Opinion ID: 1763887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review in Compliance with Code of State Regulations

Text: In addition to alleging that the state board's decision is arbitrary and capricious due to its consideration of DESE's invalid rule, the city board also argues the state board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to base its decision on the three standardsresource, process, and performanceidentified in the MSIP rule and manual. The city board argues that the state board improperly considered only the performance standards in making its decision. The code of state regulations incorporates by reference the  Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Standards and Indicators Manual which is comprised of qualitative and quantitative standards for school districts. 5 CSR 50-345.100.1. The code of state regulations states: As referenced in the MSIP Standards and Indicators Manual, the standards are organized in three (3) sectionsResource Standards, Process Standards, and Performance Standards.... (2) During each year, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will select school districts which will be reviewed and classified in accordance with this rule, including the standards, with the appropriate scoring guide and forms, and the procedures outlined in the annual MSIP. (3) The State Board of Education (board) will assign classification designations of unaccredited, provisionally accredited and accredited based on the standards of the MSIP. 5 CSR 50-345.100.1-.3. The city board correctly recognizes that there was not a full review of all three standards during DESE's 2006-07 review that was given to the state board. The St. Louis public school district had a full review of all three standardsresource, process, and performanceduring the 2003-04 school year. During that review, DESE relied on the resource, process, and performance standards and recommended that, once again, the school district be provisionally accredited. Ordinarily, a full review of the district would not occur until 2008-09, but because of the St. Louis public school district's poor performance and because it was provisionally accredited twice in a row, the state board requested DESE conduct a mid-cycle review in 2006-07. Because the school district was provisionally accredited twice in a row, a mid-cycle review after three years was not only allowed but also required. 5 CSR 50-345.100(8). This Court, however, need not determine whether the state board should have reviewed all three standards, because the city board fails to articulate any prejudice from the failure to do so. [T]he failure of an agency to comply with its own rules may invalidate its actions only when prejudice results. Missouri Nat. Educ. Ass'n v. Missouri State Bd. of Mediation, 695 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Mo. banc 1985). It was only the performance standards that were reviewed and found to contribute to the loss of accreditation. At the prior review, the St. Louis public school district met the other two criteria, and there was no indication that the district's compliance was questioned during the mid-cycle review. Neither the resource nor process standards were under scrutinyit was, instead, the performance standards that were the matter of concern before the state board. There is no prejudice from the state board assuming the school district continues to be in compliance on two of the three sets of standards. As the city board fails to allege, let alone prove, prejudice, an assertion of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking is unsupported by this contention.