Chris Nicastro is a human lightning rod. Her critics accuse her of doing too little and too much, all at once. Some say the Missouri commissioner of education hasn’t done enough to aid unaccredited school districts, failing to soften the impact of the school-transfer law. Others allege she’s scheming to privatize public schools, weakening teachers’ unions and eroding local control. Legislators have called for her resignation. We sat down with her just before she unveiled a bold new plan for saving struggling schools.
Beginnings
You graduated from Parkway West High School, class of 1969. What teacher inspired you? Probably the most influential was a high school teacher I had, Roland Klein. He was history teacher. He’s the one who really opened my eyes up to the world. Roland did a lot of traveling in the summer, so he’d bring us back pictures of Europe and different places that he had been. It really lit up my imagination. He showed us this one picture of Neuschwanstein. It’s a castle in Germany, and I can remember saying, “I’m going to see that castle.”
Did you? One friend and I made a pact that when we graduated from college, we were going to go to Europe, so we did, for about four months. We were backpacking and staying in youth hostels and just traveling, mostly on trains. I got to see that castle.
What was your first teaching job? Northwest R-1 High School in House Springs. I taught social studies, ninth grade government, and world history and American history.
Did you make any rookie mistakes? As a young, naïve teacher, my passion was history, so I just thought everybody loved history. My first year was a real shock for me. I taught what they called American History 2, which meant that all the kids had failed American History the year before. Most of them were not too excited about history. There were 36 or 37 kids in all of my classes. They were older. They were almost as old as I was. Some of them were 19. I even had a couple of 20-year-olds. Learning how to manage that class was a real struggle.
What was your solution? The one thing I learned was if kids were interested, and if you could find a way to engage them, then you wouldn’t have any discipline problems. I think that’s still true today. I think the 21st century teaching and learning tools give teachers a whole new repertoire of tools that they can use to engage kids. There is a lot in the gaming technology that can be used in classrooms. If I were going to go back to the classroom today, I would teach very differently from what I was taught to teach, and sadly, what I think teachers are still doing in too many classrooms. But I think there’s just a huge untapped world of exciting things out there that can keep kids interested.
How did you go from being a teacher to working in administration? I was a teacher for four years. Then they asked me to be a part-time assistant principal. So I was a part-time assistant principal, part-time teacher that fifth year. At Northwest that year, the board fired everybody. They fired the superintendent. They fired every central office person except for one, and they made him acting superintendent. So he called me, and he said, “Would you like to come to central office?”
What did you tell him? I said, “To do what?” He said, “I don’t know, but there’s nobody else here, so we’ll figure it out when you get here.” I said, “Shouldn’t I be a high school principal first?” He said, “Nobody is ever going to hire a woman to be a high school principal.” Back in those days, that was right. So I went to central office.
What did you work on? I did a little bit of everything. I did transportation. I took the minutes in the board meetings. I did some teacher hiring. I worked on reports for the state. I did some finance. I supervised construction. It was a crash course in everything about how to run a school district.
You ended up in human resources. What was your relationship with the teachers? I had been very active in the teacher organization and had actually been on the negotiating team as a teacher. I became the board person to do the negotiating. I went from one side of the table to the other side of the table. We always had good relationships. I’ve always, always been a teacher advocate.
Eventually, you became the superintendent of the Riverview Gardens School District. At the time, when I first got there, the district was really struggling and was unaccredited. The district, essentially, had changed in that 10 years prior from being largely white and middle class to being largely African-American poor. Of course, that accelerated during the time I was superintendent. By the time I left there, the district was fully accredited. We were on the ascent.
What happened after you left? They hired a person who ended up being convicted for felony theft and things fell apart under his regime. He was there five or six years I guess before he was fired and indicted. It was very unfortunate. It’s hard for me to believe that anybody would be that irresponsible and unethical with kids’ money.
