Join the thousands of parents and supporters of Missouri's public schools to learn what you can do to help!

Everything listed under: Amendment 3

  • What Missouri’s Teachers Are Saying About Amendment 3




    Constitutional Amendment 3 is the single most pressing issue on the ballot in Missouri this fall. Teachers believe that the Amendment is detrimental to student learning and that it forces a one-size-fits all approach to teaching. Keep reading to learn more about Amendment 3, and to hear what Missouri’s teachers have to say about it.

    About Amendment 3
    Constitutional Amendment 3 will result in huge changes to Missouri public school education. A reform advocacy group called Teach Great petitioned to add Amendment 3 to the November 4th General Election ballot, and although Teach Great recently shut down, Amendment 3 remains on the ballot.

    What Amendment 3 Says
    Amendment 3 does three things to education: It threatens local control; it ties teacher’s salaries and evaluations directly to expensive new standardized tests; and it forces a one-size-fits-all approach.

    Specifically, Amendment 3 says:

    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.

    Learn More: What Amendment 3 Means for Schools

    A Threat To Local Control
    According to Amendment 3, the state would be responsible for creating and administering new standardized that would be used to evaluate students and teachers. Missouri educators don’t agree that the state knows better than districts do what’s best for their students.

    “Parents and teachers know what’s best for local schools,” says Katy Schwartz-Drowns, a teacher in St. Joseph. (source)

    Missouri teachers aren’t alone. In fact, the vast majority of Americans believe that local communities (not state- or federal-level leaders) should have the most influence over decisions about public school education. Amendment 3 puts our schools’ futures in the hands of the state, instead of in the care of principals, superintendents, parents, and school boards.

    Robyn Behen, a Jefferson City teacher says that,

    “After 20 years in the classroom, I know that the people who know best about teaching, education, and what our students need are the teachers that have been trained for that profession and the parents. Our local communities are the ones that know what they want their local students to know.” (source)

    Amendment 3 says that what our local communities think doesn’t matter, and that a state-issued standardized test in each subject area will provide the information schools need in order to make decisions about a teacher’s pay, promotion, or release from responsibility. Missouri teachers, on the other hand, believe that expensive new tests will be detrimental to school budgets.

    New Standardized Tests: A Financial Burden
    The expenses associated with developing and maintaining these new standardized tests will fall to local schools, districts, and taxpayers, many of whom are already struggling to support students’ needs.

    Amy Kelsey, a teacher in rural Easton, Missouri, talked to the Missouri State Teachers Association, saying that Amendment 3 could affect not just local schools, but entire communities:

    “My school district will not be able to come up with the money it’s going to take to fund all these tests and then to maintain them, and school districts are the heart of every community. So if your school district cannot do this, they will close. And then your town is going to dry up because you’re going to be taking kids—for us, we’d probably have to be taking kids 20 to 30 miles away. And that’s not good for schools, that’s not good for kids, that’s not good for our community.” (source)

    Amendment 3 will be devastating to small schools and to rural districts with limited local funding. Even districts that have a history of strong funding and public recognition are concerned about the strain these new tests will put on school budgets, though. Michael Kuhn, a teacher in the Lindbergh School District, said that:

    “Amendment 3 is an imposition on our community, removing local control, evaluating teachers on a single standardized test, and it threatens to drain our budget with mandated standardized testing costs.” (source)

    Local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for Teach Great’s fly-by-night reform attempts. Amendment 3 creates testing expenses that are neither acceptable to local communities nor sustainable based on their local tax revenues.

    Learn More: Where Does Missouri’s Education Funding Come From?

    A One-Size-Fits-All Approach
    If Amendment 3 passes, standardized tests will be created for every subject area, including those areas not currently subject to standardized testing. How can a standardized test creativity or innovation?

    “Vote no on Amendment 3 and help bring creativity and critical thinking back to education,” said Anna Griesbach, a computer teacher in Kansas City Public Schools. “It is not good for our kids or for Missouri.” (source)

    How can a standardized test account for how far a student has come to make up for life circumstances that fall outside of his or her control? How can a standardized test measure the skills like showing up, being on time, working well with classmates, or following directions—skills our students need in order to be college and career ready?

