Tuesday, April 29, 2014

seMissourian.com: Local News: Mo. legislation seeks to toss out Common Core (04/29/14)

seMissourian.com: Local News: Mo. legislation seeks to toss out Common Core (04/29/14)

Officials from the Cape Girardeau School District and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education would prefer to see Common Core standards stay in place because they have been -- or are -- being implemented by most districts statewide.
Combined legislation made up of Senate Bills 798 and 518, proposed by Ed Emery, R-Lamar, and John Lamping, R-Ladue, respectively, would charge a panel of educators and parents with writing new performance goals to replace Common Core standards, The Associated Press has reported. The legislation is set to be debated this week.
A similar bill was passed by the House earlier this month.
Common Core standards define the knowledge and skills all students should master by the end of each grade level to be on track for success in college and career, the DESE website said. Created through a state-led initiative, its standards have been adopted by more than 40 states, including Missouri.
A spokeswoman in Emery's Jefferson City, Mo., office said the proposal stemmed from a conversation the senator had with a Springfield, Mo., educator who told him about Common Core.
Darryl Pannier, superintendent of the Nell Holcomb School District, which has kindergarten through eighth-grade students, said in an email to the Southeast Missourian he had "no major comment at this time, but between the Common Core fiasco, tax cut bill, and voucher bill, public education is once again under siege."
Sherry Copeland, Cape Girardeau assistant superintendent for academic services, said knowing the new standards were coming, districts aligned their curricula accordingly, because new state assessments start in 2015.
While the new standards focus on English and math, Copeland said the district realigned of all its curricula to make sure "that what we are teaching students is exactly what we want the students of Cape public schools to know."
She emphasized the curriculum is designed by teachers and administrators in Cape Girardeau.
"We didn't buy a curriculum from anybody; nobody else told us what our curriculum should be," she said. "That was done locally and approved by our board. We are in our second year of implementation of this curriculum and we are seeing really good results" on the formative and summative assessments. State assessments are being administered now.
Formative assessments are administered on a frequent basis -- such as daily or weekly -- to ensure students are on track in their learning.
Summative assessments are for the end of a unit, end of a semester or end of a year to make sure students learned what they needed to during those time frames.
Copeland said students are doing much better on the assessments than they have in the past.
"We determine curriculum; we decide what textbooks, if any, we use, [and] what resources we use," Copeland said. Many of those resources are online with the advent of the district's 1:1 initiative at Central High School, where students were given laptops that could be converted into tablets.
That initiative will be moving down to Central Middle School in the fall.
"People who don't understand Common Core and are posting on Facebook and Twitter and really haven't read the standards," Copeland said. "That's concerning to me."
"We are constantly changing and improving as a society and education has to keep up with that. Missouri was right: We want our students to be college and career ready," she said.
The legislation to be debated does not say the state has to dump Common Core standards, but talks about forming panels of educators and parents to write new student performance goals, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education communications coordinator Sarah Potter said.
Missouri adopted Common Core standards in 2010, so at least 70 percent of the state's 520 school districts have implemented the new standards, and tests aligned to those standards are less than a year away, Potter said.
Potter said the bill would give the state a couple of years to devise new assessments, because those things can't happen overnight.
"Everyone has to understand you can't just flip the switch and be aligned to new standards," Potter said. If Missouri decided to rewrite the standards, there won't be any materials to go with that new product and it's going to be tough for districts, as they'll have to redo what they've done.
Potter noted the education community really likes the Common Core standards and "wants to keep going."
Scott Holste, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's press secretary, said in an email to the Southeast Missourian that the governor has been "committed from Day One to making sure we have clear goals, high expectations and rigorous standards to ensure our students graduate and are ready to compete in the global economy."
"The Missouri Learning Standards -- which include Common Core State Standards in mathematics and English language arts -- have already been successfully implemented on the local level by a significant majority of public school districts across Missouri and are helping us achieve our goals for student learning," Holste wrote.
Meanwhile, David Larson, president of People Actively Promoting Education Reform, said the Senate legislation is "definitely a step in the right direction."
"It brings at least the control of education back to the state level. I would actually like to see it moved back to the school districts themselves, because, if you look at it, Jackson and Cape Girardeau, even though they're right next to each other, have different needs. People who reside in those separate school districts should actually decide what" students are learning.
Larson said he still thinks there will be some state-level control on education, "simply because the state has to look out for its state universities, so somebody from Springfield would have the same qualifications that someone from Cape Girardeau would have."

