A Conundrum for Missouri Legislators: There is No Money for Education "Reform". And it Just Got Worse.

Missouri legislators are unveiling their educational plans for students and they are aware those plans are far reaching and ambitious in this current financial condition:

• "Educated Citizenry 2020" chairman David Pearson acknowledged there probably is no money to carry out some of the initiatives — at least not in the next few years. As the Missourian reports, federal stimulus money is about to run out. And tax revenues, though finally showing signs of growth, remain far below the levels of just a few years ago. Gov. Jay Nixon's administration is projecting a $500 million to $700 million shortfall for the fiscal year that begins July 1 — a gap equal to almost 10 percent of the state's general revenues.
• The reforms set forth by the legislators mirror Race to the Top: common core standards, the expansion of charter schools, the termination of teacher tenure and the introduction of merit pay. When these were proposed by DESE last year, these reforms were slated to cost $400 Million. We have questioned where this money was coming from to fund these "reforms" with the severe budget shortfall we are experiencing.
  

These reforms are educational theories initially set forth by the Federal Government and apparently adopted by the Missouri legislators. There is no plan set forth by the legislators (at least what we can glean at this time) on how it is to be paid for, or with an explanation of how these reforms:

• promote smaller government;
• promote more local control;
• promote more parental rights and involvement;
• consider charter schools a viable alternative as they will operate under the same mandates as traditional public schools.

It seems another financial reality has been thrown into the legislators' plans. The News-Leader in Springfield reported Missouri gambling revenue for schools is falling this year. The revenues are expected to be $24 Million short because of the poor economy:

Gaming Commission director Roger Stottlemyre says casinos had been expected to produce about $372 million for education this year. That forecast assumed that a 2008 ballot measure removing gamblers' loss limits would result in more revenues.

But Stottlemyre says the slow economy continues to affect casinos, and they're now expected to generate about $348 million for education this year.

A spokesman for Gov. Jay Nixon says he will look for ways to fill that shortfall.

With all due respect to Governor Nixon, he will have to look for ways to fill that gaming shortfall for current expenses, and then he needs to figure out how to fund reforms with no current price tag. I would hazard to guess that by "looking for ways to fill a shortfall" is code talk for a tax increase.

Missouri Legislators were elected this year to be fiscally responsible in a cash-strapped economy. Citizens know the budget must be balanced and cuts will need to be made across the board for programs in all sectors. We understand education must be reformed. However, we deserve to know how much these reforms cost and if they adhere to the Missouri Constitution.

I have no idea on the total cost of these reforms (I don't believe a figure has been publicized), but I believe the stated goals are unconstitutional. How can legislators concerned with state sovereignty agree for Missouri to sign away the right to set its own educational standards? Is a data base which can be accessed by third parties to obtain social and emotional information on a student considered "good education"? How much money will it cost the local districts to provide assessment training that is mandated by the state?

Taxpayers must demand this information (cost of a program, how it is to be funded, and if it is constitutional) from their legislators. This Missouri reform sounds too much like Race to the Top for citizens to accept. The legislators need educational reform that will fit into the state budget and not raise constitutional issues.

Will Students from Failing School Districts be Placed in the New Expanded Classrooms in the Kirkwood School District?

I was sent the following email by a Kirkwood resident concerning a bond proposal (Proposition 1) recently passed in the Kirkwood School District that provided for classroom expansion with a stagnant pupil enrollment:

Friends: Please see below. This law and the court action would allow the State Department of Education to put students from failing schools into school districts with the facilities to hold them.

Since Kirkwood School District has had a low indigenous growth for 10 years but will expand some facilities by 40% where do you think that the state will put the kids from failing school districts? What the voters did, without being told about this recent court decision, was to agree to continue to pay high taxes so that kids from other districts can fill those buildings. The resultant extra costs to educate students from failing districts will end up costing tax payers even more and impact the educational opportunities of Kirkwood kids. The potential for this occurrence was not disclosed by the school board during the last election cycle!

(The following has been pre-filed by Missouri Senator David Pearce):

SB-14: TRANSFER STUDENTS
SB-14 follows a Missouri Supreme Court case, Turner vs. Clayton School District. The case focused on a student who lived in the unaccredited St. Louis School District and wanted to attend school in the affluent Clayton suburb. The court allowed the student to attend the Clayton school; an appeal is pending.

"It would have a huge implication on some of the surrounding districts," Pearce said. The bill would give the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education authority to set rules under which one district could accept or reject students from another district.

Pearce said the idea is to prevent a sudden influx of students from one district affecting student-teacher ratios, classroom space and services in another district. Under Turner vs. Clayton, students in one county could attend school in an adjoining county. This means if a Jackson County school lost accreditation, students there could attend Johnson County schools, potentially, Pearce said.

Full article here:

http://dailystarjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=13034

There are several issues raised in this action:

• The question of who will pay for these unfunded state mandates (transfer and education of students who are not residents of Kirkwood School District);
• The power (or no power) for school districts to set policy;
• How will student test scores from non-accredited districts affect the testing data of KSD resident students? Test scores based on subgrouping (since No Child Left Behind was instituted) means KSD has failed to achieve Annual Yearly Progress educational goals for the past four years;
  
• The inaction of the Kirkwood School District to inform citizens about ALL ramifications of its $33 Million expansion.

This is the same district that refuses to allow citizen comments to be part of a public record. When questioned about this practice, the Board responded that this was the method in which the Board chose to operate. When researching the surrounding school district "Board Docs" of school board meetings (Lindbergh, Ladue, Brentwood, Maplewood, Parkway, Rockwood and Clayton), I discovered ALL THESE DISTRICTS ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE ON THE RECORD. In fact, the Ladue School District allows citizens to ask questions during the Board meetings.

Kirkwood City Council allows the comments to be on the record. Why don't Kirkwood School District citizens have a voice in the school board meetings? Why is this Board so afraid of transparency? The practice of the KSD Board does not meet industry practice; in fact, it is alone in its silencing of any real questioning or the raising of concerns by citizens.

Kirkwood School District allows public comment BEFORE the meeting is officially started. After public comments are finished, the meeting THEN officially begins which means the comments are NEVER recorded in the minutes. Citizens are NEVER allowed to talk during Board meetings, which ensures no questions are asked of members and placed on the record.

So, Kirkwood citizens, if you are concerned about a influx of non-resident students in your schools after the classroom expansion occurs and how this will be funded, you can ask your question at a Board meeting. You won't receive an answer that evening and the answer from the Board will never be publicized. Your tax dollars are being spent by a Board who doesn't care about your opinion or your concerns. You have effectively been silenced. It might be better to follow the progress of SB-14 through your state senator and representative. The School Board doesn't seem to be responsive to citizen concerns. I hope you receive a more thorough and thoughtful response from your legislator.

How does your local school board operate? Is your Board more transparent than the Kirkwood School District board? If you are in a district that may be impacted by this Missouri Supreme Court case, I would like to know what response you receive to any concerns you raise with your district.