    Amendment 3 brushes these very meaningful aspects of a child’s holistic school experience aside, measuring his or her success by a quantitative figure on a standardized test score instead.

    “It [Amendment 3] is looking at students as if they are numbers,” said Dr. Lisa Hinton, a 3rd grade teacher “instead of living, breathing, human beings, and it will affect their education immensely.” (source)

    Amendment 3 is an expensive, one-size-fits-all, non-solution that takes control away from the same educational leaders that the vast majority of Americans believe should have the most influence on public education. As Karin Schafer, a teacher in Blue Springs R-4 puts it, a one-size-fits-all approach “is not something that is truly showing what a child’s potential is.” (source)

    Missouri doesn’t need expensive tests that will turn local school budgets upside down and turn the potential of our living, breathing children into inhuman, one-dimensional test scores. On November 4th, it’s critical that Missouri parents, teachers, administrators, and community members rally together at the polls to vote no on Amendment 3.

    Missouri Parent’s mission includes helping parents to understand legislative and funding issues facing Missouri’s public schools. Come back often to the Missouri Parent Blog, and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter to stay in the know about your child’s public school education.

    Learn More:
    Teach Great Shuts its Doors, but Amendment 3 Still Stands

    What is ‘Teach Great’?

    Missouri’s Educational Associations Plead: Vote No on Amendment 3

    #MoNoOn3: A Constitutional Amendment Affecting Public Schools

  • The Doors Have Shut, but the Amendment Stands

    Not long after we published this post explaining what Teach Great was and what the Teach Great initiative was all about, news broke that the organization, backed by activist Rex Sinquefield, had ended its Amendment 3 campaign.

    Just a few days later Teach Great made the news again. This time it announced that the organization was closing down completely. This is good news for public education, but although Teach Great’s doors are shut and its website is offline, the damages it initiated still threaten Missouri schools: Constitutional Amendment 3 is still on the November 4 General Election ballot.

    What Amendment 3 Will Do
    Amendment 3 will cause an increase in district expenses that could crush lower-income schools. It will require students to take even more standardized tests in even more subject areas, and those tests, along with their direct ties to teacher evaluation and pay, will take local control away from schools.

    Learn More: What Amendment 3 means for Missouri schools.

    1) State-Approved Standardized Tests in All Subjects
    Amendment 3’s standardized tests will take control away from families, teachers, and principals in local districts at a time when the majority of citizens believe that the local school board should have the greatest influence—more so than the state or federal government—on what is taught (and tested) in public schools.

    Teachers, including Katie Webb of Hannibal, Missouri, oppose this increase in state-run tests:

    “As a teacher I oppose Amendment 3 because I dislike the increase in state mandated testing. As a music teacher, I celebrate achievements in my students that might not be academic.” (source)

    Webb isn’t the only teacher who is concerned that Amendment 3 will over-simplify the meaning of achievement in public schools. College and career ready students don’t simply test well, they have good attendance, exhibit leadership and teamwork skills, and they often demonstrate success in non-traditional skill sets like those in physical education or creative arts.

    Amendment 3 puts undue emphasis on a single test (per subject) that is administered once each year—something most students are not likely to experience again in college or career. It does not help Missouri’s students to become college or career ready; it forces an impractical “one-size-fits-all” approach on teachers and students, alike.

    Learn More: Amendment 3 & teacher tenure.

    2) A “One-Size-Fits-All” Approach
    By tying teacher pay and evaluations to state-mandated tests, Amendment 3 forces a one-size-fits-all approach to education. A teacher’s livelihood will be directly connected to how his or her students do on state testing, incentivizing teachers to “teach to the test” rather to teach to the needs of the individual student’s disposition, skills, and situation.

    Amy Kelsey, a teacher in East Buchanon Co. C-1 Schools says:

    “Every kid is different. Every kid has different needs, and it’s very important that we meet with those needs. Our society, I would think, would not want everyone to be the same. It is important for the teachers, the parents, the administrators—we are one community as a school—and for that community to work, we need to work together.” (source)

    Students learn in different ways, and they express their knowledge and understanding uniquely, as well. No one knows this better than the teachers who work with students, their parents, and their districts every day. The kind of partnership that Ms. Kelsey alludes to—in which schools and the community work together—could crumble under the financial burden of Amendment 3.

