The Grand Illusion of the School Board

"School boards offer citizens from all walks of life the opportunity to determine the community’s direction and vision for their children’s education." - Missouri School Board Association website

According to MSBA, the role of the school board is to determine the direction and vision of their children's education. Does any school board member out there feel they have control over the direction of the education produced in their district?  Do any boards feel they have control of the overall vision of education that they are providing to their children? If any school board member has answered yes to either of these questions then they have succumbed to the grand illusion of modern school board.

The MSBA website provides a history of school boards in our state.

The Act of 1820, which allowed Missouri to become a state, established the township as the first way of organizing schools. This system led to the creation of many small, autonomous schools governed by local citizens. Then, in 1839, the Geyer Act was passed. This Act is generally recognized as the real beginning of organized education in Missouri. It eliminated the township system and created what were known as sub-districts governed by three trustees. Another sweeping revision of Missouri’s education laws in 1874, gave almost complete control of schools over to local citizens. Among other things, citizens were empowered to elect local school district directors. By 1878, there were about 10,000 separate school districts in Missouri. No more than 100 of them offered courses above the elementary level. These thousands of school districts brought education within reach of nearly all the population and led to the pattern of school district development in the 20th century.

From there it describes history where a group of school board members first got together informally in 1936 to exchange ideas. The general intolerance for informality (because it does not provide clear power distinctions) caused the group to change. They created a more formal structure instituting officers, dues and eventually lobbying (initially lobbying was prohibited.) The focus of MSBA shifted from being a place where districts could learn from each other through the exchange of ideas and information to "monitoring legislation." In the early part of the last century schools had already seen laws that: extended the school year beyond three months, required teacher training and certification, consolidated school districts and imposed mandatory attendance. By the middle of the last century we had already moved a good deal away from the community setting the vision for education.

The MSBA has had a hand in transforming the role of the school board. MSBA instituted training for school board members which is its only other main focus to this day besides monitoring legislation. They note that the "Missouri Outstanding School's Act requires all school board members to receive 16 hours of training, within their first 12 months of service. MSBA’s Certified Board Member (CBM) program offers Essential Board Member Certification, which fulfills this requirement and provides the foundation for becoming an effective board member." MOSA was passed in 1993 under Governor Mel Carnahan and focused on several key areas: Show-Me Standards, Missouri’s Curriculum Framework, Statewide Assessment, Professional Development Standards, Professional Standards for New Educators, Technology Grants, and the Missouri School Improvement Program. It also seemed to recognize that school boards were not functioning "properly" and members therefore required special training. The fact that MSBA had established training years before is probably just a coincidence and the fact that their training covered everything in MOSA simply an after-the-fact design. It certainly seems to be counter to the statement on their website that citizens from all walks of life could participate in the development of an education vision on their local school board. They  may come from all walks, but they need extensive training to be able to do what their predecessors got together informally to do for decades.

This training that school board members are now, by law, required to receive (although note that the law does not specify that MSBA must be the provider), contains useful information like how to analyze a budget, what do Sunshine Laws cover, and Roberts Rules of Order. They focus on keeping the meetings civil. While MSBA cannot take credit for the 3 minute rule for public commenters (that we got from the Home Owners Associations), they have helped push this method for controlling the unruly public, which is exactly what the HOAs invented it for. Virtually every school board has instituted the three minute limit for public comment. If you limit the paying members of your HOA to three minutes to comment or complain about what you are planning to do, it certainly does make your meeting run more smoothly. It also makes it infinitely easier for HOA's to pass the rules their boards want. As a model for a quasi governmental entity it is great. However, a study of 3,000 people found that two thirds of them thought their HOA's were "annoying" or worse, 19% had been "at war" with their HOA and 54% would rather live in a sloppy neighborhood than deal with an HOA. The three minute rule does not seem to have a positive impact on your public image.

It is an attempt to apply Disney-esque techniques to what is naturally a messy process. Placing videos and exhibits along a ride's waiting line distracts the public from the monotony of waiting for long periods of time. Placing a turn or new segment to the line breaks it up and makes it harder for people to take in the big picture of their long wait. They become compliant cattle, grateful for any time the people in front of them move forward. Allowing many people from the public to come up and speak to a school board for three minutes, gives the impression of providing input, but is far from an open dialogue. It is hard to see the big picture of their concern or how you are going to address it.

