I wrote an earlier post about how the State Commissioner of Education in Missouri, Chris Nicastro, is working closely with a libertarian, free market group–funded by a billionaire hedge fund manager– to draft language for legislation to strip teachers of tenure. As a reader pointed out, it is actually worse than I wrote.
The goal is to put an initiative on the ballot to revise the state Constitution, not only to remove teachers’ right to due process, but to insert test-based accountability into the Constitution of Missouri and to make sure that teacher evaluation is not subject to collective bargaining in the future. This is horrific. It is not based on research or evidence but on ideology. It ties education in Missouri to the standardized testing industry.
Most scholars agree that test-based accountability is unstable and inaccurate. The teacher who gets a high rating one year may get a low rating the next year, because the ratings fluctuate depending on who is in the class, not teacher quality. The so-called “reformers” appear to be completely ignorant of or indifferent to the research documenting the unreliability of test-based accountability.
The reader from Missouri writes:
This is not draft legislation, but rather language for an initiative petition to change the state Constitution. The ballot language approved by the Secretary of State follows.
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
If enough signatures are gathered this could appear on the ballot in November of 2014.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why can’t legislators be required to provide evidence that proposed policy changes will improve achievement, attract quality people to the profession, and encourage those people to stay. We owe our students more than uneducated guesses. Don’t suppose we could get ALEC to sponsor legislation requiring evidence and open debate of proposed policy changes?
This is appalling. I understand the desire to measure but by this standard it only pays to teach children in better off suburban schools.
So right. Standardized tests are a better indicator of population socio-economic status than of teacher quality. Wealthier school districts will enjoy a stable teaching force, while urban districts will see the fastest spinning revolving door for their teachers. The children who most need some stability in their lives will be guaranteed none of it. This will continue until either, the state steps in to take over the district and then grants itself a waiver from these requirements or, charters take over which are not subject to these requirements.
I think value added evaluations should be put in the U.S. Constitution.
For elected officials, that is. If your VAM score isn’t up to par, that’s it, you’re out no matter what the election results say. This would also apply to positions directly appointed by elected officials, BTW.
Why would people who call themselves Libertarians (note the root–liberty) want to enshrine a state monopoly on what will be taught, when, and by whom, and to us invariant, state-mandated tests to measure both students and teachers? Why would such people want to take away the autonomy of local communities to make decisions about what their kids will be taught and how evaluation will be done? Why would people who call themselves Libertarians (root, liberty) want to END ALL INNOVATION, all COMPETITION AMONG IDEAS in the areas of standards, testing, and evaluation, and put the state in charge of a codified “one ring to rule them all?” This people are insane. They have NO NOTION what Liberty means, or they are simply using the RHETORIC of Liberty in a sort of Orwellian Newspeak. Liberty is ability to do exactly as the state tells you to do. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.
Here’s why: The monopolists who paid to have the national standards and tests and evaluation plans created as part of their business plan are USING very ignorant folks outside schools to get their way. They can count on those folks not having a clue and not thinking about how these actions contradict their most cherished principles. “How lucky it is for leaders that men don’t think,” said Hitler.
I taught in Colorado, and student performance is directly tied to teacher evaluations. Colorado passed SB 191, a law that mandated at least 50% of yearly teacher evaluations to be based on student performance – either from state or district testing. Overall I think it works well for Colorado teachers. There was a lot of input from the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and rollout was gradual, but teachers are now receiving bonuses for student growth and achievement.
Teaching is a tough profession. I will be the first to defend teachers if under attack, but putting the performance metrics in place that will allow teachers to improve and quantify their effect on students is the right move.
Justin,
Colorado has one of the most extreme examples of test-based accountability in the nation.
There is zero evidence for tying teacher evaluation to student test scores.
The law was written by young Senator Michael Johnston, who had two years in Teach for America and an equally brief stint as a principal.
I happened to be in Colorado when SB 191 was under debate, right before it came to a vote.
The Colorado Education Association was strongly opposed (it represents 90% of the teachers in the state).
This is true about Colorado, and it is sickening, too. Follow the money.
As a Teach For America alum, I happen to think Colorado is taking a step in the right direction in the way they evaluate teachers, especially in Denver Public Schools.