    3) Cost to Local Schools
    Amendment 3 will cost upwards of $1 billion; an expense that would fall on the shoulders of local school districts. An expensive top-down mandate would introduce new financial concerns to already strapped school districts like many of those in rural Missouri.

    “I live in a rural community. My school is not going to be able to afford the hit it’s going to take if this bill passes. My school district will not be able to come up with the money it’s going to take to create these tests and then to maintain them,” Kelsey told the Missouri State Teachers Association. (source)

    Learn More: The Facts About Amendment 3.

    To add insult to injury, student test scores would be linked directly to their teachers’ evaluations and pay scales. Schools in low-income schools like many of those in rural Missouri already struggle to hire and retain great teachers.

    If student performance (which is negatively impacted by factors outside the teacher’s control) is poor, teachers in those schools could lose their jobs. These schools can’t afford one more barrier to entry in their pursuit of great teaching professionals.

    These costs, the one-size-fits-all approach that Amendment 3 will force onto schools, and the loss of local control are altogether bad for Missouri public schools. Teach Great’s doors might be closed, but Amendment 3 remains on the ballot.

    Encourage friends, family, and colleagues to go to the polls on November 4th to vote “no” on Constitutional Amendment 3.




  • Missouri’s Educational Associations Plead: Vote No on Missouri Amendment 3



    17 of Missouri’s professional associations, most of them composed of educators and school administrators, have taken an official position against Constitutional Amendment 3.

    The Amendment threatens local control of school districts, calls for standardized tests for every grade and every subject area (including the Arts), and ties teacher pay directly to student performance on those tests.

    The Amendment was sponsored by an advocacy organization that is no longer in operation called Teach First. Teachers, Administrators, and community members are outspoken against Teach First and Amendment 3.

    Michael Kuhn, a teacher in the Lindbergh School District, says that Amendment 3 is, “an imposition on our community, removing local control, evaluating teachers on a single standardized test, and it threatens to drain our budget with mandated standardized testing costs.” (source)

    Protect Our Local Schools is the coalition of parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and schools boards who believe that Amendment 3 must be defeated on November 4th.



    20 professional associations, most of them state-level educational groups, are partners of Protect Our Local Schools, and nearly 130 Missouri school districts to date have passed resolutions opposing Amendment 3.

    Our state’s educators have valuable insights into students and schools, and their position is nearly unanimous: Amendment 3 is bad for Missouri.

    If you believe that local control is critical and that the addition of more standardized tests does not add value to the experience Missouri’s children receive in our schools, please go to the polls on November 4th and vote “No” on Constitutional Amendment 3.

    Stay informed about legislation and trends in Missouri public schools by subscribing to the Missouri Parent Blog or following our Facebook or Twitter feeds.


  • Public Opinion: School Decisions Should be Kept Local



    Each year Phi Delta Kappa International (PDK) and Gallup help track public opinion about America’s public schools. Families, education professionals, researchers, and policy makers have used the PDK/Gallup poll for 46 years with the common goal of improving U.S. schools.

    The poll surveys more than 1,000 American adults from May to June each year. This year’s poll offered a number of insights into public opinion on education, but one of those insights—in light of Missouri Amendment 3—stands out in light of recent discussions surrounding Amendment 3: Americans believe that local school boards (not the state or federal government) should have the biggest influence on decisions affecting our students.

    The question that Gallup asked Americans was, “In your opinion, who should have the greatest influence in deciding what is taught in the public schools here—the federal government, the state government, or the local school board?”

    The majority of poll participants, regardless of their political allegiances, said that the local school board should have the greatest influence on what is taught in public schools. 68% of Republicans, 45% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 60% of public school parents agreed that the greatest influence on public education should happen locally, rather than at the state or federal level.

    Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 3 would shift influence away from local school boards. The Amendment, which will be on the November general election ballot, centers on using state-approved standardized test scores to evaluate your child’s teachers.