Governing in a representative democratic process is challenging and far from neat, but there is a growing percentage of the public who feels that the tight regulation of the process makes it almost impossible for their opinions or thoughts to be heard. The "open exchange of ideas" is quickly becoming a part of nostalgia, like the initial meetings of the MSBA. The Delphi Technique is becoming more widely employed. One school district, without naming it so, has proposed officially adopting the delphi technique as their "communication protocol." Sunshine Laws, instead of working to keep the process transparent, restrict the players to only formal structured (read limited)  communication about issues, never gathering in numbers that could be considered quorum and stifling private conversation with the public of items on an official agenda.

In terms of these representatives from all walks of life being able to determine the "direction and vision" for education, that ship sailed long ago. The Business Rountable, The Gates Foundation,  the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association have set that vision for the school districts since the 80's. The only decisions being left to the school boards are the minor ones, that the real power brokers don't think they can screw up too badly.

In our state the Governor almost single handedly sets the vision. He signed us on to Common Core in 2009 before a single standard had been written. That required true Kreskin-like vision. He then required his appointed state board of education to approve an Education Commissioner nominee who would go along with his vision. The SBE, following the governor's vision, not one they had developed, directed DESE to implement that vision. DESE in turn directed the district Superintendents to implement that vision. School Boards were told by their Superintendent that they would be implementing Common Core. School districts who have pushed back against Common Core have been threatened (despite prohibitions in state statute for doing so) with the loss of their accreditation if they pull out of Common Core. The districts are promised that they can set the curriculum, but actual school board members are advised to leave those decisions to "the experts," the administrators and curriculum directors. Those experts will, in turn be forced into picking curriculum that aligns with the standardized tests they didn't choose, thus placing the control of the direction of education in the hands of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (Pearson).

I can't help but recall a famous scene from "The Jerk" where Steve Martin's character tells people at his carnival game booth which prizes they could win, limiting their choices ultimately to a small three inch space on the shelves.

Though state statute requires DESE to get budgetary approval from the legislature each year for what they plan to do with the money collected from districts and taxpayers, the Governor maintains line item veto over that budget giving him the ultimate authority for all educational decisions in the state.

Certainly doesn't sound like local school boards "offer citizens from all walks of life the opportunity to determine the community’s direction and vision for their children’s education."

Later this week we will hear from school board members about what their experience has been like serving on a school board. I don't think it will much match what MSBA has said it should be.

What School Board Associations Should Be Teaching their Members: They Have Little to No Power in Educational Decisions for their Districts

The actions of most school board members to Federal Control of their schools

The Missouri School Board Association's explanation of its purpose sounds promising.  From the first two paragraphs under "history":

The school board is a unique institution in American culture. It has served to keep schools close to the people as our system of public education has changed over the years. School boards offer citizens from all walks of life the opportunity to determine the community’s direction and vision for their children’s education.

From its very beginning as a state, Missourians have recognized the importance of locally controlled public schools. The Act of 1820, which allowed Missouri to become a state, established the township as the first way of organizing schools. This system led to the creation of many small, autonomous schools governed by local citizens. Then, in 1839, the Geyer Act was passed. This Act is generally recognized as the real beginning of organized education in Missouri. It eliminated the township system and created what were known as sub-districts governed by three trustees. Another sweeping revision of Missouri’s education laws in 1874, gave almost complete control of schools over to local citizens. Among other things, citizens were empowered to elect local school district directors.

from the last paragraph:

School boards remain an essential institution to ensure that local communities are connected to their public schools. Whether large or small, urban, suburban or rural, we’re all striving to provide the best educational opportunities for our young people. And we’re doing it together through the Missouri School Boards’ Association.

It's unfortunate the original intentions for school boards aren't true.

Today's school boards have no autonomy to set standards, assessments and other policies.  These have been taken over by the state, the federal government and the consortias controlling Common Core standards.  The legal authority for local districts to set their own curriculum doesn't have much meaning when the curriculum must follow the standards and assessments.  The proponents of Common core are now touting the standards evolving into a national curriculum.

