Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms After Being Vaccinated : Body, Mind, Soul & Spirit – UPDATED DAILY! |

Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms After Being Vaccinated : Body, Mind, Soul & Spirit – UPDATED DAILY! |

Following a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which revealed that many infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research, developed autism symptoms, question marks over the ultimate safety of vaccines have come to the fore.
The groundbreaking research findings presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, have revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.
This development which deconstructs mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism, was brought on by after studies on the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted — but never has — for such regimens.
Included in the mix were vaccines containing Thimerosal, a toxic, mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others.
Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms Afer Being VaccinatedAlso administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children.
“This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children,” said Lyn Redwood, Director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism.
“SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen.”
Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.
“The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal,” said Wrangham. “But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency.”

Monday, April 28, 2014

The Turner Report: Joplin School Board race opens with scandal, slumber party

The Turner Report: Joplin School Board race opens with scandal, slumber party

Lee's Summit something similar, but they don't spend the night.  They all sit in one car.  I guess Joplin wins because at least their candidates are actually in line when the doors open.  

Details are not clear about exactly who attended this slumber party, which was held at the Administration Building at 32nd and Duquesne, only that select people were invited. Filing for the Joplin R-8 Board of Education officially began at 8 a.m. this morning when the doors were unlocked. For the first time, some board candidates were allowed to circumvent the rules.

Board President Jeff Flowers indicated that he arrived at 8 p.m. the previous night, using his own key to enter the building..

According to her Facebook page, by the time former Irving Elementary Principal Debbie Fort showed up at the building at 3:30 a.m. to wait in line, she received an unexpected greeting.

I arrived at the Board of Education at 3:30 am to file my candidacy. Imagine my surprise to discover one or more of the current board members waiting inside the warm building. I don't know if it's legal but for me it certainly seems unethical. They offered to let me wait inside but I declined. Seems like the playing field should be the same for everyone.

Reportedly, it was Jeff Flowers who greeted her.

The idea behind arriving early is the tried-and-true premise that those who are not certain about who they are going to vote for have a tendency to cast their ballots for the first names listed.

Those names, in addition to Flowers, include his fellow board member and former board president Randy Steele, Shawn McGrew, who has played a prominent role in BrightFutures the past couple of years, and Linda Banwart, one of the people who was in charge of the successful campaign for the $62 million bond issue, the largest in Joplin R-8 history. All four reportedly were part of the slumber party designed to make sure their names were listed first. (Note: The names will be listed in this order- Steele, McGrew, Flowers, Banwart.)

What they talked about during the long hours is unclear. Perhaps they ordered pizza and whiled away the time discussing whether Becky really kissed Johnny or if Cindy had a crush on Freddie.

Maybe time was spent on a rollicking game of Truth and Dare, ending with a dare for everyone to ask for plush jobs with Western Governors University.

Or perhaps they waited in stony silence, waiting for someone to have an original thought.

After Debbie Fort turned down Flowers' generous offer to come in out of the cold and join the slumber party, the next candidates to arrive, also left off the invitation list, were Jeff Koch and David Guilford.

Their names will be a bit further down the list.

This time, despite the statistics, I have a feeling most people are going to review the full list of candidates. Despite the Joplin media's lack of interest in the scandals surrounding C. J. Huff, Angie Besendorfer, and the Joplin R-8 School District, word has been spreading quickly.

Angie Besendorfer is already on her way out, the first to desert the proverbial sinking ship. While state and federal investigators have been focusing in on the problems emanating from 32nd and Duquesne, C. J; Huff has been scrambling to hold his crumbling empire together.

During the past couple of months, Huff has discouraged some people who wanted to run for board of education and, on at least one occasion, dropped a hint to a prospective board candidate's employer that running for the position could cause problems in the workplace.

