Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Kansas City School District to Lose Accreditation Jan 1st, 2012

After meeting just 3 of the 14 accreditation standards on it's most recent evaluation, The Missouri State School Board announced that it will be revoking the Kansas City School District's accreditation effective January 1st, 2012. This will mark the second time in ten years that the Kansas City School District has lost it's accreditation (lost accreditation in 2000 - 2002). The Missouri State School Board voted unanimously, and passed down the verdict only weeks after the sudden resignation of Superintendent John Covington who quickly packed his bags and slithered out of town to take a position in Michigan, overseeing a state administered school district. Three other Kansas City School District cabinet chiefs would soon follow Covington to pursue careers in Michigan and the failing Detroit School District.

There are currently five neighboring school districts who have filed a court petition and subsequently a law suit against the Kansas City School District to control the massive amounts of students who are attempting to transfer to the accredited school districts just outside of Kansas City. These five districts are The Blue Springs School District, The Independence School District, The Lee's Summit School District, The Raytown School District and the North Kansas City School District. The court order has put a temporary halt on student transfers to these schools from the Kansas City School District.

The 14 standards by which accreditation of school districts in the state of Missouri are as follows:

Standard 1: Mission and Goals

The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher education and indicates who the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission and goals are developed and recognized by the institution with the participation of its members and its governing body and are used to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.

Standard 3: Institutional Resources

The human, financial, technical, physical facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment.

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission of the institution.

Standard 5: Administration

The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance.

Standard 6: Integrity

In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support for academic and intellectual freedom.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention

The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.

Standard 9: Student Support Services

The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.

Standard 10: Faculty

The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational offerings.

Standard 12: General Education

The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency.

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

The institution’s programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points, the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.

The Kansas City School District failed 11 out of these 14 standards.

You do not have to sign up to comment! If you have any trouble publishing your comment, try hitting the "Preview" button to publish from there. Thanks you from Kansas City News!


Anonymous said...

What is the approach other cities have used for a failed school system? I would suggest dissolution of the district and sale of its assets.

Anonymous said...

That's a good point, what approach did the other schools use? I would think that a more military based option would be a good idea. Send the ghetto kids to a more military strict, get your ass kicked by your superior if you step out of line kind of school. That would fix a lot of problems. Kids from the hood would be more likely to act right if they got cracked in the back of the leg with a night stick every time they mouthed off. Kansas City Inner City Military Academy

That's what we will call it.

Post a Comment


This is a legally confirmed "open forum" website that is not responsible for any content posted within. The opinions, articles and comments on this site do not reflect the opinions of the owner of this site, or it's subsidiaries.