In order to be successful, though, a system for evaluating teachers based on student performance and classroom observations has to be developed with significant teacher input and review. While not perfect, I appreciated the way it worked in Denver.
I think time will tell whether test-based accountability is the ideal model, but generally I think teachers should be accountable for how their students perform.
Justin, are you still teaching in Colorado?
Justin – “as a Teach for America alum….” So, that means you’re still teaching, just not as a TFA, right? You too are subject to the 50% test score based evaluation, which is why you think it’s such a great thing, right?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
Go peddle your wares elsewhere. No one here is buying.
Justin lives in DC and is an organizer for a national non-profit.
Justin, I have some questions about your experience in Colorado. The first are regarding special education, ELL, and children of poverty. Did teachers of these subgroups find themselves at a disadvantage when it came to their scores? If so, has Colorado seen their teachers wanting to move away from teaching these children? Also, has the curriculum been narrowed? In other words, are educators, students, and parents noticing the phenomenon of the test driving instruction? If so, how has this affected student-motivation and interest?
Thanks for your responses.
I wanted to answer Diane’s question (I couldn’t reply to her comment): No, I’m no longer teaching; in Colorado or otherwise. But I am a native Missourian, and I try to follow what’s going on in education policy and in Missouri.
In regard to your questions, I taught physics in a traditional public high school. Most of my children came from low-income backgrounds, a quarter were designated ELA and around a quarter of my students were on IEPs.
Since Denver Public Schools’ metrics focused on growth as well as performance, I think this assuaged a lot of teachers’ fears about scores. There was not a red hot focus on getting all of your students proficient, but instead making sure all students were on a growth path. In regard to teachers wanting to move away – nearly all of the teachers I worked with chose to work with our population of students. Many had opportunities to move to suburban districts with higher achieving students, but they stayed. Again, I think because of the focus on growth instead of raw achievement.
As far as curriculum, I had a lot of leeway with what I wanted to teach. There was a district guide that had a suggested timeline with topics and how to use the textbook, but I often went off on my own. There was pressure to prepare for the district benchmarks and state exams, but how you prepared students for them was a matter of preference. We were fortunate to have a lot of technology in our school (Promethean boards, math classes had iPads, etc.) and that really helped with student motivation and interest.
Happy to answer any more questions about Colorado. I can only speak for myself, but I think they’re doing teacher accountability the right way.
Justin,
Please tell us why you don’t teach anymore? Why did you leave the profession?
Hi, Linda –
I think there were a couple of contributing factors. I had a difficult transition out of college into a state where I didn’t have an immediate support network. Making friends in the real world is very different than making friends in college when you’re always on the go to a different class or function with young people all around.
More specifically to the profession, though, I think I realized that it wasn’t a good fit for me. I had an incredible principal, great professional development opportunities at my school, I taught on a super supportive and collaborative team, had some rockstar students – but at the end of the day, I found out it just wasn’t what I wanted to be doing. My interests were elsewhere.
I’ve since moved to Washington, DC and work as an organizer for a non-profit and I’m enjoying it. I still like to keep tabs on what’s going on in the education world and have some interest in education policy. I have a lot of respect and admiration for teachers being champions for their students in the classroom; it just wasn’t for me.
Justin, in your current non-teaching job, are you evaluated based on metrics over which you have little control? How are you evaluated?
Diane –
I’ve only been at my current job since the end of August. I think we have an end-of-year review coming up in December, but to be honest I’m not entirely sure how I will be evaluated (kind of a start-up non-profit).
To be honest, I understood much more fully how I would be evaluated when I was a teacher in Denver Public Schools than as an organizer now.
I think your question is getting at a more important point, though. How much control do teachers have on the performance of their students? There is no question that there is a host of contributing factors to how well students perform academically and how much growth they make in a year. I’m of the opinion that teachers are among the most important of those factors.
But think about your question. If teachers had little control over the outcomes of their students, what are we even doing talking about education? That mindset implies that teachers don’t matter. I think that teachers matter tremendously and we should do everything we can to support them, but also ask them to deliver.
I doubt your idea of “deliver” meets the hopes and dreams of students, parents and teachers. I will honor the opinion of parents and those who stayed in the profession over those who once dabbled.
