When Republicans Sound Like Democrats and Democrats Sound Like Republicans. It's True!

This should be an interesting session in the Legislature. Here is a quite informative article from the Missouri News Horizon quoting Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the subject of educational reform.

Here is the Republican stance:

Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington, chairs the House's Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. He said he wants his committee to be aggressive when considering reforms to the state's education system.

"Everything is on the table," Dieckhaus said. "Whether it's tenure, whether it's making sure we're not sneaking kids through the system by social promotion, whether it's...vouchers and open enrollment, and all the things that have been pulled off the table in past legislative sessions, I want to have a true dialogue on those issues this session."

That sounds on its face exciting and visionary. Some of it is. Some of it isn't so wonderful. Open enrollment will kill local school district autonomy for setting their student make-up. Open enrollment will cause deficits to schools as reimbursement will not cover the full amount necessary to educate the child at the district's set rate. Who will pay for the additional resources necessary for an influx of students? The district? The state? How can a district set a realistic budget? Charters weren't mentioned, but they are a big item in Educated Citizenry 2020. If a true dialogue is desired by the lawmakers, perhaps taxpayers should understand they may very well be under the same mandates as public schools having to adhere to common core standards.

Robyn Wright-Jones, Democrat from St. Louis said this:

But one of the Senate's leaders on public education, Sen. Robyn Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis, warns that moving too fast on controversial topics such as open enrollment and tenure reform takes the focus away from a root cause of educational deficiency in the urban core -- the lack of economic opportunity for parents of school children.

"When we have a decent wage in every household, and we have our parents working, they can do a traditional family plan, where there's money to do the things they need to do, then test scores will improve," Wright-Jones said.

She said open enrollment is not the answer to educational inability. She favors keeping students close to home.

"We need to put our neighborhood schools back on the block, down the street from where our children live," Wright-Jones said. "You send a very bad signal to a kid when you put him on a bus at five in the morning and take them off at seven (at night) and tell them they just got a better education."


She's right. She sounds like a traditional Republican (jobs, jobs, jobs and traditional family) and fostering community pride. The Republicans sound like traditional Democrats (curriculum mandates, increased spending and unfunded mandates created by common core standards).

House Speaker Tilley said:

...the status quo is not good enough anymore.

"Every year, people who are opposed to educational reform say 'No, this isn't a good idea, this isn't a good idea...' Tilley said. But they don't come up with alternative solutions and we continue to shuffle thousands of kids through schools that just aren't doing their jobs."

We have our ideas on educational reform. Return the majority of educational decisions to the state and reduce our dependency on the federal government for funding. Could it be we are in trouble because we are going broke trying to fulfill the endless mandates coming out of Washington? After all, for every dollar we send to the Department of Education, we get back 80 cents. That doesn't seem like a very good investment for taxpayers and students.

Cutting our strings to Washington would be a good first start. Isn't that what the Health Care Freedom Act was all about? How about we start an Educational Freedom Act? We don't like the health mandates OR the educational mandates. There is no difference in the amount of control in either healthcare or education. Decrease federal control and spending. Sounds like a good plan to me.

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.