Missouri’s education board was designed to resist politics. Transparency is essential

Most Missourians probably could not name a member of the State Board of Education. Most could not explain why board members serve eight-year terms or why Missouri’s Constitution limits the number of members from the same political party.

That is understandable. The State Board was never intended to be a political institution that attracted significant public attention.

In fact, quite the opposite.

When Missouri’s Constitution vested supervision of public education in an independent State Board of Education, the framers deliberately created a structure designed to provide continuity, stability, and a degree of separation from day-to-day politics. Board members would serve long, staggered terms.

No more than four members could belong to the same political party. The Board, not the Governor, would appoint the Commissioner of Education. The objective was simple: public education should not rise and fall with every election cycle. Whether one agrees with that model or not, it has been Missouri’s constitutional commitment for generations.

Which is why recent developments deserve careful scrutiny.

Over the past two years, Gov. Mike Kehoe has gained the opportunity to appoint an extraordinary number of members to the State Board (seven of the board’s eight voting members). At the same time, Commissioner Karla Eslinger has departed her position, creating the need for a commissioner search and a reassessment of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s strategic direction.

None of this is inherently improper.

Governors have appointment authority. Commissioners resign. State boards periodically adopt new strategic plans.

The question is not whether the law has been followed.

The question is whether the constitutional purpose behind the law is being subverted.

That question became more pressing when the State Board approved arrangements to fund both the commissioner search and the development of a new strategic plan through private philanthropic contributions rather than public appropriations.

The identities of those donors are being hidden from the public. In fact, the donors are unknown to the public, to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and even to at least one organization engaged to help carry out the work. Board leaders have emphasized that donors will have no role in selecting the next Commissioner or influencing board decisions.

Written agreements reportedly prohibit such influence. The State Board President has stated that there can be no quid pro quo. Unfortunately, no one will ever know if a quid pro quo has occurred because the donors are unknown.

Missourians should not be asked to accept on faith that anonymous funding of a Commissioner search and statewide strategic planning process poses no concerns. Transparency exists precisely because public trust should not depend on the personal credibility of current officeholders, board members, consultants, or donors.

When citizens cannot identify the donors funding the Commissioner search, and cannot identify the donors funding the development of Missouri’s next educational roadmap, confidence in the independence of educational governance inevitably dissolves.

The issue is not whether the donors are conservative or progressive. It is not whether they support charter schools, traditional public schools, educational savings accounts, vouchers or any other particular proposed measures.  The issue is that the public does not know who they are.

And when the search for Missouri’s highest-ranking education official and the development of Missouri’s long-term educational strategy are being financed by concealed private interests, citizens have every right to ask questions.

The constitutional structure adopted by Missouri’s framers was built around the diffusion of power. Long terms. Staggered appointments. Bipartisan representation. Independence from immediate political pressures. Those safeguards were designed to ensure that educational policy would not be controlled by any single political moment, any single administration, or any single source of influence.

Today, constitutional structures can be weakened without ever being formally changed.

When one administration gains the opportunity to appoint most of a constitutionally independent board, when educational leadership changes at the same time, and when the search for new leadership is financed by funding sources hidden from the public, we should at least pause and ask whether Missouri is drifting away from the independent educational governance that the Missouri Constitution was designed to protect.

Reasonable people can disagree about the answer.

What should not be controversial is the need for transparency.

If private donors are helping fund the search for Missouri’s next Commissioner of Education and the development of Missouri’s next strategic plan for public education, their identities should be disclosed.

Missouri’s constitutional framework for public education rests on a simple principle: power should be dispersed, visible, and accountable.

Today, key donors remain unidentified. A new commissioner is being selected. A new strategic plan is being written, and Missouri’s citizens are being left in the dark.

Perhaps everything is being done appropriately.

That is exactly why transparency matters.

Public confidence should not depend on empty assurances from government officials, consultants, or anonymous benefactors. It should rest on facts that citizens can see for themselves.

The framers of Missouri’s Constitution understood that trust in public education requires more than good intentions. It requires openness and political balance.

Missourians should accept nothing less.

This article was originally published by Missouri Independent and is republished by MetroSTL under a Creative Commons license. The reporting is the outlet’s; please support them.