State Senator Maida Coleman (D-St. Louis City) today voted against the reappointment of Peter Herschend of Branson to the State Board of Education. Coleman spoke against the nomination for more than 40 minutes in committee Wednesday and for nearly an hour on the Senate floor today before he was eventually confirmed by the Republican-controlled senate.She released this statement afterwards:
“In the committee hearing yesterday, Mr. Herschend told me I should be embarrassed of my school district,†Sen. Coleman said. “I think Mr. Herschend should be embarrassed that he has decided to play politics with the children of my district. He should be embarrassed that he callously disenfranchised the citizens of my district by turning control of the St. Louis School District over to the state.â€In March 2007, the St. Louis Public Schools lost their accreditation when the State Board of Education voted 5-1 to rescind the accreditation after concluding that the district had met only four of the state’s 14 academic performance measures. Peter Herschend was serving as President of the State Board of Education when the decision to strip the school district of local control was made.At the time the state board voted to classify the St. Louis Public Schools as unaccredited, several other school districts possessed 2006 Annual Performance Review ratings that were equal to or below the scores assigned to the St. Louis City School District.“It makes me wonder why Mr. Herschend has taken no action to reclassify other low-performing school districts,†Sen. Coleman said. “There seems to be no apprehension by Mr. Herschend or the Board that they are disenfranchising the voters of a predominantly black city. We are still forced to pay taxes, so we have taxation without representation.â€Additionally, Sen. Coleman expressed reservations about any person serving such a lengthy term on a state board or commission. Peter Herschend has served on the State Board of Education for 16 years, and with his confirmation by the Senate today, will serve another eight years on the board.“Is it a good idea to allow anyone to sit on what is arguably the most important board in state government for 24 years?†Sen. Coleman asked her colleagues on the Senate floor today.“If someone were to serve the maximum amount of time in the General Assembly, they could only serve 16 years. If the citizens of Missouri think it’s a good idea to limit the terms of their elected representatives, surely the length of service of an unelected official should be limited as well, especially one who wields so much influence over our children’s education.â€Â  Â
Members of the Missouri Senate affirmed the reappointment of Herschend to the State Board of Education today on a voice vote.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I have been posting about what a (inappropriate for this forum noun) this guy is for a couple of years now.
Of course the republicans reappointed him—he has given them dozens of millions of dollars. He owns them, and through them, he now owns some of your votes.
Thanks for the illumination, Maida.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Even more embarrassing to Coleman, is the fact that she supports forcing city employees to live in that same pathetic school district, or face losing their careers.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Please excuse the brevity, but why the h&!! shouldn’t they have to live in the city? Seems like a good idea to me. When employees live in the place they are helping run, it gives them an extra incentive to do a good job.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Since living in the city gives employees an extra incentive to do a good job, let’s call for Sen. Coleman to require that St. Louis Public School teachers live in the City and send their own children to the SLPS.
It’s not fair for city employees to be required to live in the city and school district employees to be treated differently when they are also payed by taxpayer dollars.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I live in the City and am proud of it. What I don’t like is having no control over a school district that I pay taxes for. This man has no right to have 24 years of influence over a district so unlike his lily-white Branson school district. And he doesn’t care, he’s not accountable to us.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Well, no that “lily white” — one out of seven Branson students isn’t white.
Also, Branson graduates 89 percent of its students, 94 percent of them are in school every day, its avg class size is 21, and the per pupil expenditure is $6843.
SLPS graduates far fewer students (57 percent), has more truants (89 percent attendance), has smaller class sizes (19), and spends twice as much per pupil ($13,680).
February 9th, 2008 at 5:59 am
I agree if the taxpayers live in the City why can’t teachers live here too? Seems to me so many want to run from it and not build it. The said part our kids mostly democratic suffer due to a lot of Repulican control over tax dollars boards and state wide elected officals who either sent their kids to private school or in my case saw problems early and choose to home school til college. Education is the future for our kids and country and why isn’t it supported more? I thank my Senator Maida Coleman for having vision some have closed their eyes long ago to.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well, then maybe the Branson superintendent should have been appointed CEO instead of Sullivan. Herschend doesn’t run the Branson school district. Send that superintendent up here and see how they do.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
First of all; teachers are ALSO CITIZENS, YOU PEA BRAINS. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to live where they please. How many of you could move immediately as a condition for maintaining your present employment? Teachers are public employees; but they ARE NOT PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICIALS. THE ONLY MANDATE FOR RESIDENCY IS FOR PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS TO RESIDE IN THE AREA THEY REPRESENT. THIS IS TO PREVENT NON RESIDENTS FROM REPRESENTING AN AREA. THE TRUTH IS; NO PUBLIC EMPLOYEE GIVES UP THEIR RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE THEIR SALARIES ARE PAID FOR BY TAXES. THESE PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT SLAVES!
