UMSL alumnus George Paz, BSBA 1982, chairman and chief executive officer at Express Scripts, wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch commentary “Inspiring the next generation of learners.” (Photo by August Jennewein)

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch originally published this commentary on March 1.

By GEORGE PAZ

Later today, I’m going to make a slight departure from my normal schedule — and wardrobe — when I wear a 2-foot-high red and white striped top hat, sit down among a roomful of grade school kids and do my best Cat in the Hat impersonation.

Let me tell you, it’s a pretty big step outside the comfort zone for a guy who really enjoys reading over the latest numbers in a financial forecast.

I’m looking forward to spending time with and reading Dr. Seuss books to the students at Mullanphy Elementary School in St. Louis. Today, 48 public schools across the St. Louis area will participate in a one-day literacy event, motivating students to learn, help others and stay physically fit.

The celebration of Dr. Seuss’ 109th birthday is a program of the GO! St. Louis Read, Right & Run Marathon, which challenges students from kindergarten through eighth grade to read 26 books, right the community with 26 good deeds and run 26.2 miles over a six-month period. This program will reach more than 22,000 students from 300 schools and youth organizations.

For me, this is much more meaningful than just serving as the event’s honorary chairman.

One of the greatest challenges we face as a nation is improving public education. Teachers, school boards, state and federal governments can do only so much, no matter how great their level of dedication and good will. We also need to generate enthusiasm for learning, beginning as early as possible.

As we think about our next generation of leaders, we need to invest not only in reading, writing and citizenship, but in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Today is just one step in the journey for these students, and I’m proud to be a small part of it.

When I sit down in front of those kids, it will bring back a lot of memories for me about my own education and the opportunities it created for me.

My grandfather and father immigrated to the United States from Mexico. My father had an eighth grade education. They settled in Fairmont City, and I spent my early childhood there. Hard work was a way of life.

My father served in the military and was impressed by how the officers carried themselves. He quickly understood that education meant opportunity, so learning was constantly stressed in our house. 

My scholastic interests turned quickly to math and ultimately to finance. I focused on learning as much as I could as fast as I could so that I might have the kind of career my parents wanted for me.

There was nothing easy about it. I worked late shifts in my teenage years so that I could help support my family and go to high school. By the time I started college at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, I was considered a nontraditional student, working full time to pay for my education while attending school full time. I took time off from school when my daughters were born and then returned to earn my degree in my early 20s. As I reflect about that time and think about students today, I wonder sometimes what a traditional student looks like. 

I’m proud to give back to UMSL, where I serve on the chancellor’s council. I serve as chairman of the board of Logos School, a local school that helps teenagers overcome learning challenges. Both institutions focus on students who come from a background not so different than mine. I also serve as a trustee at Washington University.

Every day, you hear about the challenges facing our economy, our workforce and our future generations. Without an interest in learning, it’s nearly impossible to move forward. When we give our time and talents, we can make a difference in these kids’ lives. Today’s activities mark another step forward in our community’s own effort to improve education by making it fun to learn.

And that’s why, today, I’ll be the guy in the funny hat trying to do justice to the rhymes and rhythms of “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!”

I can’t wait to hear about all the places our kids want to go in their lives and help them to understand how education will get them to their destination.

UMSL alumnus George Paz, BSBA 1982, is chairman and chief executive officer of Express Scripts, a St. Louis-based pharmacy benefit manager. 

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By VICKI SAUTER

Information technology is pervasive in our lives. Whether using an application on a smart phone or a program for work, we are increasingly using computers more. In addition to business apps, there are apps for helping us meet people, run our home and plan our finances and even our vacations.

Because of this diversity in where computers are used, there is great variety in the paths in being an IT professional. For example, someone interested in health care can pursue that passion with a career in health information systems. Another person with an interest in music might mix recordings with computers, and an individual interested in law enforcement can work in developing systems to track criminals and better investigate crimes.

At the same time the demands for technology are increasing, the number of students pursuing information systems or computer science degree programs is decreasing. In St. Louis, there are not enough job seekers to fill the positions available. And the number of women pursuing such careers is decreasing at a greater pace.

Women make up a smaller percentage of the IT field today than 20 years ago. In 1987, 35 to 40 percent of IT workers were women. Today women hover between 20 and 25 percent of the field. In 1984, 35 to 40 percent of the undergraduates in IT classes were women, while today it is less than 20 percent. This is at a time when the number of women graduating from college has increased!

