Election Toolkit 2006: The Issues

1. Election Toolkit 2006:The Issues www.mnea.org

2. We’re fighting for them. • Missouri NEA promotes a proactive agenda that strengthens public education and public educators for the benefit of Missouri’s children. • MNEA also continues to lead the fight to defeat the many harmful proposals pushed by out-of-state extremist groups and other opponents of public education.

3. School formula • MNEA supports common sense, data-driven revisions to the state’s school funding formula. • The Augenblick adequacy study shows that the SB 380 formula was $900 million short of adequate funding when it was fully funded in 2001. • The SB 380 formula was $800 million underfunded last year.

4. School Formula (continued) • The newly enacted Senate Bill 287 formula reduces full funding cost to $200 million below that of the current formula. • The new formula base level funding and at-risk aid should be raised, and the new formula should be funded within two years.

5. Funding Discussion • What impact does inadequate funding have on your district, your school and your classroom? • What impact does investment in education have on economic development in your community? • How would adequate funding affect your parents and your students?

6. Tax-credit vouchers • MNEA opposes tax-credit vouchers, also known as “charitable scholarships.” • House Bill 1783 (2006) would have diverted up to $40 million per year from public schools to support vouchers to private, religious and home schools. • Tax credit vouchers take away funding we need to support proven, positive programs to help struggling students and parents and close achievement gaps.

7. Voucher Discussion • What positive steps should the legislature take to help schools with hard-to-serve students and to close achievement gaps? • Would enacting tax credit vouchers help accomplish any of those positive steps? • How will tax credit vouchers affect parents and students? • Who benefits? Who loses?

8. 65 percent mandate • MNEA opposes the 65 percent mandate initiated by out-of-state interest groups and now supported by Gov. Matt Blunt. • This new mandate doesn’t increase school funding by one dime. • Schools will be required to cut vital school staff and services that help children come to school healthy and ready to learn.

9. 65% Discussion • Why do the supporters of 65% want to argue that schools need to reallocate money to reach the 65% target? • What would it take to actually increase resources for classroom instruction in a positive and helpful way? • How will 65% affect parents and students?

10. TABOR (spending cap) • MNEA strongly opposes the spending limitation known as TABOR, Taxpayers Bill of Rights. • TABOR limits spending increases to CPI plus population growth (3%/year), while the real needs for public service grow in proportion to the overall economy (5%/year).

11. TABOR (continued) • TABOR is a proven failure in Colorado, where voters suspended the measure for five years due to TABOR’s harmful effects on education and other services. • TABOR would force further cuts in K–12 and higher education and healthcare. • TABOR petition supporters will be back in 2007, trying to get it on the 2008 ballot.

12. TABOR Discussion • What is the best investment the state can make to promote economic development, better jobs and higher personal incomes in Missouri? • How will TABOR affect Missouri’s quality of life and economic success in the future? • How will TABOR affect parents and students?

13. Early Childhood Education • MNEA supports statewide universal access to quality pre-kindergarten instructional programs for all children. • Early childhood education is a proven program that works to reduce achievement gaps and promote success for all students. • All pre-kindergarten teachers should be properly certified, compensated on the regular teachers’ salary schedule and have access to the tenure and due process rights of other teachers.

14. Early Childhood Discussion • What are the benefits of early childhood education? • Who benefits most? • How do parents benefit? • How should the state allocate early childhood funding between public and private providers?

15. Access to quality higher education • MNEA supports adequate and equitable funding for all public colleges and universities. • State funding for higher education institutions has been cut significantly in the last few years. • Students face large tuition increases at our state universities, colleges and community colleges. • If the K–12 funding lawsuit calls for increased spending and the legislature fails to increase revenues, higher-education funding is certain to see more devastating budget cuts.

16. Higher Education Access Discussion • How do tuition hikes affect parents and students? • How is that different from a tax increase? • How will further funding cuts to our public colleges and universities affect the future of Missouri’s youth and Missouri’s economic future?

17. Due process • MNEA supports substantive due process rights for all education employees. • Real due process protects education employees from potentially arbitrary and capricious hiring and firing decisions. • Due process ensures a fair hearing on an employee’s employment status, made by an impartial hearing officer. • Substantive due process will improve school climate and promote student achievement.

18. Due Process Discussion • How could substantive due process improve teacher retention? • How could substantive due process improve the lives of teachers, school board members and administrators? • How would substantive due process benefit parents and students?

19. Collective bargaining • MNEA supports collective bargaining rights for all education employees. • Teachers and other employees are better able to ensure they have the respect and resources they need to serve their students if they have collective bargaining. • Retention of beginning teachers would increase significantly if teachers were granted the respect provided by a good collective bargaining law.

20. Collective Bargaining Discussion • How does collective bargaining support and promote local control of schools? • How does collective bargaining help build stronger and more effective local organizations? • How does collective bargaining benefit parents and students?

21. Merit and Differential Pay • MNEA opposes merit pay and repeal of the salary schedule law. • Merit pay, based on student test scores, is a proven failure in districts across the country. • Merit pay leads to subjectivity of the compensation process. • Merit pay sacrifices the supportive environment of teacher mentoring and collaboration and creates stronger incentives to teach to standardized tests. • Merit pay will not recruit more students into teaching.

22. Merit and Differential Pay Discussion • How would student loan incentives address teacher recruitment challenges? • How would that result in more positive outcomes for teachers and students than merit or differential pay? • How will merit and differential pay affect parents and students?

23. School retirement • MNEA supports a strong, equitable retirement system for all education employees. • Some groups are seeking to lower benefits and reduce the liabilities of PSRS as contribution rates increase. • Recent proposals in other states seek to take control of the school retirement system away from current and retired members. • Financial companies want to profit by replacing the current system with private accounts that put all employees at greater risk.

24. School Retirement Discussion • How will increased contribution rates affect teacher retention and recruitment in the future? • Why are we better off with a defined benefit plan? • How can we support NEA’s effort to repeal the GPO and WEP offsets to Social Security? • How does a strong school retirement system help our students?

25. Teacher standards and ABCTE • MNEA opposes a state mandate for recognition of certification as defined by the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. • House Bill 1057 (2006) would create a state mandate for ABCTE certification. • ABCTE is a product of the extremist opponents of public education, and it lowers teacher quality standards. • ABCTE is cleverly linked to NCLB-generated “quality” shortages. • With a four-year degree, you’re just a background check, $500 and two multiple-choice tests away from being “highly qualified.”

26. Teacher Standards and ABCTE Discussion • How might Missouri teacher standards be different if we created an independent Professional Standards Board? • Will teacher salaries increase to adequate levels if we lower standards with ABCTE? • Why should parents and students care about high teaching standards?

27. Contracting Out • Privatization seeks to establish a corporate takeover of our system of public education. • Privatization will reduce the quality of education, the accountability of public schools to the communities they serve, and the well-being of children in school. • High quality school services are vital to help students achieve at higher levels. • Privatization will reduce the local control of school boards and public accountability.

28. Contracting Out Discussion • How will we make sure teachers and ESPs have the quality tools and resources they need to help students succeed if school services are privatized? • How will privatization affect the local accountability of school boards and respect for teachers and other school staff? • How will privatization of school services affect parents and students?

29. For Further Information… • Visit: www.mnea.org • Sign up for the MNEA Legislative Update • MNEA Capitol Action Days • MNEA Legislative Brunches