If your school board members still insist the district can set its own curriculum, that statement is legally true, but the curriculum is being dictated by the standards and assessments.  It's similar to this sentence from MSBA: citizens were empowered to elect local school district directors....what good does it do for citizens to elect district directors who are figureheads?  Symbolic votes don't actually give power to school board members to control educational decisions on behalf of their local taxpayers.  When you are voting for a school district member today, you are voting for them to hire teachers and maintain physical property.  The rest of the decisions have largely been determined by the state or federal level bureaucrats and the school board needs to find the money to pay for these unmandated educational delivery and content decisions.

Excerpted below is an op ed from a Citrus County Florida school board member describing her job as it really is...largely symbolic from a time when local school board members could actually drive the direction of the district, rather than its current configuration of having to pay for state and federal (not local) mandates:

From State Board member Pat Duetschman in Citrus County chronicleonline.com:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The issue for you, the voter and taxpayer, is much more personal. You elected me and four other school board members and a superintendent of schools to determine what is best for students in Citrus County schools. But our hands are now being tied by people who are not accountable to you or any voter of Florida. You should be angry — I am.

The educational reform movement that supports the growing list of mandated tests is led by people who are not elected. Private corporations and foundations are dictating the educational standards — readily adopted by state legislators, most of whom are not educators nor do they seem willing to listen to them. The mission and future of public education has been dramatically changed by their efforts and hinges now 100 percent on test scores.

The rules for testing and scoring in public schools are set by the commissioner of education and a six-member state Board of Education. These people are all political appointees, most holdovers from the Jeb Bush administration. They are accountable to no one except perhaps the governor who has not interceded in their controversial decisions. They are also the ones responsible for the recent debacle of test scores plummeting, changing the passing rates, and now sending letters to parents declaring the lower scores are simply a reflection of new assessment procedures and not a reflection of student performance.

A lot of chest-thumping has gone on recently by those claiming the tests are the sole factor in improvements to student performance and graduation rates. If that were so, all schools in Florida would be performing at the same level. The truth is teaching matters and tests don’t teach. School superintendents and school boards have been the ones to create educational policy, hire the best teachers, provide effective training, develop evaluation and assessment systems to track student performance all year long, and finally to analyze data to set priorities and be accountable for results.

We are also the ones who must deal with the ramifications of the test scores. To undermine those very people who have actually and daily provided the environment and ability for students to thrive is a gross injustice. To give credit to a test for student learning is a deception.

So the question to you, the voters and the taxpayers, is this: Who do you ultimately trust to make the decisions that impact our public schools? Is it the locally elected boards and superintendents who will meet with you face to face, answer your questions, talk with you in the grocery store, lose sleep over our students and be willingly accountable for student performance — or the corporations, big-money contributors and political appointees who may never have stepped foot in a classroom and don’t answer to you? 

This is also the heart of the resolution and efforts by Florida’s school boards to push back against unreasonable mandates that make no sense for our students, are punitive and cause more problems than they solve.

When the Florida commissioner of education, who is appointed, not elected, tells a room full of hundreds of elected school board members to basically stop questioning the testing regime and to do as we are told, something is terribly wrong with the balance of power and I honestly feel is a significant challenge to democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe this type of statement will never appear in the Missouri State Board Association (or any state board association's) website FAQs, do you?  Never mind the fact this is geared toward Florida, this board member's experience is similar to any state that adopted Common Core standards.  Remember, the standards and assessments are "common" and a shared experience.  What is happening in Florida is happening in Missouri, is happening in Massachusetts, is happening in Georgia....tweak it here and there (appointed members vs elected members) and you've got the same sad scenario.  

 Refer back to the first sentence on the MSBA's website:

From its very beginning as a state, Missourians have recognized the importance of locally controlled public schools.

Missourians and residents from other states recognize the importance of locally controlled public schools.  The fact is: THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER.

From the last paragraph:

School boards remain an essential institution to ensure that local communities are connected to their public schools.

Local communities are only connected to their public schools (now being directed by private companies) in that they pay for mandated programs they may not need...or want...or can afford.

Vision For Missouri Public Schools Report - Just More of the Same

The News Leader reported today about the Vision for Missouri Public Schools project, which has just released their report that outlines a comprehensive plan for Missouri public education. From their website:

"The Missouri Association of School Administrators and the Missouri School Boards’ Association are undertaking a joint effort to develop a “Vision for Missouri Public Education.” This joint effort will involve school board members and school administrators across the state in developing a comprehensive vision for Missouri’s public schools.