This decreasing number of women in the field clearly contributes to the overall gap between the supply of, and demand for, IT professionals. In addition, this decreasing participation by women can also contribute to how IT responds to the needs of businesses and society. The disproportionately large number of men, and their seniority in the IT sector, foster a bias of male viewpoints dictating product development, the process of development, the design of new technology and, ultimately, the relative usefulness of new technology to all users.

Yet research suggests that increasing the number of women in development teams can contribute to improved success in design and management of IT projects. In this field, where the demand for applications grows every day, and the probability of project failure has been estimated to be well above 50 percent, the IT community should be eager to expand the pool of workers who might improve its ability to meet demand successfully.

In other words, it is in society’s best interests to increase the number of women in the IT field. In fact, some have said increasing the numbers of women in IT is critical to maintaining national competitiveness.

Each year the information systems department at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, in conjunction with the IS Advisory Board, sponsors a weeklong camp called Xtreme IT! in an attempt to interest more high school students in the field. This year students will participate in a variety of activities such as developing applications, visiting companies, mixing music and even playing board games to learn more about the field.

This year is special, though, because of a challenge grant from Savvis, A CenturyLink Company, to attract more girls to the camp. While some years the camp had a ratio of 15 boys to 1 girl, this year’s Xtreme IT! will have a ratio of 15 boys to 21 girls! This is our small step to reverse the decline of women in computing careers.

Vicki Sauter is a professor of information systems at UMSL.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By J. MARTIN ROCHESTER

Recently I received an email from a student unlike any message I have received in 40 years as a college professor. It is worth noting for what it says not so much about this student as about the culture we have now created within K-16 education in America. Commenting on the failing grade the student received in one of my courses, the individual wrote that s/he had “complied” with the paper and tests and that it was I, the instructor, who had failed insofar as I had not done what it took to enable a passing grade and had not given adequate warning of failure. The student concluded that “you should be embarrassed to give a student an F” and demanded a refund of the money charged for the course.

Never mind the fact that the student did not even bother to purchase the required textbook for the course much less read it, or that s/he came to class only sporadically, or that s/he had received an F on the midterm exam (which normally constitutes a “warning” that you may be at risk of failing and which, in combination with the F s/he received on the final exam and a D on the term paper, normally computes to an F grade); under the “new math,” a slate of poor grades during the semester (“formative assessments”) can be instantly wiped clean and the course grade (“summative assessment”) inflated simply by offering redos and/or extra credit, unless a teacher is as heartless as I seem to be.

And never mind the fact that I even went so far as to copy chapters in the book for the student when s/he claimed s/he could not afford the book, and gave this person (along with the entire class) an elaborate study guide prior to each exam indicating the questions on the tests. I also appended to the course syllabus a “Writing Caution” about dotting i’s, crossing t’s, making sure the paper was proofread before prof-read, and other common-sense tips. But where this student is coming from, evidently, it is no longer sufficient to hold a student by the hand. You must now literally hand the student a diploma.

Starting in K-12, and now extending into higher education, we have been cultivating a mindset where the F-word (“failure”) is no longer permissible, even when a student exerts almost zero effort. It begins in the early grades, where during the last several decades academic standards have collapsed to the point that kids receive gold stars or trophies for nonexistent (or trivial) achievement and are advanced to the next grade if they have a pulse. There is a well-intentioned effort to help struggling learners especially, since in the past they were often overlooked by schools, but in the process all learners are reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Many contemporary school administrators instruct their staff that “failure is not an option.” If you are a teacher who is told that, if you issue a failing grade, the fault lies with you and not the student, what are you to do, especially when such well-known professional development gurus as Robert Marzano and Rick Dufour are constantly cited in the latest education “research” and have been hired by principals to reinforce this message? (For example, Marzano, who puts the onus entirely on the teacher rather than the student or parent and who believes the right kind of “assessment-intervention” regimen can allow “all” students to “succeed,” is the featured speaker at an upcoming school administrators conference sponsored by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education).

