Lindbergh school board candidates spar over DEI, academics and district finances at League forum

Lindbergh School Board candidates clashed over diversity, academic standards and district finances at a League of Women Voters forum where voters submitted about 80 questions and five candidates spoke ahead of the April 8 election. The forum was hosted by the League and held at a Lindbergh Schools facility; moderators said the event was recorded and would be posted online.

The contest for two three-year seats focused on whether Lindbergh should retain its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, how to respond to falling or shifting test scores, and how the district should manage debt from recent building projects. Incumbent board member Jennifer Miller said Lindbergh must "continue to carry on Lindbergh's long standing tradition of academic excellence" and prioritize "rigorous instruction, safe and secure school buildings, workforce development programs, fiscal responsibility, and oversight." Julia Voss, also an incumbent, framed the district—s approach as one that must keep students feeling safe and respected: "A student cannot learn if they don't feel respected and safe where they are," Voss said.

Challengers emphasized different priorities. Russell Dahmer described DEI as "division, exclusion, and indoctrination" and called for a stronger focus on what he called "hard academics." David Randleman said partisan politics had damaged the board and called for restoring "academic excellence, fiscal responsibility" and transparency. Randleman decried what he described as political labeling by activists and said his campaign was grassroots. One candidate, Martin Verplank, did not attend and was represented by Martin Bennett, who read Verplank's prepared remarks.

Why it matters: Voters will elect two candidates on April 8 to set policy and budget priorities for a district that several candidates said faces fiscal pressures from recent capital projects and rising property values. The contest is being watched locally for how the next board will address curriculum, interventions for struggling students and relationships with the Special School District (SSD) that provides special education services.

The forum covered many specific policy questions that will shape board work if the candidates are elected. On finance, Miller said Lindbergh receives a large share of its funding locally and noted federal dollars are small relative to total revenue; she cited roughly $460,000 in federal funds. Voss said capital funds tied to the district's recent Prop R referendum are separate from teacher pay and said the district had extended a loan five years to manage its Prop R indebtedness. Candidates also differed on classroom practices: Dahmer and Randleman criticized standards such as equity-informed grading and reduced challenge classes; Miller and Voss defended Lindbergh—s mix of standards-based grading, board advisory committees and teacher collaboration.

Student voices were part of the forum: a small group of students asked about life-skills courses and DEI. Candidates described steps the district is taking or could take: Miller and others pointed to new high-school offerings (a CNA program, EMT course, an "amped" algebra-business course and expanded internship and workforce partnerships), while challengers said vocational training should be expanded further and that core academics should be the top priority.

The League of Women Voters closing remarks included voter information: the League—s online voters— guide (vote411.org) and local polling details for the April 8 election. Moderators said the guide would go live March 17 and printed guides would appear March 20 in the Post-Dispatch.

Speakers quoted or cited in this report are listed in the article's speaker roster and were identified at the forum. No formal board actions or votes were taken at the event; it was an informational candidate forum.