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

I’m all for local educational control.  Authentic local control.  We do not have authentic school board control in Missouri and I wager than many school districts in other states don’t have local control either.  School districts must adhere to federal and state mandates and autonomy is eradicated and discouraged for local school boards.  An entity to watch and research in Missouri and your state is your state school board association, a private association which uses tax dollars for its existence.  You might find (as we are discovering in Missouri) that these associations do not protect taxpayers, but rather, they assume control that is not granted to them but is wielded over school board members.
Missouri school board members must undergo training to understand what their duties are and most boards look to the Missouri State Board Association (MSBA) for this information.  Increasingly it seems as if MSBA is writing policy for school boards instead of being an advisory organization.  Research your state school board association and determine its function for your school districts.  It has become more of a regulatory association instead of training school board members to be effective voices for the citizenry which elected them.  Tax dollars are spent for this training with this private organization.  From a previous post:
You can see how much your district pays to belong to MSBA here.  The amount is based on the budget of your school district.  My district (Kirkwood) pays approximately $10,000 for MSBA’s direction and policy decisions.  Why do we need a school board anymore?  Maybe the education reformers are right.  Just turn it over to private organizations directing how tax money is to be used.  School board members increasingly are figureheads for private organizations funded by local taxpayers who think they are actually voting for members who set/direct policy for their districts.

The education reformers are increasingly calling for the demise of the local school boards.  Local school boards don’t really do much other than hire/fire teachers and maintain physical property.  If school board policy is being written by MSBA and the board members are following along adopting all the policies MSBA writes, then why do school boards exist?
The following article from American Spring shows the power MSBA has over school board candidates and school board policy in Camdenton, MO.  From Camdenton, Missouri School Board Elections About Local Control:
Recently, the Lake Sun asked candidates for Camdenton school board their qualifications and asked a couple of questions. The responses to the first of those questions are noteworthy, as it deals with a fundamental change to the way the public is ‘allowed’ to interact with board members.
From the Lake Sun:
Do you think the current school board policy regarding public participation allows for sufficient opportunity for the public’s voice to be heard? Do you support the current policy or if elected would you seek to make changes to the policy?
This policy represents a fundamental shift of the tax paying public’s ‘role’ in school affairs. It plainly seeks to use a questionable interpretation of law to stifle public input to the board, requiring an approval process that filters communications meant for the board through both school administration and school attorneys. This, to many parents, represents another step in a silent coup, preformed under the assumption of authority neither the administration, nor the school attorneys, have. A concerted effort has been made to reinforce the false logic that our representatives should somehow be ‘protected’ from hearing from the public and parents they serve.
Part of the new public comment policy, as recommended during an August visit from an MSBA lawyer, appears below. Camdenton adopted a policy that restricts the public from having open discussions with the board about their concerns, if those requests aren’t ‘approved’ by administration and attorneys.
7. Only items from the posted agenda may be discussed. If an individual seeks to address an issue that is scheduled to be discussed by the Board in closed session, the Board may require the person to hold his or her comments until closed session.
8. The Board may vote to suspend or amend these rules in extraordinary circumstances. The Board may impose additional rules as it deems necessary and reserves the right to alter the above rules depending on the circumstances. The Board reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the public comment period at any time or delay comment on a particular topic. The Board may refuse to hear comments on a particular topic if advised to do so by legal counsel.
Paul Ellison writes how four of the five candidates support the MSBA’s policies of shutting down dialogue from the community:
On January 14, 2014, in an article in the Lake Sun announcing the email policy, Assistant Superintendent Roma France announced the implementation of Camdenton’s email accounts for board members.
France made the following statement:
“Protocol would be for the Board president and/or superintendent to respond to the patron on behalf of the district.” She went on to say, “If several questions come in on the same topic, then the item may be placed on the next board agenda.”
The Lake Sun described the email procedures, as laid out for them by France:
” Then, she told the board that emails would go to a mail distribution group, board@camdentonschools.org, which would be sent to each board member along with the superintendent or a designee. “
And that: ” In most cases, the superintendent or administration will be the one to respond. “
The guidelines adopted for the district’s email policy contain restrictions that mirror, in practical application, those inserted into the inappropriately named ‘public comment policy’. The guidelines offered the Lake Sun by Camdenton’s administration, read as follows:
1. If you are providing Board members an e-mail address, all Board members by policy must sign the Authorized User Permit that staff and students must sign and Board member must agree to the same terms as staff and students.
This first policy restriction would allow, presumably, for the unfettered monitoring of emails between themselves and their constituents. It creates an environment worthy of the NSA in the Camdenton school district. It would allow complete access to all board member’s accounts, without cause, without warrant. Camdenton’s version of Big Brother, it can reasonably be assumed, is manned by school administration and the districts lawyers, the firm of Mickes, Goldman and O’Toole.
Also from the Camdenton administration’s ‘guidelines’:
4. When information is sent via the generic Board@camdentonschools.org, the protocol is for the superintendent or Board president to respond on behalf of the district and to cc the Board the response so that the Board knows the patron has been corresponded with and what was said. If a Board member disagrees with the response or has questions, he or she is encouraged to immediately notify the superintendent and the Board president of that fact.
The last sentence in this ‘guideline’ is one that gives us pause, particularly when we consider the access and latitude granted the administration and its lawyers in regard to the distribution of emails in the first place. This assumption of authority, of determining which emails reach the board, is reemphasized throughout these ‘rules’ created by administration and their attorneys.
Number five of these ‘guidelines’ ensures that, even a board member can be denied the ability to add a topic or concern to the agenda.

