Educational equality is a catch phrase that has been thrown around in circles of influence lately. Although a decades-old concept and continuing struggle, it is something that has most recently shaped legislative and executive decisions in both federal and state governments. The lynchpin of the accountability-touting, government-aggrandizing No Child Left Behind Act, the notion of providing an equal educational opportunity to all children has become a pawn in the political arena of education reform.

Perhaps my inexperienced mind has trouble comprehending this concept, but I believe “equal” simply means that everyone is given a fair chance. I also believe it means that no one is given preferential treatment. If you would ask any first-grade student in Missouri, he or she would tell you that “equal” means “the same.” So why do bureaucrats and lawmakers have such a hard time defining the word?

It seems as though, in the spirit of education reform and government intervention, we have given in to the notion that in order to provide an equal educational opportunity, we must not maintain a level playing field. Instead, we must identify groups of students – by race, socioeconomic status, learning ability, etc. – that have traditionally felt marginalized by the education system, and customize the services provided to them at the expense of those groups that have traditionally been successful in the existing setting.

In Missouri, we have subsidized a failing inner-city school system where the grip of teacher’s unions has stifled improvement measures, forced desegregation has depleted the quality of the student base, and district and city leaders have resisted real reform. While the St. Louis Public Schools system spends $9,500 per student, in Southeast Missouri, a small school struggles to maintain quality programs due to decreased funding, spending $7,650 per student and yet out-performing the city schools.

The Missouri legislature currently has a view of educational equality based on the data from one test and the amount of state aid given to certain districts. In their view, the funding formula that they developed is equal for all districts. They do not consider the inequity introduced by the dollar value modifier, which funnels an exponentially greater amount of money to St. Louis city and the districts in its surrounding counties and in some cases provides hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional funding to one district and not its immediate neighbor.

If the big-heads in Washington, D.C. and Jefferson City would sit down and come up with a definition of “educational equality” from the literal meanings of the words, I believe they would examine the policies that are currently in place and realize that much inequality currently exists in the very measures that they tout as creating equality. We are at a point in the history of our democracy where politicians base much of their rhetoric on their influence in public education – no matter their level of experience in classroom instruction. When conservative ideologies of educational accountability, liberal social agendas, and spending tactics of both sides of the aisle enter the equation, the mess that can result from their ignorant approaches at “fixing” problems is catastrophic.

Today, our life group is embarking on a forty-day journey through the book of Acts. We will be exploring the lives of those in the early church and looking at how God used ordinary people to chart a course that we're still following two thousands years later. Because Jessica and I are the "Grow Champions" for our group, our leader, Jason, called me at 4:00 last Wednesday, as I was heading home from Jefferson City, and asked if we would create a reading plan and present it to the group on Thursday night. Talk about short notice! Not wanting to let him down, I reluctantly agreed, thinking I would just do a quick Internet search and print off something that someone else had already put together.

There is no 40-day reading plan for Acts . . . anywhere. At least I couldn't find one. After about an hour of searching, I decided if I would have anything to present, I would need to get busy. I started at the beginning, trying to create natural breaks while keeping each day's reading around fifteen verses. For the most part, it worked out that way.

As I flipped through Acts and typed a list of all the topics that we'd be reading about, I began to think about what happened throughout the book. God used ordinary people - sometimes less-than-ordinary people - to carry the most important message to the world. I started to think back to an Old Testament verse that I've claimed as my life verse for the past decade. Habakkuk 1:5 says, "Look at the nations and watch – and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told.” Don't you think that the believers of the early church were shown things that they would never believe?

I originally planned to call our journey "40 Days of Mission," but after thinking about how this verse relates to Acts, and how much it means in my own life, I decided to call it "Something." I think the next forty days will be so important for our group that, before I left school on Thursday, I created a blog for us to share our what God says to us.

