LTE: No Half-Baked Cake for Our Kids. No Half-Baked School Grades, Either.

It’s the night before an assignment is due, and your kid rushes in and lets you know that they have a school project due the next morning. Are you shocked when the last-minute, rushed project results in a bad grade?

I’ve been graded before. Every superintendent has. Test scores, audits, board evaluations, and the court of public opinion all weigh in. I believe in accountability, and I’ve experienced firsthand a state A–F model being built from the ground up. That experience is exactly why I’m concerned about how fast Missouri is moving to grade its schools. A bad system is like a rushed school project. A bad system will have a negative impact on our kids and the communities they live in because schools are the heart of many of our communities.

School evaluation systems are complicated. As they should be. They take time, considerable research, input from educators, and extensive statistical testing. In my experience, legislators, state education departments, superintendents, and technical experts work together to develop the model over a period of years, not just a few months. Independent technical reviews are an important part of determining whether the results are valid and reliable. This is why it takes years to develop.

Missouri is developing its statewide accountability system in just a few months, primarily in response to the governor’s executive order.  This is an aggressive implementation timeline.

I understand that governors set educational priorities. But setting a direction and developing a statistically sound accountability system are two very different things.

The University of Missouri’s October 15 technical report on the proposed A–F model raises some legitimate concerns. The researchers identified limitations in providing accurate grades to schools because of a lack of data and concerns about how poverty would impact scores.

I appreciate the university’s willingness to identify these limitations. That is what good research should do. But it also raises a question: Why would we move toward publicly grading schools before these issues are resolved and the model has undergone independent technical review?

My concerns go beyond the model itself.

Recently, Missouri Speaker of the House Jon Patterson discussed the possibility of reducing Missouri’s more than 500 school districts to approximately 50 or 60 through consolidation. His argument centered on potential financial savings.

I’ve worked in rural communities. I understand what those schools mean to the people who live there. A school district is often one of the largest employers in a community. It brings people together, supports local businesses, and is an important part of a town’s identity.

Consolidation may make sense in some circumstances, but those decisions require much more consideration than whether administrative costs can be reduced.

Now consider what happens when a small rural district receives a D or F under a new accountability model that was rushed to be put in place. Could that grade eventually be used to build the case for consolidation?

I have similar concerns about communities with high concentrations of poverty. Could low school grades become part of the justification for expanding charter schools into those areas?

I don’t know that either is the intended outcome, and I’m not suggesting that it is. But when we look at what is happening around Missouri, I believe those are fair questions.

In 2023, The Opportunity Trust, a St. Louis organization led by Eric Scroggins, received a federal grant award with approximately $35.6 million in expected funding over five years to support charter school expansion in Missouri.

Governor Mike Kehoe, while serving as lieutenant governor, wrote a letter in May 2023 supporting that grant application.

This same Opportunity Trust has also been active in advocating for changes to Missouri’s education accountability policies.

There is nothing wrong with supporting charter schools. But I do think Missourians deserve to know who helped shape this new accountability system, what role outside organizations played, and how those decisions were made.

We should also look at the makeup of our State Board of Education.

Three of the eight voting members have previously served on charter school governing boards. Several recent appointees were still awaiting Senate confirmation as of late October. Having charter school experience does not automatically mean someone is biased. In fact, one of those members, Vincent Schoemehl Jr., voted against the proposed A–F framework in September.

Still, I would like to know how much input the board received from public school leaders, particularly those leading rural districts and districts serving large numbers of students living in poverty.

Missouri already has an accountability system. We should be able to explain why this additional model is necessary. What will this new model tell parents that they cannot already learn? And will the grades school buildings and districts receive accurately reflect the education the students are receiving?

I also want to know what happens down the road.

State officials have said these grades will not directly affect accreditation or funding under the current framework. I appreciate that clarification. But what assurance do communities have that future policymakers won’t use those same grades to justify consolidation, changes in governance, or the expansion of private school options?

I’ve spent my career working to improve student achievement. I’ve led schools and districts through difficult changes, and I understand that accountability can help drive improvement when it is done well.

I am not opposed to an A–F system. I am opposed to putting a system in place before we have sufficient evidence that it works as intended.

Before Missouri releases these grades, I believe the State Board should require an independent technical review, examine results across multiple years, and give districts a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the calculations.

That doesn’t seem unreasonable when we consider what is at stake.

A letter grade may look simple, but the decisions made because of it can shape a school and its community for years.

Everyone knows you don’t pull a cake out of the oven just because the timer went off. You check the middle first. If it isn’t done, you give it more time.

Missouri’s children deserve that same care. No half-baked cake for our kids. No half-baked school grades, either.