AS FOR HERSCHEND; HE WILL HAVE TO FACE HIS MAKER SOMEDAY. I WOULD SAY HIS CONSCIENCE, BUT HE DOESN’T APPEAR TO HAVE ONE. SCHOOLS CANNOT BE RUN WITHOUT REASONABLE DISCIPLINE. THE TEACHERS HAVE BEGGED FOR A RETURN TO SOME REASONABLE DISCIPLINE AND HAVE BEEN STONEWALLED BY THE POLITICIANS. IF YOU WANT TO PLACE BLAME; THEN BLAME A SERIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, AS THE TEACHERS HAVE HAD NO SAY IN ANYTHING FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS. THEIR JOB IS TO TEACH THEM, NOT RAISE THEM. ONE LAST THING; TEACHERS, THOUGH PAID ON THE PUBLIC DOLLAR DO NOT HAVE TO KOWTOW TO EVERY LOONEY WHO NEEDS TO VENT THEIR CHILDHOOD DRAMA! GET OVER YOURSELVES!
February 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
TO ANONYMOUS,
BRANSON DOES NOT HAVE THE VIOLENCE AND EXTREME POVERTY OF ST. LOUIS CITY. MOST OF THE PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE GOES OUT THE WINDOW IN HEATING COSTS FOR THOSE OLD BUILDINGS WITH NO INSULATING FACTOR. IT’S TIME TO PERFORM A COST ANALYSIS REGARDING HOW MUCH OF THAT PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE GOES TO LACLEDE GAS CO. I SUSPECT THE OFFICAL ANSWERS WILL BE QUITE ENLIGHTENING. ONE OTHER LITTLE THING; BRANSON IS ONE OF THE UP AND COMING COMMUNITIES IN THE US BECAUSE OF THE COUNTRY WESTERN VERSION OF THE OLD ‘BORSCHT BELT.’ THEY’RE LAUGHING AL THE WAY TO THE BANK. BRANSON DID NOT HAVE THE LIKES OF ROBERTI DEVASTATING OUR SYSTEM. BRANSON DOES NOT HAVE ALMOST 50% OF THE TEACHING POSITIONS FILLED BY UNQUALIFIED SUBSTITUTES OFF THE STREET. THESE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, NOT TEACHER CONTROLLED DECISIONS. ANONYMOUS NEEDS TO TAKE HIS WHITE HOOD TO THE CLEANERS WITH HIS ENGRAVED SWASTIKA.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Teachers will not be required to reside in the city because it is dangerous to gentrification and civic progress efforts that have orchestrated this entire ordeal.
Teachers who want to remain in the city, get no help with housing, even though HUD has the “Teacher Next Door” program. The district does help outsiders with housing and I’ve seen them set up a committee at their anual job fair.
If teachers were required to live in the city, they would have more power as dual stake holders in the equation. Essentially, they could elect the school board and run the district by endorsing candidates that they can hold accountable once they are elected.
Look at how certain board members flipped sides repeatedly after getting endorsements from Local 420.
The establishment does not want city residents to have that kind of influence over their own destiny.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
TO JULIE HILL (IF THAT’S YOUR REAL NAME):
MY COMMENT WAS SARCASM!!!!!!! AND I’M A WOMAN SO DON’T CALL ME A MAN. I KNOW PERFECTLY WELL WHAT THE CITY KIDS FACE, MY KIDS ARE SLPS STUDENTS AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN FOOLED INTO SENDING THEM TO CHARTER SCHOOLS. I WAS WORKING TO GET RID OF THE ROBERTI/SLAY DISASTER WHILE YOU WERE SENDING YOUR KIDS OFF TO CHARTERS, SO DON’T YOU USE YOUR ALL CAPS RACIST COMMENTS ON ME. WE WERE ACTUALLY ON THE SAME SIDE ON THIS, BUT THE LIKES OF YOU IS WHY PEOPLE IN JEFF CITY THINK CITY RESIDENTS ARE INCAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF OURSELVES.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Is Julie any kin to Anita?