I'm watching. I believe that the “something” in my days will be as great as or greater than what Paul and Barnabas and Luke and Peter experienced. And I believe that I will be amazed at what He does in my life, life group, church, community, state, nation, and world.

It's a trite cliche that you've heard over and over - something that you may often attribute to old blue-haired women without a care in the world who go around spouting religious jargon all the time . . . "suffering for Christ," "bless your soul," "count your blessings . . . ." Or you may think of it as another one of those hymns that has been overused in churches for years. It wouldn't hurt to take a fresh look at the phrase and consider heeding the advice. Take a few minutes today to count your blessings.

My school began MAP testing yesterday. The annual assessment is Missouri's benchmark program to purportedly rate the improvement of its 524 school districts. Because it compares each class of students with those coming before and after them, it does not provide an accurate picture of the progress, but the idea is at least commendable - they're trying to make the public THINK that comparing apples and oranges is adequate. While the debate about the usefulness of MAP scores in any comparison (between different groups of students, different districts, different buildings, etc.) will continue until something new comes out of Jeff City, we'll keep plugging away, trying our best to teach the concepts and content of the test and bribing students to do their best each year.

Being a MAP administrator is not always a bad thing. It allows content area teachers to see what is tested so they can better understand the expectations of the test. It also gives us a chance to see how students answer the questions, write for prompts, and test in general. As exciting as all of that may seem, the last two days have provided a couple of "chuckle moments" for me.

This morning, as I was reading the prescribed instructions that "must be read verbatim," I noticed that the students were having to close and open their test books a lot. At one point, I smiled as I realized that I had just asked them to look over a part of the session and close their books, and then ten seconds later, I was asking them to open their books to the next part of the session. As amusing as that was to me, a separate set of instructions was even funnier: "Stop. Please close your test books. Please open your test books to . . . ." In almost the SAME BREATH, I was asking them to close and open their books. No wonder MAP testing is so exhausting!

A few of my funny moments can't be shared because they were answers that I noticed students writing. Because there are no "released items" on this year's test, I can't talk about those answers until the items finally are released and the questions are made public. Until then, I'll just remember them from time to time and smile inside as I think about how funny they were.

Our teachers and counselors have found that many pencils do not erase very well - especially Papermate. The absolute best pencil we've found is the Dixon Ticonderoga. There's something about the "lead" and eraser that makes this a great choice for any situation - especially testing. Yesterday, as I was looking at the box that my pencils were in, I noticed the words "An American Original" emblazoned on the front. Feeling my patriotic side tweaked just a bit, I felt proud that our nation had produced such a wonderful product. The pride lasted only a second as I glanced a little lower on the box to notice a sticker that had been haphazardly affixed: "Made in Mexico."

Then there's this . . . with all the concern about terrorism and illegal immigration, you'd think states would have citizenship requirements for its public school teachers. A couple of weeks ago in my School Law class, Dr. Kiehne brought up the topic and asked if I would do a little research. He said there is a lawsuit in New York over a requirement that public school teachers must be US citizens. I'll reference it later when I remember (or find out again) the name of the case. Apparently some states are looking at their requirements for teachers and realizing that no such citizenship requirement exists. The very people who are teaching our children about American government and history . . . about citizenship . . . are not required to be American citizens themselves.

The next morning, I searched the Missouri Revised Statutes and only found that the Commissioner of Education must be a citizen of Missouri, and school board members must be residents of the district on whose board they serve. Other than that, I could find no residency or citizenship requirements in the law. Next, I emailed my information source at MSTA headquarters to find out if DESE had a policy, rule or guideline (or if I had just overlooked something in the law.) She passed my request to someone at DESE who replied that there is nothing that says you must be a US citizen to have a certificate to teach in the state.