And Huff has every reason to be worried- if his favored candidates do not win, the days of "joined at the hip' will be a distant, unpleasant memory. All that will be needed at that point, is one more vote to bring an end to the disaster that has been C. J. Huff's administration.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: The Turner Report: Links you should look at before voting for Joplin R-8 Board of Education

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: The Turner Report: Links you should look at before voting for Joplin R-8 Board of Education

This reminds me of the things that they do in Lee's Summit when you are running for school board.  I guess that this is the norm in Missouri.  This is just part of the post.  Please read it all.

For those who are interested in more informationbefore casting their ballots for Joplin R-8 Board ofEducation this week, here are some Turner Report links that provide more information and a brief description of each link.

The photo shows how the ballot will appear. As I have noted numerous times over the past several weeks, the reason the top four names are listed as they are is because of the infamous "slumber party" the evening before the first filing date.

Joplin School Board Race Opens with Scandal, Slumber Party

Candidate forums are not always worth the time they take to watch. The R-8 Candidate Forum, held Monday, March 24, in the Corley Auditorium at Missouri Southern State Universitywas a different matter. Though the Joplin Globe barred the public from attending, the video was shown live, has been shown again a few times on KGCS and is available on You Tube and at the following link:

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

I’m all for local educational control.  Authentic local control.  We do not have authentic school board control in Missouri and I wager than many school districts in other states don’t have local control either.  School districts must adhere to federal and state mandates and autonomy is eradicated and discouraged for local school boards.  An entity to watch and research in Missouri and your state is your state school board association, a private association which uses tax dollars for its existence.  You might find (as we are discovering in Missouri) that these associations do not protect taxpayers, but rather, they assume control that is not granted to them but is wielded over school board members.
Missouri school board members must undergo training to understand what their duties are and most boards look to the Missouri State Board Association (MSBA) for this information.  Increasingly it seems as if MSBA is writing policy for school boards instead of being an advisory organization.  Research your state school board association and determine its function for your school districts.  It has become more of a regulatory association instead of training school board members to be effective voices for the citizenry which elected them.  Tax dollars are spent for this training with this private organization.  From a previous post:
You can see how much your district pays to belong to MSBA here.  The amount is based on the budget of your school district.  My district (Kirkwood) pays approximately $10,000 for MSBA’s direction and policy decisions.  Why do we need a school board anymore?  Maybe the education reformers are right.  Just turn it over to private organizations directing how tax money is to be used.  School board members increasingly are figureheads for private organizations funded by local taxpayers who think they are actually voting for members who set/direct policy for their districts.