MSBA and MASA represent those charged with legal responsibility for governance and executive leadership of Missouri public schools. The two groups each have developed positions for which we advocate each year, but the groups have not developed a comprehensive vision for public education. The shortfall of state and federal dollars has legislators and state leaders looking to our organizations for leadership and the financial support for public education likely will get worse before it gets better. In the absence of any vision and/or plan, proposals such as vouchers, open enrollment, tuition tax credits, etc. will be seen as alternatives."

They claim to be doing this because there is a lack of such clear vision for the future of education and therefore the attainment and distribution of funding for education is at risk. The News Leader reported their plan was to develop "a proactive platform and make districts less vulnerable to contrary proposals that come up in the General Assembly."

We at the Watchdog do not believe there isn't a clear direction for public education, and from the looks of their report, The Missouri Vision Project didn't believe it either.  Read through their report and see if you don't see dozens of familiar terms, phrases and goals that have come from DOE, Bill Gates and others. From the preamble on their report:

“In order to perpetuate democracy for its citizenry and build a competitive workforce, the State of Missouri will engage every child in a rigorous, world class learning system to make each student career- and college-ready."  This could have been lifted directly from the UNESCO document. 

"The system will consist of effective teachers, school administrators, and boards of education who establish high expectations for students with the objective of developing a mastery of literacy and numeracy." Reading and math are currently the only subjects assessed by the Common Core Cooperatives.

"Common core standards, rooted in a culture of innovation and continuous improvement and technology, will be the foundation for learning." Common Core and a focus on STEM courses.  Nothing new here.

With parent support, every child will enter kindergarten ready to learn." This will be achieved first by optional early learner programs and eventually by compulsory preschool, just as compulsory education in general was introduced in this country. Note that parents only play a supporting role in this vision.

"Students will be accountable for their learning and demonstrate mastery of the curriculum as they progress through the learning system." And assessments will be modified until they do this.  Note that we no longer have an education system, but rather a learning system.

"Acting on behalf of the citizenry, school boards and local, state, and federal governments will be accountable for supporting every child’s learning.”  At least they recognize where their mandate comes from.

The Committees, which look at seven different areas, tell a similar story.

• Teaching, Learning, And Assessment Committee
• Early Learning And Student Success Committee
• Climate, Culture, And Organizational Efficacy Committee
• Human And Organizational Capital Committee
• Governance, Leadership, And Accountability Committee
• Physical Resources Committee
• Financial Resources Committee

I can't help but also note that Lois Weiner, a professor of education at New Jersey City University, who spoke to Democracy Now, lamented that the current education reform movement was attempting to deprofessionalize the teaching profession. The Missouri Vision falls right in line with that critique as they continue to refer to teachers and staffers as "capital."

MSBA, MASA and DESE (who had an advisory role in the plans development) are going to try to make us all feel like local control is being fought for and held with this document. Knowing that it came from local education specialists makes statements like, "Missouri students must experience schools capable of equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and character traits required for their future," so much more comforting.

"Action expresses priorities" -- Mohandas Gandhi

Ghandi wrote, "Action expresses priorities". What priorities do you think are in the "Vision for Missouri Public Education"? We've written on the transformational plan put forth by the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and the Missouri School Boards' Association (MSBA). The goals of this ambitious plan are to make every student ready for college and with the new curriculum, our students will become globally competitive. This is from the "Teaching, Learning and Assessment" group vision:

Schools must prepare all children for many choices through providing them the tools and attitudes to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society and to enable them to live successfully in a rapidly changing world. Students must be prepared to think critically, to solve problems, to collaborate, to foster relationships, to be flexible, to adapt to change, and to communicate effectively. Schools must be places where all children succeed, feel safe, and have their curiosity cultivated. Experiences must be customized to meet the individual needs of every student. Standards must be clear, attainable, and high enough to ensure that all students are intellectually challenged. Learning must be at the profound level.