After I reported my findings to Dr. Kiehne, he spoke with his state representative, who was not aware that such a loophole existed. He vowed to "check in to it" and see if something could be done. In an effort to see what our Republican House leadership will do when this issue is brought to their attention, I will mention it to Speaker Rod Jetton when I meet with him next Wednesday. Since the current leaders are pandering to their conservative base with resolutions guaranteeing students' rights to silent prayer in public schools and making every possible attempt to push vouchers and private school initiatives, my money is on seeing a bill on next year's calendar making US citizenship a requirement for Missouri teacher certification. Anything less would just be un-American.

If you've been keeping up with the St. Louis Public Schools issue, you're aware that they are now unaccredited, and the state is in the process of taking over. From the reports I've read about recent state board meetings, the fight has begun.

In one corner: SLPS and its board, administrators, teachers, students and parents.
In the other corner: DESE and the state board (and some students and parents).

A transitional board has been appointed, and effective June 15, 2007, students in the district will have the opportunity to transfer to a district in a neighboring county.

The school board met today to authorize an appeal of the unaccreditation, and in a 6-0 vote, they removed their president, who will continue to serve as a board member.

DESE has provided a FAQ sheet to answer questions for those who are interested.

The past few weeks have been interesting as our state makes the first move at revealing the teeth in their school improvement program. It will be very interesting to see where it goes from here. We can only hope that any decisions that are made are in the best interest of the students.

For anyone who has ever accused 24 of “jumping the shark,” I say you must not be a true fan. If you were, you’d realize that the Jack Bauer rollercoaster was just plummeting down a hill, and there’s another twist just around the corner. Exhibit A: The phone call at the end of this week’s episode. Congratulations to all the 24 Forum posters who accurately predicted that Audrey in fact wasn’t “died,” but that she would be back soon (I wonder how you ever figured that one out.)

Another memorable line that will live in the annals of 24 – in the previews for next week, when Jack asks Wayne to send someone to get Audrey, and Wayne says no, Jack says, “you owe me.” My opinion? Jack should get anything he asks for – and a lobster dinner on the side.

My wife and I divide our holidays between both of our families, while our sisters usually only have one family to devote time to. That often leads to many people adjusting their schedules around ours, which is something that I am not comfortable with. Fortunately, everyone has been understanding so far.

Since I agreed to work in the tech area at church on Sunday, it wasn’t going to be possible to spend Easter day with both families, so we spent Saturday at my in-laws’ and Sunday afternoon at my parents’. My teenage sister-in-law has her own bathroom in the basement, and since the other one was being used, I was forced to make the journey into the mysterious underworld of . . . well, teenage girl bathrooms. It’s definitely not somewhere I enjoy spending time.

I noticed a large-print Reader’s Digest in the floor, with an eye-catching headline glaring back at me: “How to Raise an A+ Student: Three very different families reveal their secrets to success.” I was hooked. I had to read it.

When the article began with, “when it comes to education, our children are in trouble . . . up to a quarter of them don't finish high school . . . of those who do and go on to college, more than four in ten need remedial classes,” I began to expect that this would be another typical public school bashing that I have become so accustomed to. The author did continue by saying that “there are plenty of reasons for all that failure -- from a stultifying school bureaucracy to reform-resistant teachers unions to poorly qualified teachers.” But then he abandoned the rhetoric to point out something that few people outside of education venture to tackle: home life.

“Dozens of studies have shown that the most consistent indicators of student achievement -- more than income or social status -- are the home environment and parental involvement.” The use of standardized testing to measure school improvement and student success assumes that all children have the same – or at least similar – personal experiences, expectations, and values. These tests and the bureaucratic policymakers who champion them seek to hold schools responsible for every child’s entire education, and they leave no burden for the students themselves or their parents. The research cited in this article begs for this approach to be re-examined.

An old MSTA promo video that I have shown to new hires in our district for the past six years says, “Gone are the days of Mayberry and Wally and Beaver Cleaver.” Back then, parents took active roles in their children’s education. Today, teachers and their curriculum often compete with the complacency of home. Don’t get me wrong – I know there are still parents who do care, and hold their children to high standards. They take an active role in the lives of their children, helping them learn; molding their lives with new experiences; being role models of what it means to be a lifelong learner. In a class of 25-30, I can usually point out the students who come from that kind of home life. Unfortunately, I can often point out the ones who don’t as well. Congruent with the research from this article, I can usually sort the class by grades and draw a line in the middle of the page to show you the same lists.

