Susan Pendergrass speaks with Noah Devine, executive director of the Missouri Charter Public Schools Association, about how charter schools in St. Louis are responding after the recent tornado damaged multiple campuses. They discuss the need for flexibility for displaced families, how charter schools are working to reopen quickly, and the broader importance of school choice, especially in times of crisis. Noah also explains why Missouri’s lack of open enrollment makes recovery harder, and shares resources for families navigating this difficult time.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript: Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine

Download a copy of the transcript here

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Today I’m going to be talking to Noah Devine of Missouri Charter Public School Association. You basically represent, to a certain extent, the charter schools across Kansas City and St. Louis. To a certain extent, your organization helps them navigate policy processes, funding processes, and things like that in Missouri. So thanks for joining us.

Noah Devine (00:19)
Thanks for having me on, and yeah, you’re exactly right. We are a membership-based, dues-based organization that supports, represents, and advocates for public charter schools here in the state of Missouri.

Susan Pendergrass (00:30)
Well, like the Show-Me Institute, a few weeks ago, many schools in the St. Louis area were affected by a tornado. We lost the top floor of our building when it came through. I know that I’ve been reading that St. Louis Public Schools have about six buildings that are affected by the tornado. How many charter schools were affected?

Noah Devine (00:50)
Yeah, it was obviously really terrible what happened in St. Louis with that tornado. In total, seven charter school buildings were directly impacted. None of them will be compromised from opening this fall, so that’s a very good thing. Two of them were not able to open the week that it happened or the week immediately after. One of them has an annex that was very badly damaged, and so they’re going to have to rework how they meet the needs of their students. The building impact is very significant. What worries me the most is that they’re doing everything they can to meet the needs of their families and students who were directly impacted. Over the summer and into the fall, I think we’re going to see how things ultimately shake out. I’m quite worried that we’re going to have a large increase in students and families experiencing homelessness, and meeting those families’ needs will be really important.

Susan Pendergrass (01:41)
Why do you imagine that St. Louis Public Schools say six of their buildings can’t be used, but charter schools are going to find a way to use theirs? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Noah Devine (01:53)
Yeah, I honestly don’t know. Some of it could always be just good old-fashioned dumb luck, the location of buildings. I think that’s probably most likely. I do think the buildings that were more directly impacted and were charter schools were in better condition. I don’t know the condition of some of the SLPS buildings, but I think charter schools were able to mitigate things a little more readily.

Susan Pendergrass (02:30)
This is what I was thinking, because we had to scramble to find a place to work. Some of us are in temporary office space. Some people are working from home, and it really does affect people. I assume there are many students whose own homes were affected. It’s summer now, but we’re trying to figure out what to do in the fall. St. Louis Public Schools has said that the kids in these six schools are all being reassigned to new schools.

Wouldn’t it make sense, given that this is an emergency—an act of God type of situation—that families could be given flexibility over where their kids go? If they’re displaced, they might want their kids to stay with the same teacher and group of friends, or they might want to go somewhere closer to where they are displaced or where their job is. It seems to me this is the time for flexibility. What do you think?

Noah Devine (03:27)
Could not agree more. Setting aside the natural disaster of a tornado, we fundamentally believe, as all of our schools do, that the decision of where to send your kid—whether it be homeschool, private school, charter public school, district school, magnet school, whatever—is the decision of a family. In a time like this, we need to enact provisions, not dissimilar from what we did during COVID, to make sure families have what they need.

If a family in North St. Louis lost everything, let’s not upset the apple cart. If they want to stay at that school, we have to make sure they can get there. McKinney-Vento is the federal classification for students who are homeless. If you lost your home and are temporarily living with someone else, you meet that designation and can stay at your school. We’re working with charter schools and DESE to ensure that’s clearly communicated. But that designation comes with a cost, usually transportation.

We need help to meet that need. Big picture, we should always be trying to meet the needs of families with choice in mind. During emergencies, it’s even more necessary to push through red tape and ensure we aren’t telling families that, on top of everything else, they now have to move schools.

Susan Pendergrass (05:36)
Do you know if the governor has indicated he’s open to an emergency executive order to ensure St. Louis families have maximum flexibility?

