We Don't Need Our School District Lobbying. We Need Them To Teach

The Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City (CSDGKC Inc.) operates as a Missouri Educational Service Agency (ESA).  A CSDGKC sister  organization, the CSDGKC Foundation holds 501(c)(3) status.  In order to provide consistency and continuity, the board of directors for the CSDGKC Foundation is the same as the CSDGKC board.

Adrian R-III School
Archie R-V School District
Belton School District #124
Blue Springs School District
Center School District 
Excelsior Springs School District 

Fort Osage R-1 School District

Grain Valley School District
Grandview C-4 Schools
Harrisonville Schools
Hickman Mills C-1 School District 
Hogan Preparatory Academy 

Independence School District
Kansas City Public Schools
Kearney R-1 School District 

Lathrop R-II Schools
Lee’s Summit R-7 School District 
Liberty Public Schools

Lone Jack C6 Public Schools
North Kansas City Schools
Oak Grove R-VI School District
Park Hill School District
Platte County School District
Pleasant Hill R-III School District
Raymore-Peculiar School District 
Raytown School District 

Richmond R-XVI School District

St. Joseph School District 
Smithville R-II School District 

West Platte School District

FOUNDATION MEMBER

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK MEMBERS

2014 Legislative Platform

The Lee’s Summit R-7 School District’s tradition of excellence is the result of a collaborative effort among its supportive stakeholders.  A persistent focus on meeting the needs of each student will result in a legacy unparalleled by our peers in public education.  This legacy of excellence cannot be left to chance and requires ongoing advocacy on behalf of the approximately 17,600 students served by the R-7 School District.  It is our responsibility.  Thus, we wholeheartedly join the 30 school districts, representing more than 175,000 Missouri school children, of the Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City in support of the following 2014 Legislative Platform. Printable version

8. Support a change in the Missouri Human Rights Act that would re-align the Missouri Act with federal standards.
I oppose the use of my tax dollars to promote a non-education legislative platform item that I feel is inappropriately added to any school's legislative platform.
Controversial legislation proposing changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act earned a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon during last year’s legislative session — and the fight is on this year with the introduction of a similar bill.
Last year’s Senate Bill 188 and this year’s legislation, SB 592, have few differences, said Rich Germinder, chief of staff for Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, who proposed both bills.
“The same components are still there,” Germinder said. “The primary component being the changing of the causation standard from a contributing factor to a motivating factor standard.”
The MHRA states that a fired individual can file a lawsuit against the employer because he or she thinks any one part of the decision related to the firing involved rights protected by MHRA, such as race, age or gender, Germinder said. Shifting to a motivating factor, which is what the federal standards use, would mean the human rights violation would have to be the main reason, he said.
Supporters of the bill, which was approved Jan. 12 by the Senate Committee on Commerce, said it will bring Missouri’s law in line with federal human rights legislation. Those opposing the changes said it will weaken the rights of individuals in discrimination claims. SB 592 is expected to be among the first debated in the 2012 session.
Nixon has a policy of not commenting on proposed legislation because it changes during the process, spokesman Scott Holste said.
But it seems unlikely his opinions have shifted much since last year’s veto.
In a news release after the veto last year, Nixon said SB 188 would undermine the MHRA and make it harder to prove discrimination.
Public School Liable for Sex Harassment of Student by Another Student. 
Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., (WD73800, 4/17/2012) 

o Doe alleged that he was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by another student on multiple occasions during school hours on school grounds. Doe asserted the District's acts and omissions violated the MHRA because the sexual harassment and sexual assaults occurred on the basis of his gender and constituted sex discrimination. He claimed that the school is a public place of accommodation, and that he was deprived of the full, free, and equal use and enjoyment of the school and its services by way of the District's actions and inactions. 

o The public school district's liability for student-on-student sexual harassment under the MHRA is the same as that for an employer's liability for co-worker sexual harassment under the MHRA. The school district is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Lee's Summit and the State of Missouri Stole My Son's Education

My Letter Requesting To Become A Board Member

Carpenters claim continued harassment