This model of education is now being transferred to the university level, as professors see many of the products of such K-12 training on college campuses in need of “support” (aka remediation), not only lacking basic academic skills and knowledge but the most rudimentary understanding of what it takes to become an “educated” person. Thus, on my campus and many others, “retention” centers are proliferating along with “early alert” warning systems designed to help students by sending them regular reminders to come to class, turn in work by the due dates and perform other basic obligations that can be gleaned if they simply read the syllabus. Thus, the “coddling” paradigm has been imported from K-12 into academia as we treat adults like children (while of course overlooking or excusing potentially harmful behaviors on grounds that these are adults and the college must not act in loco parentis). Many professors are trying to resist the decline in expectations – indeed, despite grade inflation there is still a high college dropout rate – but the combination of “equity” pressures along with cash-strapped colleges wanting to retain tuition-paying students is creating the perfect storm likely to lead to further erosion of standards.

Both left and right are to blame. On the left, there are those who push the “therapeutic model” – the idea that the student is a “patient” whose problems a school is supposed to fix and who is entitled to endless chances to mess up, redo work, and graduate to the next level in the name of “access” and “fairness.” On the right, there are those who push the “business model” – the idea that the student is a “customer” who is entitled to a school’s best customer-is-always-right “services” in the name of “market-style accountability.” President Obama wants to see “college readiness for all,” and many Republican state legislators want to see “higher graduation rates.” Between them, I am getting ready for more emails telling me what a lousy teacher I am.

J. Martin Rochester is a Curators’ Teaching Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. A version of this column first appeared on the website Education Gadfly Weekly.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By TIM WOLFE

Since becoming University of Missouri System president, I have been travelling the state far and wide touting the advantages of higher education, offering examples like a more informed citizenry, higher income and more engagement in society.

Let me give you one more: an overall healthier, longer life.

As an avid runner myself, I was struck by a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control that linked higher education to a longer life. As reported in the USA Today, people with a bachelor’s degree or higher live about nine years longer than those who don’t graduate from high school. This is a trend that has continued over the past several decades, experts say, and manifests itself in more than three times higher smoking rates among those without a college degree and more than double the obesity rates in children of parents without a college degree. Those without a college degree also have higher cholesterol levels and more prevalence of diabetes.

To me, all of this boils down to the No. 1 advantage of higher education: improved quality of life.

Whether it is because those with a higher education are more aware of healthier choices or more predominantly choose healthier behaviors – or they have better access to health care – it is definitely clear that education makes a positive impact on our personal health and wellness, which, of course, ultimately affects our health-care costs as a society.

I wish I could say that Missourians were bucking these statistics, but unfortunately that’s not the case. In fact, we Missourians as a lot are an unhealthy bunch with higher-than-average rates of chronic diseases like the ones mentioned above, which makes me wonder even more: are these statistics related to the fact that Missouri as a state hasn’t placed great value on higher education as evidenced by near-bottom per capita funding?

As the product of higher education myself, the president of the premier public, research land-grant university in the state and the father of two soon-to-be college-bound students, I can’t stress enough how valuable education is. And I am extremely concerned that there are those in our state who just don’t get it.

So, I’ll continue to travel the state touting the advantages of higher education. And we’ll continue to encourage people to visit our website to learn more about who we are, what we do and the difference we make.

But lest anyone doubt (or not hear) my message, let me be clear: higher education is a game-changer. It transforms society. It advances our state. It pays dividends to individuals. And it is related to longer, healthier lives. Who needs more reasons than that?

Tim Wolfe is the president of the University of Missouri System.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By TERRANCE J. TAYLOR

The fragmentation of police services is a problem inherent in the organization of many communities across the country. St. Louis is no different, as there are a multitude of jurisdictions – many of which have their own police departments. This fragmentation has the potential to reduce the ability of law enforcement agencies to collectively combat crime and disorder and provide effective community services.

Having said this, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the St. Louis County Police Department have made great strides in coordinating police services. Of particular import are the efforts of these departments to make use of crime mapping.

Did you know that you can find out about crimes occurring in different areas of the city and county using the mapping tools provided by these departments? You can. Just direct your web browser to slmpd.org/crime_mapping.html if you live in the city or to maps.stlouisco.com/police/index.html if you live in St. Louis County. Despite the differences in software used, each of these sites allows you to see specific crime incidents throughout the area.

Some may ask why crime mapping is needed. After all, many of us are aware that certain communities have higher crime rates than others, and many also are aware of the most “crime-prone” communities in the region. But crime mapping can be an important tool for the administration of police services.