Noah Devine (05:47)
I don’t want to speak for the governor’s office or DESE. But I’ve been extremely impressed with how they’ve moved to get direct support to families in St. Louis. During special session a couple of weeks ago, a huge pot of money was allocated to meet those needs. I’m confident they’ll do everything they can within the law. That said, Missouri does not have open enrollment, which limits flexibility. It’s come close many times, but hasn’t passed.

Susan Pendergrass (06:56)
In times of crisis, like pandemics or tornadoes, the need for flexibility becomes very apparent. You and I followed legislation last year that would have allowed students from outside the city to enroll in a charter school. It made so much sense and still couldn’t get across the finish line.

Noah Devine (07:47)
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (07:48)
Families often face personal emergencies too. A child being bullied, a move to live with grandparents—these are real. Charter school leaders want to keep kids where they belong. We just haven’t found the right words to convince enough people.

Noah Devine (08:21)
I couldn’t agree more. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the families impacted. But this is when policy limitations become very real. Missouri is surrounded by states that allow more enrollment flexibility. We shouldn’t lock families into bad situations, whether the crisis is natural or personal. We need to continue pushing for change.

Susan Pendergrass (10:04)
In Kansas City, many top-notch charter schools have strong reputations. If families live on the Kansas side, they can cross the river and choose from any school. Kansas has one of the strongest open enrollment laws in the country. Missouri should follow that example. Not every school is right for every child. And families shouldn’t have to move to find a better fit.

Noah Devine (11:04)
Exactly. I read an article recently about this. People often assume open enrollment would destroy public education. It won’t. Families pick different colleges for their kids based on interests and needs. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to K-12?

Susan Pendergrass (11:58)
Pell Grants follow students to the college of their choice. It works. But in K-12, it’s somehow controversial. I was asked yesterday on the radio about some charter schools closing in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Noah Devine (12:26)
Great question. First, we can’t underestimate the impact of school closures on families. It’s very real and unfortunate. But charter schools are designed to be more accountable. If families leave or the school isn’t performing, it should close. That’s how accountability works.

We are in a period of declining enrollment nationwide. All public schools will have to make tough choices. The charter system allows closures based on whether families want to go there and whether the school is serving them well. That’s how it should work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:30)
Mm-hmm.

Noah Devine (14:45)
When you lead a charter school, you have to earn it. Every student is there by choice. That makes charter schools unique. Missouri ranks among the top five states in charter school performance, according to CREDO at Stanford. We should take that seriously.

Susan Pendergrass (15:36)
This reminds me of the Unsafe School Choice Option under federal law. If a school is deemed persistently dangerous, students have the right to transfer. Missouri has never labeled a school that way, even though the data suggests otherwise. But charter schools already give families that power. If parents feel unsafe, they can simply pull their child out.

Noah Devine (16:37)
Exactly.

Susan Pendergrass (16:50)
That’s how it should be in all public schools. If parents in St. Louis want to know what resources are available for displaced children or schools, where should they go?

Noah Devine (17:26)
Start with our website, mocharterschools.org. We have a resource page for families affected by the tornado. Also, we work with Show Me Mo Schools, which runs a common application system. Their site is schoolappstl.org. And finally, DESE’s website has guidance and updates, though it could use improvement.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
Good luck with that. Thanks again, Noah.

Noah Devine (18:20)
Thanks, and take care.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Special thanks to:

http://www.kippstl.org/

https://www.ceamteam.org/

http://www.mocharterschools.org/

The post Charter Schools: A Mother’s Plea for Her Son appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post 2016 Friedman Day Policy Panel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Alex Stuckey, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, tweeted:

Officials with St. Louis Public Schools said they need to hold buildings back in case enrollment increases #motransfers #moleg

— Alex Stuckey (@alexdstuckey) March 11, 2015

This was in regards to a portion of the bill that requires districts to sell their vacant school buildings at fair-market value to charter schools. Here is what Brittany and I said in our testimony about the abandoned building provision:

While charter schools continue to grow in Missouri’s urban cities, HB 42 addresses the acquisition of real estate by charter schools from public schools. Overall, these schools are outperforming their traditional public school counterparts. Charter schools are doing well despite receiving less funds than traditional public schools. For example, they do not receive public funds for building expenses. Lack of access to affordable real estate often prohibits charter school expansion and the replication of quality charters. St. Louis and Kansas City Public Schools, however, both have their share of abandoned buildings. As a result, taxpayers are basically funding vacant buildings. Neglected facilities increase the risk of drug and crime incidents in urban communities. Allowing public charter schools to purchase taxpayer-owned real estate at fair-market value could increase educational opportunities while revitalizing blighted neighborhoods.

