What ARE These Politicians Thinking? Lesson for the Day: Watch What They Do, Don't Listen to What They Say.

Apparently you can't believe politicians when they make campaign promises. Here's an article from the SE Missourian chronicling the broken campaign promises of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

The article chronicles Nixon's plans for the state in his election bid:

Nixon wrapped most of campaign proposals in economic terms. Expanding government-funded health care, college scholarships, public school funding and life sciences research were all billed as ways to boost the economy. His 34-page platform listed scores of specifics, including about two dozen ideas for "Turning Missouri's Economy Around" and about 30 education proposals.

The SE Missourian details the broken promises due to financial conditions of the federal and state government, but then notes his successes:

Nixon has signed legislation expanding some business tax credit programs while pushing to rein in others because of budgetary concerns. He has followed through on campaign pledges to direct more money to job training programs and expand high-speed Internet service in rural areas. Nixon's administration teamed up with telecommunications companies to win federal economic stimulus grants for Internet service. He used federal work force development money to provide summer jobs at state parks for more than 1,000 youths.

Is this politics as usual? Do politicians make promises which may be out of their reach due to unforeseen circumstances or sheer impossibility? Lt. Peter Kinder may be Governor Nixon's opponent in the upcoming election and he says this:

Kinder uses a baseball analogy to describe Nixon's performance. He puts Nixon's success at a level that likely would get a batter benched.

"He's not batting 1.000, he's not batting .300, he's not batting .200," Kinder said. "So it would appear that in an '08 campaign he was able to promise anything and get away with it."

I am wondering if this same statement could be provided to the Republican legislators voted into the state body under the auspices of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Based on the educational report for our state, "Educated Citizenry 2020", it is neither conservative nor fiscally responsible. The plan emphasizes the creation of more charter schools under the guise of creating parental choice. What the plan doesn't disclose is charters will be operating under the same standards as traditional public schools, thanks to the State Board of Education signing on to common core standards. Innovation in curriculum and testing will be non-existent. This is a false choice and the legislators are not disclosing this fact to the taxpayers. This doesn't provide "reform"; it only provides opportunity for the private sector to make money from schools that subsequently will deliver the same product as public schools.

When studying legislation proposed for any aspect of our lives, taxpayers should ask:

• Does this legislation create more federal control or more local/state control?
• Does this legislation create unfunded federal mandates or is it fiscally responsible?

The educational plan set forth by the Republican Speaker of the House and the Republican Education committee leaders creates more federal control and creates unfunded mandates. Perhaps the constitutionally minded voters who voted these Republican legislators into office should look at their political rhetoric and their subsequent actions. Voters need to hold ALL public officials to their promises.

Kinder accuses Nixon of being "able to promise anything and get away with it". In the educational realm, the Republican legislators are following the same political trajectory. The Republicans ran on the platform of reasserting state control and demanding fiscal responsibility. Republican Senators and Representatives portrayed themselves as upholding and defending Constitutional values. Many of them campaigned in support of the "Health Care Freedom Act", which passed overwhelmingly with more than 71% of the votes. This Act was in direct opposition to federal health care legislative mandates and control.

Why have these values of these Republican candidates and now elected officials disappeared when talking about the deliverance of public (and quite possibly homeschooling and private) education? Why is the plan asking for more federal control and unfunded mandates? Why are they turning their backs on the conservative mantra on which they were elected?

I posed the question, "Do politicians make promises which may be out of their reach due to unforeseen circumstances or sheer impossibility?" These Republican legislators on board with this plan could have set forth a plan that was Constitutionally based and fiscally responsible; this plan is neither.

One may argue Nixon cannot keep many political promises because he is caught in a financial dilemma from which there is no escape and no avenue to uphold those promises. I believe the elected Republican legislators made promises to their conservative and libertarian supporters based on political expediency. They won their offices because of their constitutional and fiscally responsible platforms and they are woefully under delivering on those promises concerning the educational direction of Missouri. This is a dilemma of their own making.