    Paul Morris, a member of the Ferguson-Florissant school board says, “This top-down mandate would shift local control away from parents, teachers and school districts, while implementing unfunded, statewide standardized tests.We all know funding is already a problem for many of our schools, and implementing more standardized tests will take even more money out of the classroom." (source)

    Missouri Amendment 3 will require teachers to be evaluated quantitatively based on student scores on standardized tests. These tests (and teacher evaluations) wouldn’t just be for subjects like mathematics that have clear “right” and “wrong” answers. Teachers of subjective content areas like the Arts, music, and literature would also be evaluated based on their students’ standardized test scores.

    Learn more about Constitutional Amendment 3

    School principals, superintendents, and school boards would no longer be able to offer subjective evaluations of the teachers they see day-in and day-out. Instead, the state would be responsible for approving the standardized tests that Missouri’s students would take, the results of which would determine the future of our state’s teachers.

    This kind of extreme reform presented in Missouri Amendment 3 goes against what the majority of Americans want: for the greatest influence on education to come from their local school boards.

    Although the campaign behind Amendment 3 has suspended its current efforts, the Amendment remains on the November general election ballot. If you, like most other Americans, believe that control of our schools should remain in the hands of local school boards, superintendents, and principals, please go to the polls on November 4th and join thousands of other Missourians who will vote NO on Missouri Amendment 3.

  • Teacher Tenure: The Great Debate



    The eighth annual Education Next poll was released last month. The online poll, which is overseen by the Harvard Program on Education Policy, is sent out to parents, teachers, and the general public in May and June, asking questions about education and education policy.

    The 2014 survey asked about school accountability, teacher effectiveness, school spending and Common Core, among others things. The results: there is a disparity between teachers and the general public regarding opinions on teacher tenure.

    The Education Next poll is administered by the peer-reviewed education journal by the same name. The journal, which is sponsored by the Harvard Kennedy School, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and the Stanford University Hoover Institution, aims to present facts as shown by research, rather than to take part in “programs, campaigns, or ideologies”.

    In a story about the Education Next poll findings, EducationNext (the journal) said that, “…a majority of the public opposes teacher tenure. However, a majority of teachers favor tenure…” (source)

    The Education Next poll is a national poll, and teacher tenure is a contentious topic nationwide. Although arguments about teacher tenure aren’t specific to Missouri, policies related to teacher tenure are passed at the state level. Teachers,
    administrators, politicians, wealthy investors, parents, and local communities are forming opinions—and expressing them—on local, state, and national stages.

    There are strong arguments both for and against teacher tenure. Some of those arguments are muddied by misunderstandings about what tenure really means for public school teachers.

    So What Does Tenure Mean? TWEET THIS
    In Missouri, teacher tenure does not guarantee a teacher a permanent position in a school or district. Teachers who are performing poorly or who violate school policy (or, more seriously, the law) can still be fired by their districts.

    Likewise, teachers who are tenured are not locked into their current jobs forever. As long as the teacher cancels his or her contract on or before June 1st, the teacher is free to move on without the permission of his or her school board.

    These are just two common misperceptions about teacher tenure in Missouri. To learn more about how tenure works for schools and teachers, read this post.

    Arguments for Teacher Tenure
    Proponents of teacher tenure argue that it “protects teachers from arbitrary dismissal” (source) and that it prevents teachers from being dismissed “for frivolous reasons” (source).

    Additionally, those in favor of tenure believe that it’s important that teachers have the right to object to being dismissed. Tenure provides teachers with the opportunity to use an arbitrator to help represent the information surrounding a dismissal. This means that teachers who feel they’ve been dismissed for reasons unrelated to their classroom performance (personal biases of administrators, discrimination, etc.) can have help protecting themselves and their livelihoods.

    Nationally, there is a push by reformers, teachers, and others toward teaching as a profession equal to law, medicine, engineering, or respected career paths in many other fields. Teaching is a profession that deserves professional-level respect and protection, and tenure is one way to help draw great people into the field—and to keep great teachers in our schools.

    Arguments Against Teacher Tenure
    Policy makers and reformers who advocate against teacher tenure say that tenure makes it difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to remove bad teachers from schools. Many believe that teacher tenure has to end in order for students to receive quality education from their teachers.

