Missouri kids deserve a fair shot at enrolling in a public school where they can thrive
().
'My mom wanted us out of that school,' says a young woman named Kayla from the St. Louis area. 'But the Normandy district was fighting to keep us there.'
Kayla and her mom were bumping up against a hard reality that many Missouri families have faced: The state has one of the strictest systems of residential assignment for public schools in the country.
For the last several months, my organization Available to All has been studying enrollment laws and policies in Missouri. Our new report — Show-Me the Way Out — reveals that it is often very difficult for Missouri children to enroll in any public school other than one assigned to them based on their address, even if that school is unsafe or failing.
'It was genuinely terrible being in that school,' remembers Kayla. 'I was continuously bullied from kindergarten right through the 7th grade.'
She says that the teachers in her school acted as if they were powerless to stop the bullying. But when Kayla tried to transfer out of the district, the Normandy Schools Collaborative tried to block her.
'They needed Normandy to agree to let me go,' she recalls.
District boundaries in Missouri are strictly policed. Last year, St. Louis Public Radio ran a story about the efforts of the Hazelwood School District to crack down on what one official described as 'educational larceny.' That year, Hazelwood launched 2,051 residency investigations and removed hundreds of students found to be attending its schools while living in another district.
But strict residential assignment is also enforced via attendance zone boundaries within school districts.
At coveted Hale Cook Elementary School in Kansas City, the attendance zone map mirrors the pattern on the racist redlining map from the New Deal Era. Back in the 1930s, the federal government drew maps of many cities, marking as red or yellow areas of town that were 'hazardous' or 'declining.' These areas—often home to many people of color and immigrants—were blocked from receiving federal housing assistance.
Modern-day school boundaries often have the same exclusionary effect.
Even in rural areas, the results can be perverse.
In Cape Girardeau, students in even-numbered homes on certain blocks of Sprigg Street are assigned to a school where about 70% of fourth graders score proficient or better on English language arts. Students in odd-numbered homes are excluded and sent to a struggling school instead.
As a result of this strict residential system, middle- and lower-income families often cannot afford to attend the best public schools, which are often located in the most expensive areas.
After struggling to get all the approvals for a transfer to nearby Pattonville, Kayla's family eventually had to leave Normandy altogether and move to Pattonville, despite much higher rents.
'I started working,' says Kayla, who was then still a teenager, 'so I could help my mom with the higher rent. But it was worth it to be in a place where I could learn, instead of being afraid of getting hit.'
As the Missouri legislature debates different options for open enrollment in the public schools, lawmakers should consider how the state can best fulfill the promise made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling from 1954. In that ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the public schools must be made 'available to all on equal terms.'
They should also consider best practices from other states. School districts and public charter schools should be required by state law to enroll children from outside of the district (or outside the attendance zone) when there is available space. If necessary, school finance policies should be tweaked to make this workable.
Wisconsin, for example, has a robust system of cross-district open enrollment, and Oklahoma and Ohio both have effective systems of within-district open enrollment.
Parents should also be given procedural protections, such as the right to appeal an enrollment denial, as states like Arkansas and California provide. And every public school should be required to 'hold back' a small percentage of its seats—perhaps15%—for students who live outside the attendance zone or district. Such reserve clauses have been used for magnet schools in Nebraska, as well as charter schools in Maryland.
Missouri's future depends on ensuring that every child, regardless of zip code, has access to high-quality education. Without meaningful reforms that expand and strengthen access to educational options, Missouri will continue to deny generations of students the opportunity to reach their full potential.
No child should be locked out of the best public schools because of exclusionary laws and policies. 'It literally saved my life,' says Kayla about her transfer to Pattonville. 'Other kids deserve that option too.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move 'purposefully inflammatory,' as well as 'an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. Can American troops be used inside the country? They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is 'impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: William C. Banks, Syracuse University Read more: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests William C. Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pasco graduation disrupted by student yelling ‘should have started with English'
A Pasco High School graduate and his family will be meeting with administrators this week after he disrupted the school's commencement ceremony with comments that criticized the principal's use of Spanish. As Bulldogs from the class of 2025 were handed their diplomas Saturday at Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium, one student reportedly spoke into a microphone, 'This is America. You should've started with English.' His comments appeared to be in reference to Principal Veronica Machado's welcome speech, which was given first in Spanish and then in English. The school and broader community have a large Spanish-speaking population. More than 80% of the school's population come from Hispanic and Latino backgrounds, and more than half of Pasco residents overall speak a language other than English at home. The district appears to have edited out the student's comments from the livestream on Sunday, and on Monday took the video down to add edits to clarify students' names. The interruption was caught by audience members and has been shared thousands of times across social media. 'We are disappointed and saddened that a Pasco High School student chose to disrupt the graduation ceremony on Saturday, June 7, 2025, by making a personal statement that does not reflect the values of our school district,' Pasco School District administrators said in a statement. 'Before participating in graduation ceremonies, all students are required to sign an agreement to uphold standards of appropriate conduct. The student's decision to move into the personal space of the name readers and speak over their microphone was a clear departure from that agreement and selfishly took attention away from the achievements of all graduates being celebrated. The district will take steps to prevent disruption of speakers on stage at all future events,' the statement continued. An administrator reportedly addressed the disruption on stage and after the ceremony. The district plans to hold a series of meetings and listening sessions this week with students, staff and families who were impacted. While district and school admin plan to meet with the student and his family, it's unclear if he will face any discipline or repercussions. School Board President Amanda Brown said in a statement on her personal social media account that it's important all students and families know they belong in their schools, that their languages and cultures are valued, and that Pasco continues to strive toward an inclusive environment. 'While every student is entitled to their voice and lived experience, I do not condone the manner or message in which this moment unfolded,' Brown said. 'I believe it is important to reaffirm that Pasco is a diverse and inclusive community, and our schools should reflect and celebrate that diversity. Language is a powerful expression of identity, and the use of Spanish during the ceremony was a meaningful way to honor our bilingual students, families and staff,' she continued. The school district is home to the state's largest dual language program, educating more than 2,000 multi-lingual students with instruction in Spanish and Russian in addition to English. The district says this program promotes bilingualism, biliteracy, socio-economic competency and high academic achievement. About 509 students graduated from Pasco High School over the weekend.


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) William C. Banks, Syracuse University (THE CONVERSATION) President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move ' purposefully inflammatory,' as well as ' an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is ' impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case.