DESEG'S END NO BONANZA; PANELIST: URGAN SCHOOL COSTS WILL CONTINUE

The complexity of issues surrounding the end of court-ordered desegregation funding in Kansas City and St. Louis schools could mean less instead of more money for rural Missouri schools.

State Rep. Joe Heckemeyer, D-Sikeston, said the state may find itself appropriating Department of Elementary and Secondary Education funds to cover costs in urban schools that were previously paid for with desegregation money. Some costs like transportation would be phased into the school funding formula, which would take money away from other schools in the state, he said.

Heckemeyer is one of 18 state lawmakers who make up the Joint Interim Committee on Desegregation and School Finance Issues. The committee held a work session Wednesday at the Drury Lodge to discuss issues that will shape education funding legislation during the next legislative session.

Several people testified before the committee Tuesday in Cape Girardeau during the first of five public hearings scheduled across the state.

"People in our districts of Southeast Missouri need to be aware of the possible repercussions of ending desegregation in the cities," Heckemeyer said. "It's ironic to say that, but we are now seeing that, surprisingly, desegregation could cost us money."

A number of broad issues were outlined during the work session. John Jones of the Missouri State Teachers Association told the committee the three basic issues of equity, adequacy and efficiency need to be considered when discussing funding distribution to urban and rural schools.

To decide the matter of equity, or fairness, the committee will have to decide how much funding should go into horizontal equity and vertical equity, said Jones. Horizontal equity is based on the premise of equal treatment of equal schools; vertical equity on the premise that not all students are created equal, so unequal treatment of unequal schools is necessary.

Adequacy is the amount of funding that is needed to adequately educate a child, said Jones. In the past, a guaranteed tax base was created to determine adequacy, he said.

Efficiency determines how effectively districts are using the resources they have. If a district has a lot of money in reserve, but children are not showing any significant academic gains, the district is not spending efficiently, he said.

"The current formula is based on the proposition that fairness is achieved when school districts have equal access to a combination of state and local revenues," Jones said. "It does not factor in regional cost-of-living differences, which may be something the committee needs to consider."

The committee identified eight broad issues it will consider as the public hearings continue. After the last work session in November, the committee will work on recommendations that can be developed into legislation to be introduced when both the House of Representatives and the Senate convene in January.

"If we're able to achieve consensus and draft legislation, that's good," said committee co-chairman Sen. Ted House, D-St. Charles. "It'd be a great thing if we were able to agree on legislation and draft identical bills to introduce at the start of the session."

COMMITTEE'S ISSUES

Issues identified by the Joint Interim Committee on Desegregation and School Finance Issues:

1. Distribution of desegregation savings

-- How much money is available when?

2. Defining at-risk students

-- Is it relevant?

-- Should the cost of education be increased? If so, by how much?

-- How to show progress.

3. St. Louis

-- Concentrate on children and stay away from the settlement.

-- Other issues: Magnet schools, voluntary interdistrict transfer programs.

4. Kansas City

-- Transition plan.

5. Governance

-- Administrative overhead (efficiency).

-- Decentralized governance model.

6. Charter schools

-- What is the range of charters?

7. Public School Choice

8. Dropouts

-- Length of school day.

-- Length of school year (year-round school).