SPS wants Missouri legislature to continue teacher pay raises, stay out of curriculum

Springfield Public Schools is asking state lawmakers to continue improving teacher salaries and funding Missouri's public districts, while pushing back against the desire of some in the legislature to intervene in curriculum and other local decision-making.

The legislative platform for the state's largest district, approved at a board meeting Tuesday, comes as the Republican-controlled General Assembly has increasingly taken an interest in scrutinizing how public schools operate and teach. K-12 education, always a top issue in Jefferson City, was especially prominent this past year in the statehouse, and is expected to once again dominate political and policy debates.

Among the district's requests for the legislature's 2023 session is for a "comprehensive state plan" to raise teacher pay.

Teacher pay in Missouri:Now what? MO education leaders work to raise teacher pay after commission report

Last year, lawmakers put money in the state budget to help districts raise minimum teacher salaries from $25,000 to $38,000 — a move prompted by bipartisan concern that Missouri would be unable to continue recruiting and retaining educators compared to other, higher-paying states. But those raises are not guaranteed from the state after next year and require districts to foot part of the bill — leaving some officials with questions about long-term solutions.

A blue ribbon commission appointed by the governor on the issue released a number of recommendations in November, and key lawmakers have voiced support for continuing to fund higher teacher pay. But it remains to be seen how the issue will shake out during an always-contentious state budget process next spring. Sen. Lincoln Hough, Springfield's Republican senator who was a vocal advocate for teacher raises, is expected to chair the Senate budget writing panel next year.

Support for 'local autonomy' as lawmakers weigh curriculum restrictions

SPS also asserted their support for local district school boards to make decisions regarding what is taught in classrooms, how it is taught and how schools are operated on a day-to-day basis.

"We support the local autonomy of the board of education to deploy resources to ensure a safe, orderly and supportive learning environment is provided for each student," the district's platform says, echoing that sentiment for "the development of curricular goals and objectives."

Their stance comes in response to numerous bills proposed last session that sought to ban or restrict certain aspects of curriculum, blanket measures that school officials and advocates strongly opposed.

Several pieces of legislation targeted "critical race theory," an academic framework examining history through the lens of race that opponents at times have used as shorthand for curriculum discussing racism and bigotry. Other bills focused on how sex, gender and other aspects of identity could be discussed, and several would have required districts to alert families to what books and materials were being used in the classroom. Ultimately, none of the 20-plus bills filed made it to the governor's desk.

Despite falling short last session, lawmakers who have focused heavily on the inner workings of schools are likely to pick the issue back up in January. Sen. Cindy O'Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican who served as chair of the Senate education committee, is the chamber's new No. 2 ranking member; she told the News-Leader earlier this year she expected a bill relating to "curriculum transparency" to be "one of the first filed next session."

More:Springfield council's requests to legislature: Curb gun violence, invest in mental health

Board members question process for platform, use of district lobbyist

The school board voted 4-2 to approve its legislative platform Tuesday night. Denise Fredrick, Danielle Kincaid, Scott Crise and Shurita Thomas-Tate supported the platform. Kelly Byrne and Maryam Mohammadkhani voted against it, after raising questions. Steve Makoski was not present.

"I’m a new board member, I don’t know what the normal process was but I was surprised to see that there wasn’t ever really some sort of process to gauge matters of importance (to) the board members as that would apply to this legislative platform," said Byrne, who was elected in April.

He concluded, after reading the lengthy platform, that "a lot of the things I either have no opinion on or am not informed enough to form an opinion on." He suggested that in the future, the board receive the platform earlier to have time to weigh in.

"There are some other things additionally that I definitely disagree with so for that reason, and all those reasons, I’m going to vote no."

Springfield schools:SPS board will decide Dec. 13 whether to take $220M bond issue to voters

Mohammadkhani, vice president of the board, said the platform "could use some tweaking" but it was not her issue. She questioned the district hiring a lobbyist.

Under district contracts, legislative liaison Jason Zamkus represents SPS in Jefferson City. He meets with lawmakers, communicates the district’s position on different proposals, gives the district a heads-up when new or critical issues arise, and provides a weekly update on bills of interest to the district.

"Our lobbyist not only educates but advocates on our behalf and … I’m unsure that we should be using public dollars to fund an endeavor that can potentially create a conflict of interest with the public that is paying for it," Mohammadkhani said. "I’d rather spend $60,000 on something that I can wrap my hands around in a classroom or a staff position. I don’t know if I feel comfortable being in the lobbying business."

Fredrick, the board president, reminded the group that they were voting on the platform, not the lobbyist's contract.

"We have had a legislative platform in place at least the 12 years I have been on board," Fredrick said.

Thomas-Tate, who is up for election next year, questioned the opposition to lobbying, noting members on the board advocate for "the things that we hear from our community members."

"The kinds of things that are listed in our legislative platform are for the purpose of protecting and supporting public education so that funds aren’t diverted away from us," she said.

Springfield schools:SPS asks parents: Would you rather have extra days off at Thanksgiving or after Christmas?

Other asks: safety funding, current school board election schedule, accreditation system

Other items on the district's legislative platform include:

• Support for "funding to enhance student/school safety";

• Opposition to legislation that would re-direct money for public schools to charter or private schools. Lawmakers approved a bill this year that increased the amount of money heading to charter schools, a long-time objective, but forged a compromise preventing any of the money from being taken away from public districts;

• Support for the current election schedule for school boards, with three-year terms and voting in April. Some lawmakers have previously suggested altering that schedule;

• Support for changes to how the state evaluates districts, including those that are currently unaccredited, and to move to an "intervention model" rather than "a punitive solution." Lawmakers and state officials have sought to overhaul the system in the wake of the pandemic, lower test scores and several unaccredited districts in metropolitan areas;

• Support for full funding of the school transportation "formula," or core spending. Lawmakers fully funded school transportation in this year's budget for the first time in decades.

Galen Bacharier covers Missouri politics & government for the News-Leader. Contact him at gbacharier@news-leader.com, (573) 219-7440 or on Twitter @galenbacharier.

Claudette Riley covers education at the News-Leader. Email tips and story ideas to criley@news-leader.com.

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Springfield Public Schools asks legislature to fund teacher pay raises