These educational priorities are laudable goals and sound reasonable. How they are to be attained (the action) causes concern. There is an emphasis on attaining these goals via the "new digital learning environment". Translated that means we must spend billions on longitudinal data systems to track students' physical, mental and academic progress. We've questioned if the intrusion of government into documenting the personal lives of students is constitutional. These goals are also to be met through common core standards, which violate state sovereignty and are financially unsustainable.

I was somewhat surprised to read this sentence in the plan:

Experiences must be customized to meet the individual needs of every student.

I am curious to understand how this can occur as the standards are mandated and addition and/or subtraction to common core curricula is prohibited. "Individualized mandates" is an oxymoronic phrase. You can't factor in the individual in an equation when the formula is mandated and unchangeable. If you were truly interested in the individual needs of a student, you would throw mandates out the window, and allow curriculum that was truly tailored to a student.

As we've previously written, common core standards and "Vision for Missouri Public Education" are failures in terms of empowering local school districts and the state board of education. This plan takes control from the state and we are thrown into a grouping of other states to set curriculum. It can't possibly accomplish its goal of providing individualized instruction with the plan as written.

What can we learn from Gandhi that can be applied to the authentic goals of public education? Ed Kaitz in American Thinker writes:

On his recent trip to India, President Obama was lavish in his praise for Mahatma Gandhi. Obama maintained that Gandhi's message of being "the change we seek in the world" was instrumental in inspiring his own journey from community organizer to President of the United States. "I might not be standing here today," said the president, had it not been for the Great Soul's influence.

Knowing, however, that Gandhi's political philosophy included highly persuasive polemics against big government, the welfare state, foreign aid, affirmative action, identity politics, divisive rhetoric, and malice toward one's opponents, it's hard to imagine the president devoting much time as a student in quiet and humble contemplation with the great guru's writings.


Kaitz argues Obama has a profound misunderstanding on Gandhi's true guiding principles; one is freedom, and what drives that freedom. This administration is intent on controlling more and more aspects of our lives-even our educational system-but Gandhi feared increase of the state's power:

I look upon an increase of the power of the state with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.

Review the "Vision for Missouri Public Education" and determine for yourself if it creates more power for the state and if so, then how can the state can truly offer "individualized needs of every student"? In a situation of increased governmental control, the individual's needs are not protected; protecting the system's structure is paramount. The proposed educational structure will tremendously expand in terms of size and power. Do you believe the individual will have a louder voice in a larger system?

Do you agree with Gandhi's wisdom and vision or do you trust the policies of MASA and MSBA? If a powerful state does indeed destroy individuality which allows progress, what does the Missouri Vision provide to students?

Question to DESE and State Legislators: Is there an Ethical Issue with Educational Lobbying Organizations Setting Educational Policies?**Updated!

Check out this copy of the Columbia Tribune's article announcement of DESE's "Vision for Public Education". According to the reporter, this was an important day for DESE, the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and Missouri School Boards' Association (MSBA). "Transformational change" is to come to Missouri schools according to one spokesperson:

“One thing we will not tolerate is business as usual,” MSBA President Dave Wright said. “We are dedicated to developing ideas that will literally transform public education in our state.”

What has happened to all that excitement and pride for the program? DESE had a pdf file on its website dated August 30, 2010 entitled "Missouri Education 2020 entailing the vision for Missouri schools". This is what currently appears when you search "Vision for Missouri public schools"; a link labeled Missouri Education 2020 appears:

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Aug 30, 2010 ... Our Vision. Missouri public schools: the best choice . . . the best results! Our Mission. To guarantee the superior preparation and ... dese.mo.gov/news/2010/documents/Nicastro_2020.pdf

DESE loved the plan in August...it was labeled "the best choice...the best results!" This vision was to "guarantee superior preparation". Try to view it as HTML. It's been pulled by DESE. It is no longer listed on their website. Why would DESE pull the link? What's happened to those promises to the public?

Here is a press release from MASA and MSBA about the intent of these two groups to craft a plan for public education from the MSBA site (we have a copy in case it gets pulled as well). Note the first paragraph:

More than 100 school board members and superintendents gathered in Jefferson City on August 30 to begin a project designed to define the vision for public education in Missouri for the coming years. The "Vision for Missouri Public Education" project is a joint effort of the Missouri School Boards' Association and the Missouri Association of School Administrators. Its goal is to develop a plan outlining a vision for the state's public schools by October 2011.