The education reformers are increasingly calling for the demise of the local school boards.  Local school boards don’t really do much other than hire/fire teachers and maintain physical property.  If school board policy is being written by MSBA and the board members are following along adopting all the policies MSBA writes, then why do school boards exist?
The following article from American Spring shows the power MSBA has over school board candidates and school board policy in Camdenton, MO.  From Camdenton, Missouri School Board Elections About Local Control:
Recently, the Lake Sun asked candidates for Camdenton school board their qualifications and asked a couple of questions. The responses to the first of those questions are noteworthy, as it deals with a fundamental change to the way the public is ‘allowed’ to interact with board members.
From the Lake Sun:
Do you think the current school board policy regarding public participation allows for sufficient opportunity for the public’s voice to be heard? Do you support the current policy or if elected would you seek to make changes to the policy?
This policy represents a fundamental shift of the tax paying public’s ‘role’ in school affairs. It plainly seeks to use a questionable interpretation of law to stifle public input to the board, requiring an approval process that filters communications meant for the board through both school administration and school attorneys. This, to many parents, represents another step in a silent coup, preformed under the assumption of authority neither the administration, nor the school attorneys, have. A concerted effort has been made to reinforce the false logic that our representatives should somehow be ‘protected’ from hearing from the public and parents they serve.
Part of the new public comment policy, as recommended during an August visit from an MSBA lawyer, appears below. Camdenton adopted a policy that restricts the public from having open discussions with the board about their concerns, if those requests aren’t ‘approved’ by administration and attorneys.
7. Only items from the posted agenda may be discussed. If an individual seeks to address an issue that is scheduled to be discussed by the Board in closed session, the Board may require the person to hold his or her comments until closed session.
8. The Board may vote to suspend or amend these rules in extraordinary circumstances. The Board may impose additional rules as it deems necessary and reserves the right to alter the above rules depending on the circumstances. The Board reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the public comment period at any time or delay comment on a particular topic. The Board may refuse to hear comments on a particular topic if advised to do so by legal counsel.
Paul Ellison writes how four of the five candidates support the MSBA’s policies of shutting down dialogue from the community:
On January 14, 2014, in an article in the Lake Sun announcing the email policy, Assistant Superintendent Roma France announced the implementation of Camdenton’s email accounts for board members.
France made the following statement:
“Protocol would be for the Board president and/or superintendent to respond to the patron on behalf of the district.” She went on to say, “If several questions come in on the same topic, then the item may be placed on the next board agenda.”
The Lake Sun described the email procedures, as laid out for them by France:
” Then, she told the board that emails would go to a mail distribution group,, which would be sent to each board member along with the superintendent or a designee. “
And that: ” In most cases, the superintendent or administration will be the one to respond. “
The guidelines adopted for the district’s email policy contain restrictions that mirror, in practical application, those inserted into the inappropriately named ‘public comment policy’. The guidelines offered the Lake Sun by Camdenton’s administration, read as follows:
1. If you are providing Board members an e-mail address, all Board members by policy must sign the Authorized User Permit that staff and students must sign and Board member must agree to the same terms as staff and students.
This first policy restriction would allow, presumably, for the unfettered monitoring of emails between themselves and their constituents. It creates an environment worthy of the NSA in the Camdenton school district. It would allow complete access to all board member’s accounts, without cause, without warrant. Camdenton’s version of Big Brother, it can reasonably be assumed, is manned by school administration and the districts lawyers, the firm of Mickes, Goldman and O’Toole.
Also from the Camdenton administration’s ‘guidelines’:
4. When information is sent via the generic, the protocol is for the superintendent or Board president to respond on behalf of the district and to cc the Board the response so that the Board knows the patron has been corresponded with and what was said. If a Board member disagrees with the response or has questions, he or she is encouraged to immediately notify the superintendent and the Board president of that fact.
The last sentence in this ‘guideline’ is one that gives us pause, particularly when we consider the access and latitude granted the administration and its lawyers in regard to the distribution of emails in the first place. This assumption of authority, of determining which emails reach the board, is reemphasized throughout these ‘rules’ created by administration and their attorneys.
Number five of these ‘guidelines’ ensures that, even a board member can be denied the ability to add a topic or concern to the agenda.

