Two-thirds of districts in lawsuit affected by requirement

~ A lawyer believes the legislation essentially forces districts to raise local taxes.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Backed into a corner. A lose-lose situation. The proverbial Catch-22.

Such cliches could aptly describe what legislators have done to about 180 school districts.

A bill awaiting the governor's approval makes various changes to education law and easily won support in both the House and Senate. But the underlying bill has a provision that makes many school officials bristle.

It requires districts with local tax rates lower than the "performance levy" set in the new school funding formula to certify to state education officials whether they providing an adequate education -- and establishes a presumption that those that say they don't are failing because they don't charge local taxpayers enough.

The proposed law applies to districts charging less than the $3.43 rate per $100 assessed valuation, not counting debt or capital improvement taxes.

More than 250 school districts are currently involved in the lawsuit claiming the state is not providing enough money for education and is not distributing the money fairly. An Associated Press analysis of 2005 tax rates, as reported by the state auditor's office, found that nearly 69 percent of those involved in the litigation would have to report to the state under the bill.

Lose-lose situation

In essence, districts can't win, no matter their answer. If they say they're providing an adequate education, the state could use that determination to try to get them tossed off the lawsuit that claims the state is not providing enough money for an adequate education. But if they say they're not providing an adequate education, the legislation basically implies a local tax increase is needed or that the district should merge with a neighbor.

That may be why some districts expect to just not answer the question.

One rural superintendent, Tyler Laney of Crane, said that's the plan for his district at least. The legislation contains no penalty if districts don't comply.

The lawyer representing the major group of districts in the lawsuit said the bill won't alter his legal arguments as he prepares for trial.

"There'll be some type of a response made to the department but it will have to be approached individually," attorney Alex Bartlett said. "It may be a certification we're doing as best we can with the money we have."

Bartlett believes the legislation essentially forces districts to raise local taxes, a constitutional violation.

"It's the state's obligation. It's not the district's obligation. That's the basic underlying concept," he said. "It's a not-so-subtle attempt to try to shift responsibility away from the state."

Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, makes no apologies about the intent behind his legislation. He says if districts think they need more money, they need to look at not just what the state is spending but also their local effort.

If it's solely the state's job to provide education money, then local districts have no reason to exist, Nodler said, and should be turned over to state control.

"This bill totally respects local authority, local control, but it also transfers with it local responsibility," Nodler said. "There is no purpose for school districts except to provide resources, to provide adequate education to their students."

School officials from small, poor districts say the legislation is unfair because the new formula in theory gets away from a system driven by a local district's property tax base and instead sets funding based on what it costs to teach students -- so a district's tax rate really shouldn't matter.

Laney said local tax rates aren't the only element of paying for schools, noting property values in his part of the state are much lower than some other areas, so the same tax rate in two places can generate vastly different amounts of revenue.

"Levy does not tell the entire story of a district's ability to raise local funds," he said.

Suburban St. Louis districts, meanwhile, complain the legislation isn't fair because the St. Louis area has a separate district set aside for special education, and residents pay a separate tax for that district, so suburban schools' special education costs are not included in their levy rates as they are for districts with their own special education programs.

"It's a little bit misleading," Parkway School District chief financial officer Mark Stockwell said. "I'm not sure how school districts will answer the question: 'Are you providing an adequate education?' No Child Left Behind and the adequate yearly progress requirements will show that a lot of school districts aren't meeting adequate yearly progress."

Lawmakers who supported the legislation say it's simply a matter of making districts evaluate whether they're doing enough for students, but some school officials may find themselves in a no-win situation.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Newswoman Kelly Wiese covers state government and politics for The Associated Press.