Tradeoffs and give-and-take are at the heart of politics. We’re told that the politicians who are willing to compromise are the ones who “get things done.”

But not every tradeoff is worth it.

Case in point: In the Missouri Legislature, passage of a relatively weak open-enrollment measure has been discussed as a “both/and” that could be tied to passage of another bill that strips the State Board of Education (BOE) of its authority to accredit (or refuse to accredit) Missouri’s public schools.

If that’s the offer, it deserves a “hard no” from legislators.

I don’t often find myself defending the BOE, and for good reason. It is fair to wonder what a school district has to do in this state to lose accreditation. Out of 517 districts, 511 (98.8%) are fully accredited, six are provisionally accredited, and none are unaccredited.

Sadly, these are just three examples among many:

• The Ferguson-Florissant school district is fully accredited despite the fact that only 20% of its students are proficient in English Language Arts, and just 16% are proficient in math.
• Hazelwood, another fully accredited district, shows similarly troubling numbers: 25% proficiency in English and 15% in math.
• The Clarkton C-4 district in Missouri’s Bootheel is fully accredited even though 85% of students scored below grade level in English Language Arts and math last year.

The question is: If the BOE isn’t holding schools accountable, what should be done about it? 

According to the proponents of Senate Bill 360, the solution is to strip the BOE of the power it seems so reluctant to use. The bill would prohibit the BOE from using academic performance to classify schools for accreditation purposes.

Districts would instead be allowed to hire outside accreditation agencies to evaluate them. It should be obvious that such agencies would have a strong incentive to tell the districts that hire them what they want to hear.

If the fates of these two bills are linked, what do Missourians get in exchange for essentially throwing in the towel on accountability for school districts?

They get House Bill 711, which would allow for open enrollment – sort of. It would only let up to 5% percent of students transfer out of any district, and more importantly, it wouldn’t require districts to accept students who wanted to transfer in.

Compared to what our neighbors in Kansas and Oklahoma have, this is entry-level open enrollment at best – and it sure isn’t worth letting the districts themselves decide whether or not they deserve to be accredited.

There is no law of nature stating the BOE can’t hold districts accountable for student performance. The Missouri Legislature could also make the BOE do its job. In fact, we are about to have four new members of the eight-person BOE, and they are likely to bring fresh energy and commitment to accountability.

The research on high accountability and improved student outcomes is clear, so the rubber-stamping of school accreditation needs to stop.

The state, which funds public education to the tune of $6.6 billion each year, has a responsibility to both students and taxpayers to make sure that money is being spent to prepare students for college or the workforce.

If a “compromise” is on offer here, it is a troubling example of the misplaced priorities of Missouri’s educational establishment.

Who are they protecting here – students trapped in failing schools, or school districts threatened by the prospect of being held responsible for their performance?