5. Any Board member may ask that a subject is added to the Board’s agenda at the next meeting for discussion. The Board as a whole will ultimately vote when approving the agenda to determine if the issue will be discussed.
The last sentence of ‘rule’ #5 is particularly offending:
However, Board members are free to direct questions or concerns to the superintendent or Board president.
Number six in the list of guidelines:
6. A Board member who is not the Board president may correspond individually with a patron, but is required to indicate that the opinions expressed are his or her own and not the Board’s. A Board member is prohibited from using a district-provided e-mail address contrary to district policy or law or to violate district policy or law.
The key words and phrases in ‘rule’ number six are distressing. “Board member”, “prohibited”, “contrary to district policy” and “violate district policy”. These are words that place control of our school, not in the hands of our elected representatives, but into those of administration and attorneys. Many of these policies were crafted, approved and suggested by the attorneys for our school district and district administration. They are not rules of law, nor are should they be.
Rules nine and ten completes the usurping of power from the citizens in the Camdenton school district. They clearly illustrate the ongoing efforts to eliminate ‘local control’ over our school districts.
9. The superintendent or Board president in their discretion may not respond to messages from the same sender that are repetitive, or messages that are threatening or that use profane language.
10. The superintendent or Board president will not directly respond to messages involving litigation, potential or pending litigation, or a situation on appeal pursuant to district policies or the law.
In addition, the superintendent or Board president may not respond to messages if advised by the district’s attorney not to do so. However, the superintendent or Board president will acknowledge receipt of the message and notify the sender of the rules.
These policies, designed to remove, control and suffocate the input of parents and tax payers, are the opposite of Barbour’s claims.
“Yes, I believe the recently-updated school board policy facilitates engaged communications with our students, parents and patrons. We truly want to hear from our public. It’s their school. We recently enhanced this school board policy with an email address so our patrons can access all board members at exactly the same time from our school district’s web site.
Yes, I support this policy. We will be monitoring its progress. We also will continue to be cognizant of new technology as it emerges to communicate with the public exemplifying transparency and participation.”
She also invited the public to “peruse” the school web site. Perhaps Ms. Barbour should have perused a dictionary for both the correct definition of transparency. To her credit however, Ms. Barbour didn’t dive under her desk like partner-in-crime, Jackie Schulte. Ms. Schulte used the question regarding the public comment policy shift to beat the drums of fear mongering. This fear mongering is based on the flawed legal interpretation that, somehow, the school board could be held liable for what a citizen says to them. This laughable notion is parroted by Schulte.
“Board members are responsible for protecting our staff and students; allowing anyone to speak on impulse could open the district to possible legal repercussions.”
Read about how the Board members are apparently working for the superintendent, not the other way around.  The Board is supposed to represent the taxpayers who voted them in, not acquiesce to the superintendent….who the Board hires!  Since when does a board take orders from an employee of the District?
Read about conflict of interests between board members and companies performing services for the district.  Read about the law firm that represents and advises Camdenton School Board and decide if you think board policies are supporting the taxpayers or special interests.  Read how this board is adopting policy written by the law firm that may very well be illegal.  Read more here.
Call your school district and find out which law firm is representing your district.  Determine if your board policies are copyrighted and directed by MSBA.  If most of your policies have been written by MSBA and suggested by your legal representative to be adopted, ask your board members if they are aware of the implications of denying citizens freedom of speech.
Policies written by private organizations supported from tax dollars are developing/directing educational policy for local school boards.  Sounds like the NGA/CCSSO writing Common Core standards, doesn’t it?  We might as well abolish our school boards and state educational agencies and just shovel the taxpayer dollars to private organizations and forget this charade of local control because it doesn’t exist.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: CAC and What It Doesn't Do