Homeschooling Parents Should be Concerned about "Educated Citizenry 2020". It May Not Just Affect Public Education Students.

Taxpayers and parents of public school students have many concerns and questions about the new educational plan recently released to taxpayers in December 2010. Perhaps it is a "Christmas gift" to the citizens of Missouri from the Legislature. A homeschooling blog raises concerns this legislation may hold for homeschooled students. It may be the Legislature's educational gift is unwelcome not only in the public education realm, but in homeschooling groups as well.

Homeschooling United has written a detailed post on the history of past legislative process and the current thrust of educational reform contained in "Educated Citizenry 2020". This blog states how current legislators have made their intent clear in setting reforms which do not create more educational freedom or choices for education; rather, the legislature is developing a plan which creates more mandates and control not only for public education students, but also homeschooled students:

The legislature, Republican and Democrat, is deeply rooted in the idea that it is government’s job to monitor, regulate, supervise, oversee, the education of the children under their representation. We continue to see, year after year, more and more legislation designed to put more educational bureaucracy into government. With that ever growing bureaucracy, more authority to define and choose standards also shifts from parents to the bureaucrats and legislators. It is this mindset that defies the homeschooler’s freedom to make the best educational choices for their own children. Read these comments from Senator, Jane Cunningham:

"There are many times that government uses the private sector to achieve their goals,” Cunningham said. “I think maybe this is the time, because we are slipping behind so dramatically in global rankings, to ask what is the best way to deliver education to the public. …… We so desperately need education reform and quality schools. The Legislature has to look at what we feel are appropriate measures.”

Homeschooling United then explains what vouchers and tax credits mean to homeschooling taxpayers (and this explanation can be applied to public schooled children as well):

With the introduction of Charter Schools added to the mix of educational reform, there will be, as there has been in the past, discussion of vouchers and tax credits. There has always been a debate about the amount of taxation that homeschoolers pay to support public education, but it is extremely important to understand that no tax relief would ever come without serious strings attached.

This is the same argument we have been making on behalf of public school students in a system of educational mandates set forth by groups of states (rather than each individual state) for students AND educational mandates set by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has already threatened to withhold Title 1 money from states IF THEY REFUSE TO SIGN ON TO COMMON CORE STANDARDS. Those are some mighty large strings attached to a "voluntary" program for states to sign on to...not only is it important to understand that no tax relief would ever come without serious strings attached, no "reform" designed by the Federal Government comes without serious and expensive strings attached. Taxpayers should be wary of what "voluntary" actions undertaken by the State Board of Education will cost the state in terms of educational freedom and tax dollars.


It is suggested by this group you contact the legislators who are supporting this "educational choice". The blog continues:

This year, Scott Dieckhaus, (R) District 109 – Franklin and St. Charles Counties, is the Chairman of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. He will be spearheading, for the House of Representatives, all legislation related to education. Here is the problem. Representative Dieckhaus has repeatedly voiced opinions which may be adverse to educational freedoms.

The St. Louis Beacon published an article in which Dieckhaus said that he is willing to go as far as changing the Missouri Constitution and putting all options on the table as it relates educational reform. Does Dieckhaus believe that private schools should be pulled under the umbrella of public education oversight if they accept vouchers? Will he also expect the same from homeschoolers who receive tax credits?

Remember that Race To The Top Standards, SB 21, vouchers/tax credits, all have common threads of regulation and control that could reach into the homeschooling community. It is important to remind representatives that homeschoolers do not want to be included in any educational reform they have in mind for the coming year or in the future. We are following all state regulations concerning homeschooling and doing an excellent job of making educational choices for our own children and to not need or want the interference of the government, state or federal.

The article makes note of Representative's Dieckhaus' agreement with Arne Duncan's educational philosophies which are antithetical to the 10th Amendment. If these same Missouri senators support health care freedom for Missourians with limited federal government involvement, why aren't they supporting educational freedom for Missourians with limited federal governmental involvement as well?

"Educational Citizenry 2020" seems to be Race to the Top renamed and forced upon Missouri schools...AND quite possibly, homeschoolers as well.

