Randelman Lindbergh Schools Watchdog

More SSD reform info. First, it is good to see clarity concerning Lindbergh Schools being the initiator of this reform, and ultimately, our Board Members. It's also important to understand that voting for pro-reform members is getting you those results.

A lot of questions seem to be addressed here as far as how it will work, levels of support etc. As I often say, do your research, understand the law, read it etc. The legislator can only enable the option, and then it is up to our board and your vote to actually see it through. My guess is that since the board are rubber stamps, they will auto-approve it, but I also think in this case it may be a good thing. I do like the idea of each school district determining what is best for their community.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14hDAzSTk9L/

As many are aware but some may not be, HB 2933 is a bill dealing with the withdrawal of school districts if they so choose from the Special School District of St. Louis County. To provide you with an update on the legislation I would like to give you a full synopsis thus far:

First, let me be very clear, the intention has never been to eliminate SSD. Since filing this bill against the wishes of the biggest school district in the State, many narratives have been twisted through many channels. My full intention, as always, is to support my constituents and district in the House of Representatives. This bill is about students and families; and not institutions.

Second, I also want to be transparent about the conception of the bill. About twice a year, I have lunch with Lindbergh superintendent Dr. Tony Lake to catch up on district or State education issues and to grow our relationship. We agree on certain issues and disagree on some as well, which is and should be very normal. However, regardless of any issue I will always help them where I can. For example, while they opposed SB 727 a couple years ago, I helped them fix a foundation formula issue for their specific district providing an avenue for significant additional funding. I just worked with and helped them fix an issue in Representative Taylor’s property tax bill that is currently working its way through the legislative body. Point being, while I am a believer in educational reform, I am not anti-public school and continue to support public schools. We can do both! I will always work with anyone on any issue if it is the right thing to do. Last Summer/Fall, Dr. Lake set a lunch with me and asked me about my experience with SSD. I told him what I would tell you. I am very active in my district and when I speak with SSD parents, more times than not, they have or have had issues and concerns. That was then proceeded by his issues and concerns with SSD and his student/family population. As we continued the conversation over a few months, while I did more research, and with his and his board’s encouragement, we put this bill together and I filed it.

So, what does this bill do? To give you a statewide picture, St. Louis County and Pemiscot County are the only counties in the State that have a county wide special school district. I tried to keep this bill very simple and very local. A local decision of their elected board and a local decision of the entire community on the ballot. If a school district wants to remove themselves from SSD, first the school board must vote to approve it. If approved by the board, it would then trigger the entire school district to vote on it, on the ballot. If approved by the community, then that SSD levee collection within boundaries of the school district would go to them instead of SSD, so they can use it to build out their special needs services. So, to be clear, the superintendent would have to pitch and sell their board on how and why they should do it, that board has to say yes, and then it is up to them to also pitch this to the community and voters, and for the voters to approve removal from SSD. It is a pretty clean and democratic process in my eyes with major local input of local elected officials, the school district, and all constituents.

Since I have filed this and continue to learn more about SSD, for every parent that has concerns with my bill, I have also had the opposite that heavily support the bill due to their personal struggles with SSD. Other points discovered for reform that I feel are worth noting:

● I found other school districts that are interested in the legislation. This link (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_4ea40ae1-ec25-484e-9da4-db55db85699f.html) is a Post-Dispatch article from last year where Hazelwood School District is being quoted as supporting and exploring alternative options. SSD has also had struggles staffing the various demographic areas of the county.

● There have been safety concerns within the district. This link (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_7f38de56-0cf9-4721-9e43-56dcfcbacd67.html) is a Post-Dispatch article that highlights safety concerns from teachers and parents in SSD.

● I have learned that a few years ago, they were in a significant surplus and are now operating at over a $50M deficit. Here is a link(https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-special-school-district-concerns-students-teacher-shortage-budget/63-18860e74-b9b3-40b7-b4ab-4f9572cb742a) addressing these concerns. At that type of deficit to our taxpayers, I would fully support a State audit.

● Just recently, a federal DOJ probe revealed violation of federal law and awful information about seclusion rooms and restraints on children within SSD. That is attached in this link (https://www.stlpr.org/education/2026-02-23/st-louis-special-school-district-federal-law-violations) and is blatant and unacceptable child abuse.

● AND FINALLY, this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12q7MYMXjV4TOFopUS7H9bHkF9O_idCIv/view) is a study from 1998 completed by the SSD Governing Council on determining whether a plan should be developed whereby the local school districts assume a greater responsibility and authority in the education of children with disabilities in St. Louis County and one of the outcomes of this study completed by SSD suggests a potential redesign model that would allow for the voluntary assumption of responsibility by districts willing and able to take it on, which is exactly what this bill attempts to accomplish.