Now, here is what I find particularly interesting about the notion that St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) needs to hold on to buildings in case enrollment increases. First, enrollment has been steadily declining since the late 1990s. Since 1999, the district has lost half of its students. The district has had to close many school buildings in that time. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the district had 130 operating schools in 1991, 113 in 1999, and 77 in 2013.

Using the enrollment figures and the number of school buildings, I can compute the number of students per building. Of course, this is an average, and the actual enrollments vary. In 1991, the average enrollment per building was 333, in 1999 it was 396, and in 2013 it was 327. The enrollment today, per building, is less than it was at each of these times. In other words, SLPS buildings are no more crowded today than they ever have been.

The largest enrollment increase in the past 20-plus years was 2,684 in 2013. This was the year after the Imagine Charter Schools closed their doors. Using the average building enrollment figures, this increase is roughly the enrollment of six to eight schools.

Yet, according to information gathered by Abby Fallon, a former Show-Me Institute intern, SLPS has 35 empty schools. The district currently has 25 buildings listed for sale.

It is always nice to save for a rainy day, but saving 30-plus buildings seems a bit much. SLPS must be expecting it to pour new students! In the unlikely event that SLPS had a large influx of students, it might make sense to have a couple of buildings on reserve. Still, this hardly justifies blocking the sale of two dozen other buildings that could be put to good use as a charter school.

Charter schools paying fair-market value seems like a pretty good deal to me. There is even a strong case that charters should have access to these buildings for free. As Doug Thaman of the Missouri Charter Public School Association said, “Why should a charter school use public dollars to buy a public building that’s already been paid for by the public? It’s almost like buying your home twice.”

The post St. Louis Public Schools Saving School Buildings for a Rainy Day appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One topic of discussion was pay for teachers. Flinders asserted that Kansas City teachers are paid lower than the state average. She is most likely correct, and there is something we can do to fix it. In previous posts we suggested reforming teacher pay schedules to increase the incentive for teachers to stay on.

But the district actually can pay teachers more if it cuts back on hiring non-teacher personnel. According to my colleague Brittany Wagner,

Over the past 60 years, schools have increased non-teaching personnel positions by 702 percent. [A report] also found the U.S. spends more than double what Korea, Mexico, Finland, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Spain spend on non-teaching staff salaries and benefits.

Recall that upon arriving Superintendent John Covington asserted that the district was too big, and in 2010 KCPS closed 30 buildings and eliminated 1,247 full-time equivalent positions. Doing so freed up a great deal of money. According to Wagner,

One study showed that if non-teaching personnel grew at the same rate as the student population, American public schools would have an additional $24.3 billion annually.

This impacts pensions as well, which is far greater than the immediate cost of this educational bloat on salaries. Show-Me Researcher Michael Rathbone writes,

Non-teaching personnel also accrue pension benefits through the Public Education Employee Retirement System of Missouri (PEERS). According to the PEERS annual report, “PEERS is a mandatory cost-sharing multiple employer retirement system for all public school district employees (except the school districts of St. Louis and Kansas City), employees of the Missouri Association of School Administrators, and community college employees (except St. Louis Community College).” Members of the plan and their employers both contribute to the pension.

Over the last five years, the unfunded liabilities (liabilities minus assets) of this plan have increased by more than $64 million. Pension benefits like PEERS benefits are guaranteed and must be paid out. If PEERS can’t make those payments, taxpayers (i.e., you) will have to.

By spending too much on non-teacher personnel, KCPS is draining resources from both funds to pay teachers in the short term and teacher pension funds in the long term. Cutting back on non-teacher staff—or perhaps just restricting growth—would allow school districts to better meet their financial responsibilities to teachers and to demonstrate a real commitment to the children in the classroom.

