Plan would raise school funding

JEFFERSON CITY — A plan to boost annual spending on the state’s public schools by $665 million made its way to the Senate floor on Thursday.

The plan, to be phased in over five years, would eventually raise basic aid to public schools from the current $2.4 billion to a little more than $3 billion a year, not counting items paid separately, such as transportation.

The plan would set a base amount for each student of $6,117, a figure chosen based on the spending by schools that scored highest on a state report that looks at factors from test scores to graduation rates. The proposal also gives school districts extra help if they teach a disproportionate number of low-income or special education students or those struggling with English.

The formula also would give a boost to schools to account for areas with a high cost of living, based on average wages in a county, but cap the increase at 10 percent. The latest version would no longer reduce funding if an area is more affordable than the state average.

“You closed the gap and really the effect of it,” complained Sen. John Loudon, R-Ballwin.

Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, said suburban areas should be pleased with the new formula because they’re treated the same as districts with much lower tax rates.

A key change made on Thursday sets the assumed local spending amount at $3.35 per $100 of assessed valuation for all districts, the average amount the highest-scoring districts spend. Previously, the formula proposal set that level as the minimum amount, and the state would not make up the difference for districts with lower rates.

But there was concern, especially among suburban areas, that those with much higher levies would be inadvertently punished, because the current formula rewards districts that raise their local tax rates for schools. The formula proposal now sets that $3.35 amount as the rate for all, and districts with higher levies don’t lose state aid for anything over what’s collected at that level.

That change accounts for much of the difference in cost from the previous version, which was estimated as an increase of about $540 million, and directs more money to suburban districts.

“Where is the data that says this is going to be equitable and adequate?” Tyler Laney, leader of the group of districts suing the state over its education spending, said in a telephone interview. “It’s an attempt to head off a lawsuit, and I think it’s a poor effort.”

Laney said he had concerns about calculating all local funding as if they had the same tax rate.

“What you end up asking for if you have a standard levy is some people would be paying a higher percentage of their income on property taxes than others,” the Crane superintendent said.

Democrats said the plan is based more on financial reality than what’s best for students.

“You’re trying to distribute the money you have. That may not be the money we need to educate our children,” said Sen. Rita Days, D-St. Louis.

Senate Education Committee chairman Gary Nodler said the proposal is better than the current plan because the state will be able to pay for it. The current formula has not been fully funded for a few years.

“Designing a system that is not fiscally possible is of no benefit to anyone,” said Nodler, R-Joplin.

A special House panel is also studying changes to the state’s school funding system and working on a separate version of legislation.