My point in all that being, something here is very amiss and reform is needed in some fashion. I think this is a clean good bill and a decision that makes this a very local decision and not a Jefferson City decision. And again, this isn’t some pie in the sky idea where we are gambling on the education of our special needs children in this bill. Every school district in the State operates this way and many have very great special needs services.

That being said, I know this is very sensitive and complex, and am very open to improvements on this bill. I truly want what is best for the special needs students of my district and all of St. Louis County. I heard from many parents, teachers, schools, etc. through my office and at the public hearing on the bill. The Lindbergh administration and board came and testified in support of the bill. Unfortunately, despite being at the hearing, many SSD admin and board members did not testify. The public hearing video may be viewed at the following archive link: (https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00325/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20200831/-1/14675?mediaStartTime=20260325173828&mediaEndTime=20260325191828&viewMode=3&globalStreamId=4) (the link only allows a certain length, the rest of the hearing can be found on https://house.mo.gov/MediaCenter.aspx on Archive Video date 03/25/2026 in the General Laws committee). After listening to all feedback, I created an amendment that was added to the bill in committee that adds the following:

● Bans seclusion rooms to avoid the child abuse seen within the DOJ probe.

● The levee transferred is to be dedicated to special needs services in the school district withdrawing from SSD. This ensures taxpayer money intended for special needs services will continue to be for those services with the withdrawing school district.

● If an SSD teacher seeks employment with the withdrawing school district, then their tenure would transfer. Some withdrawing teachers and school districts may want those teachers to remain in those schools, and I do not want to disrupt their tenure.

● Children within the current SSD phase three schools shall be grandfathered in with the withdrawing school paying the tuition. These are some of our children with the most challenging needs and any disruption to these families can be the hardest. This will ensure the least disruption of services to all children.

● Again, as stated above, Pemiscot County is the only other county in the State with this structure. Their county and school districts asked to be and were removed from the bill as they have no reform concerns.

Where does this bill go next? Not to get into the weeds on internal bill movement policy, but the bill is currently in rules committee. If voted out of rules, it will then head to the floor calendar for perfection and debate, where the bill can be further modified. If then approved by a House vote it would head to the Senate for that entire process to happen in that chamber. With only four weeks left in our legislative session, the outcome of this passing is bleak. If that is the outcome, I encourage this legislation to be a jump start for reform between SSD and their partner districts, as well as for robust and professional discussion in our community on the best way to serve our special needs children.

As always, please contact my office if you would like to further this discussion. Also, Dr. Lake at Lindbergh has been very helpful and more than willing to discuss their desire for this legislation and the mechanics of what future local Lindbergh special needs services could do for our community. Have a great day and thank you!

In an effort to be more DEI, sorry "Belonging and Character Education", the Lindbergh Information page decided to ban me, a Dad (and his family) from attending the group, in an effort to show that what "Belonging" really means, is throwing out the immigrant and his Japanese wife who happen to have a different opinion, even though their kids still participate in Lindbergh Schools. Great move, showing your true pride colors. 😆

I highly recommend checking out this REAL TALK discussion if you want the unfiltered truth about what's happening in public education today.
It sheds light on why districts like Lindbergh Schools (and many others) fight so hard to control the public narrative — and how the NEA has been turned into a powerful political force.
Bottom line question:
Who really calls the shots in our schools?
Our elected school board officials — accountable to parents and taxpayers?
Or the teachers' union (NEA) and its influence?

Fmr. Supt. of Education Ryan Walters Exposes the Education Industrial Complex | Real Talk | PragerU Former Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction and CEO of the Teacher Freedom Alliance, Ryan Walters and PragerU CEO Marissa Streit expose how teachers...

Hello everyone — whether you follow me, care about what's happening in our schools, or just enjoy a bit of satire.
Thank you for all the encouraging messages, support, and great feedback after the election. I know Richard Breeding didn't win, it was 3 against 1, but he stepped up, volunteered his time, and used his platform to speak out. That's what democracy looks like, and he deserves real thanks for running. I'm sure Lindbergh Schools will recognize that when they adopt the election results.

Let's also thank the NEA-endorsed incumbents who were re-elected. After all, having NEA members serving on the very board that negotiates with the NEA is definitely not a conflict of interest... right?

I'll keep being the watchdog. I'll keep speaking up for voices that aren't always at the table, and bringing you the latest.
That said, I genuinely wish the Lindbergh Schools district success, academic excellence, and a return to that Blue Ribbon status we know we're capable of with good leadership. Our kids and community deserve great schools, and I'm rooting for them.
Much love and appreciation to the community,
-David
P.S. — Satire is still awesome.