For example, if a “crime-outbreak” occurs in a specific community, police can enhance their presence in that community to stem the crime tide. Similarly, if there is an outbreak of certain types of crime – say gun violence – police can increase their presence in that area to ramp up prevention and enforcement efforts.

These are important as research has consistently showed that targeted patrol and enforcement for certain crimes can have an important effect in reducing these problems. Equally important, focused enforcement has been found to reduce crime generally in areas with enhanced police presence without crime being displaced to other communities. The beneficial effects of targeted enforcement stand in stark contrast to general patrol, which has not been found to have the same benefits.

The SLMPD and SLCPD should be commended for their innovative use of crime mapping software. There is considerable room for improvement, though.

While the maps provided by the SLMPD are comprehensive across all areas of the city, the same is not true of the county. This appears to be vestiges of the fragmented nature of the St. Louis County communities more than a limitation with the SLCPD efforts. Many of the smaller municipalities choose not to release their incident reports. This is unfortunate because it reduces the likelihood that patrol efforts will have an appreciable effect in reducing the crime problems in the St. Louis region.

Due to the effects of crime mapping as a tool for effective law enforcement, all jurisdictions are encouraged to consider releasing their incident reports to the county in a timely fashion. This will likely lead to more effective law enforcement efforts that make the St. Louis region safer.

Terrance J. Taylor is an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By MARVIN BERKOWITZ

I was recently asked how to convince people that character education actually works. The cynicism, skepticism, and conservatism out there often astound me. Amy Johnston, the award-winning principal of 2008 National School of Character Francis Howell Middle School in St. Charles, M0., expresses the same frustration.

As the character education pioneer in her district, she often presents a comparison of her school’s academic and character data as compared with the other four middle schools in her district. Even early in her character education journey, she started to see her school pull away from the other four in both areas.

When other educators noticed the results she was getting, they began to ask for her secrets.

She answered, “Character education,” to which they typically replied “No. Really. What did it?”

So she would explain how she used character education to rethink and reform her school and would describe the specific initiatives she enacted, like looped, multi-aged “homerooms” and a collaboratively-generated set of four core values with a corresponding rubric crafted in part by students. And they would shake their heads and walk away seemingly disappointed.

So she laments, “They see the data, I tell them what we did, and they don’t believe it. What more can I do?”

Amy’s frustration mirrors the frustration of many educators who believe in character education and base their beliefs on hard data. I hear all too often that “there is no research on character education.” Well that is patently inaccurate.

In 2005, in collaboration with the Character Education Partnership and the support of the John Templeton Foundation, Mindy Bier and I published “What Works in Character Education.” It was a result of our attempt to find the holes in the literature; i.e., to generate an agenda for needed future research by mapping what little was known and then prescribing new research.

We were stunned by how much research existed. We found over 200 recent studies. We reviewed them, especially 69 scientifically rigorous studies showing the effectiveness of quite a wide range of character education initiatives, and drew conclusions from them about effective practice. While the newest studies in that report are now eight years old, it still has legs and is cited frequently (I recently received a Google alert that it had just been cited in Malaysia.)

And WWCE is not the only such source of evidence. The U.S. Department of Education included character education in its What Works Clearinghouse and found many effective programs. In addition, other related areas have similar sets of convincing data. The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning published both a program review of 80 social-emotional learning programs and more recent meta-analysis of 213 such programs.

In parallel there are reviews of service learning, positive psychology, and various prevention curricula, many of which are also included in the WWCE, WWC, and CASEL reviews. Separately or together, they point to the same conclusions:

• Character education can and does work
• The effects are broad ranging
• What you do and how well you do it matter

One of the most persistent push-backs we get is the assumption that time on character education (or social-emotional learning etc.) is time away from academics. In other words, many educators seem to assume that this is a zero-sum game; more character education means less learning. This is about inaccurate as could be. I will make two points about this:

• Good character education is good education. The basic tenets of effective character education, as delineated in the CEP Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education, but also throughout the effective practices literature in education, focuses on school climate, relationships, and a purpose- and value-driven school. They are the same principles advocated in effective schools and in character education.

In a recent study of nations that are particularly successful in academic education outcomes (and the U.S. is not one of them), it was concluded that, “Although all these countries are concerned about developing the unprecedented levels of cognitive and noncognitive skills required by the global economy, they are no less concerned about social cohesion, fairness, decency, tolerance, personal fulfillment and transmission of values that they feel define them as a nation. In many cases, these discussions of national goals have laid the base for profound changes in the design of national education systems” (“Surpassing Shanghai: An Agenda for American Education Built on the World’s Leading Systems,” edited by Marc Tucker, 2011, p. 173).