Statewide Performance
You spent decades as a superintendent in the Riverview Gardens and Hazelwood school districts. How did you end up in Jefferson City? I was very torn, because I was having such a good time at Hazelwood and finding a lot of success there. But I also have always been driven to do what I believe is necessary to make a difference. Since most of my career was spent in urban school districts, I developed a real mission for that work. I think that’s what led me to Jeff City, because as a superintendent in an urban district, it always struck me that the Department of Elementary & Secondary Education had no understanding of urban education. None.
What were your early goals? We came up with the Top 10 by 20. If you looked at most measures in Missouri, and it’s still true in most measures, we were always 20-something, or in some cases 30-something, but always in the middle of the pack. Our performance tended to match our geography. The state board and certainly I believe that we can do much better. I think that Missouri has the potential to be among the top 10, if not the top performing state in the country. So that became our goal, to achieve top 10 status by the year 2020.
That plan includes three basic components: preparing every child for college or career, making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to learn, and recruiting, training, and evaluating top-notch educators. How would you gauge your progress? On the college and career readiness, I think we’ve done some really good things. We’ve revised all of our academic standards. Of course, in English language arts and mathematics, that has proven to be pretty controversial. Those are the Common Core standards. Missouri went through a lengthy period of time when we were involved in developing those and comparing those to our old standards to make sure that we were in fact raising the bar.
Is it working? Our graduation rate has improved pretty significantly. We’ve had modest, not huge, but modest increases in all of our academic achievement over those years. I think school districts have worked very hard to modify their own curriculum and really adapt to and implement the new standards in all areas.
Statewide, math scores went down in 2013. They did last year, slightly. You can have an anomaly in a class. Teachers always say, “Oh, that’s a doozy of a class. This is a wonderful class.” Yeah, we had a dip this past year, but generally, I think we’re moving in the right direction. I’m not satisfied. The state board is not satisfied. I don’t think most school superintendents are satisfied. I think we all recognize we have a long way to go, but we’re moving.
You’ve also created a new evaluation system for teachers. What makes our system different from before is that it’s based on a measure of performance that includes test scores. But we’ve been clear that we believe strongly it has to be multiple measures to evaluate teachers, not just test scores, but discipline, attendance, surveys, observations… If you are going to evaluate someone and that evaluation is going to be part of how you compensate them, or whether or not they keep their job, it’s important to make sure that you look at multiple measures of data over multiple years.
Missouri ranks low for teacher pay. Does that make it hard to attract good teachers? I’ve always been an advocate of increasing teacher pay.
That’s not how you’re portrayed. When I was in Riverview, we had the highest-paid teachers in the state, even though Riverview itself is a fairly poor district. That was a real priority for us. Especially in urban schools, you have to have that in order to attract people. Now, once you get them there, I think if you have the right people, it’s mission that keeps them there. Compensation certainly doesn’t hurt.
You talk about Missouri being in the middle of the pack nationally, but some of the report cards put us at the very bottom. We pay attention to all of those. No one of those reports serves as a Bible for us. But I think they’re all worth looking at because they give us a perspective. As a public entity, it’s important for us to look at that and say, “Well, this is an area where we probably could do some things.”
On the Missouri Assessment Program tests, in most subjects, the proficiency rate is somewhere around 55 percent. That isn’t good enough. We’re always compared to Kansas. Kansas has traditionally had 75 percent, 80 percent of their kids scoring proficient. So if you look at Missouri 55 percent, Kansas 75 percent, you’re saying, “Wow, Missouri is way behind.” No. The reality is, Kansas’ test is a lot easier than Missouri’s. Our kids in our state, we’ve always had very rigorous standards.
But this year, states across the country will adopt the Common Core. Will that make Missouri look better? Relatively, I think we will. What’s important about that—not so much the number, but for those who want to compare us to other states—whether we like it or we don’t, those scores become a part of how people assess our education system.
But even so, Missouri’s percentage isn’t great. How do we do better? Teachers and administrators are spending a lot more time really thinking about classroom instruction. You don’t improve schools from my office. What you can do is make sure teachers and principals have the tools they need to make things better for kids.