If parental involvement and home environment are so important to student achievement, why don’t we do something about it? It’s time we, as educators and leaders in our profession, do. MSTA Executive Director Kent King spoke to our CTA recently and devoted a portion of his message to this concept.

We need to start at the local level . . . involve parents more . . . communicate with them more . . . listen to them more. My School Law class meets at Kingston. The first week, I noticed that their sign said they would be offering “parenting classes.” Maybe we should offer training on how to parent a teenager; how to parent a grade-schooler; how to parent a high-schooler. Maybe we should teach parents how to help their children with homework; how important it is to be involved; simple ways they can incorporate learning into their lives.

Next, we need to make this a statewide issue. We need resolutions addressing parental accountability. Kent suggested resolutions for student accountability: “No Pass-No Drive,” and “No Pass-No Play.” Maybe we should have resolutions about parent involvement and holding parents accountable for the children’s education. Kent mentioned “No Pass-No Check.” Maybe that would get some people’s attention. Withhold welfare funds for parents whose children aren’t passing. They’re quick to suggest withholding our paychecks if their children don’t pass.

Finally - and probably hardest - we need to take this to the federal government. "No Child Left Behind" assumes that the school district raises the child. In the interest of political correctness and vote pandering, they want to make everyone think that socio-economic conditions, racial inequities, and gender differences have no effect on education and should be conquerable by changing the curriculum and certification of the teachers. They aren't going to admit that parents - those who go to the ballot box and cast the vote - are responsible as well.

While I realize these topics are very controversial, we must address the issue – and there has to be some way that parents can be held more accountable. Any ideas?

I’ll admit – I’m addicted to email. My wife has often accused me of it, and I’ve always denied it. But sometimes, it’s just reassuring to check in and make sure I don’t have an unread message waiting for me in cyberspace. If I don’t have a chance to check it during the day, I’ll check it at night – which just reinforces my wife’s theory of addiction.

On Monday, after mowing and trimming the entire yard . . . and even using some total vegetation killer to get rid of the weeds that plague my red-block patio every year, I plugged in the phone line and connected. I was hoping to hear from someone regarding a job – or maybe a reply about some of my coursework – but I only found prayer requests from church . . . quite a few of them, actually.

Most of the requests were the usual . . . health updates, doctor visits, illness, etc. . . . items that you sometimes look at, whisper a prayer, and then delete. But one request got my attention, and I haven’t been able to get it out of my mind since.

Chris Carr, an area native, is well known for his accomplishments on the basketball court – in high school, college, and professionally. Most people around here recognize his name and remember the radio broadcasts of his high school games. Around 4 am Saturday morning, Chris’s four-year-old daughter suddenly died in her mother’s arms. The first prayer request said that she had suffered a heart attack; a later update said that the cause was being cited (pending an autopsy) as heart failure.

I’ve heard people say that there is nothing more unnatural than living through the death of a child. I last heard that comment from one of our MSTA field staff when one of our salary consultants experienced the loss of his son. No matter the age, I can’t imagine the devastation that a parent must feel to go through something so horrible. But for a mother to hold her four-year old in her arms as she breathes her last breath – it must feel unbearable.

The Carr family is leaning on God through this. The girl’s funeral was today, and I know that there have been a lot of people across the country praying for them. The past few nights, I have woken up to a crying baby in the room across the hall. As I would put her pacifier back in and tuck her back into bed, I would think about the wonderful blessing that God has given us in our daughter, and how precious she is. I’d also think about the Carr family and the incredible emptiness they must be feeling without their daughter. As I’d drift back to sleep, I’d ask God to comfort them – especially during the night.