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: CAC and What It Doesn't Do

CAC Mission Statement

The CAC mission is
to facilitate communication, advise and partner with the R-7 Board of
Education, Superintendent and community to ensure a successful and innovative
school system that maximizes each student’s potential.
Taxpayer/Stakeholders are given no way
to contact CAC members, other than Janice Phelan, Director of Communications for
the District, which defeats the whole purpose of it being a Citizens' Advisory
Committee because of her affiliation as an employee of the District. The
District uses this group to say they meet CSIP Governance Goals but they will
not provide patrons with a way to call or email these CAC Members.  The
CAC participates in consensus voting on financial matters and part of their
charge is to communicate District initiatives to the patrons.  Please open
the Charter link and read Outcomes carefully.  

If you attend a CAC meeting, you are
considered a visitor/guest and you will not be allowed to speak or ask
questions during the meeting.

Check out the Norms section on
Confidentiality.  The CAC members discuss some agenda items that they vote
are to be confidential and are not to be shared with the community.
Interesting, does this group have a right to go into Closed Meeting type mode?
 Many concerns about this situation.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Schools Could Face Liability Under the MHRA for Student-on-Student Harassment | Business Insights | Husch Blackwell

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Schools Could Face Liability Under the MHRA for Student-on-Student Harassment | Business Insights | Husch Blackwell

This is why we must not let our districts lobby to change the human rights law.

On April 17, 2012, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued its decision in Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri School District. There, the Court of Appeals recognized the existence of a cause of action against a school district for student-on-student sexual harassment. Doe, an elementary student, alleged he reported sexual harassment and assault by another male student to school administrators, who allegedly allowed the perpetrator to use the bathroom -- where the harassment and assault were alleged to have occurred -- at the same time as Doe. As a result, Doe alleged the harassment and assault continued. Doe filed a Charge of Discrimination against the district, alleging its inaction deprived him of the full, free and equal use of a public accommodation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). When this action proceeded to the Circuit Court, the district successfully moved for dismissal, and Doe appealed.
The district contended that an elementary school is not truly “open to the public” and is thus excluded from coverage of the MHRA. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that it could be extended to exclude a restaurant that only serves those with reservations or a stadium that only serves those with tickets. The Court of Appeals found that to limit public accommodation coverage to completely public accommodations would render this portion of the MHRA a dead letter. Next, the Court of Appeals found that Doe sufficiently alleged a violation of the MHRA’s prohibition against sex discrimination under a statutory provision creating liability for those who “indirectly” deny a claimant full, free and equal use of a public accommodation. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected the district’s argument for a higher “deliberate indifference” standard adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States under Title IX. In its place, the Court of Appeals adopted the MHRA’s standard for employer liability for co-employee sexual harassment: “The school district can be held liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action” (emphasis added). By applying this standard, Doe essentially creates a duty for public schools to investigate a student complaint to the same extent an employer must investigate a complaint of co-employee sexual harassment.
What This Means to You
Though Doe raised claims against a school that is “public” in the traditional sense, the MHRA includes in its definition of public accommodation “all places or businesses offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages or accommodations for the peace, comfort, health, welfare and safety of the general public...including, but not limited to...[a]ny public facility owned, operated or managed by or on behalf of this state or any agency or subdivision thereof or any public corporation; and any such facility supported in whole or in part by public funds.” The MHRA excludes “private clubs” and religious institutions from public accommodation coverage, but Doe suggests it will be an uphill climb to show that an entity is not otherwise open to the public under the meaning of the MHRA. For example, a secular private school that limits its enrollment by academic requirements and class size could be in the same unsuccessful position the District was when it argued that a public elementary school’s enrollment is limited by age and residency, and physical access to the school is strictly limited due to safety concerns.