What does that involve? In some cases, particularly in your urban schools, that means that you may have to deal with all kinds of obstacles that have nothing to do directly with teaching and learning. If a kid comes to school hungry, they’ve got to eat. If their clothes are dirty, you need to get them clean clothes. When people talk about wraparound services, for those of us who have worked in urban schools, I would say we have been doing those things for a long time.
Poverty can be a serious impediment to learning. You can’t take a child who is upset because he just saw his daddy go off to prison or his mommy is on crack and he comes from a family where nobody ever pays attention to when he goes to bed or what he does, there are no books in the house, he doesn’t get fed regularly. I mean that child is not equipped to learn when he comes to school. Take care of those things and make sure you’ve got enough partners in your community to help you do that. Then the child can learn.
Transfer Law
Is that the biggest challenge for a district like Normandy? Right now, the biggest challenge to Normandy is the transfer program. The department has been vocal about saying the program as it’s currently structured is not sustainable. It will inevitably bankrupt any district. Normandy is in that position this year. I’m hoping the legislature will intervene in some way. But we have to plan for if they don’t, because the State Board of Education is going to have the responsibility of figuring out what to do with 4,000 kids.
Was what happened in Wellston a precursor to the current issues? It was frustrating, because when I first got there, I was looking at Wellston, Normandy, and it was pretty clear to me that the [special administrative board] had not been effective in Wellston. It didn’t make sense to keep doing something that wasn’t making a difference. We made the decision to close that district and adjoin them to Normandy. At that time, that was the best of a bunch of bad choices, because the state board only had three options. You could attach a district to another, which is what we did. You could divide it up, which didn’t make sense because it’s too small. Or you could put an SAB in place, which we had done, and it didn’t work. That was all we could do.
In hindsight, did that saddle Normandy with a burden it couldn’t bear? No. I don’t think so. The problems, it certainly didn’t make them any better. But as we looked at the data, Normandy failed and became unaccredited if you count the kids from Wellston or if you didn’t count the kids from Wellston. It didn’t make any difference. There were just more kids who ended up being in that situation. But it makes it ever more important now that we figure out what to really do with Normandy. Just moving the problem doesn’t solve it.
How important is it to fix Normandy, rather than letting it turn out like Wellston? Schools, if they operate well and if they serve children well, are the anchors of communities. I met with groups of parents in Riverview and then in Normandy. It’s just clear to me, they want their kids to be able to go to school in their own community. Whatever we do, we’ve got to figure out how to do that, how to offer quality schools where the kids live.
The transfer law provides no instruction for how to administer it. We tried to come up with guidance that made sense. That was focused on what’s best for kids. And yet [the guidelines] protect, to the extent possible, the sending and receiving districts. Some people were upset because we said [receiving districts] could limit class size. What about the kids who are already in the receiving district? You’re going to overcrowd their classrooms because the district can’t set any parameters? That doesn’t make sense.
Was there ever a concern that districts would set their class sizes artificially low, to keep transfers out? There is always that argument. I don’t know that you can ever regulate good will. I have to believe that the districts who received kids did so in good faith. You know that some districts like Kirkwood or Mehlville are likely to have, locally, values that say we want smaller class sizes.
Maybe it’s too early to pass final judgment, but what has been the result of the transfer law? I think some of the children who have transferred have had a very positive experience. I think their parents are very happy that they are getting what they believe to be a better education. Whatever we do going forward, there has to be some recognition that parents really are demanding some choice. I still believe we need to provide a positive choice for them where they live.
What about kids who stayed behind? Those are the kids I worry about the most… For example, in Normandy, over 80 percent of their kids are in Normandy, and there’s kids coming back from Francis Howell [School District] regularly and have been throughout the year. The vast majority of the kids stayed, and yet over 30 percent of their money is going out in tuition.
They’ve had to cut teachers. They’ve had to close a building. They’ve had to make all kinds of other budget-saving measures.
