Former Columbia Superintendent Shares Facts on Amendment 3

Amendment 3 reduces local control

By CHRIS BELCHER

Sunday, October 5, 2014 at 12:00 am

Dr. Chris Belcher

Elected officials best serve when they are held accountable by the voters. Thus, the more local the governance, the better. School boards are a strong example of representational democracy. The quality of schools plays a vital role in the economic and social vitality of the community. Elected board members understand this and are accountable to the public to set policy, budgets and standards for the school district. Amendment 3, dealing with teacher evaluation, would be harmful to local control and representative governance. It would take authority away from those elected to serve their schools.

I find it ironic that many who oppose federal intervention with state schools are the same people who think a constitutional amendment that outlines the evaluation of teachers is a good idea. Amending the constitution to mandate a form of teacher evaluation is inappropriate for several reasons.

First, teacher evaluation is already prescribed by legislation. The statute is clear in intent but gives authority to the local school district. It reads: “168.128. … the board of education of each school district shall cause a comprehensive, performance-based evaluation for each teacher employed by the district. Such evaluations shall be ongoing and of sufficient specificity and frequency to provide for demonstrated standards of competency and academic ability. All evaluations shall be maintained in the teacher’s personnel file at the office of the board of education. A copy of each evaluation shall be provided to the teacher and appropriate administrator. The state department of elementary and secondary education shall provide suggested procedures for such an evaluation.”

Second, Amendment 3 specifically outlines that 51 percent of a teacher’s evaluation must be based on student achievement data. This might be appropriate for some teachers but might not reflect a realistic approach to specialty teachers. This might also encourage the proliferation of standardized testing of students.

Finally, Amendment 3 is an attempt to void Missouri’s current teacher tenure law. This is attractive on a political level to a certain group that believes tenured teachers cannot be fired. Tenured teachers are given a legally defined due process, but they can be and are fired. The issue of teacher dismissal, especially as mandated in Amendment 3, is more a political agenda than a legal issue. Once again, the local school board has the authority to remove ineffective teachers and does so.

It seems evident Amendment 3 is an attempt to override the local control of elected school board members. What do we believe in if we don’t believe in the power of democracy and local control?

Chris Belcher, former superintendent of Columbia Public Schools, is on the faculty of the MU College of Education.