I am opposed to the LSR7 School District using
my tax dollars to promote the EROSION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS  OF MISSOURI

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: We Don't Need Our School District Lobbying. We Need Them To Teach

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: We Don't Need Our School District Lobbying. We Need Them To Teach

The Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City (CSDGKC Inc.) operates as a Missouri Educational Service Agency (ESA).  A CSDGKC sister  organization, the CSDGKC Foundation holds 501(c)(3) status.  In order to provide consistency and continuity, the board of directors for the CSDGKC Foundation is the same as the CSDGKC board.

Adrian R-III School
Archie R-V School District
Belton School District #124
Blue Springs School District
Center School District 
Excelsior Springs School District 

Fort Osage R-1 School District

Grain Valley School District
Grandview C-4 Schools
Harrisonville Schools
Hickman Mills C-1 School District 
Hogan Preparatory Academy 

Independence School District
Kansas City Public Schools
Kearney R-1 School District 

Lathrop R-II Schools
Lee’s Summit R-7 School District 
Liberty Public Schools

Lone Jack C6 Public Schools
North Kansas City Schools
Oak Grove R-VI School District
Park Hill School District
Platte County School District
Pleasant Hill R-III School District
Raymore-Peculiar School District 
Raytown School District 

Richmond R-XVI School District

St. Joseph School District 
Smithville R-II School District 

West Platte School District



2014 Legislative Platform

The Lee’s Summit R-7 School District’s tradition of excellence is the result of a collaborative effort among its supportive stakeholders.  A persistent focus on meeting the needs of each student will result in a legacy unparalleled by our peers in public education.  This legacy of excellence cannot be left to chance and requires ongoing advocacy on behalf of the approximately 17,600 students served by the R-7 School District.  It is our responsibility.  Thus, we wholeheartedly join the 30 school districts, representing more than 175,000 Missouri school children, of the Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City in support of the following 2014 Legislative Platform. Printable version

8. Support a change in the Missouri Human Rights Act that would re-align the Missouri Act with federal standards.
I oppose the use of my tax dollars to promote a non-education legislative platform item that I feel is inappropriately added to any school's legislative platform.
Controversial legislation proposing changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act earned a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon during last year’s legislative session — and the fight is on this year with the introduction of a similar bill.
Last year’s Senate Bill 188 and this year’s legislation, SB 592, have few differences, said Rich Germinder, chief of staff for Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, who proposed both bills.
“The same components are still there,” Germinder said. “The primary component being the changing of the causation standard from a contributing factor to a motivating factor standard.”
The MHRA states that a fired individual can file a lawsuit against the employer because he or she thinks any one part of the decision related to the firing involved rights protected by MHRA, such as race, age or gender, Germinder said. Shifting to a motivating factor, which is what the federal standards use, would mean the human rights violation would have to be the main reason, he said.
Supporters of the bill, which was approved Jan. 12 by the Senate Committee on Commerce, said it will bring Missouri’s law in line with federal human rights legislation. Those opposing the changes said it will weaken the rights of individuals in discrimination claims. SB 592 is expected to be among the first debated in the 2012 session.
Nixon has a policy of not commenting on proposed legislation because it changes during the process, spokesman Scott Holste said.
But it seems unlikely his opinions have shifted much since last year’s veto.
In a news release after the veto last year, Nixon said SB 188 would undermine the MHRA and make it harder to prove discrimination.
Public School Liable for Sex Harassment of Student by Another Student. 
Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., (WD73800, 4/17/2012) 

o Doe alleged that he was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by another student on multiple occasions during school hours on school grounds. Doe asserted the District's acts and omissions violated the MHRA because the sexual harassment and sexual assaults occurred on the basis of his gender and constituted sex discrimination. He claimed that the school is a public place of accommodation, and that he was deprived of the full, free, and equal use and enjoyment of the school and its services by way of the District's actions and inactions. 

o The public school district's liability for student-on-student sexual harassment under the MHRA is the same as that for an employer's liability for co-worker sexual harassment under the MHRA. The school district is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. 

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Are We Going To Lose More Human Rights?

Investigation of the use of taxpayer funds to promote a legislative platform item that erodes the Missouri Human Rights Act.