The MSBA and MASA are defining the vision for public education for the coming years. These two groups are lobbying groups. Here is information on MASA (we'll focus on MSBA in subsequent posts):

The Missouri School Administrators Political Action Committee (MSAPAC) was originally formed in 1991 and now includes the:

• MAESP (Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals)
• MASA (Missouri Association of School Administrators)
• MASSP (Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals)
• MCCTA (Missouri Council of Career and Technical Administrators)

Here are MASA's legislative priorities for 2010-11:

http://www.masaonline.org/pages/uploaded_files/LegislativePriorities2010-11.pdf

The platform states we are in a revenue shortfall, but Missouri needs to not cut any money from public education during a recession, rather, it needs to address shortfalls via these venues:

MASA is committed to working in collaboration with other educational groups, the Governor, the General Assembly, and DESE, to seek revenue solutions for long-term sustainable funding for public education in Missouri. We believe the state should consider revenue enhancements such as a sales tax on Internet sales, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes or a general sales tax to provide long-term funding for Missouri public schools. We also firmly believe that policy makers much do everything possible to eliminate any further erosion of local property taxes which are vital to preservation of basic educational services.

MASA, a lobbying group which protects its own special interests, is developing the educational blueprint for Missouri children. It wants to raise taxes to pay for this vision. It is important to remember through this discussion and subsequent discussions on "Vision for Missouri Public Education", MASA and MSBA are lobbying groups. Why should lobbyists be crafting legislation and why has DESE acquiesced its duties to lobbyists?

Let's look further into these legislative priorities and note what MASA opposes. We'll list those items in terms of what it opposes and then what it supports:

• Opposes: Diverting state funds from the public schools by any means including tax credits/vouchers; translation: no school choice for parents and taxpayers via tax credits/vouchers, even though more and more taxpayers and parents are demanding school choices for their children;
• Opposes: Mandating open enrollment of students; translation: students must stay in a failing school system if it is within their district boundaries;
• Opposes: Eroding public school funding by expanding Charter schools; translation: no support for Charters even as public schools are continuing to produce flat achievement scores;
• Opposes: Mandating programs without appropriating the necessary funds to implement and sustain the programs; translation: mandates must be funded with additional new taxes (see above);
• Opposes: Imposing property tax reductions, freezes or limits; translation: even if your house falls dramatically in price, your taxes owed on that devalued house would stay level or not go below a preset amount;
• Opposes: Transforming the early childhood special education program from a required program to a voluntary program; translation: early childhood special education programming should remain as a requirement.

MASA is a lobbying group and has no legislative power. Remember however, this is one of the two groups presenting the plan to DESE, the Governor, and the legislators for adoption. Who is paying MASA and MSBA for the work necessary to draft such a far reaching plan?

Note the last sentence of this press release:

Information on the progress of the "Vision for Missouri Public Education" project will be posted on www.visionforMOpublicschools.org.

Don't bother to try to access that site. It's been pulled from several sites on the Internet the last several days. But many of us have complete copies of information from the site. We'll be posting excerpts from this plan and the seven areas of transformation during the next few weeks and months. Here is a description of the planning groups:

The board members and administrators involved in the project are divided into seven groups: Teaching, Learning and Assessment; Supports for Early Learning and Student Success; Human and Organizational Capital; Governance, Leadership and Accountability; Climate, Culture and Organizational Efficacy; Financial Resources; and Physical Resources.

We'll write more in the next few weeks and months about MSBA, MASA, the participants in the plan, and the disappearance of the documents DESE was so proud of in August 2010. Perhaps one of your superintendents is on one of the seven planning committees and you can contact him/her on exactly what this transformation will entail for children and taxpayers since we can't access it on the internet any longer.

If these groups are so proud of the transformation they are planning for your children, why is this information being pulled from public scrutiny? It started out with such celebration and has now disappeared. What is happening in Columbia and Jefferson City between DESE, MASA and MSBA? Do the legislators know that policies are being drafted by lobbyists to be presented to DESE, the governor and the Legislature for adoption? Are there conflicts of interest in this plan by the groups crafting this "transformational vision"?

We don't know the answer to these questions, but we'll let you in on their vision for Missouri public education. Follow along with us the next few weeks and months as we examine MASA's and MSBA's plans. We'll publish the policies of these groups and you can make the decision if you think it is in the best interest of children and taxpayers; or the lobbyists themselves.