    Rex Sinquefield is just one of the many reformers who has spoken out locally against tenure. In a video posted on his website, Sinquefield says that, “We have to be able to get rid of teachers like that and reward the former type of teacher that can really help kids.”

    Arguments against teacher are not entirely focused on the ability to fire teachers. Those who are against tenure also believe that tenure encourages complacency among tenured teachers, and that tenure focuses on the interest of the teacher, failing to advance the interests of students.

    It is important to note that supporters of tenure often have exponentially less funding for press and media coverage with which to share their views. Opponents of tenure, on the other hand, are often the same well-funded reform groups that can afford to pay for their opinions to be heard.

    A Contentious Debate
    There is no question that the debate over teacher tenure is a contentious one. Teachers, administrators, and educational organizations believe that teacher tenure is in the best interest of students and that it treats teachers like professionals.

    Reformers and wealthy investors—who have the loudest proverbial and literal microphone with which to communicate to the public—argue against teacher tenure. Those opponents say that teachers don’t need to protect their jobs; that test scores will show who the effective teachers are, and that “we have to be able to get ride of teachers” whose students don’t score highly enough.

    Teacher Tenure and Missouri Amendment 3
    Teacher tenure will be on Missouri’s general election ballot in November. If you’re not sure how to vote, understanding what tenure really means for Missouri teachers is a helpful starting point.

    What is Teach Great is another helpful post on this site, providing information on the organization that petitioned to get Amendment 3 onto the November 4th ballot. Finally, this post explains what Amendment 3 means for your child’s education.

    Missouri Parent believes that Missouri’s students deserve strong local schools and a great public education system, and we will continue to share information with you that will help you learn more about policies and funding that affect local schools. Visit the Missouri Parent Blog often, like us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter to stay up to date on policy that affects your child’s education in Missouri.


    photo credit: Public Record Office Victoria via photopin cc


  • What is ‘Teach Great’?



    Teach Great is both the informal name for Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3 and the name of the educational advocacy group that has initiated the amendment. Amendment 3, which focuses on teacher evaluations and standardized testing, will be on the general election ballot on November 4th, 2014.

    To understand the amendment, it helps to understand what Teach Great (the initiative) and (the organization) stand for.

    Teach Great – The Initiative
    Teach Great, the initiative, advocates for three areas of educational change in Missouri: changes to teacher evaluations, changes to how the results of those evaluations will affect teacher pay and retention, and contracting and collective bargaining rights for Missouri’s teachers.

    The Teach Great initiative is unpopular among Missouri’s professional educators and administrators, who argue that the amendment will take local control away from schools and that it will result in expensive and ineffective increases in standardized testing.

    Andrea Flinders is the President of the Kansas City Federation of Teachers and School-Related Personnel. She told the Kansas City Star that she sees the Teach Great Initiative as “a fight”, saying that Teach Great threatens local control of school boards. “We still have to educate the public. The devil is in the details,” she said. – The Organization, the organization, exists to advocate in favor of the “Teach Great” Amendment (Amendment 3). It was founded by—and has received more than $1.7 million in funding from—activist Rex Sinquefield.

    According to, the organization’s mission is to: “…reward and protect good teachers, ensure administrators are able to support struggling teachers, and make it easier for schools to hire great teachers”. (source)

    Missouri’s teachers, however, argue that Teach Great does anything but reward and protect good teachers or enable administrators to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

    Educators Stand Up Against “Teach Great”
    The Missouri Association of School Administrators, the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals, the Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals, the Missouri Association of Rural Education, the Missouri State Teachers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers are just some of the organizations that are standing up against Teach Great.

    The Missouri Retired Teachers Association (MRTA), which is among those professional organizations advocating against Constitutional Amendment 3, has acquired “NoOnMO3” quotes from a number of retired Missouri teachers.

    Barbara Self, a retired teacher from Republic, Missouri, is a member of the MRTA. She told the Caldwell County News that Amendment 3 is the wrong way to educate Missouri’s students:



    Next Steps
    After realizing that Amendment 3 was not polling well with voters in Missouri, Teach Great called off its formal campaign efforts. The organization intends to launch a listening campaign around Missouri, during which it will hear what local communities have to say about improving education in Missouri.