5. Any Board member may ask that a subject is added to the Board’s agenda at the next meeting for discussion. The Board as a whole will ultimately vote when approving the agenda to determine if the issue will be discussed.
The last sentence of ‘rule’ #5 is particularly offending:
However, Board members are free to direct questions or concerns to the superintendent or Board president.
Number six in the list of guidelines:
6. A Board member who is not the Board president may correspond individually with a patron, but is required to indicate that the opinions expressed are his or her own and not the Board’s. A Board member is prohibited from using a district-provided e-mail address contrary to district policy or law or to violate district policy or law.
The key words and phrases in ‘rule’ number six are distressing. “Board member”, “prohibited”, “contrary to district policy” and “violate district policy”. These are words that place control of our school, not in the hands of our elected representatives, but into those of administration and attorneys. Many of these policies were crafted, approved and suggested by the attorneys for our school district and district administration. They are not rules of law, nor are should they be.
Rules nine and ten completes the usurping of power from the citizens in the Camdenton school district. They clearly illustrate the ongoing efforts to eliminate ‘local control’ over our school districts.
9. The superintendent or Board president in their discretion may not respond to messages from the same sender that are repetitive, or messages that are threatening or that use profane language.
10. The superintendent or Board president will not directly respond to messages involving litigation, potential or pending litigation, or a situation on appeal pursuant to district policies or the law.
In addition, the superintendent or Board president may not respond to messages if advised by the district’s attorney not to do so. However, the superintendent or Board president will acknowledge receipt of the message and notify the sender of the rules.
These policies, designed to remove, control and suffocate the input of parents and tax payers, are the opposite of Barbour’s claims.
“Yes, I believe the recently-updated school board policy facilitates engaged communications with our students, parents and patrons. We truly want to hear from our public. It’s their school. We recently enhanced this school board policy with an email address so our patrons can access all board members at exactly the same time from our school district’s web site.
Yes, I support this policy. We will be monitoring its progress. We also will continue to be cognizant of new technology as it emerges to communicate with the public exemplifying transparency and participation.”
She also invited the public to “peruse” the school web site. Perhaps Ms. Barbour should have perused a dictionary for both the correct definition of transparency. To her credit however, Ms. Barbour didn’t dive under her desk like partner-in-crime, Jackie Schulte. Ms. Schulte used the question regarding the public comment policy shift to beat the drums of fear mongering. This fear mongering is based on the flawed legal interpretation that, somehow, the school board could be held liable for what a citizen says to them. This laughable notion is parroted by Schulte.
“Board members are responsible for protecting our staff and students; allowing anyone to speak on impulse could open the district to possible legal repercussions.”
Read about how the Board members are apparently working for the superintendent, not the other way around.  The Board is supposed to represent the taxpayers who voted them in, not acquiesce to the superintendent….who the Board hires!  Since when does a board take orders from an employee of the District?
Read about conflict of interests between board members and companies performing services for the district.  Read about the law firm that represents and advises Camdenton School Board and decide if you think board policies are supporting the taxpayers or special interests.  Read how this board is adopting policy written by the law firm that may very well be illegal.  Read more here.
Call your school district and find out which law firm is representing your district.  Determine if your board policies are copyrighted and directed by MSBA.  If most of your policies have been written by MSBA and suggested by your legal representative to be adopted, ask your board members if they are aware of the implications of denying citizens freedom of speech.
Policies written by private organizations supported from tax dollars are developing/directing educational policy for local school boards.  Sounds like the NGA/CCSSO writing Common Core standards, doesn’t it?  We might as well abolish our school boards and state educational agencies and just shovel the taxpayer dollars to private organizations and forget this charade of local control because it doesn’t exist.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Feds To School: Retaliation In IEP Process Not OK - Disability Scoop

