By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, March 30 at 4:00 AM
While it is newsworthy that local corporations are putting large amounts of money behind the two incumbent school board candidates running in next week's election, it is by no means scandalous or wrong. But there is another angle to this story.
The names of two public school parents will also appear on Tuesday's ballot. They are clearly taking an interest in the direction of the district. They are both more involved and articulate than the prevailing stereotype of SLPS parents and they both are smart, well-intentioned people. And the response they have received from the district, the Mayor's office and apparently many in St. Louis' business community is "Go home. You are not wanted."
This was most clearly demonstrated last week with the attack piece that was sent out to the City's voters targeting Peter Downs.
That piece stated that electing Downs (and presumably the other parent running, Donna Jones) would be turning back the clock. "Peter Downs is a frequent critic of the St. Louis public schools," it said under a blurry photo of Downs.
As a SLPS parent, it is his right to be critical of the direction of the district. To say that parents who are critical of the Board's decisions are somehow "unsupportive" of the district is just wrong. It makes about as much sense as saying that people who don't support the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War are unpatriotic.
Funds from St. Louis' corporate community have and will continue to play an essential role in building a stronger district. Most people realize that. What some people are upset by is the vicious attack that their money is being used to fund right now on two respectable members of the parent community.
Board members Darnetta Clinkscale and James Buford, Superintendent Creg Williams, and even Mayor Francis Slay himself, always say that parental involvement is needed to turn the St. Louis Public Schools around.
You know who sends their kids to SLPS? Poor people. Public school districts don't get to pick their parents. But if they did, we think they could do a lot worse than Peter Downs and Donna Jones.
These are two parents who are involved and who both feel like this district remains closed to parents and operates out of the public eye. These are not people who talk about public education in purely academic terms. They are betting a lot more than any St. Louis corporation or even Mayor Slay with his $40,000 loan to a PAC called Educate St. Louis. They are betting the futures of their own children on this system. They want this district to succeed for reasons far more important than workforce competency or population sustainability.
Downs and Jones are not rich and their campaigns have only a fraction of the cash as the incumbents. But while they may not have the phone numbers of millionaires programmed in their cell phones, parents like these have made a commitment to this school district and this city that has lasted longer than the last 4 superintendents selected by this board majority.
On Tuesday, April 4, VOTE FOR PETER DOWNS AND DONNA JONES for St. Louis City School Board.
If you want to put this video on your website or blog, just email us.
20 Comments:
If Downs and Jones get elected, Purdy will likely again be Board of Ed Prez. And wouldn't returning to a former Board Prez indeed be turning back the clock?
6:23 AM, March 30, 2006
I think that is true, if they win, get ready for the gravy train, redux!!!!
6:38 AM, March 30, 2006
Speaking of blurry pictures of people, what's up with the one on this site?
7:09 AM, March 30, 2006
It's nice to see all the rumor mongers now popping up here to try to smear Downs and Jones with this Purdy rumor. Why don't you guys quit campaigning for your candidates and let people use their own minds to decide?
7:43 AM, March 30, 2006
Speaking of turning back to the tired and failed ideas of the past: Republican James Buford.
7:47 AM, March 30, 2006
I'm "Anon #1" and I get paid nothing to "campaign." I just feel that Clinkscale and Buford are the only candidates capable of helping Williams fix our schools. And a return to Purdy's leadership would be going backwards. Schoemehl's return to public office was similarly retro, but luckily those seeking to improve our schools knew voters seriously want to now move forwards, not backwards.
7:51 AM, March 30, 2006
Look, I understand how some people (most of them, like myself, without children in the system) feel that Mayor Slay and his school board members are doing the right thing with their "by any means necessary" approach to fixing the schools.
But it is shortsighted and wrong to think you can fix this district without parents, teachers and district employees.
If the fundamental goal of public education is to build strong communities through education, then this board majority (and Mayor Slay) are doing more damage then they can possibly repair.
Closing schools disproportionately on one side of town, denying parents information to make informed decisions about their child's education, denying northsiders and parents seats on the school board -- our community has suffered even more as a result of this school board majority.