Educated Citizenry 2020 Committee Reveals Education Goals for Missouri Students.

The Missouri State Senate Panel delivered its education report today entitled "Educated Citizenry 2020".

The St. Louis Beacon has a report on the meeting today in Jefferson City:

If a state Senate panel has its way, Missouri students 10 years from now will be better prepared for kindergarten, three-fourths of them will do well on state standardized tests and 60 percent of them will get college degrees and credentials.

Further, charter schools will expand throughout the state, not just in St. Louis or Kansas City, new lawmakers will have to take lessons to learn how public schools are funded and one agency will oversee education from pre-school through post-graduate degrees.

State Senator David Pearce, the chairman of the education panel said on the subject of teacher pay and tenure:

On specific issues, Pearce said that he has filed legislation to study how teachers are compensated. Specifically, he said, it might be time to ask teachers if they are willing to be paid on a merit basis if they would give up the protections of tenure at the same time.

"If we're going to do this," he said, "it would have to be voluntary for schools as well as for teachers. If teachers want to go on merit-based, performance-based reimbursement, they would have to give up tenure. We need to take a look at that, perhaps beginning with districts that are provisionally accredited or unaccredited.

"Tenure is something that for the most part doesn't resonate well in the state of Missouri. Education is the only place where people have tenure," continued Pearce. "People outside the system don't necessarily support it or appreciate it, and now may be a good time to do some trade offs, like tying it to merit pay."

If you are familiar with Race to the Top mandates, teacher tenure and merit pay was a cornerstone of the legislation, as well as the expansion of charter schools. Governor Nixon took out these items in Missouri's proposal to the Department of Education and the removal of these highly graded goals may have been one reason we did not receive funding from the Department of Education.

Missouri adopted Common Core standards in June 2010, a critical part of the Race to the Top. By adopting these standards, we have given up our state's right to write curriculum. We cannot set state or local standards for students and are under the mandates of a consortium.

If I am reading the Beacon article and Educated Citizenry report correctly, even though Missouri did not win Race to the Top funding, we will have the key important programs in this (RTTT) Department of Education's plan implemented: common core standards, the expansion of charter schools, the termination of teacher tenure and the introduction of merit pay. A difference is in the RTTT plan, the tenure and merit pay issue was mandated; the Missouri Senate's plan is apparently voluntary.

The original RTTT proposal was slated to cost $400 Million. The total we could have received from the Department of Education was $250 Million. This current plan doesn't mention how much money Educated Citizenry will cost. The goals appear to be very similar; the state has received $248 Million in other stimulus funding to begin implementing common core standards, so I am assuming the total will be close to the original $400 Million total cost. Taxpayers should know from the Legislature how much this plan is projected to cost as it will create unfunded mandates.

The Beacon reports:

In public hearings witnesses were asked to respond to these questions:

• What will it mean to be an educated citizen in 2020?
• What will employers need from their employees in 2020?
• What principles will anchor our decisions about education -- flexibility, accessibility, affordability? How do we advance those principles?
• How can the needs of all Missouri students best be balanced?
• If you could change one things about education in Missouri, what would it be?

Questions taxpayers should be asking the legislators involved in this plan include the following:

• What is the total cost of this program?
• If there are unfunded/underfunded mandates in this program, how will these be addressed in this climate of budget cutting in the state?
• How does this plan promote smaller government?
• How does this plan promote more local control?
• Does this plan promote more parental rights and involvement?
• How are charter schools considered a viable alternative as they will operate under the same mandates as traditional public schools?

Taxpayers and constitutionalists may want to study the committee's recommendations and ask questions regarding further involvement of the federal government in terms of setting mandates and providing funding for state programs.

This desire to turn over control of state education and accepting federal funds is in contrast with the 10th Amendment beliefs of many Missouri taxpayers. 71% of voters approved of Missouri not having to acquiesce to the Federal Government in health care legislation. Why has Missouri signed onto Common Core standards and agreed to unfunded mandates? Why is the state acquiescing to the Federal Government in the educational realm?