Justin, I think you are sincere in trying to think these issues through. What you should know is that the most fervent advocate of test-based evaluation–Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution–has calculated that teachers account for about 7-15% of the variation in test scores. Other school-related factors matter: the curriculum, class size, quality of leadership, resources, etc. But the most important source of variation in student test scores is family income and education. Most economists say the latter affects 60% or more. Teachers have no control over class size or family income and education. Why would you hold teachers accountable for factors that they can’t control? Think about that some more. Here is something to read and think about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/getting-teacher-evaluation-right/2011/09/15/gIQAPzs9UK_blog.html
By testing students in core subject areas each year, can’t we control for family income and education?
For example, at the end of grade 9, Sally takes her 9th grade Missouri state English exam and scores in the 65 percentile. She moves on to grade 10 and is taught by Ms. Brown. At the end of grade 10, Sally takes her 10th grade Missouri state English exam and scores in the 75 percentile. Ms. Brown could be evaluated on Sally’s raw performance score which was in the 75 percentile. But we can also look at Sally’s growth from year to year which is much more dependent on her teacher.
By tracking students in that manner and looking not only at students’ raw performance, but also at growth – can’t we get a good idea of how well they were prepared by their teachers? Since we’re looking at the same student from year to year those other factors aren’t as important.
I agree that a snapshot of student performance from one cohort from one year isn’t a fair way to evaluate teachers. But if we look look at that cohort in context from year to year, the students’ background hasn’t changed. The major difference is the teacher.
Justin,
Can you explain why no private school is expending its resources in search of a metric like the one you want?
Ms. Ravitch,
Does this mean you’d be amenable to 15% of a teachers evaluation being based on individual VAM scores?
In Denver, that’s essentially what it’ll be.
The 50% mandated in SB15 will be slit into three categories: individual student growth (VAM scores over three years), school-wide growth (two years of school-wide status and growth measures on a variety of assessments including TCAP, ACT and ACCESS), and teacher created student growth objectives.
The other 50% is composed of administrator observations, peer observations (both based in a concrete framework), student perception surveys and a professionalism framework.
This evaluation system was developed by DPS teachers with heavy influence from our union.
No one in Denver thinks test scores tell you everything, but there is a strong belief that they tell you something — and that something should be one part of my evaluation.
Justin — Thanks for clueing me into this conversation. Glad to see you’re still conversing about education.
-Z
Zachary,
I consider test-based accountability to be Junk Science. I don’t think that teachers should be evaluated by student scores. Period. What the research shows is that the teachers who get low ratings are usually teaching in schools with low-income students; or teaching students with disabilities; or teaching students who are English language learners; or teaching gifted students, already at the top. The research also shows that the ratings, when tied to test scores, are unstable and inaccurate. Teachers get high ratings one year, low ratings the next. When asked what they did differently, they have no idea.
By the way, Hanushek said that teacher quality might account for as little as 7.5% of variation in test scores. Should the scores count for 7.5%?
I am opposed to the use of an invalid measure for teacher quality.
Diane
Thanks Ms. Ravitch,
I’d be really interested in seeing the research you’re referencing (or should I just read your new book 😉
With regard to DPS, you’re right about low-income kids having lower growth scores (roughly 5% less in reading, writing and math) but the opposite is actually true with ELLs. I just pulled these numbers of SchoolView.Com
So, does that mean teachers who teach low-income kids are at a disadvantage while those who teach ELLs have an advantage? Maybe. Does this affirm “research” that asserts better/veteran teachers tend to teach more affluent kids? Probably.
Either way I’m not willing to call our evaluation system “junk science,” yet (especially when it’s replacing a system that included one datapoint — an administrator’s singular evaluation and a whole lot of useless paperwork).
There will inevitably be tweaks to the formula — maybe individual VAM will become 7.5% — and that’s OK. The whole point of multiple measures is that you, the teacher, have a body of quantitative evidence that comprises your evaluation.
If an inexperienced principal tries to fire you bc of one classroom evaluation their actions will be flagged if your peer-observations and student performance data paints a different picture. Likewise, if 3 years of VAM data labels rockstar teachers as “ineffective” they’ll have their glowing peer/administrator observations to point to (in fact the LEAP observation matrix makes it impossible for teachers with “effective” observations to have an overall rating of “ineffective”).