The post Ideas for Kansas City Schools: Focus on Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Monday, I’ll be participating in a panel discussion on the Future of Education in Kansas City. This event is co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Show-Me Institute. Check out the details below and then come check out the event on Monday night.

Should your ZIP code determine your educational choices? Do charter schools improve academic outcomes? What do local public schools need to succeed? Should tax credit scholarships be used to help students attend private schools? Should residents in struggling public schools get to transfer to neighboring districts?

These topics and more will be explored as our panelists debate the future of education in and around Kansas City, Mo.

The panel will feature the following influencers in the local education landscape:

• James Shuls, Ph.D., distinguished fellow, Show-Me Institute, and Assistant Professor at University of Missouri–St. Louis
• Dr. Amy Hartsfield, member-at-large, School Board, Kansas City Public Schools
• Andrea Flinders, president, Kansas City Federation of Teachers, Local 691
• Douglas Thaman, Ed.D., executive director, Missouri Charter Public School Association
• John Murphy, public policy committee chair of the Missouri Catholic Conference

Admission is FREE, but please register so we can ensure there is enough seating. The event is scheduled from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Feb. 23, 2015, at the Kansas City Club, 918 Baltimore Ave., Kansas City, MO 64105.

The post The Future of Education in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When it comes to school choice, the answers abound. Here are a few:

How do we improve educational options for students in unaccredited school districts? Allow charter schools to enroll students across district boundaries. This would give students whose needs are not being met, in unaccredited schools or otherwise, the opportunity to attend a charter school. It would also increase the likelihood that charter schools would open in unaccredited school districts.

How do we increase educational services for students with special needs? Emulate the education savings account programs created in Arizona and Florida. These programs provide the funds and flexibility that parents of special needs students need. The accounts function like a debit card that parents can use to pay school tuition, purchase educational resources, or pay for therapy.

How do we leverage greater private investment in education, expand options, and empower parents? Create a tax credit scholarship program. Seventeen tax credit scholarship programs exist. While the specific features vary from state to state, each program incentivizes individuals or businesses to support education, and they provide families with options. These programs empower parents to take charge of their child’s education and typically save taxpayers money.

Like I said, there are plenty of school choice answers. What we seem to lack in Missouri is school choice talk, especially among state policymakers. To date, not a single school choice bill has received a hearing in Jefferson City. Indeed, the “Equal Opportunity Scholarship” bill (a tax credit scholarship) seems to be collecting dust.

It’s time for Missouri lawmakers to have more conversations about school choice and hopefully take more action.

The post When Will Missouri Lawmakers Hear a School Choice Bill? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“To be successful with kids that come to you at 19 reading at a fifth-grade reading level, there are things you have to do differently,” said Ernie Silva to an audience at the Missouri Charter Public School Association (MCPSA) Conference on October 2.

Silva’s words reflect his experience with what he refers to as “reengaged students.” According to Silva, these students, who are between the ages of 16 and 22, require a school model that is structured differently from the system that currently exists. One component of that model is a change in accountability measures.

Students in public charter schools are currently held accountable for learning the same information as students in public schools. This includes charter schools that exclusively serve high school dropouts or at-risk students. Since schools are all judged by the same criteria, schools that actually benefit impoverished communities are forced to close because of academic underperformance.

DeLaSalle Charter School is the only remaining alternative high school in Missouri. In reality, there are a number of alternative high schools across the state, but students who attend these schools, in separate buildings, are often counted in the overall school district’s scores instead of judged separately. This is unfair, as alternative charter schools like DeLaSalle cannot so easily mask the performance of at-risk students because they only serve at-risk students.

In August, proponents of DeLaSalle were worried about the charter’s unsatisfactory state standardized test scores. But do End of Course (EOC) exams that measure one grade level’s worth of learning measure what a student at an alternative high school knows?

Not really. As Silva pointed out, a student at 19 who tests at a fifth-grade reading level requires something different. Such a student may go from a fifth-grade reading level to a ninth-grade reading level in one year, but a test that measures the student at an 11th-grade reading level would not capture this growth.