TMZ, hold my beer! Local Paper Heroically Exposes Dad’s April Fools’ Meme as “Deepfake Election Meddling”
St. Louis, MO — In a jaw-dropping act of journalistic bravery, The South St. Louis The Call has blown the lid off the most dangerous threat facing Lindbergh Schools since… well, ever: a dad posting a clearly labeled satirical AI image on April Fools’ Day.

According to staff reporter Ashlynn Couch’s exhaustive investigation (published a full two days after the joke), David Randelman — self-described “watchdog,” former school board candidate, and current chaos spectator — dared to generate a fake picture of Superintendent Tony Lake wearing a T-shirt that said “Please vote for Richard Breeding, Board of Education.”
Randelman even had the audacity to write in the comments: “This was a satirical AI-generated April Fools’ Day joke/parody. It is not real and does not reflect any actual statement or endorsement by Dr. Lake. Enjoy everyone!”
The horror. The humanity.

The post somehow racked up a terrifying 97 comments, prompting one concerned citizen, Carrie Love, to declare that we are “literally teaching children why it’s wrong to use AI to depict people doing or saying things they never did.” Because nothing says “protect the children” like a local newspaper breathlessly platforming a dad’s obvious April 1st gag.
Lindbergh’s chief communications officer Beth Johnston sprang into action and formally requested Randelman take the post down. As of press time, he has not. (Take that, democracy.)

Board candidate Andrew Lawson then delivered the moral coup de grâce on his own page, thundering that using someone’s likeness in satire is “a heinous violation of personal autonomy and unequivocally unacceptable” and that this “goes beyond a campaign for school board. This is about basic human decency.”
Breeding himself, in response to this digital atrocity, responded with the devastating rebuttal: “LOL! April Fools!”
Meanwhile, The Call helpfully reminds readers that Missouri lawmakers have spent years trying (and failing) to pass deepfake bills — including ones about intimate or sexual content — as if a silly T-shirt meme is somehow in the same category as revenge p**n. The connection is crystal clear, folks.
Look. This isn’t complicated.

It was April Fools’ Day. It was labeled satire in the very first comment. A public official was gently ribbed in a way that happens on the internet approximately 14 million times per hour. The First Amendment exists for exactly this reason: so citizens can mock, parody, and poke fun at people in power without the local paper treating it like a constitutional crisis.
You don’t get to demand a private citizen delete a joke because it hurt your feelings, then clutch pearls about “decency” while running to the newspaper for a hit piece. That’s not how any of this works.
To The Call, Carrie Love, Beth Johnston, Andrew Lawson, and anyone else pearl-clutching over a dad’s meme: Thank you for the free publicity and for proving, once again, that nothing triggers certain people quite like other people exercising their right to free speech.
To everyone else still capable of laughing: Keep enjoying the chaos. The ability to make fun of our institutions — even with AI and a T-shirt — is still protected by the highest law in the land.
Stay satirical, America.
David Randelman
Lindbergh Schools Watchdog, Professional Chaos Spectator, and Unapologetic Defender of the First Amendment

For those of us who celebrate: He is risen!

Wouldn't it be awesome if our elected Board of Directors actually put the community first — instead of bowing to their district guru and special interests?
You’d think these board members are supposed to be advocates for the families they represent. Yet I’ve never once seen a single one push back on $12 million in waste and demand real accountability. Who signed off on that? Was it the Superintendent? The CFO? Anyone?

Where was the pushback on the SSD takeover? Why didn’t anyone stand up and say, “Let’s ask more questions”?
Instead of silencing civic comments, why not actually listen? When those glossy graphs are presented to “soothe” the community while hiding the truth — that 40% of our kids are not at grade level — why doesn’t one board member have the courage to call it out?
Where’s your blue ribbon now, Lindbergh?
It’s time to take the seat back for the community — not the aristocratic insiders who only show up for the benefits and connections their positions bring.
The parents and taxpayers built this district. It’s time we reclaim it.

Only the grassroot candidate, Richard Breeding is fit to serve.

P.S-I mentioned the MEC felonies. Take a look at their missing filings, the glaring data gaps, and the complete absence of any committee work in previous years. It just proves that projection is their go-to defense.

Well, right on schedule — like clockwork — the same cronies are out in full force, desperately trying to discredit the only real grassroots threat to their control.
It’s always the same people, completely beholden to their masters.
Rather than explain why their candidates are worth voting for (they can’t), they resort to spin and smears. Their record speaks for itself: wasteful tax spending, on-the-record lies about the SSD (they initiated it!!), unpaid personal bills that got one served, MEC ethics fellony that fined, and 40% of students failing to perform at grade level.

In past years it was the “book banning” hysteria or the “Moms for Liberty” hoax.
Talk to Richard Breeding if you have any questions. Don’t let them scare or intimidate you — this is all part of their playbook.