Bourisaw’s First 6 Months
This week Superintendent Diana Bourisaw marked her first six months at the helm of the city’s public schools by listing some of her administration’s accomplishments.
“Thank you all for making my first six months at the St. Louis Public Schools so enjoyable. I am very proud of the work we have done in such a short period of time, including:
- Opening schools on time despite numerous obstacles.
- Developing an updated Comprehensive School Improvement Plan that will continue to move the St. Louis Public Schools towards full accreditation.
- Raising over $21 million in new grants for the 2006/2007 school year. In addition, the District is working to raise $20 million in scholarships for students in the class of 2010.
- Restructuring the central administrative office in a manner than improves communication while also reducing costs.
- Reaching out to community partners, parents, elected officials, teachers, and other stakeholders. The District also reintroduced the School & Home newspaper throughout the community.
- Establishing new attendance targets for schools which have boosted the attendance at all levels.
- Increasing the number of permanent, certified teachers in classrooms. This year the District has 50 long-term substitutes compared to approximately 200 in past years.
- Increasing accountability at all levels of the organization.
- Expanding the use of current technology. For example, our Human Resources Division will soon be completely paperless. Further, a new workforce management system approved by the Board of Education is expected to improve fiscal accountability and increase school security.
“These accomplishments would not have been possible without the hard work and cooperation of administrators, principals, teachers, board members, and parents,” said Bourisaw.
About This Author: Antonio D. French is a writer, political consultant, and newly-elected Democratic Committeeman living in north St. Louis, Missouri. If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Any legislator that reads this will still have to wonder about the District’s student achievement levels, the District’s dropping enrollment, and the District’s broken finances.
But, it is nice that the HR department is paperless.
Any legislator who thinks dropping enrollment, broken finances, and achievement levels can be completely fixed in 6 months on the job is too stupid for his own job, much less thinking he can do Bourisaw’s.
Anonymous 1/20/2007 10:42 AM, Doon’t you really mean any State legislator that reads this will wonder why they didn’t step in during the Alvarez-Marsal plundering. They had their chance then and they snoozed right through it. The parents spoke and kicked out some of the fools who hired them. The State has to wait and see now, IMO.
Bourisaw’s first 6 months is the best thing to come out of the Superintendent’s office since Cleveland Hammonds.
“Bourisaw’s first 6 months is the best thing to come out of the Superintendent’s office since Cleveland Hammonds”
Even if true, that still leaves St. Louis with a bad school district in financial chaos.
Even if true, that still leaves St. Louis with a bad school district in financial chaos.
1/20/2007 5:14 PM
Did you intend to make a point with this post or were you simply re-stating the current situation?
^ I’m pretty sure that “the best thing since Cleveland Hammonds” is not going to be a compelling argument against a temporary change in governance.
Even if it were true.
Anonymous said…
^ I’m pretty sure that “the best thing since Cleveland Hammonds” is not going to be a compelling argument against a temporary change in governance.
Even if it were true.
1/21/2007 2:37 PM
This is an effective paraphrase of an earlier reply, but still doesn’t make a point. Who compares with Hammonds or Bourisaw in terms of performance? Will you make a compelling argument or is your mind closed like DESE? What is so compelling about the State’s plan that it overshadows Bourisaw’s performance?
I’m hoping that you are different from most proponents who’ve posted here. I hope you can be more concrete, factual and pragmatic instead of simply opinionated.
Well, we know that he did NOT: create good relationships with staff, parents and community, increase attendance, raise grant funds, or increase efficiency of administration in his first six months on the job, so I guess we do, in fact, know the answer to that question, above anony.
Interesting statistic–
Per the St. Louis Business Journal Book of Lists–
SLPS, regular and special ed kids together, spends $11205 per student
($381 mil/34,000 students)
St. Louis County SPECIAL SCHOOL district, standing alone, spends $11,451 per student
($339 mil/29,584 students)
St. Louis County can educate expensive special ed kids within 3% of what it takes SLPS to educate the student body as a whole.
Someone please explain.
Anonymous said…
Interesting statistic–
Per the St. Louis Business Journal Book of Lists–
SLPS, regular and special ed kids together, spends $11205 per student
($381 mil/34,000 students)
St. Louis County SPECIAL SCHOOL district, standing alone, spends $11,451 per student
($339 mil/29,584 students)
St. Louis County can educate expensive special ed kids within 3% of what it takes SLPS to educate the student body as a whole.
Someone please explain.
1/22/2007 4:01 PM
Yes, State takeover proponents point to the cost of educating SLPS students and leave out, or probably don’t know that the figure they quote INCLUDES Special Ed. The districts in the County don’t reflect Spec. Ed. costs in their cost-per-student figures.
snead hearn said…
Anonymous said…
Interesting statistic–
Per the St. Louis Business Journal Book of Lists–
SLPS, regular and special ed kids together, spends $11205 per student
($381 mil/34,000 students)
St. Louis County SPECIAL SCHOOL district, standing alone, spends $11,451 per student
($339 mil/29,584 students)
St. Louis County can educate expensive special ed kids within 3% of what it takes SLPS to educate the student body as a whole.
Someone please explain.
1/22/2007 4:01 PM
Yes, State takeover proponents point to the cost of educating SLPS students and leave out, or probably don’t know that the figure they quote INCLUDES Special Ed. The districts in the County don’t reflect Spec. Ed. costs in their cost-per-student figures.
I think you are missing the point. SLPS spends about the same amount per student for all of its students, special ed and non, as the county does for just special ed kids per student. Special ed kids are expensive to teach, so why does it take special ed level spending in SLPS to get such mediocre, at best results?
Special ed kids are expensive to teach, so why does it take special ed level spending in SLPS to get such mediocre, at best results?
1/23/2007 8:13 PM
Can you rephrase this question? I’m not sure I understand it.
Working with an assumption, which may be wrong.
1)Special ed kids are more expensive to teach than non-special kids
The county schools can educate the special ed kids for the same money, roughly, that SLPS can educate the whole student population, special ed and non.
I would have predicted that if you have a higher expense class of student mixed in with lower expense class of student, the amount spent per student would be less than a group of just high expense students.
My point is that it takes SLPS the same amount of money to educate a mix of high and low, mostly low, expense students as it does the county to educate the just the high expense students.
What is it about SLPS that makes the cost structure so high? Teachers are paid less, or about the same, than the county, classes are bigger. There is the infrastructure. What about transportation? Who pays for the free/reduced price meals? Is it simply overhead? Security? While overhead can be cut, what percentage of the budget is the higher-ups?
I guess what I would like to see is a pie chart, with comparable categories, of all area school districts, to see what percentage of the money goes to what aspect of education. I just can’t say if the money is well spent in SLPS.
Special ed kids are expensive to teach, so why does it take special ed level spending in SLPS to get such mediocre, at best results?
1/23/2007 8:13 PM
The county district figures I’ve seen always leave out the Spec. Ed. costs and most people complain that city students cost more to educate, not knowing what the cost figures represent.
So, the figures you’ve seen would show that if you combine Spec. Ed. cost and non-Spec. Ed. costs, teh cost per student in the county is higher thatn that of the city.
If you look at budget cuts the SLPS has made over the past 4 years, you’ll understand why cost per student in the SLPS is lower. The SLPS needs more money. Period.
Now, Blunt is looking to cut the funds for SLPS even more.
Any legislator that reads this has to question the need for immediate State takeover.