Looking for Answers?

Do you ever wonder why it takes up to $100,000 to run for an unpaid school board position for the Springfield Public Schools? Do you wonder why violence in schools is on the rise? Why levels of anxiety among students is so high?

 Why are academic scores flat or falling? Why is teacher retention a big problem for school districts? Why do school districts keep asking for more bond money for more capital projects when they don't maintain the buildings they have? 

Do you ever wonder why out-of-town people founded a "nonpartisan" United Springfield PAC in order to get their preferred candidates elected?

Millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. And more than that, a pernicious agenda that pushes gender ideology, DEI, SEL and CT is working hard to maintain the control grid that usurps parental rights and local school control.

You know something is wrong, but you can't quite put your finger on it. Here is your opportunity to get answers and solutions. 

Our children and their teachers deserve to be able to learn and teach in a safe environment. 

Register here.

And look for a Q&A with a public school teacher here later today.

The Status Quo

 By Gretchen Garrity

The Springfield School Board, in a 4-3 vote on Tuesday night, voted against publicly supporting a bill that aims to bring more local control to school districts. 

You read that right.

The News-Leader's Claudette Riley does a nice job outlining the issue here, although she should have referred to Dr. Mary Byrne by her professional credentials. Dr. Byrne, who is referenced in the article has nearly 40 years experience as an educator from K-12 and post-secondary education. She deserves to be referred to properly.

Senate Bill 814 is designed to give local school districts more control over testing, sharing of testing results, and accrediting agencies. The full bill is here.

According to the News-Leader, "...the state board will not accredit the districts and will only be allowed to use test results to satisfy the federal law that mandates testing in certain grades and subject areas on an annual basis." Sounds reasonable.

Sen. Jill Carter

 While Springfield school board members acknowledge that the system is broken, the status quo was preserved as the board declined to show support for SB 814 or invite its sponsor Sen. Jill Carter, and educator Dr. Mary Byrne to speak on its behalf.

Dr. Mary Byrne

Board member Dr. Maryam Muhammadkhani's move to have the bill publicly supported by the school board ultimately highlighted the status quo positions of the four members who voted against it: board member and current candidate Danielle Kincaid, board member and current candidate Scott Crise, and board members Judy Brunner and Shurita Thomas-Tate.

Both Kincaid and Crise have been endorsed by the self-described "non-partisan" political action committee United Springfield. Ironically, it was Muhammadkhani who noticed the partisan manner of the "non-partisan" candidates/board members as they refused to meet with Carter and Byrne. As quoted in the News-Leader, she said, "I feel that we came together tonight, not in good faith, because if we wanted to come together and really give this a chance, we would have agreed to hear from the senator, let her make a case for her bill."

Kincaid paid lip service to bipartisanship, but in the end she felt it more important to let the hired school lobbyist provide direction. "I don't support or not support this bill," she was quoted as saying.

Crise likewise noted, "Things could be added to [the bill] we don't agree with so let's just let our lobbyist do their job and support it through the platform rather than specifically support this bill."

The outcome is that the Springfield Board of Education declined to hear from the bill's sponsor and a seasoned educator about returning some local control to their school district. Instead, they decided to rely on a hired hand to do their thinking for them.

Status quo candidates.

Non Partisan, my *** UPDATE

 By Gretchen Garrity

United Springfield PAC has endorsed their candidates, according to the Springfield News-leader. And as I said here* their choice was not going to be anything other than the status quo, which is doing such a stellar job. 😬

United Springfield was formed to keep the school system under the thumb of progressive Uniparty members and local power structures, and tied to groups like the Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA). According to the Springfield News-leader, their candidates are:

1) Scott Crise (Incumbent and previously endorsed by the Springfield Chamber of Commerce)

2) Danielle Kincaid (Incumbent and previously endorsed by the Springfield Chamber of Commerce)

3) Susan Provance (A self-described team player)

Background here.

Where's the money coming from? The Springfield Daily Citizen shares that here, and just to show you how partisan are these people who claim they are nonpartisan, according to the link, "People who donated $5,000 each include former Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson, who is also the publisher and chairman of the board of directors for the Springfield Daily Citizen." Now, just read that article again knowing that the former mayor and current publisher of the paper is giving money to a PAC that has just endorsed the preferred status quo of the "long-time leaders" in Springfield.

More on donations here.

Does anyone, anyone believe today that the press is nonpartisan? To quote George Carlin, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

The narrative is playing out just as noted. It's a dirty business trying to keep the status quo going when one's school district is failing on so many levels.

UPDATE: Chuck Hatfield, the MSBA lawyer who started the United Springfield PAC weighs in on the ruckus in the Missouri Senate today when Sen. Caleb Rowden foolishly removed several of the Freedom Caucus senators from their committees, and even took their parking spaces.

What a nice fellow, eh?

*"If Provance tows the line, if she speaks only positivity, rainbows, and unicorns to voters, she will undoubtedly earn the endorsement of the United Springfield PAC."