Tuesday, May 25th

Mike Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri, has been tapped to work with former President George W. Bush on education reform issues.

The George W. Bush Institute announced the appointment of Podgursky and two other fellows to support the institute’s educational reform mission. Also appointed were Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas and Matthew Springer of Vanderbilt University.

Initially, the institute will work to find ways to improve the leadership of school principals and strengthen middle schools. Podgursky has studied teacher pay and retirement structures, school finance and school productivity.

Dr. Kelvin Adams, Superintendent of the St. Louis Public Schools

Dr. Chris Nicastro, Missouri Education Commissioner

Dr. William H. Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus, Washington University

Allen S. Boston, General Counsel Special Administrative Board

Dr. Craig Larson, Chairperson Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation

Byron Clemmons, Vice- President Local 420 Teacher’s Union, SLPS

CECM and our allies felt the pending legislation left many unanswered questions about the merger. The House Higher Education agreed and decided to not take a vote on the merger during the last week of the session. Instead, the committee will request that the Joint Education Committee study the issue during their interim meetings.

We hope that the interim study will provide details about how the merger would work. We will watch this issue closely during the interim and next legislative session.

(1) Expands the reporting of acts of violence to include all
teachers at the student’s school building and other employees who
need to know.

(2) Specifies that a suspended student who is not allowed on
school property without specific permission is also prohibited
from attending school events occurring off school property.

(3) Expands employee immunity from following established
discipline policies to include policies of student discipline.

(4) Adds the use of reasonable force to protect persons or
property by school district personnel to the provisions regarding
spanking. Neither act is to be considered as abuse that would be
investigated by the Children’s Division within the Department of
Social Services as long as the spanking or use of force does not
give rise to an allegation of sexual misconduct and another
employee is present as a witness at the spanking.

(5) Adds “cyberbullying” and electronic communications to the
list of required elements for school district anti-bullying
policies.

(6) Specifies that in fiscal years 2011 to 2103 the Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education cannot penalize a school
district on its Missouri School Improvement Program accreditation
review for failing to achieve resource standards if the school
funding formula or transportation categorical is underfunded as
specified and the district cannot be penalized in the following
fiscal year if the Governor withholds funds.

(7) Requires the Office of Administration to issue regulations
for the contractors or subcontractors on public works
construction projects at public schools which require these
contractors to establish a drug and alcohol random testing
program. Any program must be administered by a certified
laboratory and must require notification to the employer and
employee of the results of any positive drug and alcohol test.
The school district must be notified of the action to protect the
safety of the students as a result of a positive test. The
employer will pay for the costs.

(8) Specifies that in fiscal years 2011 to 2013 the requirement
for school districts to dedicate 1% of their formula funding to
professional development and the 75% funding and fund placement
requirements for teacher salaries will be suspended if the school
funding formula or transportation categorical is underfunded as
specified or will be suspended in the following fiscal year if
the Governor withholds funds.

(9) Allows all public school districts to require a school
uniform or restrict student dress. Currently, these provisions
require only the St. Louis City School District to consider
adopting a school uniform.

(10) Exempts unqualified employees who refuse to administer
medication or medical services from disciplinary action for the
refusal.

(11) Exempts qualified employees from any civil liability for
administering medication or medical services, including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other lifesaving methods, in
good faith and according to standard medical practices.

(12) Specifies that a student must be allowed to self-administer
medication for any chronic health condition.

(13) Adds other school employees trained and supervised by the
school nurse to the list of individuals who are authorized to use
an epinephrine auto-syringe on a student and specifies that these
employees will be immune from civil liability when done in good
faith and according to standard medical practices.

(14) Removes the requirement but allows the General Assembly to
make an annual appropriation to the Missouri Career Development
and Teacher Excellence Plan, commonly known as the Career Ladder
Program. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, the state portion of
career ladder payments will only be made available to school
districts if an appropriation is made. Any state appropriation
must be made prospectively in relation to the year in which work
under the program is performed. A school district may fund the
program for its teachers for work performed in years for which no
state appropriation is made available. The variable match
formula of the program is removed, and the payment must be on a
matching basis with 60% local funding and 40% state funding.

(15) Allows the special administrative board when it has been
granted governing powers for a district in the City of St. Louis
School District to appoint a hearing officer to conduct a
contested case of a teacher’s dismissal.

(16) Removes the provision which specifies that no fees can be
charged for Parents as Teachers services, clarifies that families
with children younger than the kindergarten entry age will be
eligible to receive specified services, requires priority to be
given to high-needs families according to department criteria,
and allows school districts to establish cost-sharing strategies
for these services.

SB 815 included many of the same provisions, but also added good education reforms. Some of those reforms included allowing for private universities to sponsor charter schools in Kansas City and making the “Teacher Choice and Compensation Package” available to teachers statewide. This bill passed both chambers, but there was not enough time left in the session for the bill to go to a conference committee.