Downs and Jones aren't looking to "turn back the clock" or bring back the bad ol' days of Superintendent Hammonds. They are parents that, literally, want a seat at the table.
You'll still have your majority: 5 do-gooders and 2 parents.
7:56 AM, March 30, 2006
He seems like a good guy. He is not going to make the situation any worse, and since his kids are in the system, I think he has an extra incentive to make this school district work.
He has my vote.
8:27 AM, March 30, 2006
I was at a forum the other night where Ms. Clinkscale addressed the number of schools in North St. Louis being closed and she said it was disproportionate because there are a disproportionate number of people in the city. Apparently there are more students in South St. Louis and Mid-town than in North St. Louis. I don't know but if there ARE more students in South St. Louis than there should be more schools in South St. Louis. Just a thought.
8:47 AM, March 30, 2006
Nice rationalization for endorsing candidates who would be terrible for the district. Sorry Antonio but is sounds like sour grapes to me. Being a Parent isn't a qualification for a governing body with an annual budget of $20 million dollars.
And as for your whining about the attack piece remember this one, from Downs and Jones supporters handed out at MLK? http://www.pubdef.net/uploaded_images/st-louis-school-board-flier-795427.jpg
Kind of like the pot calling the kettle Black, at least the Educate St. Louis piece was an attack on the issues, not racial stereotypes
11:28 AM, March 30, 2006
Correction: $420 Million
11:49 AM, March 30, 2006
We still don't know who handed out the fliers at MLK Day, so saying it was a supporter of Jones and Downs is a pretty bold claim.
On the other hand, we know that Educate St. Louis is definitely aligned with Clinkscale and Buford.
It really doesn't matter, though, because both the MLK Day flier and the Educate St. Louis anti-Downs piece are ridiculously unpersuasive. I don't think that voters are as dumb as the makers of either piece assume. (Then again, urban St. Louis may seem pretty dumb to a Texas sprawl-dweller.)
11:51 AM, March 30, 2006
Well, I can make a wild guess and say that it wasn't folks who SUPPORT Clinckscale and Downs. At least Educate St. Louis has the common decency to disclose who they are when they send a negative piece, Let's all remember which side is operating within the law, not to mention, where's the disclaimer on that campaign commercial for Peter??? Cause that wasn't Antonio speaking there!
11:56 AM, March 30, 2006
There was no disclaimer because no one paid for anything.
I asked a candidate some questions. I shot and edited the video myself. I put it on my website as part of my explanation of why voters should select him and Donna Jones on Tuesday.
I never gave Downs' or Jones' campaign anything -- no money, no disks, no tapes, no contribution. They saw it the same time as everyone else (Jeez, I sound like Cameron Sanders). No contribution, no disclaimer. Just free speech.
12:41 PM, March 30, 2006
I am the parent of children in the District. I want bad teachers out, fiscal responsibility, and a good education for my kids. I also want to be respected as a parent who might have some insight into how decisions being made are affecting my children. I would like Gregg to explain his comment about "let's remember which side is operating within the law."
Katie Wessling
1:25 PM, March 30, 2006
Isn't there a law about equal time in the press?
3:30 PM, March 30, 2006
I think I have heard something about that before. Maybe you should ask Chris King. He's the editor of The St. Louis American. I think Peter Downs and Donna Jones are owed about three front page stories.
Tell him I sent you.
As for this blog, no such thing applies.
4:23 PM, March 30, 2006
And Gregg, it's not "common decency" that made Educate St. Louis put its name on the mailer. It was state law.
4:26 PM, March 30, 2006
One could make a wild guess and say that the flier was made by people trying to discredit Downs and Jones.
How does a wild guess that the flier was made by a Downs and Jones supporter coupled with Downs' and Jones' own condemnation of the flier show that those candidates are breaking any laws?
1:24 PM, March 31, 2006
I think the issue comes down to this; Williams has a plan to bring the school system back, Purdy and O Brien hate Williams and if Downs and Jones get in, Williams will be forced out and you can shut the door on the school system, and perhaps the city.
It is just that simple!
7:55 PM, April 01, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home