    Although the organization has halted its campaign for Amendment 3, however, the amendment remains on the November 4th general election ballot. Parents, educators, administrators, and concerned community members are encouraged to continue to learn more about Amendment 3, and to vote no in the general election on November 4th.



    Helping You Stay Informed
    Missouri Parent will continue to report on Amendment 3 and how efforts by political advocacy groups like Teach Great affect public education in Missouri. Stay tuned as we will soon publish a feature on the Protect Our Local Schools organization.

    Come back to the Missouri Parent Blog often, and be sure to Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to stay up to date on the information you need to help your children succeed in Missouri schools.


  • #MoNoOn3: A Constitutional Amendment Affecting Public Schools




    Constitutional Amendment 3 will appear on the November 4th, 2014 general election ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment, which is centered on using standardized test scores to evaluate public school teachers, is a bad move for Missouri’s students, teachers, and schools.

    What the Ballot Says
    The ballot boils Constitutional Amendment 3 down to three core changes: teacher evaluations, effects of those evaluations, and teacher rights for contracts and collective bargaining.

    Specifically, the Amendment reads:

    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?

    How Constitutional Amendment 3 Came to Be
    Constitutional Amendment 3 is sponsored by Teach Great, an organization lead not by teachers or other educational professionals, but by a wealthy businessman (Rex Sinquefield) from St. Louis who has put hundreds of thousands of his own dollars into this one campaign.

    In fact, educators and school leaders statewide strongly oppose Constitutional Amendment 3. Teachers and administrators are standing firm: #NoMoOn3. TWEET THIS

    Educators Oppose Amendment 3
    Individual teachers and statewide educational organizations are doing their best to raise awareness about what Amendment 3 means to public education budgets and to students in our public schools.

    Two teachers in the Francis Howell School District have lost a legal challenge to the ballot initiative. The teachers argued that the amendment was in violation of the Missouri Constitution because it addressed two topics (a teacher evaluation system and limited ability for collective bargaining) simultaneously.

    The Missouri State Teachers Association, the Committee in Support of Public Schools, and the Cape Girardeau Teachers Association are just a few of the educational organizations stepping up to publicly argue #MoNoOn3.

    Missouri NEA lobbyist DeeAnn Aull said, “This amendment will result in more time spent testing and less time spent learning, actually short-changing the education students receive.”

    The impacts of Missouri Amendment 3 are far-reaching, affecting school expenses, teacher recruitment and retention, the number of standardized tests students will be required to take (the number is estimated to increase tenfold), and how much control districts and schools will have over the evaluation of their own educators.

    What the Amendment Means for Schools

    • Schools & districts will lose local control; their individual evaluation systems must be approved in Jefferson City. TWEET THIS
    • Students will be required to take even more standardized tests (the Missouri State Teachers Association estimates a tenfold increase to account for new tests in areas like music and the arts). TWEET THIS
    • Those additional tests raise the costs of an already underfunded and financially strained state education system. TWEET THIS
    • Student test scores would be used as the majority factor in the determination of teacher pay and retention: they could be fired or demoted if their students perform poorly on standardized tests. TWEET THIS
    • Teachers in low-income schools (where student test performance is negatively influenced by factors that are well outside of the teacher’s influence) could lose their jobs if students test poorly. TWEET THIS
    • The amendment would make it harder to recruit and retain teachers to work in Missouri’s low-income and/or underperforming schools and districts. TWEET THIS
    • Teacher contracts could no longer exist for periods of more than three years. TWEET THIS
    • Teachers would be prevented from collectively bargaining over the terms of their own evaluations. TWEET THIS

    Constitutional Amendment 3 is a bad idea all-around. The amendment is one more effort—an expensive one, at that—by Rex Sinquefield to put his mark on public education.



    Come back to the Missouri Parent Blog and follow us on social media to stay informed on Constitutional Amendment 3 and other policy initiatives that will affect your public school student in Missouri.


3550 Amazonas Drive, Jefferson City, MO 65109. 573-638-4825