The OpEd was published in the outlets below:

St. Louis Post Dispatch/ STLToday.com

Kansas City Star

St. Louis Globe Democrat

Examiner.net (Independence, Blue Springs, Grain Valley)

Columbia Missourian

St. Louis Post Dispatch/ STLToday.com

Sedalia Democrat

These resolutions were put together and rushed through the Missouri State Senate with little study of this massive overhaul of the two state agencies.  Instead of this “ready, fire, aim” approach, the state should seriously review how combining two large bureaucracies into one mega- bureaucracy would affect education for individual children in our state.   These critical questions just scratch the surface of what must be answered before discussion of combining these two departments can move forward:

• How will a merger of DESE with DHE help better provide information to parents about the performance of their public schools?

• How will a merger of DESE and DHE help parents make better decisions regarding college choices, attendance and student financial aid?

• How will a merger of DESE and DHE, which operate in very different worlds, help them perform their separate and distinct missions?

• How will a merger of DESE with DHE redefine adequate funding of our schools and will that lead to a new funding lawsuit against the state?

• And most importantly, how does this merger increase educational achievement for all children, in all grade levels in our state?

Proponents of combining these departments and boards have said that the move will increase efficiency and lead to a seamless system of education in our state.  Given all of the unanswered questions and lack of details on how the new department would operate, I do not see this as the case.  Proponents have also touted the merger as a cost saving measure for our financially strapped state, but the fiscal note on the resolutions said that “the potential fiscal impact is unknown.”

It is clear that these resolutions are a knee- jerk reaction to the state’s budget crunch.  This issue has had little study and review, leaving many questions as to the effect on Missouri’s children unanswered.  To implement such a drastic change to our state’s education structure without answering essential questions would be bad for the children of our state.  Please call your State Representative and ask him or her to oppose merging the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education with the Department of Higher Education.

Missouri’s $743.5 million application was hit hard in critical areas, including limits on charter schools and overall conditions for reform in the state.  Delaware and Tennessee were the only winners in the first round.  Delaware was awarded more than $100 million and Tennessee, a state in the same suggested bidding range as Missouri, was allotted more than $500 million.

Here is what some of the reviewers of Missouri’s application had to say:

• “The state has a charter school law that only allows charter schools to operate in Kansas City and St. Louis.  Although a considerable percentage of students in these locations are in charter schools, the effect of this law limits the educational choices available to students who do not live in these cities.”
• “Low points are given to the Missouri proposal on this subsection concerned with charter law because the Missouri charter school law has limits on both geography and sponsors.”
• “The applicant makes almost no effort in this section of the application to describe the extent to which the State, in addition to information provided under other State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or resulted in other important outcomes.”

These statements paint a dire picture of the current state of education reform in Missouri.  The real question is: Will Missouri learn its lesson from missing out on the first round of money and work toward reforms now that will make us seriously competitive in the second round?  Applications for Round Two are due June 1^st, with winners being announced in September.

It is obvious from the comments above that expanding charter school options outside of the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts would dramatically improve the chances of being competitive for part of the $3.4 billion remaining to be awarded.  But, two bills in the Missouri legislature that would expand access to charter schools to most of the state, SB 838 and HB 2200, have yet to even receive a committee hearing.

Missouri should take note that both first-round winners made moves to expand access to charter schools before submitting their first-round applications.  Furthermore, states that finished close to the Round One winners already have passed, or are currently debating, legislation that would expand charter schools as a way to cross the finish line and stand on the podium with the other expected 10 to 12 winners in Round Two.

The Missouri House’s budget made significant funding cuts to Missouri education, and the Senate’s budget borrowed from stimulus funds held for next year to restore those cuts.  While legislators will continue to sort out the budget mess in Jefferson City, it is clear that education funding in Missouri is on shaky ground.  This program would be a good way to implement needed education reforms in the state as well as bolster the state’s coffers.  This unprecedented pot of money is likely a once in a lifetime opportunity.  It would be a disservice to the children of this state if we let it slip away.

The original amendment exempted the districts of St. Louis and Kansas City, but Representative Don Calloway, a Democrat from the St. Louis County area of Bel- Nor, successfully added an amendment that would have included the St. Louis Public School District.  Representative Calloway argued that St. Louis is the “flagship failing school district” in the state and children there should be able to leave the district if they choose to do so.  Representative Dieckhaus was in favor of this amendment and also asked a Representative from Kansas City to propose an amendment that would include that city’s district as well.

Opponents of the amendment argued hypothetical, and often seemingly one in a million chance, problems with the policy of open enrollment.  These objections ranged anywhere from schools not being able to plan budgets to concerns that students would essentially endlessly jump around from school to school.  This despite the fact that students have to apply to the receiving school well in advance of the next school year and students could only go open enroll to a school outside of their assigned zone district one time.  Opponents even tried to call this a voucher system which is ridiculous considering that vouchers are illegal under the Missouri State Constitution.  Proponents of the amendment stuck to the simple philosophy that a child stuck in a school district that is failing or not a good fit should have an opportunity to go to another district.

While the amendment failed by a vote of 34 – 122, the debate on the issue put education reform and school choice front and center in the Missouri House for most of the day’s session.  The issue is not dead for the year, as there is an Open Enrollment bill in the Senate Education Committee that has been heard, but has yet to come up for a vote.  The Children’s Education Council of Missouri hopes that the debate on this important issue continues sometime during the session.  Children trapped in failing schools deserve the opportunity to look for alternatives in order to receive an appropriate education.