Life’s Silver Linings, Inc.

Chapter 3, Part IV: “Voluntarily” Comply or Die

“More than 20 states have passed legislation allowing their state departments of education to step in and take control of local districts identified as being in trouble academically, financially, or both.”[1]

Many would agree that schools which do not produce a quality education for its students should not be rewarded.Â? The question to ask is: should the definition of what a quality education is, and what local citizens want for their children be decided by the local community or the state?

There’s an old adage that says whoever pays the piper calls the tune.� This means that whoever pays the bills makes the decisions.� Even though the lion’s share of a school district’s funds� come from local sources, as long as the school district’s existence depends on state accreditation, there is no local control.� Local decisions are limited to choosing between “voluntarily” complying or allowing the state to “legally lapse” the school district and merge it with one that is state accredited.

Since the federal and state goals and standards� are worded to be so vague, school administrators assume there is a wide latitude in how the goals are to be implemented.� They have been lulled to complacency about the seriousness of the situation.� What those in the teaching trenches don’t seem to understand is that since the goals are written so vaguely, they mean whatever the state (which is implementing federal goals in order to receive federal money) wants them to mean.� For example, how many administrators know that the goal that “every child will start to school ready to learn” includes that every child will be planned and wanted?� A school district’s very existence is based on compliance� with how the government is defining these broad and vaguely worded goals.

The December 16, 1996, minutes from the State Board of Education’s monthly board meeting give a great example of how involuntary the “voluntary” state curriculum frameworks� are.� In reference to the curriculum frameworks the minutes state:� “These guides are to serve as ‘models,’ not requirements, to assist school districts in reviewing and revising their curriculum.”� The very next paragraph states:� “The frameworks are a very large document-about 500 printed pages in a 3-ring binder.� (T)he significance of the frameworks is that they establish a benchmark that ALL districts MUST observe.� The law provides that, within one year of the State Board’s adoption of the curriculum frameworks, ALL school districts MUST review their curriculum to ASSURE that it reflects and INCORPORATES the statewide Show-Me Standards.� Districts may � use the new curriculum frameworks to assist that process, but they may use whatever approach works best for them.� We recognize that it may not be possible for many districts to conduct a thorough review of their curriculum in the six areas covered by the Show-Me Standards, so we have approved a process by which school districts will be expected to develop a plan for reviewing their curriculum over the next four years.� This process has been outlined to all superintendents and will be checked through the Missouri School Improvement Program� review process” (Emphasis added).

What this says is that school districts may use whatever approach they wish as long as the result matches the state-dictated frameworks.� Since the state doesn’t trust school districts to do this on their own, the State has implemented the Missouri School Improvement Program� (MSIP) Review Procedures� to force compliance.

� Since the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education� holds the purse strings� in one hand and the accreditation� in the other, they hold a tremendous� amount of power.� This power is a hammer held over local school districts which ensures compliance� with govern­ment “mandates.”� If a district doesn’t comply, it loses its accreditation, is eventually lapsed� (dissolved), and is no longer funded.� To me this is more coercive� than voluntary.

In the past, school district accreditation� was based on the school district’s provision of a minimum number of school days per year and the hiring of accredited teachers.� This changed in May 1993 with the passage of Missouri’s Outstanding Schools (SB380).� For a school district to be funded, it must be fully or provisionally accredited by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education� through its Missouri School Improvement Program� (MSIP). If a school is provisionally accredited, it has two years to become fully accredited before losing its accreditation and funding.� In order to be accredited through the MSIP� a district is to offer not only a certain caliber of academics, but also comprehensive health� education, services, follow-ups, counseling, and referrals.[2]� School districts which do NOT become accredited or provisionally accredited within two years lapse� (are dissolved,) and are attached to another school district, which need not necessarily be an adjacent district.� Taxpayers in the lapsed� school district must then pay both the tuition and transportation� of students wishing to attend an accred­ited school district.[3]

“Following a decision that a school is academically deficient, the state board of education shall, within sixty days, appoint a management teamÂ? of at least ten persons to conduct any necessary investigations and make any recommendations the team believes are appropriate for the administration and management of the school–The management teamÂ? report may also include recom­mendations for one or more of the following:Â? conducting a recall election for each member of the district school board, suspension of indefinite contracts for certificated staff in the school, and a one-year maximum length for new or renewal of contracts for the superintendent or the principal of the school.Â? The education audit team shall reevaluate the school two years after the filing of the management team report.” [4]Â? So much for local control!!!