This is, yet again, another one-size-doesn’t-fit-all lesson for education. One accountability system does not fit all schools. For schools that serve dropouts and at-risk students, an accountability model that puts more of an emphasis on academic growth is a much better fit.

The post Charter School Dropouts: Accountability Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After years of paying taxes in a school district that failed them, the Normandy community deserves quality schools that will address the needs of each individual student. Charter schools will do just that.

Statistics show that charter schools help urban students. One recent study found that charter high school enrollment increased the probability of graduating within five years by 7 to 11 percentage points. Another working paper looked at students six years after being admitted into a charter school. Lottery winners (those who were admitted into the school) scored higher on national math and reading achievement tests than non-lottery winners. The study also found that female lottery winners were 12.1 percent less likely to report unplanned pregnancies.

While there is evidence supporting the implementation of charter schools, the Missouri State School Board voted Monday to give Normandy Schools Collaborative a non-accredited status. Now, it is unclear whether charter schools will be allowed to open due to uncertainties regarding the state’s charter law.

According to the Missouri Charter Public School Association (MCPSA), the following questions must be answered:

1. With a non-accreditation status, could the new Normandy Schools Collaborative Board sponsor, or partner with a current sponsor, establishing a quality charter public school in Normandy?

2. Could an existing accredited school district choose to sponsor, or partner with a current sponsor, establishing a charter public school in Normandy?

Although the answers to these questions are unclear, it is clear that charter schools provide another option to a community that is desperate for choice. I hope for the sake of Normandy parents whose only “choice” is Normandy Schools Collaborative, these questions are answered sooner than later.

The post Why Not Charter Schools In Normandy? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Thanks to What’s Up Kansas City, you can view my comments below.

The post What’s Up Kansas City? Video From The Urban Summit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That is the argument of the Gordon Parks School Board and Doug Thaman, executive director of the Missouri Charter Public School Association. In a recent Missouri Times article Thaman said:

Our concern is that this action overstepped authority. It’s the responsibility of the sponsor of the school to make a decision whether it’s renewed or closed. There was no indication to University of Central Missouri about the closing or information that they weren’t conducting evaluations correctly.

You see, in Missouri, colleges and universities sponsor charter schools. It is up to these institutions to evaluate their charter schools and to revoke their sponsorship if they are not performing or improving.

I certainly don’t believe low-performing schools should remain open. (For the record, there are five traditional public schools in the Kansas City District that performed lower than Gordon Parks in communication arts and nine that performed lower in math.) However, that decision is best decided by the school’s sponsor and by the individual choices of parents and students, not bureaucrats in Jefferson City. After all, it is the parents, students, and the school sponsor who benefit or are hurt due to the school’s performance. Therefore, it is the parents and the sponsor who should have the final say in closing the school.

The courts likely will settle this case; still, the damage to Gordon Parks is most likely done. Many of the students and staff have already left. The court decision, however, could set an important precedent for charter schools in Missouri. It would either give greater authority to the state to close charter schools or reserve that right for the charter school’s sponsor. I hope it’s the latter.

The post Save Gordon Parks Elementary School appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since passage of a 2005 law with provisions for direct funding of charter schools, the Kansas City school district has fought a battle against what it sees as an unfunded mandate. Prior to the law, charter schools in the area were funded indirectly. The money trickled down from the state to public school districts, and then finally to charter schools. The 2005 law streamlined this process, allowing states to dip from the pool of revenue typically reserved for district schools and fund charter schools directly:

District schools receive local tax dollars, but charter schools do not, said Khris Heisinger, attorney for the Missouri Charter Public School Association, which is named in the lawsuit. […]

“They want to spend all the local money and get the same state money they had been getting,” Heisinger said of the school district.

It is conceivable that this policy could help district schools as well.  Faced with a shrunken revenue pool, Kansas City schools will be forced to focus on what works, and cut out what doesn’t. Regardless, the recent Cole County court ruling in favor of charter schools and the streamlined funding process is a positive step forward in compensating for the disparity of available resources between district and charter schools.

The post Breaking Down Barriers to Charter Funding appeared first on Show-Me Institute.