The only teachers who should be worried about the VAM component are those with poor instructional practice.
Thanks for the dialogue. Come back to North High School!!
-Zach
Zachary,
Read “Getting Evaluation Right.” Google it. In time, as the public understands the damage done to their schools and children by VAM, and as more studies are published on its in accuracy, it will disappear.
Zachary, is there science behind VAM at all? If not, why is it included? Is there any science behind any of the evaluation components, for that matter? Or is it all a formula slapped together by politicians because it just felt good?
Zachery, no percentage of standardized test scores should be part of a teacher’s evaluation. Junk science is a mild description of this misuse of normed test scores. There is a great deal of replicated research showing that standardized test scores have no validity in identifying teaching quality. Here some sources of VAM analyses by Bruce Baker from Rutgers University
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-value-added-growth-score-train-wreck-is-here/
There are MANY more sources that reach similar conclusions.
We expect our education policy makers to have minimal competence in psychometrics and understand the appropriate use of assessment data. Unfortunately, our current policy makers are not competent and choose to ignore scientific evidence.
Seems that Missouri is now entering into competition with New York and North Carolina for the designation “state with the stupidest leaders.”
Missouri’s DESE did some damage-control work for Nicastro yesterday on EdWeek, posting a link to her response. I followed their link with this post:
“Please fire Nicastro, now. She notes in her response, using her comforting editorial “we:” “We made it clear from the beginning that we did not have a position on tenure and would not weigh in on that topic. ”
Do Missouri teachers feel any support at all (something she repeatedly pledges in her response) with a State Commissioner who “has no position on tenure?” Really?
If we don’t want to go the way of North Carolina, where teachers are leaving in droves, then allow this to go on unfettered in Missouri. DESE, remember when listening to teachers mattered more than testing companies, wayward politicians, and hedge fund managers?”
Teachers will get bonuses for performance.
The bonus system worked out so well in the finance sector we decided to expand it to every US workplace.
Are ed reformers “agnostic” on labor issues, too? Is this anti-labor law an example of that?
It’s a race to the bottom for teachers wages. We’re already seeing it in Ohio, where charters pay about 15k less a year than public schools. I’d like to know where the 15k they aren’t paying teachers is going. I have no idea why paying middle class people less benefits these neighborhoods reformers are (supposedly) rescuing. How does pulling down middle class wages benefit children? Children live in families and communities, do they not? Why do we want poorer families and communities?
I still would like to underscore that the governor was gloating about running around the legislature on this teacher evaluation program. It goes higher than Chris Nicastro. The Democratic governor is on board with this and was touting it at the NGA 2013 Winter Conference:
http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/missouri-education-today-common-core-teacher-evaluations-the-coalition-of-the-willing-and-the-nuclear-option/
I mean, it’s all here tied up in a bow! It’s a Coalition of the Willing driven by the governor, the commissioner, Rex Sinquefield and the Childrens Education Alliance of Missouri. The teachers were basically sold out by the 100 schools and/or classes who took part in this pilot program. The legislature wasn’t privy to this information according to the governor. From the post and the clip from CSpan:
“Governor Nixon clearly states that he uses the “coalition of the willing on the front end…put a pilot study in place….and then we’ll prove it on the back side on what works…that was our theory. It was very controversial to get through and the only way to get it through was through this cooperative measure….and rather than fire away through the Legislature, we found a Coalition of the Willing and we should have….at least for the ShowMe state some groundbreaking data that gives us the ability to go back to the Legislature and say, well look, these are the leaders, these are the indicators on how well the students do in a class has a lot to do with how well the people teach in that class.”
The governor and DESE bypass the legislature, implement whatever program they deem necessary, believe the ends will justify the means of implementation, and shove the cost onto local districts and taxpayers….with nary a vote. The pilot program is based on coersion from DC which wants states to change their teacher evaluation programs to contain some standardized metrics, the biggest being student assessment scores. The data generated by The Willing will be used to justify the predetermined policy, not develop it.”