The Missouri School Boards AssociationÂ? (MSBA) is an affiliate of the National School Boards Association (NSBA).Â? The MSBAÂ? assists local school boards and school districts across the state by providing many valuable services including:

- “Full Maintenance Policy Service to help ensure that [the] district complies with the latest state and federal policy requirements (emphasis added)

- Advocacy

- Board development

- Legal services

- A quarterly magazine

- A variety of business services such as helping schools finance the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of buildings and equipment

- Cash management services which helps districts cover cash flow deficits in their funds, and the MOSIP program which allows districts to invest money on a daily basis

- Errors and omissions insurance

- A health insurance program for district employees

- Superintendent searches

- Student services such as a scholarship program

- Education satellite network as a resource for school districts that want access to the variety of educational programming available via satellite

- Technology services such as local area network installation, administrative software, computerÂ? and network hardware and consulting services

- Missouri School Boards Educational Foundation which will support MSBA initiatives, programs and services through tax-deductible gifts.”[5]

The Missouri School Boards Association� (MSBA) also provides the 16 hours of training� for school board member certification mandated� by Missouri’s education reform bill (SB380).� The “tab” is paid by taxpayers.� There is much worthwhile information obtained through this training, and it’s a great way to network.� On the other hand, MSBA is using the certification training sessions to promote the Department of Education’s politically correct comprehensive� school health initiatives.� The National School Boards Association which supports SIECUS’ liberal philosophy on comprehensive sexuality education, influences the direction of the state school board associations.� It appears that the mandated� school board certification teaches school board members how to serve the bureaucracy.

While 20 percent of MSBA’s income is from membership dues, the other 80 percent comes from services provided to school districts.� Both are paid for with public funds� through school districts.

While the MSBA� is not a governmental entity, it serves the goals of the state’s education department.� Since the educational reforms of Goals 2000� and SB380� have been implemented, there is a fine line if any, between serving community, taxpayer-elected school board members, and serving the state.

“In the fall of 1991, the Missouri School Boards Association joined with the Missouri Association of School Administrators� (MASA) and the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals� (MAESP) to form a political action committee entitled the Missouri School Alliance PAC� (MSAPAC).� The purpose of MSAPAC is to support candidates for statewide and legislative offices who advance the legislative goals of the member organizations and to promote statewide issues that will further the cause of elementary and secondary education.

“During the last two election cycles, MSAPAC endorsed 81 candidates and contributed over $21,000 to their campaigns.Â? In 73 of these contests, MSAPAC-endorsed candidates prevailed–.” [6].Â?

The addresses for MSAPAC and the Missouri School Boards AssociationÂ? are the same.Â? While school board members receive no pay, the paychecks of public school administrators and principals are paid with public funds.Â? Money from these publicly funded paychecks is then donated to a PACÂ? (political action committee) to elect politicians who support raising the cost of taxes.Â?

Should those whose salary, health benefits, retirement benefits, vacation pay, and such, which are paid from public taxesÂ? be allowed to lobby for higher taxes?Â? Increasing numbers of taxpayers are finding it necessary to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.Â? How does one balance the rights of all to participate in government without taking unfair advantage of those taxpayers who do not have, and cannot afford, a special PAC to lobby for them?Â?

In 1994, the education establishment used public funds� to defeat Hancock II, a measure that would have allowed taxpayers to vote on certain tax increases.� The MSBA� was instrumental in assisting the state education establishment in defeating this grassroots initiative.� In the interest of preserving local control, perhaps the taxpayers who pay the state’s bills should have been allowed to have made this decision for themselves by being allowed to vote on this matter as Governor Carnahan� had promised them.

It appears that some state education administrators may “see” the MSBA� as a vehicle to promote state programs such as politically correct comprehensive� school health.� The state’s health consultant to the Department of Education� spoke of plans to request the MSBA to include a section on comprehensive school health in the 16 hours of state-mandated� training� for school board members.� The 16 hours of training are already filled with sessions on leadership, finances, goal setting, policy, board operations, relationships, personnel, finance, business, operations, the board’s relationship to curriculum and instruction, and school law.

The school board is meant to be the voice and advocate of the community taxpayer.Â? A school board member who portrays this role is greatly challenged by an educational infrastructure designed to implement government mandates.Â? Board members who do not cooperate put the accreditation, funding and continued existence of the school district at-risk of being dissolved by the State. Â?

The “American Association of School Administrators� in cooperation with the National School Boards Association, the Missouri Council of School Administrators (MCSA),� and the Missouri School Boards Association,� with support from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention” presented Building Bridges Not Battles: Strategies For Developing Support for School Health Efforts.� This day-long workshop offered skills to become a local consensus� builder.� Among the opportunities provided to colleagues was that of examining “key programs that have demonstrated success in reducing youth risk-taking behavior� related to AIDS, pregnancy, and substance abuse.”[7] MCSA is the umbrella organization of the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals and the Missouri Association of School Administrators.�

The state PTA was promoting this workshop that was canceled due to lack of interest, but was later rescheduled.

Note that once again, pregnancy is a component.Â? Recall that the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards AssociationÂ? and the Center for Disease ControlÂ? are ALL associated with SIECUS!