AREA SUPERINTENDENTS DISCUSS SCHOOL FORMULA

DEXTER - A group of two dozen school superintendents and administrators expressed concern last week that the Missouri General Assembly would pass a new school foundation formula without providing sufficient funding to make it work.

Several in the group also stressed they were not opposed to reforms that provide accountability as part of the increased funding, but argued the proposed reforms could not be carried out without proper funding.

The administrators, most of them from Stoddard and Scott counties, met with state Rep. Marilyn Williams, D-Dudley, who was part of a joint legislative task force that met earlier this year to draft a new foundation formula bill.

Cole County Circuit Judge Byron Kinder has ruled that the current formula is inequitable and inadequate and needs to be redrawn. Lawmakers have until late summer before his order takes effect.

Williams and several superintendents admitted there were different interpretations of what Kinder's order meant. But Williams said she believes the task force plan, which has been passed by a Senate committee and is nearing approval by a House committee, will meet Kinder's test.

"This should satisfy my understanding of Judge Kinder's opinion, but there are different opinions about what his opinion was," said Williams.

One controversial part of the task force plan is a reform package known as "New Visions," which is part of the task force legislation. Several administrators urged that the New Visions plan be considered on its own merits, separate from the funding plan.

Those in the group who spoke expressed support for the task force formula, but as Scott County Central Superintendent Ray Shoaf pointed out: "There should be a concern that a lot of people who are in favor of this will be against it if not fully funded."

Bob Buchanan, superintendent at Sikeston, warned that phasing in the additional money for the formula as some have suggested will only keep the formula unfair.

The task force plan calls for $684 million in additional funding, $504 million from state funds and the rest from local school districts. Under the bill, local school districts would be required to have a $3 minimum tax levy to qualify for any of the new state money.

Nearly all districts in the state would be able to attain the $3 levy by board action, without going to voters.

Rep. Dennis Ziegenhorn, D-Sikeston, who also attended the meeting, said he thinks the minimum levy will likely get legislators criticized by school boards. "I think the legislature might go with the $3 levy, but they (school boards) will only blame it on us," said Ziegenhorn.

"This is the whole game," said Shoaf. "The legislature blames it on the judge, the schools blame it on the legislature; but the point is, we will get there and have a new formula."

Buchanan noted that under the proposed task force bill, districts that did not adopt the minimum levy could eventually be forced to consolidate with other districts.

The proposed New Visions Act20drew mixed reviews from the administrators.

Scott City Superintendent Bob Brison acknowledged there is a lot of opposition to the act, but said: "I know if the state is going to commit to $500-600 million in more money we will have to commit to some reforms. If the money is there, my school district can live with the New Visions Act."

He added, "The worst thing that could happen would be to have this new law without adequate funding."

Dexter Superintendent Jerry Waddle agreed. "I agree with Bob if we get this big pile of money we need accountability with it but we need the full funding to go with it."

Williams stressed that she did not feel it was fair to have the accountability, without full funding. The legislator also said she believes the New Visions program should be considered separately from the foundation formula plan.

"We don't understand why this was put in with the formula; the problem is with the formula," said Shoaf.

"We would like to see New Visions stand on its own merit," added Buchanan.

Williams mentioned several times during the discussion that there were several strong-willed people on the task force, which sometimes complicated the process.

"There are some very strong personalities on that committee ... it takes a lot of compromise," said Williams.

Several superintendents were concerned about statewide tests that would be used to monitor improvement by school districts. One superintendent said it would be unfair to compare a "paper and pencil" test between school districts that have a high rate of poverty with more affluent districts. He suggested the emphasis should be on improved performance.

Another suggested that the number of free and reduced lunches served by a district should be used as a factor in measuring accountability.

Waddle maintained the New Visions Act was an attempt at mandating "outcome based education." He suggested the time line in Missouri to convert to outcome based education was too short and said most experts say it takes 8-10 years, at least, to make the conversion.

Waddle noted the bill is written to start in the 1994-95 school year.

"This is revolutionary, a totally new way to approach education in the state," said Waddle. "We can't force people along."

He added, "I'm not opposed to everything in the New Visions program, just most of it."

Another foundation formula plan being considered is known as the "Leven Plan," named for a St. Louis University professor. Several Southeast Missouri legislators have signed on to that approach, including Reps. Gene Copeland, D-New Madrid; Joe Driskill, D-Poplar Bluff, and Larry Thomason, D-Kennett.

But most school administrators said they opposed the Leven formula and contended it was a ploy by St. Louis school districts to protect their funding base.

But Thomason, who was not at the meeting, said later the Leven formula is a simplified approach that does not give unfair advantage to St. Louis schools. An effort will likely be made to substitute the Leven formula for the task force plan when the bill is debated on the House floor.

"What it is slanted toward is districts with a declining tax base, who by definition are the poorer school districts in the state," said Thomason. "Just because that definition fits urban schools and rural schools, there is no reason to be suspicious of it.

"I'm like any other state representative. I'm concerned that the reaction to Kinder's ruling will be fair to all school districts, within the parameters of his ruling. The only way to treat us fairly is for poorer districts to get additional funding."

Thomason said he has serious doubts whether the task force approach will be viewed as "fair and equitable" by Judge Kinder. "His ruling is clear that he will accept the Leven formula. We already know for a fact that he will say the Leven formula is fair. He has already said so. What use is there in fighting a fight over a measure you think the judge will throw out."

Thomason said he saw no evidence that the task force even considered the Leven approach.

Williams disagrees with Thomason's perception that the judge would automatically accept the Leven plan. "The judge said we need something more simple, like the Leven formula. I don't think he meant to use that as an example of something he would accept," said Williams. "I think some are reading too much into what he said.

"My superintendents don't think Leven will work for their districts that's what I have to go by."

Williams told the administrators she was unsure whether the additional funding for the formula would have to be submitted to voters for approval. She was skeptical about winning voter approval of a large tax plan, but on the other hand, she noted that after federal court ordered desegregation, voters do not want to see school funding decided in courts.

Everyone agrees that while a new foundation formula is a top priority, getting one written this year will be quite difficult. They also agree, a new formula must be funded to be effective.

"Regardless of how good this plan looks, without full funding we're not a bit better off than we are now," said Shoaf.