Feds To School: Retaliation In IEP Process Not OK - Disability Scoop

The San Carlos School District in San Carlos, Calif. retaliated against the parents of a child with special needs by making allegations that resulted in a sheriff’s deputy visiting their house, a letter sent to the family by the U.S. Department of Education concludes.
The March 6 letter was sent in response to a complaint the parents submitted last year after a district official contacted the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office in October 2012 and claimed the child’s father secretly taped a meeting with district educators. The name of the family was blacked out from a copy of the letter obtained by The Daily News.
Although the parents weren’t charged with any crimes, the allegation of criminal behavior, the deputy’s visit and the veiled possibility of arrest and prosecution “are all sufficiently adverse since one or all of them would be reasonably likely to deter a parent from advocating on behalf of their child,” the federal agency’s letter states.
According to facts outlined in the letter following an investigation by the agency’s Office for Civil Rights, the student was in the second grade during the 2012-2013 school year and received special education services because of a health impairment and a speech or language impairment. The parents were “proactive” in seeking special services for their child, sometimes “questioning determinations made by the district.”
On Sept. 27, 2012, after an individualized education program meeting between the district and family to discuss the student’s needs, a teacher informed the school principal — who had not attended — that she believed the student’s father had recorded the meeting. The father wanted to record a meeting before that one and was told the district did not allow recordings without 24 hours notice. He had recorded an earlier meeting but was not told then about the district’s policy.
The principal informed the district’s director of student services about the suspected recording, according to the federal agency’s letter. On Oct. 3, the student displayed “significant behavioral issues” at school and the parents sent an email to the principal seeking a consultation with the school psychologist. Later that same day, the director of student services, who is not named, made a report to the Sheriff’s Office, according to the letter.
On Oct. 13, a deputy went to the family’s home, was told that no one recorded the meeting and closed the investigation, stating in a report that there was “no proof a crime was committed.”
The timing of the district’s actions, relative to the parents’ advocacy, “warrants an inference that the adverse action was caused by the protected activity,” the federal agency’s letter states.
During the Office for Civil Rights probe, the director of student services told investigators that she spoke to the district’s lawyer, schools Superintendent Craig Baker and the school board about her intention to call the Sheriff’s Office to report the alleged illegal recording. But “she never met or spoke with the complainants about the allegation or attempted to obtain their version of events,” the letter states.
Calling law enforcement “undoubtedly has a deterrent and chilling effect on parents and their willingness to actively participate in their own children’s education and advocate on their behalf,” the letter adds. For that reason, a call should be made only when the harm is sufficient enough to warrant such involvement.
The student services director told investigators that the school district’s attorney advised her state law says it’s illegal to record conversations without the prior knowledge and consent of everyone. But state law does not apply to IEP meetings, the federal agency’s letter notes.
To resolve the matter, the district signed off on an agreement that, among other things, requires it to distribute a memo to staff warning against illegal retaliation against families of students in special education and offering to provide training. The agreement, signed by Baker, states that the district does not admit any violation of the law.
In a written statement to The Daily News, school board President Adam Rak said the district is “committed to fair, non-retaliatory treatment of all students and families and it respectfully disagrees with the characterization of facts and conclusions” in the Office for Civil Rights report.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: CAC and What It Doesn't Do

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: CAC and What It Doesn't Do

CAC Mission Statement

The CAC mission is
to facilitate communication, advise and partner with the R-7 Board of
Education, Superintendent and community to ensure a successful and innovative
school system that maximizes each student’s potential.
Taxpayer/Stakeholders are given no way
to contact CAC members, other than Janice Phelan, Director of Communications for
the District, which defeats the whole purpose of it being a Citizens' Advisory
Committee because of her affiliation as an employee of the District. The
District uses this group to say they meet CSIP Governance Goals but they will
not provide patrons with a way to call or email these CAC Members.  The
CAC participates in consensus voting on financial matters and part of their
charge is to communicate District initiatives to the patrons.  Please open
the Charter link and read Outcomes carefully.  

If you attend a CAC meeting, you are
considered a visitor/guest and you will not be allowed to speak or ask
questions during the meeting.

Check out the Norms section on
Confidentiality.  The CAC members discuss some agenda items that they vote
are to be confidential and are not to be shared with the community.
Interesting, does this group have a right to go into Closed Meeting type mode?
 Many concerns about this situation.

Fox C-6 Watchdogs: New Bill Payments Report to Debut in May 2014 Board Packet

Fox C-6 Watchdogs: New Bill Payments Report to Debut in May 2014 Board Packet

Our citizens need to demand that Lee's Summit be transparent.

New Bill Payments Report to Debut in May 2014 Board Packet

I received an email from Fox C-6 Assistant Superintendent Dr. Lorenzo Rizzi on Wednesday April 14, 2014 in response to my Public Comments about the Bill Payments and Credit Card Statements I made at the April 2014 school board meeting. I also commented about the Bill Payments and Credit Card Statements at the at the February and March 2014 school board meetings as well.

Dr. Rizzi's email stated:
"I am writing to inform that beginning with the BOE May meeting, the payment of bills will show more detail which includes credit card purchases. These will be included in the board packets and posted on the website each month. I have scanned an example for your viewing."
So, starting in May 2014, you will be able to download school board meeting packets and review the bill payments for the month in the new format. I responded to Dr. Rizzi and thanked him for the change. Hopefully, the district will update ALL of this school year's board packets to the new Bill Payments Report format on the district website. It will be very easy for the district to rerun the reports using the new format and replace the pages in the board packets. The district already updates the board packets on the district website each month a few days after the school board meeting to include the Bill Payments Report that was provided in the "Late Materials" just prior to the school board meeting. It should only take a few hours to replace the Bill Payments reports in the board packets for the entire year.