Clearly the US has much to learn about education from this, for it is concluded that the research on these high success countries includes no evidence that any of them have gotten there “by implementing any of the major agenda items that dominate the education reform agenda in the United States, with the exception of the Common Core State Standards” (Tucker, p. 209).

• Research shows that character education promotes academic achievement. This makes sense because of the overlap in methods with effective schools and because common sense tells us that when students like school, feel a valued member of the school community, and feel that they are co-owners and co-authors of their educational experiences, they are more motivated and self-managed, and hence perform better, both academically and behaviorally. In a study of 120 California elementary schools, Jack Benninga and I and our colleagues found a strong association between character education and state test scores. CASEL’s meta-analysis shows the same finding, as have many other studies and reviews. And case studies abound. One merely needs to look at the CEP website’s thumbnails of National Schools of Character to see example after example.

Perhaps no case is more compelling than that of Ridgewood Middle School in Arnold, Mo., which Charles Haynes and I reported in USA Today on Feb. 20, 2007. Simply by transforming the horribly negative school culture of a failing school by using character education principles, they moved from state test scores with only 30 percent success in communication arts and 7 percent success in mathematics in 2000 to 68 percent in communication arts and 71 percent in mathematics.

So can we make a case for the effectiveness of character education? I think I just did. And there is so much more evidence that I don’t have room to present here. Character education is good education as such it promotes healthy schools, the positive development of students, and academic excellence. And the data support it. If your doctor presented this kind of evidence of effectiveness of a treatment for you, you would not hesitate. Character education is what this doctor prescribes for our youth, our schools, our nation and our world.

Marvin Berkowitz is the co-director for the Center of Character and Citizenship and the Sanford N. McDonnell Endowed Professor of Character Education at UMSL. A version of this column originally appeared on the Character Education Partnership blog.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By RON YASBIN

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” –Thomas Jefferson

Providing a quality higher education experience to students has become more difficult as a result of budget cuts, the slow economic recovery and an unfortunate mixing of the missions of community colleges, four-year colleges, research universities and the for-profit institutions of higher learning. In the midst of this fierce competition, UMSL needs to define itself such that it is attractive to students because of the value and quality of the education that we offer as well as providing some really unique opportunities.

In trying to define these parameters I will probably generate severe angst among some and hopefully get cheers from others. The truth is that we need a fully engaged open discussion on the topics mentioned below.

A consumer type of relationship cannot define higher education.

Students are more than consumers. Clearly they are entitled to efficient, supportive and friendly student services from the university, but the instructor-student relationship is cheapened and demeaned when it is placed in the consumer model.

Faculty members are more than Walmart greeters or checkout personnel. This relationship should be based on a mutual commitment to rigor, high standards, intellectual curiosity, creativity, academic integrity, fairness and honesty in evaluation. As part of this relationship faculty should remain aware of the latest technology and utilize that technology when appropriate in courses (which is not always necessary).

The faculty needs to present material in a clear, concise and engaging approach. The faculty must be available to help students on campus as well as through online mechanisms. Course syllabi must be clear with respect to material that is to be covered and grading standards, but I am not convinced that we need to specify, in writing, the importance and significance of each lecture or assignment.

As we enhance our standing as a premier metropolitan land-grant university we need to further explore interdisciplinary approaches to our course offerings. We should continue to expose our students to research and to the interrelationships that exist among most of the disciplines.

Our students should have a basic understanding of logic, probability or both, as well as being able to communicate (both orally and in writing) in correct English. They should know that they are responsible for attending class, fulfilling course requirements on time and being academically honest. We should not reward them for doing these essential obligations by providing extra credit.

On the other hand, the faculty must show up at lectures and class meetings with up-to-date and state-of-the-art materials, creative experiments, etc., and fully engage the students. It is critical that we actively inform all of our students about the support that we offer such as those related to advising, tutoring, mentoring, internships, technology, etc.

It is not, however, our responsibility to make sure that they utilize these opportunities. Again, the relationship between faculty and students at a university is unique and it needs to be dynamic and foster the growth and maturity of the students without pandering or decreasing standards.