Which leaders are the stupidest here? It looks like the governor and commissioner and the special interest groups. I’m not defending our legislature on all its issues, but this clearly shows a run around the legislative process. Want to take any bets who is going to take the fall on this one?
Wow. Pushing to change the MO constitution in order to destroy the teaching profession.
Is it possible to be so ignorant in ideological zeal? Or is this nonsense the result of fat exchanges of cash and/or favors?
Thanks for fighting against “stupidity”– (just a thought) — “Justin” likely works for a “non-Profit” that is pushing this BS. Let’s really change education via performance-based (e.g. portfolio) assessments for teachers and their students. This could be coupled with “some” testing; but portfolios will …! Also, teacher training programs need to be “revitalized” — “many institutions” are being crippled by a lack of tenured leadership (that results in–a lack of vision) which is essential to initiate educational reforms in teacher preparation (and certification). But,… that’s another … –keep fighting–You can count on my support–KEN http://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com
Hi, Kenneth –
If you want to know who I work for, I will tell you in a private email. I like to keep my personal blogging separate from my workplace.
My work has nothing to do with this. I commented on this post because I searched “Missouri” on the WordPress homepage and an article about education came up that was relevant to my experience.
Thanks,
“Justin”
You didn’t say why you left teaching. Was it merely a stepping stone to other opportunities?
Hi, Linda –
Please see above. I did say why I left teaching. After a lot of careful thought and consideration, I decided that it wasn’t for me. I admire the teachers that have decided to stay in the classroom and work hard for their students every day.
There wasn’t an agenda, nor did I use teaching as a “stepping stone” as you suggest. I went into the profession with a very open mind but have decided that my interests lie elsewhere. I think that as an adult I’m allowed to make a career change if I think it’s the right decision for me.
Please forgive this overly long posting.
This posting and some of the comments on it show that mathematical intimidation and massaging/misunderstanding numbers & stats are literally [not figuratively] essential to the assault on public education by those in fervid pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$.
Since Señor Duane Swacker has not weighed in yet with Noel Wilson, I feel obligated to weigh in with a little of Banesh Hoffman’s THE TYRANNY OF TESTING (2003 republication of the 1964 edition of the 1962 original). The following is from p. 143 of Chapter 9, “Statistics”:
[start quote] People who put their trust in correlations would do well to heed Aesop’s fable, “The Lioness and the Fox”: “A lioness who was being belittled by a fox for always bearing just one cub said, ‘Yes, but it’s a lion.’”
A person who uses statistics does not thereby automatically become a scientist, any more than a person who uses a stethoscope automatically becomes a doctor. Nor is an activity necessarily scientific just because statistics are used in it.
The most important thing to understand about reliance on statistics in a field such as testing is that such reliance warps perspective. The person who holds that subjective judgment and opinion are suspect and decides that only statistics can provide the objectivity and relative certainty that he seeks, begins by unconsciously ignoring, and end by consciously deriding, whatever can not be given a numerical measure or label. His sense of values becomes distorted. He comes to believe that whatever is non-numerical is inconsequential. He can not serve two masters. If he worships statistics he will simplify, fractionalize, distort, and cheapen in order to force things into a numeric mold.” [end quote]
Others have touched on this above, but I repeat: high-stakes standardized tests are vey limited in what they measure and are inherently [and admittedly so by psychometricians] imprecise, so VAM schemes based on them have unsurprisingly proven to be unstable and misleading. There are no magic feathers that will make them right, no silver bullets to kill off their limitations and imprecision and instability, no pixie dust for solving the riddle of how to quantify elusive qualities. The standardized testing folks [including people of real distinction] have been working at it for generations, and they still haven’t gotten it “right.”
In addition, this obsessive belief in the mystical power of numbers & stats leads us away from even considering such truly fundamental questions as “What is the purpose of education in a democracy?” and “What does being an educated person mean?”
An astute observation from the eminent mathematician John Tukey:
“When the right thing can only be measured poorly, it tends to cause the wrong thing to be measured, only because it can be measured well. And it is often much worse to have a good measurement of the wrong thing—especially when, as is so often the case, the wrong thing will in fact be used as an indicator of the right thing—than to have poor measurements of the right things.” [Jim Horn and Denise Wilburn, THE MISMEASURE OF EDUCATION, 2013, p, 147]
I close with a observation by someone who knew how folks like the edufrauds and their accountabully underlings ply their pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$:
“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” [Mark Twain]
😎
P.S. But, the inquiring mind wants to know, what did they do in days of olde when statistics weren’t invented?