The updated report will be very similar to the old report that had been in use for years before the district switched to the Tyler Systems software last July. The new report format includes two new columns of data. There will be a TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION column and an ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION column for the the fund account.

Each month you can download the public portion of the school board meeting packets from the district's website. The board packets contain the board meeting minutes, letters to the district, bill payments report, staff separation and new hires reports and other documents that are provided to our school board members each month a week prior to the next school board meeting. School board meetings are held on the 3rd Tuesday of the month each month (other than July when there is no meeting). So, you can look for the documents online a week before the next board meeting.

The school board meeting packets contain the Bill Payments Report that our school board members review prior to approving the payments each month. Not all of the Bill Payments are included in the board meeting packets prior to the board meeting. There is usually another Bill Payments Report included in their "Late Materials" which is provided to them just prior to the board meeting. The payments in the Late Materials can be anywhere from $1.5 Million to $4 Million dollars or more. The April 15, 2014 school board meeting Late Materials contained an additional $1,582,835.19 in payments for the board to approve. Having descriptions in the bill payments report will help our board members and the public.

You can download Fox C-6 Board Meeting Packets from the district website using the link below. Currently only the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year board packets are on the district website.

It's taken a while to convince our school district to put the payment descriptions back onto the Bill Payments report. Last fall I spoke to Assistant Superintendent Mark McCutchen at the Arnold Days parade about the missing descriptions. Since Mr. McCutchen is in charge of finance, I asked him if he could add the payment descriptions back onto the bill payments report because the public has no idea what the purchases were for without a description.

The public is certainly going to ask questions when they see a payment for $24,723 that was paid to The Bridal Shoppe and there's nothing describing what the purchase was for. The majority of people have quite a puzzled reaction when they find out that the district spent $24,723 at The Bridal Shoppe. Had there been a description column on the bill payments report documenting that the payment was for choir robes, then maybe there would have been fewer questions regarding the payment.

It's good to know that our school board is beginning to see the need to be more transparent. It's a very important step towards rebuilding the public's trust of our school board and school district leadership. Prior school board decisions and lack of communication with the public have caused a great deal of distrust in the community. It will take time to restore that trust. Superintendent Critchlow has made it quite clear by her responses that transparency isn't as important to her as it is to the community.

And, attempts to block the public from speaking with the school board without first speaking to a school district administrator regarding school board decisions also undermines the public's trust and it does not follow school board policy.

It's important that our administrators and school board members read and understand our school board Policies and Regulations and that they follow them as well. They clearly document the roles of our school board and our Superintendent. They were written and adopted to be the rules for governing our school district.

Per our school board policies, 
"As a member of the school Board, I shall: Accept my policy-making responsibilities and require the Superintendent to administer the school in accordance with those policies."
You can read more from Fox's school board policies about School Board Member Qualifications, their Role, Oath, Code of Ethics and more in the document below that contains just those sections from the Fox C-6 School District's board policies and regulations.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: We Don't Need Our School District Lobbying. We Need Them To Teach

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: We Don't Need Our School District Lobbying. We Need Them To Teach

The Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City (CSDGKC Inc.) operates as a Missouri Educational Service Agency (ESA).  A CSDGKC sister  organization, the CSDGKC Foundation holds 501(c)(3) status.  In order to provide consistency and continuity, the board of directors for the CSDGKC Foundation is the same as the CSDGKC board.

