Amendment 3 opponents continue beating drum as election nears

With the Nov. 4 general election looming, opponents of Amendment 3 are still trying to convince people not to vote for the measure.

The proposal on the ballot would tie teacher evaluations to student performance and limit future teaching contracts to three years, among other things.

Several groups have come out against Amendment 3, including various school boards, a local not-for-profit organization called No On 3 -- or NOT -- and others.

In September, Teach Great, the organization that spearheaded the ballot initiative, stopped campaigning for it. Kate Casas, Teach Great's former spokeswoman, said in an email Sunday the group no longer exists.

But Brittany Wagner, education policy research assistant at the Show Me Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in St. Louis, said just having a discussion of teacher tenure is positive. "But Amendment 3 isn't necessarily the best way to solve the problem," she said.

Although Teach Great has disbanded, Protect Our Local Schools communications director Mike Sherman said his group has not changed strategy and is not taking anything for granted, with new TV ads airing today.

"We're still trying to get out there and educate everyone about why they should vote 'no,'" Sherman said.

He added that 234 of the state's approximately 520 school districts have passed resolutions against Amendment 3. Those include Cape Girardeau, Jackson and Scott City.

"That's almost half the districts in the state," Sherman said. "They don't usually take positions on this [kind of issue]."

Sherman said the amendment would take away local control from parents, teachers and school districts. It also would mean more standardized tests and take a one-size-fits all approach to education.

"Every single child is unique," Sherman said. "Every single child is in a different place in their learning when they get to grade level. Teachers have to come up with different plans for each child. Standardized tests don't do that."

Wagner said the Show Me Institute will issue a blog soon about the pros and cons of Amendment 3 and addressing some of the issues raised by the proposal's opponents, such as increased standardized testing and removal of local control.

Current Missouri law grants teachers a permanent contract after five years, Wagner said, and she contends it can be difficult and costly to terminate a teacher who isn't performing well.

As for testing in nonacademic subjects, she said data are already applied to art, for example. "You don't get a smiley face on your report card in art," Wagner said.

Meanwhile, NOT treasurer David Larson said his group will be distributing business card-sized leaflets in Cape Girardeau and Jackson. They also plan to place them in Perryville on Sunday and will be distributing yard signs.

Dr. Rick Althaus, professor of political science at Southeast Missouri State University, said he suspects the amendment will not be approved because the word is going out through so many channels. Plus, midterm voters are different from those in presidential elections.

"They're going to get out and vote regardless of whether there are hot issues, regardless of whether they're being contacted by a get-out-the-vote campaign," Althaus said.

rcampbell@semissourian.com

388-3639

---

Amendment 3 ballot language

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• require teachers to be evaluated by a standards-based performance evaluation system for which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and local funding;
• require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
• require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts;
• and prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system?

Decisions by school districts regarding provisions allowed or required by this proposal and their implementation will influence the potential costs or savings impacting each district. Significant potential costs may be incurred by the state and/or the districts if new/additional evaluation instruments must be developed to satisfy the proposal*'s performance evaluation requirements.

Souce: Missouri Secretary of State