Data could help both sides in school funding case

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- How much money does it take to provide students an adequate education? That question is at the heart of a court battle unfolding in a few days in the capital city.

In preparing for a trial starting Wednesday, the collection of school districts suing the state and the attorney general's office agreed to tailor their efforts and research to 36 of the state's 524 public school districts.

An analysis of how that subset of districts stacks up on issues such as test scores and impoverished students could provide ammunition for both sides.

Within the subset, some school districts spend a lot without much to show in return; others spend comparatively little but score high on state tests; and others are short on both funding and academic performance.

Crane School District in southwest Missouri spent an average of $6,845 per student last school year, far below the state average of $8,221, and student test scores in seventh-grade English and third-grade math also come up short of the standard around the state, by six to 14 points.

"Anybody who believes that money doesn't make a difference, I believe that they're blind to reality," said Crane superintendent Tyler Laney, who leads the Committee for Educational Equality, a group of more than 200 school districts that sued the state. Given more funding, he said, "you provide more time for those kids who are struggling to learn."

Also involved in the litigation is a separate group of a couple dozen mostly suburban districts that are trying to ensure lawmakers or the courts don't redirect their locally raised education money to a poorer area and to see that cost-of-living differences remain a factor in school spending.

Combined, those suing groups' "focus districts" come out about on par with state averages in student testing, while their average spending per student is notably higher, about $7,796, compared with the districts the state selected, at $6,807.

The lawsuit challenging Missouri's school funding method as inadequate and unfair was filed Jan. 6, 2004, in Cole County Circuit Court. With the litigation pending, lawmakers in 2005 revamped the way the state distributes money to public schools. The old system depended largely on the property tax base, and as property values rose, the state was unable to keep up with the higher payments districts were due.

The new formula instead sets a target of what it takes to provide a sound education to each student, derived from spending levels by districts that score highest on a state report. Extra funds are provided for disproportionate numbers of "at-risk" students. The formula determines what each district should get and provides state money for what's not raised locally.

Gov. Matt Blunt and legislative leaders hoped the new system would end the lawsuit.

But supporters of the lawsuit argue the new formula doesn't do enough to close the funding gap between what property-rich and property-poor districts offer.

"Realizing that funding is a mixture of state and local funding, you're probably never going to get to perfect equity," said Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, who spearheaded the rewriting of the formula. "The only way to resolve that is to take all the property taxes and income taxes, put it in a fund and divide it out. That's not realistic."

But that's what suburban areas fear could happen, through legislation or by court order. If a suburban district's property taxes were distributed to a poorer area, "you'd have revolt," said David Glaser, chief financial officer of suburban St. Louis' Rockwood School District.

Data from the North Shelby School District indicates students can perform well even when funding per student is roughly half that of districts like Clayton -- and about $500 lower per student than the state average.

At North Shelby, one of the state's "focus districts," 41.6 percent of students are eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program, comparable to the state average, but test scores range 14 to 37 percentage points higher than the state average. The free lunch population is a measure of poverty and can earn districts extra funding, because educators believe it costs more to teach such students.

North Shelby's experience could be evidence for those who think the litigation is unnecessary and that simply dumping more money into the public school system isn't the answer.

In fact, St. Louis Public Schools, among the worst performing in the state, spend much more than the average -- more than $11,000 per student in recent years -- and their academic marks fall far short. Just 24 percent of the district's third-grade students scored at least proficient in math and just 15 percent were proficient in seventh-grade English, both compared with 44 percent on average statewide.

A special panel recommended the state assume oversight of the long-troubled district for at least six years. The State Board of Education is expected to consider the idea in January.

Education Commissioner Kent King said pouring significantly more money into struggling schools doesn't necessarily help, noting the problems in St. Louis.

"Putting a lot more money does not guarantee better test scores unless there are dramatic changes in behavior in the district," he said.

He and others also don't think the state should inhibit districts that want to offer frills, and suburban schools say they should be able to do the best for their children.

"If local taxpayers want to spend more money, you gotta let them do it," Glaser said. "That's their choice. What the formula does, whatever it takes to provide an adequate level of education, the state has a responsibility to provide that funding."