Then how on earth can you expect them to improve that school district? It’s clearly very difficult. The parents and the kids who are left in Normandy see that. They want to know who’s accountable for that money that they’re getting. How are they spending that money? Why are you exporting money to Francis Howell when we desperately need it in our district? Those are all questions I don’t have answers for.
Is there any chance that the legislature will provide extra funds to these unaccredited districts, given the financial burden created by the transfer program? In the last few years, the department hasn’t had any state money for school improvement. The only money we’ve had to offer districts that were struggling was federal money through School Improvement Grants. I think we’re getting much more effective at using those funds.
Those federal funds aren’t going to prevent Normandy from going bankrupt. No.
So it has to come from the state level. Yeah.
An Alternative Plan
Senate Bill 125, which went into effect last August, gave you authority to intervene more directly in unaccredited districts. At press time, you were planning to have a proposal finished by mid-February. Part of the reason for the urgency is, we have had a number of legislators who have said to us, “We need to know what your plan is.” I appreciate that, because we’ve said all along, the state board believes they have the authority to do something significant if they choose to, but it is infinitely preferable to have a collaborative effort with the legislature.
You’ve received proposals from various groups. One common suggestion seems to be accrediting individual schools rather than districts. In some districts, you may very well have a building or two buildings that are really not doing well. If you could offer parents other options—rather than having them move from their district to another, maybe from a building to another—that might be positive.
Many of the plans have also called for a stronger state presence in failing districts. We are talking about some kind of state monitoring, state supervision, maybe state control. But we’ve got to talk about what that looks like. I don’t think we can run schools effectively from Jefferson City. There always has to be some community connection. I think charters can be a piece of the solution. I don’t think they’re the entire solution.
They can have their own shortcomings. We’ve seen many charter schools that also aren’t producing very good results. Two years ago, of course, the department did the largest charter-school closure in the history of the country. We closed the Imagine charter schools, 3,500 kids. We’ve made it very clear that while we may not be opposed to charter schools, we are opposed to any public schools that fail children.
What good things have charter schools done in Missouri? I admire some of the charter school operators, in that they really have tried to think creatively about how do we do this differently? The really good ones do things like extend learning time, both the day and the year, and in some cases the week. They extend teacher accessibility. Teachers are available to their students until 9 o’clock at night. That is, first of all, an amazing testament to the educators who are working in that building.
Is that sort of thing sustainable? The concern about that of course is that you might burn people out. But the point is, they’re trying to figure out, what are ways that we can really serve our kids more effectively and ensure that they’re going to leave us prepared for the next level? I think that mindset is something that we need to emulate. I think they’ve got the right community idea, in that they all have boards of directors. The failing for charter schools has been that they haven’t always had the right people on those boards. It’s sometimes been a place where you could have opportunities for corruption or financial mismanagement or just not tending to the business.
Is there enough state oversight of charter schools? That’s been very frustrating for us and for the state board. The charter school law in Missouri, both the original law as well as even the current law, really don’t allow the State Board of Education any authority directly over charter schools. The state board’s authority lies in the approval of sponsors and, most recently in the new law, in us holding sponsors accountable for results.
Would state control be permanent? There has to be an exit ramp. Just as you have to have a clear way for schools to become a part of some statewide network, there has to be a way for those schools, once they become high-performing again, to go back to local governance.
Is there also a consensus on the need for increased wraparound services and early childhood education? Everybody mentions early childhood. Everybody mentions the need for wraparound services. I think those are definitely things that we have to do. The idea of universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old in any community would be a game changer. If there is a way to do that, I think that’s clearly something that we need to look at.
Would you like to see additional funding in that area? If I could make the priorities for the budget in the state, I would clearly put early childhood at the top. I think in terms of economic development, in terms of encouraging businesses to relocate here, in terms of reducing the need for prisons, and to improve our education system, there is nothing—nothing—that is more cost-effective and has more compelling research behind it than universal early childhood education.