Ron Yasbin is the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and a professor of microbiology at UMSL.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By KRISTIN CARBONE-LOPEZ

Two people meet, fall in love and then live happily ever after. The ideal ending, right? Or wrong?

Since the beginning of 2012, at least five Missouri women have had their happily-ever-afters cut tragically short by violence. These women have been killed, not by strangers, but allegedly by men they once loved. The deaths of Jamie L. Fields-Arrington, 33; Sarah Billingsley-Walker, 18; Kristie Steed, 43; Gwendolyn E. Pahmeyer, 51; and Alyshia Alexander, 24 are startling reminders of the seriousness of domestic homicide in our own community.

There are nearly 30 women killed by partners in Missouri each year. Based on homicide reports collected by police departments and compiled by Missouri Statistical Analysis Center, 27 women were murdered by their husband, ex-husband or boyfriend in 2010. And, the number of domestic homicides of women in our state does not appear to be decreasing.

Unfortunately, this trend mirrors the trend seen nationally and, moreover, highlights the gendered nature of domestic violence. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, compiling data from the Uniform Crime Reports, reports that approximately one-third of female murder victims are killed by their intimate partner (including spouses, ex-spouses and boyfriends) each year.

In contrast, less than 5 percent of male victims of homicide are killed by an intimate partner. And there have been drastic decreases in the number of men murdered by intimates since 1976, surprising because during this time, the number of resources available to men and women to deal with domestic violence have increased dramatically.

Homicides represent the worst-case scenarios in domestic situations, yet they underscore the danger that many women face. According to the MSAC, there were more than 28,000 cases of domestic violence involving spouses or partners living together that were known to Missouri law enforcement agencies in 2010. Of course, this leaves out those cases or situations that never get reported to police.

In estimating resource needs, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence reports that domestic violence shelters and non-residential services in Missouri served over 51,000 adults, youth and children in 2010. However, for every person who was able to stay in a shelter during that year (10,708 adults, youth and children), two were turned away because the shelter was full (19,311 adults, youth and children).

Calling the police or leaving may not stop the violence. In fact, findings from the Chicago Women’s Health Risk Study suggest that women are at a much greater risk of lethal violence when they are trying to leave their partner.

Ultimately, what all of these numbers demonstrate is that domestic violence, though no longer completely hidden, remains a major problem in our community. Despite years of education, advocacy, and research, there still remain misconceptions about its causes and effects and how to intervene when violence occurs. Young people continue to believe that women are just as violent as men in relationships or that women remain in violent relationships because of low self-esteem.

So what can we do? How can we educate others and honor the women who have been killed by someone who once loved them?

Students in the Violence Against Women course, offered through the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, are doing just that during spring semester as part of a service-learning project. Their goal: to educate the campus community about the reality of domestic violence and, more specifically, domestic homicide.

To do so, they are organizing a domestic violence fair to be held May 1 in the Millennium Student Center at UMSL. Service providers from all over St. Louis will distribute information about local resources and shelters for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. In addition, the students will display memorials from the Silent Witness Initiative in Missouri.

This exhibit, sponsored by the local chapter of the National Council for Jewish Women, honors Missouri women who have been killed by partners. As part of their coursework, students are writing biographies of 18 of the most recent women murdered by a husband or boyfriend. They are also researching domestic violence and violence against women in our own community, compiling statistics on these issues and identifying local resources to help men and women.

Students in the class have been confronted with the fact that domestic violence continues in their own community. As Wilson Brown, PhD student in psychology noted, “Searching for local cases of domestic homicide has truly revealed the salience of violence against women in our community, essentially bringing the veiled problem to my own doorstep.”

Yet they are excited to share with the community what they have learned in the classroom.

Tiffany Artime, PhD student in psychology, said, “The most rewarding part of this service learning project has been the opportunity to take classroom knowledge and do something positive with it. Often in classes, we learn about significant human rights violations and real-world problems, but our education remains in the ivory tower, not easily translated to advocacy.”

Hopefully, this project and the event on May 1 will inspire the UMSL community to action.

Kristin Carbone-Lopez is an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at UMSL.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By LOIS PIERCE

Although April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month, the School of Social Work at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, with its emphasis on child welfare, is involved with child abuse prevention all year. Graduates learn effective interventions with abusive parents and their children. This is critical if we are going to prevent further abuse.

