Memo to Legislators and DESE: Even Monty Python Understands Common Core Standards Are Deadly.

Here is a somewhat humorous yet realistic look at the ramifications of the adoption of common core standards from Monty Python. It's worth the 2:48 time it takes to see what happens to those who don't know the answers to the standardized questions. The ending exemplifies what ultimately happens to the system administering these questions to the knights.

Enjoy this bit of dark humor. We'll follow up tomorrow on a more serious discussion of common core standards and why they literally do mean the death of educational innovation.

Update: "Who REALLY Writes Legislation"? The Civics Lesson for the Day Evolves into a Mystery?

Please reread this previous blogpost which asked the question, "Who Writes Legislation?" We were asking specifically about the legislation being drafted by the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and Missouri School Boards' Association (MABA) entitled Vision for Missouri Public Education, questioning why DESE was not writing state legislation and instead, leaving such a proposal to be written by lobbying groups.

In researching this legislative writing practice, we linked to experts who were concerned the Department of Education's agenda was exactly the same as Bill Gates. They raised the question of who really was driving federal legislation. Lobbying groups and millionaires influencing and/or writing public policy is troubling and deserves scrutiny.

After reviewing "Educated Citizenry 2020", we began wondering if our state legislators crafted this language or if they received help from any outside groups. We wondered if one non-profit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which promotes charter schools, school choice, utilizing tests reflecting national standards, and pre and full kindergarten programs could have influenced the current educational legislative plan. Many of these same goals are listed in the Educated Citizenry 2020. This is a fair inquiry as ALEC has written "model" bills for state legislators to take back to their states in different areas such as education and health care.

Here is a story and transcript on ALEC from NPR aired in October 2010. Note this information from the story:

Much about ALEC is private. It does not disclose how it spends it money or who gives it to them. ALEC rarely grants interviews. Bowman won't even say which legislators are members.

Is it lobbying when private corporations pay money to sit in a room with state lawmakers to draft legislation that they then introduce back home? Bowman, a former lobbyist, says, "No, because we're not advocating any positions. We don't tell members to take these bills. We just expose best practices. All we're really doing is developing policies that are in model bill form."

At least one Missouri legislator involved in drafting the current education policy is a member of ALEC. The question we asked about the Vision for Missouri Public Education should also be asked about Educated Citizenry 2020: "Who Writes Legislation?" Has this legislation been crafted by our Missouri legislators or was it already modeled for the legislators? The goals of ALEC sound quite similar to those listed in Race to the Top and adhere to the use of common core standards, and these are the goals listed in our current state plan.

We don't know who authored this legislative educational plan. It might be prudent to ask those legislators listed as sponsors if they crafted this legislation and why. None of these goals create more local/state control or decreases spending. Parental choice is not expanded as the charter schools will be held under the same standards as public schools. Autonomy in curriculum and testing will not exist in the charter system.

Do you want to read about ALEC? The following information was taken from a pdf file as the website has disappeared and was still inoperable as of 10:50 PM EST. Perhaps this site will be back online soon:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan,
individual membership organization of state legislators, with over 2,000 legislator members
from all fifty states, and 85 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org

Why are "Conservative" Legislators Embracing Arne Duncan's Educational Vision?

We've raised some questions in our last few postings about the actions of the Missouri Legislature members, especially those under the banner of "conservative" and "supporters of state's rights". We've wondered why those politicians promising to uphold state's rights and the Constitution when it comes to health care would suddenly buy onto an educational plan complete with federal mandates and federal money, meaning increased federal control.

What's happening educationally in Missouri in this dominant Republican legislature? We've been scratching our heads trying to figure it out and we believe we've found the trail that explains it all. We'll be detailing our investigation the next several days and then we'll ask the questions: do you believe the senators elected under the conservative banner are upholding their promises to the voters and why do they want to create educational plans that increase federal control and unfunded mandates?

Here is an article from the Washington Post refuting many of Arne Duncan's contentions about education. Arne Duncan is the bearer of Race to the Top which allows no local control of: curriculum, the hiring, firing or placement of teachers. One of the most important concepts to understand about Duncan and RTTT is the word "redistribution". What will be redistributed? Money, teachers, administrators, and students. Local districts won't have control over who they hire, who is placed in their classrooms/administrative offices, or the students who make up their classrooms. Total control. That's the name of the game of RTTT.

We don't have RTTT in Missouri, but we do have Common Core standards. By giving up state control of our curriculum, we received money in which to implement them. It was apparently of no interest to our State School Board, Commissioner of Education, or Governor that this would cause increased unfunded mandates to our state. It apparently is of no interest or concern to our legislature that these mandates violate state sovereignty. From the "Educated Citizenry 2020" report:

Commissioner Nicastro provided the Committee with a statewide context for issues of
standards and accountability. Missouri is one of many states that has adopted the
national Common Core Standards. DESE is also collaborating with other states in the
development of common assessments both as a complement to the Common Core
Standards and as a measure of cost savings. Commissioner Nicastro shared DESE’s
top priorities with the Committee which include early childhood education and effective
teaching and leadership. In addition, their aspiration is for Missouri to be a top 10 state
in academic performance, and the Committee supports this goal.


I question this sentence from the report: "DESE is also collaborating with other states in the development of common assessments both as a complement to the Common Core Standards and as a measure of cost savings". First, the common assessments ARE a complement to the Common Core standards BUT they take away the right of Missouri to set its own state standards for Missouri students. Second, I question the comment that Common Core standards will result in a cost savings to the state. Missouri received $248 Million in stimulus to begin implementing the standards, but as our proposed cost for RTTT was $400 Million, it is doubtful this initial funding will be sufficient to cover the entire cost. Common Core standards necessitate the implementation of a nationwide data system which will be quite expensive. I am curious if the legislators received cost estimates from DESE for the installed system.

