district would be allowed to investigate itself. 

Missouri law allows a school district to choose whether to investigate the allegation itself or have the Department of Social Services conduct the investigation.

Read the Missouri law | http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1600000261.htm

Wolfe told 41 Action News Investigators she believes that is a conflict of interest. She said she was not happy with how the Blue Springs School District performed its investigation.

“During this whole investigation I never knew the investigator’s name. They never contacted us," Wolfe said. "The only thing they had from us was a statement that my son wrote as a third grader as to what happened.”

The investigator obtained written statements from Jake, the teacher involved and two other paraprofessionals who were working in the classroom at the time.

Jake’s handwritten statement mirrored the statements of the two paraprofessionals. All three wrote that the teacher grabbed Jake’s arm and neck and pushed him to the floor.

The statement the teacher wrote said Jake fell to the floor.

In a letter to the Missouri Department of Social Services, the school district's Board of Education president wrote the investigation found the charge was unsubstantiated.

Wolfe told the 41 Action News investigators she was angered by the report.

“How can two adults and a child have similar report, and then the one teacher that did the assaulting has a different report and it can be dismissed?” said Wolfe.

In the report, the investigator described another incident at the same school involving the very same teacher. The investigator wrote that the principal told him in February -- just three months earlier -- that he had written and spoken to the teacher for grabbing a child by the neck and forcing his head down on the desk.

“That's alarming to me that this is not the first issue that she has had and has been addressed with her,” Wolfe said.

Her attorney, Deborah Johnson, said she believes this presents a conflict of interest.

“Why are school districts allowed to investigate themselves when there is an allegation of abuse or neglect? That makes no sense,” Johnson said.

Johnson told the 41 Action News Investigators she thinks lawmakers should take a second look at the provision of the law that allows school districts the option to investigate themselves.

“A hotline report is filed against me for social services to investigate, and that report is given to me to investigate myself? What am I going to say ‘Yes, I am guilty?’ No, I'm not going to say that. That just seems insane to me,” Johnson said.

Information obtained from the Missouri Department of Social Services shows the state received 600 calls about schools, both private and public, into the child abuse hotline in 2011. Statistics show 29 of those calls were substantiated. The Department of Social services does not keep statistics on how often school districts choose to perform investigations themselves.

The Blue Springs School District told 41 Action News the teacher in question resigned while the district was performing the investigation. A spokesperson said the district would have no further comment on the incident due to pending litigation.

A 41 Action News investigation found that teacher is still teaching special education at another school in the Kansas City area.

Jake’s family and their attorney feel that is proof the law needs

Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/parents-question-conflict-of-interest-in-one-state-law#ixzz2kZT4Hz00

The Concerns Regarding School Assessments for Educational Autism

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: The Concerns Regarding School Assessments for Educational Autism

This is happening a lot in Lee's Summit.  At one point it was happening 50% of the time.  When I last checked there were 250 students in the district with a medical diagnosis of autism and only 98 had an educational diagnosis.

From the Article The Concerns Regarding School Assessments for Educational Autism

Please read the rest.  Here is a portion that I find significant.

I recently assessed a teenager and diagnosed him with Asperger’s Syndrome. Within the past year two psychologists for different purposes (hospital and disability determination) also diagnosed him with Asperger’s Syndrome. Yet the school believed that he did not fit the criteria for educational autism based on their assessment. He was failing every subject and having behavioral and social difficulties. No other explanation was given for the problems in school and he was denied special services. Due to a predictable problem he was suspended from school and is now, ironically, receiving services. We are not sure what will happen when he returns to school.

Missouri School District Faces Second Federal Lawsuit in Two Years - Yahoo News

Missouri School District Faces Second Federal Lawsuit in Two Years - Yahoo News

The Republic School District in southwest Missouri is facing its second lawsuit in federal court in four years over a special education student. The Springfield News-Leader reports the Hansen family won a case against the school district after four years of litigation stating their son needed individualized attention since the fifth grade.

The federal lawsuit litigated in June 2009 that he had conduct and personality disorders that required the school district to adapt to his needs for an education. Eventually, he got four hours of individualized tutoring which helped improve his grades.

Since the lawsuit was settled in 2010, the family moved away. It was also reported the family had more than $27,000 in legal costs paid by the district. Republic itself spent over $60,000 in legal fees.

Another lawsuit was brought against the school district in federal court alleging another pupil's rights were violated. A girl and her family are suing Republic Schools over multiple rape allegations by a boy on middle school grounds. Plaintiffs say they have DNA evidence and juvenile court records to back up their claims. Republic schools have denied the accusations. The current litigation received national media attention from the likes of CBS News .