**Update as of 11:05 PM. I found the vision plan posted on the DESE website. It has apparently been put back up after being taken down from the Internet on Friday and Monday. It had been previously password protected or the URL had disappeared. Check out this site from DESE and I hope you can access it:

http://www.visionformopublicschools.org/

You can now read for yourself the vision.

Blink. What Happened to the Transformational Education Plan for Missouri? UPDATED!

Is there something the State Board of Education,
Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA) and Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) are hiding from the taxpayers and parents of Missouri?

Earlier we reported on the failure of Missouri not receiving Race to the Top funding. After accessing the MO DESE website late summer, we discovered "Vision for Missouri Public Education". We blogged about this new, transformational plan for schools and the language which mirrored Race to the Top language. We stand by our statements we previously made:

I can answer the question "Vision for Missouri Public Education" poses underneath its logo..."why are we undertaking this initiative"? Chris Nicastro has made it clear from November 2009 that she always intended to adopt Race to the Top goals, even if no funding would be made available by Arne Duncan. She has always intended to cede state sovereignty. That is why she signed common core standards. The state has received separate funding for charter schools and funding to ostensibly hire back laid off teachers. Why does Missouri need Race to the Top funding? State control is already gone.

I hadn't read much about the new plan lately so I thought I would see what the educational professionals were planning for our Missouri students. The plan had received coverage (from the MSBA's news site) when it was first unveiled late summer:

More than 100 school board members and superintendents gathered in Jefferson City on August 30 to begin a project designed to define the vision for public education in Missouri for the coming years. The "Vision for Missouri Public Education" project is a joint effort of the Missouri School Boards' Association and the Missouri Association of School Administrators. Its goal is to develop a plan outlining a vision for the state's public schools by October 2011.

MSBA President Dave Wright told the gathering, "The one thing we will not tolerate is business as usual. We are interested in developing ideas that will literally transform public education in our state."

Among the speakers at the event was Missouri's Commissioner of Education Dr. Chris Nicastro who said Missouri ranks in the middle in most measures of student achievement and that needs to improve. She said, "A clear vision and a few very focused, high-impact goals will be critical to drive the improvement efforts necessary to bring about world-class results." She also highlighted the critical importance of early childhood education as a key component of any vision for our schools.

Note the last sentence in this article:

Information on the progress of the "Vision for Missouri Public Education" project will be posted on www.visionforMOpublicschools.org.

In fact, this the link where we received the information on the transformations ahead for our students and our schools.

I wonder if DESE, Missouri School Boards Association, and Missouri Association of School Administrators didn't appreciate our blogging on this plan of which they were so proud . I went to the website I previously visited for updates and information and the site has been taken down for updates or revisions and is password protected. Pick a username and password...try it. You'll receive this message: Username and password do not match or you do not have an account yet. Silly me. I just can't seem to find anything on the screen that directs me on how I can open an account.

Why is the information about the plans for our students and schools now hidden from the taxpayers? MSBA and MASA are funded with state and/or federal funds to transform our schools. They want to "literally transform public education in our state." Those are the exact words from MSBA President Dave Wright. These are plans for public educational facilities. If I am not mistaken, public schools are funded by the taxpayer, and as such, plans for the transformation of these schools should be transparent and available for review by the public.

Why have these plans been taken off the internet and password protected? Perhaps a Sunshine Request is in the making to access this information. The plan is to be revealed to us in 2011 and is being paid for by tax dollars for public education. I would like to know what the public servants (paid by tax dollars) have in mind for our students.

Aren't you tired and fed up of being considered an "inconsequential conduit" that channels money away from public schools? Blink. Better catch that coverage on the meeting while you can. I'll wager that's the next item to disappear. Thank goodness for screen shots.

UPDATE: I received a question on who to contact about this decision about the information disappearing. I would suggest you contact MASA. This is the contact information from the news release:

• © 2010 Missouri School Boards' Association
• 2100 I-70 Drive Southwest, Columbia, MO 65203

• 800-221-MSBA (6722)
• fax: 573-445-9981
• info@msbanet.org

Let us know at Missouri Education Watchdog what you find out!