“In ancient times they had no statistics so they had to fall back on lies.” [Stephen Leacock]
Same old same old.
😏
KrazyTA: Thanks for pinch-hitting for Duane. I, too, will steal–er, borrow–his clever phraseology (with “imitation being the sincerest form of flattery” as the premise). The first order of reason is the tests themselves–are they valid or reliable? Having read such tests and seen such test questions (&–sorry Pear$on–we have managed to cut through your ridiculous uber test security {because, of course, you don’t want us to see the ridiculous & unanswerable test questions, or that you have re-used questions over the years–wouldn’t want another “Pineapple Question” debacle now, would we?}), I would say “NO!” Therefore, these “standardized” tests are NOT, in fact, standardized. Therefore, prevailing logic should inform us (state D.o.Eds.? Arne Duncan?) that these tests are NO good as a measure of student learning, let alone as a measure of teaching ability.
Parents, OPT OUT NOW–no one takes their tests, no data available. Problem solved.
The Denver “Student Growth Model” for evaluating teachers has no foundation in research. This measure is a proxy for value-added calculations for the majority of teachers whose job assignments are is “untested subjects.
A 2013 review of research bearing on Student Growth Objectives/Student Learning Objectives (SGO/SLOs) concluded that no studies provide evidence of the reliability or validity of this process for teacher evaluation. No studies provide evidence that the stated objectives for students, if achieved, can be attributed only to the influence of the teacher. All studies documented unresolved issues in the validity, reliability, and fairness of SLOs for high-stakes evaluations of teachers in a wide range of subjects and job assignments. See: Gill, B., Bruch, J., & Booker, K. (2013). Using alternative student growth measures for evaluating teacher performance: What the literature says. (REL 2013–002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. Notice that this review was conducted for the USDE.
Nevermind, USDE still promotes this flawed process through spin doctors. Case 1:
USDE has channeled money to public relations experts in its Reform Support Network. One recommendation calls for states and districts to enlist “teacher SWAT teams that can be deployed for teacher-to-teacher communication at key junctures of the implementation and redesign of evaluation systems“ in order to develop buy-in to the agenda p. 9. See: Reform Support Network. (2012, December). Engaging educators: Toward a new grammar and framework for educator engagement. Author. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation…/engaging-educators.pdf
Case 2. A USDE-funded “research center” tries to explain and justify value-added estimates and SGO/SLOs with a PowerPoint presentation using the analogy of a gardener influencing the growth of an oak tree. This explanation seems innocent enough but unlike trees, students have the capacity to think and act independently and they are influenced by an array of people, events, and beliefs not confined to teachers and the school. Educators typically attend to students as persons; not as trees and not as data points in the area under a bell curve. See Value-Added Research Center. (2012). Teacher effectiveness initiative, value-added training oak tree analogy. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from varc.wceruw.org/…/Oak%20Tree%20Analogy%20with%20notes%20- %20Bush.pptx
What about TESTS for politicians? I’d like to test them every second of every day. Bet many can’t even pass a test to determine minimal knowlege of Our Constitution.
And what’s wrong with CCSS is that they ARE JUST SO COMMON, and uninspired. Guess that’s what the pundits want…exceptional experiences for their children and common dumb ones for others.
Missouri’s news of 12/12/2013:
A Missouri state senator, Will Kraus – R, has filed a bill, SB 576, which would turn Missouri’s classroom teachers and those working in public schools or universities into second class citizens.
“No officer, employee or agent of any school district, public school, school board, or public institution of higher education shall make any contribution or expenditure to advocate, support, or oppose any legislation, ballot measure, or candidate for public office. For the purposes of this section, the phrase “contribution or expenditure of public funds” shall include but not be limited to email correspondence, the use of letters or flyers, and the use of any property used by or in the control of any person or entity subject to this section.”
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/mo-bill-would-ban-educators-from-most-political-activities/-/11664182/23455140/-/2xborh/-/index.html