Adrian R-III School
Archie R-V School District
Belton School District #124
Blue Springs School District
Center School District 
Excelsior Springs School District 

Fort Osage R-1 School District

Grain Valley School District
Grandview C-4 Schools
Harrisonville Schools
Hickman Mills C-1 School District 
Hogan Preparatory Academy 

Independence School District
Kansas City Public Schools
Kearney R-1 School District 

Lathrop R-II Schools
Lee’s Summit R-7 School District 
Liberty Public Schools

Lone Jack C6 Public Schools
North Kansas City Schools
Oak Grove R-VI School District
Park Hill School District
Platte County School District
Pleasant Hill R-III School District
Raymore-Peculiar School District 
Raytown School District 

Richmond R-XVI School District

St. Joseph School District 
Smithville R-II School District 

West Platte School District



2014 Legislative Platform

The Lee’s Summit R-7 School District’s tradition of excellence is the result of a collaborative effort among its supportive stakeholders.  A persistent focus on meeting the needs of each student will result in a legacy unparalleled by our peers in public education.  This legacy of excellence cannot be left to chance and requires ongoing advocacy on behalf of the approximately 17,600 students served by the R-7 School District.  It is our responsibility.  Thus, we wholeheartedly join the 30 school districts, representing more than 175,000 Missouri school children, of the Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City in support of the following 2014 Legislative Platform. Printable version

8. Support a change in the Missouri Human Rights Act that would re-align the Missouri Act with federal standards.
I oppose the use of my tax dollars to promote a non-education legislative platform item that I feel is inappropriately added to any school's legislative platform.
Controversial legislation proposing changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act earned a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon during last year’s legislative session — and the fight is on this year with the introduction of a similar bill.
Last year’s Senate Bill 188 and this year’s legislation, SB 592, have few differences, said Rich Germinder, chief of staff for Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, who proposed both bills.
“The same components are still there,” Germinder said. “The primary component being the changing of the causation standard from a contributing factor to a motivating factor standard.”
The MHRA states that a fired individual can file a lawsuit against the employer because he or she thinks any one part of the decision related to the firing involved rights protected by MHRA, such as race, age or gender, Germinder said. Shifting to a motivating factor, which is what the federal standards use, would mean the human rights violation would have to be the main reason, he said.
Supporters of the bill, which was approved Jan. 12 by the Senate Committee on Commerce, said it will bring Missouri’s law in line with federal human rights legislation. Those opposing the changes said it will weaken the rights of individuals in discrimination claims. SB 592 is expected to be among the first debated in the 2012 session.
Nixon has a policy of not commenting on proposed legislation because it changes during the process, spokesman Scott Holste said.
But it seems unlikely his opinions have shifted much since last year’s veto.
In a news release after the veto last year, Nixon said SB 188 would undermine the MHRA and make it harder to prove discrimination.
Public School Liable for Sex Harassment of Student by Another Student. 
Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., (WD73800, 4/17/2012) 

o Doe alleged that he was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by another student on multiple occasions during school hours on school grounds. Doe asserted the District's acts and omissions violated the MHRA because the sexual harassment and sexual assaults occurred on the basis of his gender and constituted sex discrimination. He claimed that the school is a public place of accommodation, and that he was deprived of the full, free, and equal use and enjoyment of the school and its services by way of the District's actions and inactions. 

o The public school district's liability for student-on-student sexual harassment under the MHRA is the same as that for an employer's liability for co-worker sexual harassment under the MHRA. The school district is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. 

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | St. Louis

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | St. Louis

by staff
Posted on April 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM
Updated today at 7:57 AM

(KMOV) – Missouri is one of 19 states allowing corporal punishment in schools, though that practice may soon be banned, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The Missouri Senate Committee on Progress and Development unanimously passed a bill Wednesday to ban corporal punishment in all public and private schools.
As it stands, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) requires each district’s written discipline policy to include rules on corporal punishment.
The Post-Dispatch reports should it be used, the local school board must determine how it will be used and whether a parent will be notified or allowed to choose a different form of discipline.
DESE doesn’t keep track of which Missouri districts use corporal punishment, but in 2009 the Missouri School Boards’ Association estimated at least 70 of the more than 500 state districts had policies allowing the practice.
The Fox School District was one of the last in the St. Louis area to get rid of corporal punishment in the early 2000s.