Where Did We Go Wrong?

When did the notion of transparency and openness equate to a bad thing? As a taxpayer, I want and demand to know how and where my money is being spent. If there are indiscretions on where the money is being used, shouldn't someone know about it? Many offices and districts are financially irresponsible and this should not continue.
Yesterday, the Missouri School Board Association held its annual forum and I was utterly and truly in awe of what many people were saying.
This was in today's Columbia Tribune:

From the Tribune's former k-12 education reporter, Janese Heavin:

I appreciate Jonathon momentarily letting me share his blog space: I attended the Missouri School Boards' Association's annual forum in Jefferson City yesterday and found some comments worth passing along to Homeroom readers.

In between doom-and-gloom financial forecasts (which you can read about in today's Trib), keynote speakers advised school administrators and board members to essentially keep patrons in the dark.

Independence Superintendent Jim Hinson even praised his school board for not paying close attention to the district’s spending habits. Board members are welcome to talk about long-term goals, he said, but shouldn’t get into details of the day-to-day spending. “The school board hires me to operate the school district, and that’s what I’m going to do,” Hinson said, responding to a question from an attendee about boards that “micromanage.”

Independence has thousands of budget codes that school board members “don’t want to know,” he bragged. And, while board members are welcome to ask about district bills in private, they shouldn’t do it at a public meeting, Hinson advised. Apparently, there are "more important things to do at board meetings" than scrutinize district expenditures.

“The board doesn’t get involved in the daily operation of the school district, absolutely not,” Hinson said. “If they did, I wouldn’t work there.”

Of course, Columbia has a few school board members who do take time to review how administrators are spending tax dollars. Could that be why more superintendents didn't apply for the top administrative position here: because they didn't want board members paying attention to the way they're used to spending money?

Anyway, shortly after Hinson spoke, Rick Nobles, a consultant with Patron Insights, urged school leaders to be vague when trying to get voters to approve bond issues or tax increases. For instance, he said, rather than telling district patrons that bond money would be used to add six classes, tell them the money would ease overcrowding. Patrons just don’t want to be beat over the head with details, he said.

(You might recognize Patron Insights: The district almost hired them to conduct a survey after voters rejected the 54-cent levy increase).

Among Nobles' advice: Don't tell voters "it's for the children," he said. "That doesn't pull heartstrings the way you think it will."

Thoughts?

Missouri's Education Rankings Upsetting

Missouri is sadly behind in many educational testing areas. Money does not fix the problems with the schools and we need to find better alternatives, especially given the hard economic times.

From the Office of Representative Timothy Jones, 89th District:

Missouri ranks 28th in National Education Study as Students Fail Key Testing Measures

State legislative group targets new ways to fund education given tough economic times and state budget woes

Jefferson City, MO—A majority of students in Missouri public schools failed to meet proficiency levels in fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics and reading, and SAT and ACT scores stagnated, despite decades-long increases in public spending, according to a new report by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Using nationally recognized test results, the ALEC Report Card on American Education ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia accordingly, one being the best and 51 the worst. Minnesota placed first in the unique ranking, Washington, D.C. last, and Missouri 28.

“Missouri students are barely above the national average in test scores, and they are well below national proficiency levels. This is unacceptable,” said Rep. Tim Jones (R-District 89). “The high cost and lackluster results of Missouri public education can be curbed by common-sense reforms rooted in accountability and choice. Such programs have proved cost-effective and successful in states across the country and popular among parents and students.”

The report also provides extensive data from 1987-88 to 2007-08 on state and federal funding, school resources, graduation rates, GED completion rates, and school-choice initiatives, including tax credit, scholarship, and charter school programs—alternatives to public education ALEC supports. With the federal administration expected to ramp up education spending through a host of new public programs, the evidence is undeniably clear: Further government funding does not produce corresponding results.

“If legislators are concerned about funding public education, not to worry,” said Jeff W. Reed, director of ALEC’s Education Task Force. “States across the country have proved that through education reforms rooted in freedom and accountability, more can be done with less. But it is up to state lawmakers to give parents and students the opportunity to choose what works best for them in securing a promising future.”

About ALEC

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,000 state legislative members from all 50 states, and 78 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. Its mission is to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government.

Around the state, the races are heating up and people are pulling out everything to win their race. According to the Maneater:

Ed Robb, the Republican incumbent running in the 24th House District, said it is the state's role to provide students with a quality education, and drew criticism from Democrats at the event when he said he would support a scholarship that allows students in failing schools to attend private school.
"We need to offer the parents another option," Robb said.