When a parent experiences a loss like this, it’s a reminder to all parents that our children are not ours at all – they belong to God. He is loaning them to us – entrusting them to our care. One day, He will take them back to be with Him. Only He knows when that time will be. We must make the most of every second we are given with them.

I'm usually not a supporter of "legislating from the bench." It seems like the court systems have controlled our lives way too much over the last fifty-plus years, and they have often ruled in ways that have made our jobs as educators much more difficult. Our representative form of government ensures - if only in theory - that the will of the people is considered before laws are passed. Activist judges do not answer to constituents, and are therefore free to rule without fear of losing their jobs. So in most cases, law-making ability should, as it does, belong to the legislative branch, and interpretation should, as it does, belong to the judicial branch.

Another beautiful aspect of our government is the system of checks and balances. When one branch of government has overstepped its bounds or not adequately performed its job, another branch can overrule its actions.

During the last legislative session, the Missouri legislature passed, and Governor Blunt signed, a new funding formula for school districts. As a result of threatening legal action from the Committee for Educational Equality, leaders in both houses took up the issue and, in a matter of a few months, passed what they thought was an adequate and equal formula.

Some would say that the legislature succeeded in its attempt to rewrite the way the state funds its 524 school districts. Others contend the new formula caters to certain areas of the state, adversely affects funding of rural districts, and with its seven-year phase-in period, will not be adequately funded for almost an entire generation of students. The CEE followed through with their lawsuit this year.

Alex Bartlett, attorney for the committee, said, "I don’t think that one can say with a straight face that an equal opportunity is being provided to kids throughout the state."

Bartlett's arguments have been countered by the attorney general's office. Chris Quinn asserts that the students and parents have not testified that Missouri's educational system has harmed or hindered them. "This is not a case brought by concerned students or parents," Quinn said. "This case was brought by a political organization funded by Missouri public school boards that voted to fund litigation."

According to msta.org, "many of the superintendents who testified came from districts where ACT and MAP scores were above the state average, Quinn said, making it difficult to argue a lack of achievement."

So here's our problem . . . outsiders who view the state's education system as a burden to society want to link funding and achievement. You can't! You could search all day and not be able to prove that more money equals better education. I agree with Republican leadership that "throwing money at the problem" will never, in and of itself, solve the problems with education.

If you look at the achievement of the districts who are involved in the lawsuit, they are making ends meet - they may have to reduce their work force; they may have to freeze salaries; they may have to use decades-old texts. But the teachers in those districts are doing their jobs. They are performing - and so are their students.

I wonder if Mr. Quinn has looked at the districts who are not in the suit - the suburban and urban districts who have the maximum dollar value modifier . . . the ones who have 75%, 100%, 125% reserves . . . the ones who have high tax levies and assessed valuations. I wonder if he has compared the resources those districts receive and their test scores with the resources poorer districts receive and their test scores. I would bet that if he would, he would see that those districts who are financially strapped are providing the same - if not better - quality of education to their students.

As we reach the end of the 2006-07 school year, and make plans for next year, I see the results of the new formula in two districts - mine and my wife's. My district cannot afford a raise for its teachers, while many similar-sized districts, who are better funded under the new formula, can. My wife's district is freezing salaries for next year. Teachers will not move on the salary schedule - they will be making the same amount next year as they made this year (minus .5% for the increase in retirement contributions.) Both districts are forced to look for areas to cut a few positions to balance their budgets. Will student achievement be hurt? Probably not. Will teachers have to work that much harder to provide a quality education? Probably.

For years, teachers in urban and suburban districts have been paid better while their districts have received substantially more money. And for years, rural educators have settled for lower pay and less resources. It seems to me that our state has been getting a lot of bang for its buck, and I only hope Judge Richard Callahan understands that and forces the legislature to re-examine the formula to provide for districts like mine that continue to improve and perform without adequate funding.