The Children’s Bureau National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System indicates that almost 5,700 Missouri children were substantiated victims of abuse in 2010. Child abuse and neglect often has lasting effects including emotional and behavioral problems. Youth who have been abused are 25 times more likely to be involved in delinquency and to use drugs. Prevent Child Abuse America estimates that the effects of child abuse and neglect cost society $69 billion a year.

Although prevention programs have been working overall, the one area in which we are not making progress is in abuse and neglect that result from parental substance abuse. In our state 18 percent of abused children have parents who are abusing drugs and 11 percent have parents who are abusing alcohol. Often the two risks are found together.

Missouri has a substantially higher number of methamphetamine lab seizures, 1,744 in 2011, than any other state in the country, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. A large number of these meth labs are found in Jefferson County, which has one of the state’s highest numbers of children placed in out-of-home care because of parental substance abuse.

The School of Social Work has responded to these problems in several ways. First, it has collaborated with the Missouri Department of Social Service’s Children’s Division to educate students who, as graduates, work with abusive parents and their children. More than 200 graduates of the school have participated in this program and many are now working as supervisors and specialists who train other employees in the Children’s Division.

A second response has been to collaborate with the Jefferson County Juvenile Court’s Family Drug Treatment Court. The school received funding from the Bureau of Justice to evaluate the services provided to the county’s families who had a child removed because of parental substance abuse. The FDTC is a demanding program that requires a year of therapy, parenting classes, job training and other services. Because the services are intensive and there is room for only about 10 participants at any time, another promising service, Child-Parent Relationship Therapy was also evaluated, as was treatment as usual.

We found that parents working with the FDTC were seven times more likely to have their children return home than the other parents. Parents participating in PCRT were two times as likely to have their children returned. Children of FDTC participants were in out-of-home care on average 200 days less than children who were in regular care, a huge savings for the state in foster care costs. In interviews with participants, families who participated in the FDTC and the specialized parenting course describe being better able to understand their children’s emotional needs and being better able to deal with the stress and anxiety that had led to substance abuse. They had more confidence in themselves and looked forward to being with their children.

Programs like the FDTC and PCRT are essential components of any child abuse prevention program. And, we believe that our graduates who work for state agencies are well-prepared to understand the kinds of services needed to treat the stress and isolation, many times combined with substance abuse that lead to child abuse.

Lois Pierce is the director of the School of Social Work at UMSL.

Commentary is a regular UMSL Daily column written by members of the UMSL community.

By CAROLE BASILE

The College of Education at the University of Missouri–St. Louis prepares for every educator role. We prepare educators for businesses, government agencies, national educational organizations, foundations, museums, zoos and nonprofit youth-serving organizations, as well as for charter, private and public schools.

The community we serve is large and growing. To serve these constituents well, the college is focusing on how we can “get closer to the community and how the community can get closer to us.”

Getting closer to the community means our students get a breadth of experiences in a variety of settings always focused on understanding how students – pre-K to adult learners – engage in learning, what kinds of instructional practice works and how to keep students mentally healthy and active. It doesn’t matter whether those students are young children or even senior citizens; they all need the right kind of support and advocacy to take advantage of life’s possibilities.

In particular, we are making major changes to our educator preparation programs so the community experience is essential to each and every course. In the current redesign students will gain greater hands-on experience. That will include 300 hours of work in youth-serving organizations and more than 900 hours experience in Pre-12 schools.

We are also partnering with United Way and their constituent agencies to provide community experiences whereby our education students will develop an understanding of how to build relationships with youths and families and support the needs of youths socially, emotionally and cognitively.

Our partnerships with schools are also changing as we develop a model we are calling “Studio Schools.” This model will include the placement of small cohorts of our education students as additional staff in St. Louis-area schools. During our students’ yearlong experience, they’ll impact student learning as they become part of the fabric of the school.

Reaching out and engaging partners on their home turf is only one half of the equation. The other half is getting more of the community closer to us so they can help us as “thought partners” in the work we do. We are bringing the community to us as advisory members for the college. We believe this ensures our programs are meaningful and relevant to students and support the needs of the community we serve.

As the college moves forward, we are excited about the opportunities we have to collaborate and integrate community resources into our work. We look to join and use existing systems in the community to make our programs better than ever. We are open to new ideas and innovative thinking in the field of education and want to join both national and local efforts for change. We believe that working together as a community is the only way we can get to a better and more equitable education for all.

Carole Basile is the dean of the College of Education at UMSL.