Campaigning for spring elections is now in full swing, and in one Missouri school district, it’s brought controversy over the focus of candidate forums.

Lee’s Summit Reorganized School District No. 7 has four candidates running on the April 8 ballot for two open seats on the Board of Education. Current board President Jennifer Foley is running for re-election, and joining her on the ballot are Leon Weatherby, Michelle Dawson and Nicky Nickens. 

Each year, several PACs or community groups hold candidate forums to learn about each candidate and what their vision is for the school district. This year, two of these organizations received a “Candidate Forum Participation Agreement” from Mr. Weatherby. It states: 

The purpose of this agreement is to ensure that the candidate forums focus on the primary objective of improving the academic outcomes of students within the LSR7 school district, alongside addressing other relevant issues. 

Simplified, the agreement sets the expectation that: 

The organizer agrees that at least 25% of the questions posed during the candidate forum will be directly related to the improvement of academic standards, student performance, and educational initiatives within the LSR7 school district. 

It suggests this portion of questions cover issues such as strategies for raising student achievement, curriculum development and technology use, among others.

Weatherby’s proposed agreement also included a fairness clause stating no candidate will have access to the questions ahead of time, and allowing each candidate notes on stage – pretty typical stuff for forums. 

On Friday, Strengthening Education Together (SET), a 527 nonprofit organization, posted on social media about Mr. Weatherby’s agreement, claiming it required “a strict percentage of questions to align with his personal criteria.”

The social media post explained that “the event is organized and moderated by students, with the majority of questions generated by them.” Despite “a small percentage of questions coming from the community and SET members,” the SET organizers declined to sign the agreement. 

SET’s website states its mission is, “To strengthen the culture of public education through community advocacy and collective action.” Its vision is, “To build active, inclusive communities that advocate for and support equitable public schools that serve all students well.” 

Similarly, the president of the LSR7 PTA, in a communication to Mr. Weatherby, said the PTA board reviewed the forum agreement and decided to decline. She explained that the candidate forum is meant to “reflect our mission to make every child’s potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children.”

If the primary agreement in this form is that at least a quarter of the questions are focused on academics, students, and education, why would two organizations that claim to be advocating for the students decline such an agreement?

Is it too much to expect school board candidate forums to address academics? 

One of the candidates in last year’s LSR7 Board of Education race decided to chart the topics of each question asked at all the forums he attended. The vast majority of the questions asked throughout the forums was centered on DEI or equity in general. 

None of the questions related directly to academics. 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released its National Report Card this past week, revealing that compared to scores in 2022: 

• Fourth grade reading: Most states/jurisdictions (47) saw no significant change in average reading scores, five had declines
• Eighth grade reading: 44 states/jurisdictions saw no significant change, eight saw declines 
• Fourth grade math: 15 states/jurisdictions saw increases, another 37 states/jurisdictions saw no significant change 
• Eighth grade math: 49 states/jurisdictions saw no significant change

In this NAEP report, Missouri ranks three to four points below the national average in reading and math.

Looking at Lee’s Summit’s district proficiency rates on state MAP assessments, it’s understandable why a candidate for school board in LSR7 would prioritize academics. 

Considering President Trump’s recent Executive Order 14190 Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, a school board candidate setting an expectation for candidate forum organizers to commit to addressing academics rather than DEI seems in line with President Trump’s attempt to refocus public schools.

Where else is a discussion about academic standards, student performance and educational initiatives more relevant than at a forum to interview school board candidates?