That makes two lawsuits in federal court in a two-year period for Republic Schools regarding special needs children. Even though the recent lawsuit is just beginning, there clearly is something wrong in the once proud school system. Added to these lawsuits was a controversy over the past year regarding the banning of two books from the high school's library. That issue also received national attention.

The $87,000 in legal fees could easily pay for two or three teachers to help kids learn. It could also go towards improved curricula or funding for special education programs. Instead, it went to fees to clean up a mess that administrators and leaders in the Republic School District created themselves. The next school board election in Republic will be very interesting to watch.

What's even worse is that both students' lives were changed forever. No one should have to endure the humiliation of these kids who were just trying to be normal kids. This is America where no one should be treated as a second-class citizen. How we treat the future of this country today will largely effect how the next generation of leaders will work with citizens to better their communities.

For some children who attended schools in Republic, their lives 10 years from now will be irrevocably altered by men and women who were trained to protect them. Instead, they were ignored.

William Browning, a lifelong Missouri resident, writes about local and state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network. Born in St. Louis, Browning earned his bachelor's degree in English from the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Branson.

Education Week: Missing: A National Education Policy for Low-Income Families

Education Week: Missing: A National Education Policy for Low-Income Families

As a young staffer for the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, I remember distinctly an exchange that the senator had with President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration officials, when the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was being debated in the Senate education committee in 1965. Sen. Kennedy peppered them with questions about why poor parents were not given more power to hold school districts accountable for the federal money they were receiving under the ESEA's Title I. He contended that parents in the South Bronx should have the same clout over education decisions as the parents in Westchester County, an affluent community just north of New York City.

In promoting federal mechanisms that evened the playing field in the early years of the ESEA, Robert Kennedy saw the role of parents as one of mobilizing, organizing, and changing the power relationships to ensure that federal funding would be used to desegregate the schools as well as build demand for improved student performance. That discussion raised some of the first questions about the relationships between instructional quality, assessment data, and the use of that information by low-income parents to demand improved public schools—an issue we continue to grapple with today. In essence, the legislation dramatically changed the relationship that low-income parents had with school officials.

But there were many school districts that either resented the federal parent requirements or that were threatened by the increase in parent participation. They staged mass resistance against parent organizing and, during the 1980 ESEA reauthorization process, persuaded Congress to gut the core of the parent-involvement provisions. That significant shift sent a national message that administrator control was more important than collaboration or shared decisionmaking, and that parental involvement would now be voluntary and not protected by federal law.

Today, the rhetoric of family engagement has overshadowed any serious policymaking. We have shifted from an ESEA that was primarily community-based and into building relationships to one that is highly school- and test-based, and inhumanly technocratic. And while the U.S. Department of Education talks a good game, charter schools, teacher evaluation, and competitive grants like Race to the Top have trumped family engagement as national priorities. Curiously, instead of building on the new research that demonstrates the importance of linking families to school transformation, the Education Department has actually diminished family provisions. It eliminated statewide Parent Information and Resource Centers, failed to monitor the family provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of the ESEA), and emasculated the parents'-right-to-know provision of NCLB, which endowed parents with the right to inquire about the qualifications of their children's teachers. All of those are tools to support low-income families.

When asked at a National Press Club presentation last year how he would grade the Education Department's family-engagement policies, Secretary Arne Duncan gave his agency a D. The department has not been a safe haven for low-income parents, and Congress and the Obama administration have largely been unable to incorporate the family evidence we have into the policies we need.

For many state and local leaders in family engagement, Congress and the Education Department have become irrelevant forces in helping to level the playing field in the balance of power and school-family collaboration, as well as in helping to build demand for schools that are responsive to the particular needs of low-income parents. This unfortunate void leaves low-income parents to fend for themselves and build from the ground up—school by school and district by district. And here is some advice: Don't expect your federal government to help in this process. Parental choice, market models, and rhetoric do not substitute for family mobilization, advocacy, or organizing.

We know sound family policies work. They help grow district capacity, teacher and administrator professional development, community engagement, integration of services, funding, best practices, communications, and respect for voices and needs. When coordinated, these elements build a seamless link between school and family, increasing student success and performance.

If we give up on our families, we give up on our community. If we lose our community, we lose our democracy. If we lose our democracy, we lose the public. And if we lose the public, we lose public education. The stakes are too high for our national policymakers to ignore what makes sense.