 The Lee's Summit R-7 School District is using taxpayer monies to fund this award-winning legislative advocacy program described in this article. This R7 Advocacy Program is then used to promote the LSR7 Legislative Platform.


Should one question this use of taxpayers' money to erode the progress made by the Missouri Human Rights Act? Number 8 of the LSR7 Legislative Platform states:

8. Support a change in the Missouri Human Rights Act that would re-align the Missouri Act with federal standards.

Here are two situations that illustrate how school populations need the Missouri Human Rights Act to protect their student and employment rights.

When a school district is found to be non-compliant with civil rights laws by the Department of Education Office For Civil Rights, the Superintendent signs a Resolution Agreement that they will change policies, train employees, find children who have not been properly identified due to not following the updates in laws ... then the Department of Education starts to Monitor the District for Compliance.  Students and their parents need the support from the MHRA to make sure Districts will follow the law.  This situation has happened in Fox C-6 School District and other school districts.  Some Districts sign Assurances that they will follow civil rights laws, knowing they will not, just so they can get the Federal Funding.   

Secondly the Lee's Summit R-7 School District implemented a Career Retirement Incentive Release of Claims in 2010.  They changed their policy on May 20, 2010.  Both the EEOC and the MCHR investigate  these types of Release of Claims if requested to do so. The District continues to enforce this Release of Claims.  It could be perceived to give the District the Green Light to discriminate against career educators based on age and disability.  In LSR7, the Career Retirement Incentive is one half of your salary.  Employees hired after 2001 no longer qualify for it.  This policy could dissuade the educator from standing up for their civil rights.  If you feel like you have been discriminated against you can either take your incentive and sign away your rights to sue or you can give up your career incentive and keep your rights to sue.  It is for these reasons, the allowance for changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act must be avoided.  

In these two situations there is little regard for the civil rights of students and school personnel by District officials and the MHRA at least evens the field somewhat.

Perhaps the Governor and his staff should try to identify how many school districts in Missouri have signed these Resolution Agreements and are being Monitored by the DOE OCR and also to check with the EEOC and the MCHR to see how many charges have been filed against school districts in the state of Missouri.  This advanced preparation would get him better prepared to respond to new legislation that is already filed to change the MHRA, now that all 30 schools are supporting their donor businesses and not the school populations by backing the erosion of the MHRA.

Representatives of CSDGKC state that all school districts in their group (the 30 total) are supporting # 8, as well as all of the other platform items.  

8. Support a change in the Missouri Human Rights Act that would re-align the Missouri Act with federal standards.

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | KMOV.com St. Louis

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | KMOV.com St. Louis

Why didn't he file a bill to ban this practice?

by KMOV.com staff
Posted on April 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM
Updated today at 7:57 AM

(KMOV) – Missouri is one of 19 states allowing corporal punishment in schools, though that practice may soon be banned, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The Missouri Senate Committee on Progress and Development unanimously passed a bill Wednesday to ban corporal punishment in all public and private schools.
As it stands, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) requires each district’s written discipline policy to include rules on corporal punishment.
The Post-Dispatch reports should it be used, the local school board must determine how it will be used and whether a parent will be notified or allowed to choose a different form of discipline.
DESE doesn’t keep track of which Missouri districts use corporal punishment, but in 2009 the Missouri School Boards’ Association estimated at least 70 of the more than 500 state districts had policies allowing the practice.
The Fox School District was one of the last in the St. Louis area to get rid of corporal punishment in the early 2000s.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Jeff Grisamore (R-MO) | Influence Explorer: Campaign Finance

Jeff Grisamore (R-MO) | Influence Explorer: Campaign Finance

  • Top Industries


Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: He Just Keeps Going

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: He Just Keeps Going

Isn't he supposed to be objective?  He has already tweeted that one candidate was willing to lie to get what he wants.  We all know that it was not the candidate that was lying.  And now he tweets this.  Is Lee's Summit that blind that they can't see what is going on?  The same people are on every committee in this town.  Do you really think that your voices are ever heard?  Do you wish to continue to be used and abused while you blindly stand by?  I am not willing to give up my right to freedom of speech or my duty to stand up for those that can not.  I hope at some point the rest of the citizens of this city will join me.

David McGehee
R 7 School Board Election today. Don't forget to VOTE! Board-Supt relationship a research-proven key to successful school districts.