How would you respond to someone who said these ideas are expensive and impractical? I’ve heard people say, “These are all crazy ideas and wildly experimental. We can’t do something so drastic.” My response to that is “What’s the alternative?” We’ve been working on this issue of failing urban schools for 40 years or more than that. How long is long enough? How long do you tolerate failure for kids? I think we’re at a crossroads now where people are, for whatever reason, feeling the urgency to do something different.
Controversy
You sparked a controversy by speaking with a group planning a ballot initiative that would alter teacher tenure. My position is that we as a department have a responsibility to assist in anything that could become law, to ensure that it represents the position that our state board has taken on issues to the extent possible. Now, in the case of the initiative petition, of course we worked with the people who were promoting that. It doesn’t necessarily mean we agree with that.
What did you suggest? We didn’t weigh in on tenure. For us, that shouldn’t be the issue. But we have done a lot of work on evaluation. The way it was originally written, it was 51 percent based on test scores. We think it should be based on multiple measures over multiple years. The people who know me and who have known me for 40 years in education know that it’s ridiculous that I would do anything to undermine teachers.
You were also criticized for your contract with the consulting group CEE-Trust, to propose a plan for dealing with failing schools. Their bid was the most expensive by far. I don’t think it’s about that. I think it’s about getting whoever we thought could give us the thing that we were most trying to create, the plan that was going to give us the best information; the best research; the best, most creative, innovative thinking, looking at the system level. It is my opinion that programs haven’t changed schooling. I think that in spite of all the best efforts of some very good educators and some very good programs over the years, they have not proven to be effective at the system level for all kids and all schools.
Did CEE-Trust’s correspondence with you give them an unfair advantage? I think there were four bidders, and I know I had conversations with at least two of the others, prior to the bids coming in. I think had we been using public dollars to pay for it, the cost could have been a much bigger factor. In this case, we knew we weren’t going to do anything unless somebody else was paying for it.
Did getting the funding from a charter-school group create a conflict? They wanted it to be very clear this was directed by the department. They were well aware that if they did it, that people would assume—which they did—that it was going to be a charter-school proposal and that they would be trying to privatize education. They were trying to avoid that. They wanted us to be able to control the research, the study, and the outcome.
Why is this discussion just happening now? Why didn’t we figure this out years ago? It was the passage of Senate Bill 125. That’s the authority we’ve been asking for to do something else. Once we got that authority, we knew the next question people were going to ask was “Now what are you going to do with it?” That was the driving question that caused us to do all of this work. I mean, it clearly would have been subject for criticism if the day that law passed, we—voila!—pulled out a plan. That would have meant that nobody had any input, we didn’t do any public engagement, there wouldn’t have been any transparency.
You wouldn’t agree with State Board of Education member Mike Jones’ comment that transparency is a “liberal fetish”? Transparency is very important in public service. I am well aware and have always been well aware. If I’m doing anything as a public official that I shouldn’t be doing, then somebody should be calling me on it.
Things have gotten personal between you and some in the legislature, especially Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Rep. Genise Montecillo. That’s not productive. It’s unfortunate. I wish that those two women in particular didn’t feel the way they do. I don’t know that I can change that. The senator has refused to meet with me. I did meet with Rep. Montecillo and tried to explain the things that she was concerned about. She didn’t believe me, and that certainly is her right.
Do you grow tired of the politics? I guess what I’ve learned in dealing with state government is that things are very partisan… Let me just say that it departs greatly from what I taught my kids when I was teaching government. Government doesn’t function the way I think it was intended to, and it doesn’t function the way I would still like to believe it should.
Why? We get so distracted sometimes with the personal attacks that we forget the public policy that’s really at stake. From my perspective, we’re forgetting the 100,000 kids who are in districts that aren’t doing as well as they should. That’s what gets me up in the morning, and that’s what keeps me going, and that’s what makes me respond respectfully to Rep. Montecillo, as personal as she might want to get. It’s not about me. I said it to her, “You could probably find somebody to do this job better than me or at least as well as me. But you’re not going to find anybody, first of all, who would be willing to do this right now, and certainly nobody who is more committed to doing it.”
