Gladstone Republican on Common Core- We need to stand with the moms who are opposed to this

Ed Emery: Let's give public schools a letter grade

(In his latest report, Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, argues for a simplistic grading scale for Missouri public schools. Emery rips those who oppose the idea by noting they are all from teacher unions and administrator and school board groups. At the same time, he has no problem with the fact that those who are supporting the measure are the policy advisor for Rex Sinquefield's Show-Me Institute and the Children's Education Council, both of which have nice names, but have demonstrated considerable animosity toward public schools.)

It is time for school success to be measured and reported just as student achievement is measured and reported with clear, concise, understandable letter grades. Why not inform parents about their child’s school by giving schools the same grades - A, B, C, D and F - which students get? Letter grades, due to their straight-forward indication of performance, will encourage better communication within schools and with parents. Last Wednesday, the Senate Education Committee heard arguments for and against Senate Bill 521 which would require most public schools to convert their detailed evaluations into a letter grade to be reported to parents.

In states where grading of schools has been implemented, schools have seen significant improvements in measured performance once these grading scenarios were implemented. In one state, when they initially implemented letter grades for the schools, almost three-quarters of their schools were graded C or below. At the end of a decade about three-quarters of their schools were graded A or B, and in those 10 years they had increased the standards at least twice.

“The academic literature on school letter grades is limited,” said James Shuls, the education policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, when he testified in support of similar legislation last spring. “However, the existing evidence suggests that school letter grades have a positive impact on student achievement.”

Letter grades for schools address the need for transparency within school districts. Grading systems like this make it easier for people of all backgrounds to look at a school and instantly know how the school is performing. Kate Casas from the Children’s Education Council of Missouri said, “Parents, as well as community members, business and philanthropic leaders need accessible, understandable, transparent information about school performance.”

In the same way student report cards include comments noting their success and improvements, so will the schools. Each report card must identify the school’s performance as having improved, remained the same, or declined based on the prior year in terms of letter grade and value.

Parental involvement is often cited as one of the two most valuable elements of student success, the other being teacher quality. Every parent will understand the implications of their child’s school being graded A, B, C, D, or F and will be more likely to look deeper, ask questions, and become more involved in the entire education system. Removing some of the mystery of public education will invite parental involvement; isn’t that what we all want? Strange that public opposition to SB521 came almost exclusively from teachers’ unions, a school boards’ association, and school administrators’ associations. On second thought, maybe we don’t all want more public involvement?

Cape Girardeau Republican: My bill will improve safety, not limit abortions

In his latest report, Sen. Wayne Wallingford, R-Cape Girardeau, says SB 655, which he is sponsoring, will not have any effect on women's ability to get abortions, but will make it safer.

Let me start by saying I’m pro-life. I oppose all forms of abortion and firmly believe that life begins at conception. This is a very personal stance.

 Abortion touches upon some of our most basic ideas about life and faith. In turn, each person must decide for themselves where they stand on this issue. Under current law, abortion is legal in the United States. 

Barring any unforeseeable events, this is unlikely to change any time soon. There is nothing preventing us, however, from ensuring that these procedures are done safely and adhere to the same strict laws and guidelines to which we hold every medical procedure. I understand abortion is a polarizing topic, but to automatically view every measure addressing it is as an attack or an attempt to outlaw it is inaccurate. This prevents us from examining some very real problems with how these medical procedures are carried out and the right of alternatives to abortion agencies to express their opinions. For example, various states have enacted local ordinances in recent years that apply unfair regulations to alternatives to abortion agencies. 

These groups are often faith-based and offer free services to women considering an abortion. These establishments give women a choice when they may not have otherwise seen one. Cities and political subdivisions across the country have begun forcing these groups to follow burdensome and frivolous requirements, such as mandating them to advertise they don’t perform abortions, or limiting the amount of information they’re allowed to provide. This would be the same as requiring fast food establishments to advertise they don’t have wait staff, or that car dealerships don’t sell boats. These are underhanded attempts to limit organizations that have a First Amendment right to offer counsel to the public, the same as any other organization or institution.

Federal judges across the nation are throwing out these ordinances as they’re challenged in court. Good public policy should be preemptive, though, which is why I’ve filed Senate Bill 658 this year, which would protect the rights of alternatives to abortion agencies to freely engage in religious practice and offer their services, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 In the same vein, I’ve filed legislation this year that would make sure the clinics where abortions are performed are held to the highest safety protocols. 

In 2011, a Pennsylvania physician, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, was charged with eight counts of murder resulting from gross medical malpractice while performing abortions. One patient died under his care. Seven newborns were killed after being born alive following botched abortions. And all of these horrific crimes happened under the nose of state authorities, who hadn’t inspected his clinic in years. A single visit by a state inspector might have prevented this terrible crime. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this is a horrifying and sickening incident. We must not allow this to happen in Missouri. 

Senate Bill 770 requires clinics where abortions are performed to be inspected four times a year. We already require similar inspections for other medical facilities. There’s no justifiable reason we shouldn’t apply the same stringent requirements for places where these surgical procedures are performed. The legislation also offers more support to women who seek abortions due to medical emergencies, specifically because of psychological or emotional conditions.

 A woman undergoing a medical emergency because of psychological or emotional trauma should not be forced to make an irreversible decision without at least talking to a qualified mental health professional, such as a suicide prevention counselor. This bill would offer these women that help. Once again, neither of these bills restricts the right of women to have abortions in Missouri. What they do is guarantee the safety of the women who choose to have them performed, and protect the right of religious organizations to offer guidance and alternatives to women considering an abortion.

Sen. Romine: Student transfers, job creation, tax reform on tap for 2014 session

In his latest report, Sen. Gary Romine, R-Farmington, previews the 2014 session.

The Missouri Senate returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for the 2014 legislative session. Instead of indulging in the pomp and circumstance that usually marks opening days, the Senate immediately gaveled in and got down to business. Ceremonies and speeches can wait; what citizens need right now is action.

One of the most immediate problems facing our state involves student transfers from unaccredited to accredited districts, as allowed by a state law recently upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court.

This outdated law created utter chaos in St. Louis last September. Students from unaccredited districts flooded into accredited schools that weren’t equipped to handle the sudden influx. On top of that, the budgets in the unaccredited districts were gutted from having to pay for the transfers, as required by state law. While this is currently only an issue in St. Louis, it could soon affect any other school district that loses accreditation in Missouri.