Opponents say “vouchers” are not good because it takes money away from the public schools. Herein is where the problem lies. Robb, or others in support of educational choices in Missouri, are not and have not been promoting vouchers, which are unconstitutional in Missouri. They are supporting scholarships. In the past several legislative sessions, these scholarships discussed would be funded by private or corporate donations. These people/corporations would then get tax credits. However, when the child uses the scholarships to attend a different school, be it private or public, it does not take money away from the original school of attendance. It is new money added to the pot…how can people have a problem with that?!
There is something disturbing by people using the same “voucher” fear-creating word to deter people from the idea. Everyone wants improvements, right?

Get Out of the Political Gutter

How far will we let failing schools lurk in the gutter with our children before we reach in and pull them out? In both Saint Louis and Kansas City, charter schools have proven to be a lifeline for those children sinking in the mire created by irresponsible educators and politicians. Unfortunately some politicians are out to cut even this lifeline.

Sometimes it's the Republicans, this time it's the Democrats. Claiming Replubican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof has "traded the future of Missouri kids in urban public schools for $100,000 in campaign cash from a special-interest front group," Democratic party spokesman Zac Wright, along with the Nixon campaign, tried to shift the focus of this important election from things that really matter, like what we are going to do to create a better education system for our children in this state, to things like campaign contributions.

Let's face it: Both campaigns have a lot of money. Nixon is ahead in the polls and has received huge donations from attorneys and the teachers' unions. Hulshof received a large donation from entrepreneur Rex Sinquefield. OK. We know now.

So back to the things that matter. Last week, Hulshof laid out a specific 5-point plan, giving more choice to parents in where to send their child to school by encouraging the formation of more charter schools. It would also allow for the creation of a fund to which citizens could donate and receive a tax credit. The money would create scholarships for city children whose families can't afford to send them to private schools the option to do just that.

These sound like good things to me. Nixon's only response was that he has the support of school adminstrators. Where is his plan? Would it work?

Get out of the gutter.

Strong Arguments for School Choice

To coincide with both the Democrat Nation Convention and the Republican National Convention, the Alliance for School Choice (ASC) distributed this press release making the strong, sound case for school choice. ASC’s release makes several strong arguments that school choice produces real results and helps the public school system by adding competition to the mix.

In Missouri school choice is becoming a great option for parents who have children in failing and unaccredited schools. Although strides have been made in this area, there is much more work to be done to make sure children and their parents have real options when making decisions on education. For example, charter schools are currently only allowed to operate in the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts. These schools that are held accountable for educating children should be allowed to operate in other markets in Missouri. Children need options all across the state, not only in St. Louis and Kansas City. Also, scholarship tax credits must be available for special needs and low income families so they can chart the best course for their child’s education. All too often these groups who need the most help are left behind and given little or no options to provide a good education for their child.

ASC’s press release makes strong arguments for the need for school choice not only in Missouri, but all across the country. Hopefully leaders in both political parties will take note of the positives that school choice offers and work to offer options to all children.

Rep. Gayle Kingery: Education is an investment

Gayle Kingery (Representative from Poplar Bluffs) was quoted during a rally of students last year saying “Education is expensive, but it's a good investment for you, for your future, and it's wise for us to invest in you for our future because you are the future."

Missouri has been caught up with the sale of MOHELA loans (higher ed.), and a battle has ensued between those who think the sale was a good idea, and those who foresaw disaster. The difference in how we fund college education and how we fund K-12 has always been baffling to me. Our legislators commit every year to making college affordable—and nationally, it’s a huge component of the current presidential debates: no one who wants to go to college should be denied that American Dream because they don’t have the money to pay for it. We make state money available for state universities and colleges, but we also have a network of scholarships for any and every type of student. Some are for a particular degree, others for disabled students and still more for community involvement or redheads. My private college’s financial aid package, funded mainly by alumni, made my family’s out-of-pocket expenses cheaper than a community college.

We see college as a stepping stone to success, and no matter what career or college you choose, there are funds available from all kinds of institutions to offset the cost. And while college is more expensive than ever and critics abound, I still see it as a very American opportunity. Missouri legislators are working hard to make sure no one is left behind because their family doesn’t make enough to pay for rising college costs.

So why isn’t the same true for K-12? I think we can hardly say college is more important that K-12, but we apply different principles to the funding. Missouri is scared to death of offering a competition-based model to public school, even though it works for colleges where public colleges still get hefty state support and private foundations offset the cost of private or religious colleges.

Rep. Kingery and others have a chance to give opportunities to special needs students in Missouri by voting for Bryce’s Law that would create a tax credit scholarship program for students with an IEP to transfer to a private school that can meet their needs. The opportunities we afford our K-12 students should be no different than what we afford college students, because they are contingent upon one another. With the early intervention this scholarship program could afford families who need more services but cannot pay for them, we will be giving many students the chance to go to college, hold a job, live independently and succeed. It IS wise to invest in our future, and this is how we do it.