Many schools ignoring new state law

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A new law requiring school districts to inform the state whether they're providing students an adequate education has been largely ignored by schools, as many press legal claims that the state isn't adequately funding public education.

The law took effect in August, and the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education asked districts to respond in December. The requirement applies to about 55 percent of the state's 524 school districts, those with less than an operating tax levy of $3.43 per $100 of assessed valuation, the presumed levy for all districts under the state's school funding formula.

Just 16 districts have met the state requirement, all of which report they are providing an adequate education.

The law established that if districts say they're not providing an adequate education, the inadequacy automatically is assumed to be a result of a lack of local taxpayer support.

About 60 percent of Missouri's districts that fall under the requirement also are plaintiffs in the lawsuit saying the state is not providing children with an adequate education and is not distributing the money fairly. Only two plaintiff districts have answered the question.

The department said some districts may not be aware of the new law, but some acknowledge they're intentionally disregarding it. There's no penalty for failing to report.

Van Buren Superintendent Jeffrey Lindsey said Friday that his southeast Missouri district decided not to respond, although it believes it's not doing enough for students.

"If you answer no, it automatically places blame on the local people, not the state," Lindsey said after testifying as part of the weeks-long school funding trial in Cole County Circuit Court. "We don't provide an adequate education. We feel it's the state's obligation under the constitution."

Others felt the principle was more important than fears of weakening their position in the lawsuit.

Don Moore, superintendent of the Scott County School District, said the requirement appeared to be more about politics than legalities. He said his school board wanted teachers to know it appreciates their efforts, so the district said it's providing an adequate education.

"It's a political question being used by lawmakers to make a point," Moore said. "In spite of the fact that they aren't funding education properly, we feel like we're providing adequate education. We felt like it was an insult to our hardworking teachers and principals to respond otherwise."

Alex Bartlett, an attorney for the main group of suing districts, the Committee for Educational Equality, said he advised schools there is no penalty in the law if they don't answer but let them decide individually how to respond. Bartlett said he's not concerned about the legal ramifications of the districts' responses.

"I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other," he said. "It really doesn't affect whether there's an adequate education. That goes beyond a simple yes or no."

Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, proposed the requirement and argued it serves its purpose, regardless of the districts' answers.

"Their position is not necessarily enhanced by failing to respond, because it demonstrates to the court that adequacy isn't important to them," he said.

"The failure to respond creates a huge opportunity for the attorney general in the suit," he said.

If a district doesn't respond to a requirement to say whether it's providing an adequate education, the district "can't possibly have concluded that inadequacy exists."