As Homeschooling United noted in a previous blog, Scott Dieckhaus, the Chairman of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee tweeted the following while attending a conference on Education:

Dieckhaus" width="48" height="48">

sdieckhaus Scott Dieckhaus

Ready to spend three days with some of the greatest education reformers in the world. Better education is coming to Missouri soon!

29 Nov Favorite Retweet Reply

Dieckhaus" width="48" height="48">

sdieckhaus Scott Dieckhaus

At #EIA10 and excited to hear from Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Eva Moskowitz, Arne Duncan among others.

30 Nov Favorite Retweet Reply

Conservatives and libertarians need to be asking themselves this question: why would "conservative" Republicans be jumping on the Arne Duncan education bandwagon? Read the Washington Post article. There are valid points from the author questioning Duncan's basic tenets about educational theory. Aren't the theories of Duncan and conservatives miles apart when it pertains to the matter of funding and mandates? Why are our Republican legislators so eager to embrace this plan?

What does the representative mean when he says "better education is coming to Missouri soon?" If he embraces Duncan's vision, is he for redistribution of "human capital"? Is he for districts not having any control over curriculum or staffing decisions? Is this the better education he envisions?

We believe we know and we'll share it with you in subsequent postings. It truly is a bipartisan push, but it's not really for the children.

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.

Test Your Knowledge of New Year's Eve History and Customs with this Fun Quiz

Happy New Year!

Here's a quiz to take to test your knowledge on New Year's Eve history and customs. The site suggests you read the history before you answer the questions. Feeling quite smart and thinking I knew quite a bit about history, I decided to take the quiz without studying the facts.

I would suggest you read the factual information first if you like to pass tests! A lesson for adults AND students: never go into a quiz unprepared. You will be surprised at how much you don't know.

Here's a quote for students in school and students of life for 2011:

"Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere" ~Chinese proverb

Best Wishes to you in the Year of the Rabbit and may you possess much treasure.

Is Charter School Expansion REALLY the Answer to Public Education's Woes?

Missourians are not the only ones concerned about the educational reforms set forth by Arne Duncan and state legislators. A citizen group in Seattle has been following these reforms very closely and this is a blog you should read to understand the charter school push by some state legislatures.

Seattle Education 2010 is a wealth of information and should be followed if you are interested in the evolution of public education being provided by private investors. If this is the course the Missouri legislature is going to pursue, it is imperative citizens understand how charters are funded and who is in charge of each charter organization. If the information from Seattle Education 2010 is correct, Missourians should be asking these questions of Missouri legislators as the plan "Educated Citizenry 2020" calls for the growth of charter schools in the state:

• Who is funding the charter schools?
• Are any of the charters receiving money from the Broad or Gates Foundation?
• Does the Legislature support monetary reward for parent signatures to provoke a "Trigger" option?
• Does this move to charters create more local control?
• Does this move to charters create more parental involvement?
• Will the charters be under the same common core standards as traditional public schools?
• Will the charters be staffed with inexperienced teachers?
• Do current Board of Education members have ties to charter school companies?
• Do any legislators have vested interests or contributions from charter school interests?

We believe these questions need to be asked and answered before public support can be given to the reforms mentioned in the current educational plan. When charters were first instituted, they were truly innovative. This is a partial description of charter schools from the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society:

Charter schools were founded to provide an alternative vision for schooling, to serve a special target population of students, or to gain flexibility and autonomy from local school districts. Charter developers maintained that charter schools could accomplish educational goals more effectively than traditional schools, if they were given the opportunity to operate free from restrictive regulations and had stable financing that could be tied directly to the attainment of educational goals. Waivers were requested for state and local testing mechanisms, personnel regulations, or state and local curriculum mandates; however, regulations for discrimination, health, or safety of children could not be waived.

Note the highlighted sentence in the charter school description. These waivers were what created the innovation in charter schools and set them apart from traditional public schools. However, with the common core standards implemented in traditional public AND charter schools, the only reasons to pursue the charter school route would be to diminish the teacher unions and put the decision making in the hands of private investors. Real reform of educational goals will not be accomplished by moving students from one building to another. The standards and testing and curriculum will stay the same if a student stays in a public traditional school or attends a charter.

I hope our legislators look closer at the plan they are expecting the citizens to accept. The expansion of charters does not address the underlying problems in public education today. If the curriculum is flawed and out of the hands of the state to develop and institute, it doesn't matter where a child is placed. If the mandates are flawed and not locally controlled, the placement of students is irrelevant.

We share the same concerns as the group in Seattle. Who is funding the charters and why is there such a move toward the privatization of schools that operate under the same mandates as the traditional public schools? Is this really a choice for better education or just moving the money around from one entity to another?

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.

Kudzu and the Choking of Public Education

This is an interesting article on kudzu and its symbolic relationship with Big Government. Those from the South or familiar with Southern vegetation know the damage kudzu has done to the environment. I have seen kudzu's devastating qualities, but didn't know kudzu planting had been promoted by the government in the 1930's. This is a fascinating inference of government intrusion resulting in disastrous consequences.

This writer talks about the damage of Big Government and kudzu. Could this be happening in terms of education as well? Is the Federal Government instituting mandates that will subsequently choke the innovation and intellectual curiosity of students? Don't mandates just by their definition create rules and regulations which stifle autonomy?