Editorial

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION HARMS ITS OWN CAUSE

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

As it turned out, the third time was not a charm for the Cape Girardeau Public Schools. It was a dismal disappointment.

By a slim margin of 176 votes, the Proposition C rollback waiver vote went down to defeat Tuesday in Cape Girardeau.

In April of 1993, Cape Girardeau voters rejected a 27-cent hike in the building fund levy and a proposed $25 million bond issue; and turned down a 51 cent tax increase last October that would have been used to construct a middle school and other improvements.

Board members listened to the public's reluctance to the middle school concept, and focused instead on repairs and maintenance for this election.

But the outcome remained the same.

Perhaps taxpayers didn't understand that these improvements are so sorely needed. This proposition spoke directly to brick and mortar deficiencies in aging district buildings.

The $1.1 million in locally-generated revenues would have brought an additional $1.6 million in three years from the state. It's incredible to think the community can turn its back on that kind of matching money.

The Cape Girardeau Board of Education members have said flatly they will bring the matter back again. We agree. Our school buildings are so lacking that the district deserves another chance to make its case.

But perhaps next time, school leaders should do a few things differently.

Last year, the October campaign was highly publicized -- led by a high profile public relations firm. This approach proved an affront to some voters.

In response, the district went too far in the opposite direction for the June vote.

Parents received a postcard, school officials talked with various citizens, and phone calls were made on election day. Aside from that, the election was so low key that many people were simply unaware there was a vote last Tuesday.

Secondly, the district must work harder to get out the positive votes.

The 2,497 "no" votes were not surprising. There are at least 2,000 negative votes for any city election on any issue.

But the number of "yes" votes -- 2,321 in all -- was frustrating.

There are 4,500 students in the district. These students have parents, who want what's best for their kids. There are about 500 district employees, including staff and teachers. And just think of the other thousands of workers employed in education in town, including about 1,000 employees at Southeast Missouri State University.

Surely, there are enough people involved in education in this city that united they could push this issue to victory.

The school board and administration also have a credibility problem with the voting public. This difficulty must be addressed. Credibility cannot be established by asking business leaders to handle the next campaign.

The ballot wording was also some of the worst we've seen. We heard complaints from many voters who, after reading the specific wording, were unsure whether to vote yes or no.

Finally, there is no doubt that the last-minute change in graduation practice could have cost the election.

A week before commencement, Superintendent Neyland Clark -- with the knowledge of most board members -- decided to allow seniors who do not meet graduation requirements to participate in Friday's graduation ceremonies.

Particularly irksome was the fact the student who prompted the change was a friend of the children of board member Kathy Swan and Superintendent Clark. Retiring Central High Principal Dan Milligan was so angered that he packed his belongings June 3 and never came back. He did not participate in Friday's commencement.

This last-minute change angered many people, and cast doubts on the trustworthiness of school leadership. For more than a week, our Speak Out lines have been flooded with indignant calls. Letters to the Editor have been coming in daily. People also point out that students who graduate early are not allowed to participate in graduation -- regardless of their grades.

We feel the decision was both wrong and ill-timed. And revelations since the decision beg questions about communication between administration and board. But we don't feel this issue should reflect disproportionately on the future building needs of the district.

Cape Girardeau citizens have a reputation as strong educational advocates. As such, we ask citizens to give the district another chance. Our children and their educational environment must come first. The shabby condition of elementary and secondary schools must still be addressed.