GILDING THE SCHOOLS

Next month the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments over one of the most contentious legal battles in Missouri history. How the justices rule on the Kansas City school desegregation case will be a landmark decision.

At the core of the case is whether the federal government can require proof of improvements in student achievement before lifting desegregation program mandates. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to end for taxpayers and local school districts the nightmare that the desegregation travesty in Missouri has become.

The case stems from a 1977 lawsuit in which black parents contended their children were being denied equal educational opportunities. A federal judge found that Kansas City students did poorly in achievement tests because vestiges of racial segregation remained in the schools.

The Kansas City district's repeated efforts to pass local bond issues for schools failed as more and more parents moved into the suburbs where schools were cleaner, safer and capable of educating students. Perhaps the federal court could have given Kansas City special dispensation to pass tax increases to pay for some of the education improvements. Instead, Kansas City's segregation problem became Missouri's segregation problem.

The subsequent desegregation efforts in Kansas City and St. Louis have cost Missouri taxpayers $1.3 billion. Indirectly, the costs go even higher. Every dollar taxpayers have spent on a $250,000 planetarium, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, greenhouses, handball courts and other gilded diversions in Kansas City magnet schools is money that didn't go to local school districts, many of which are starved for the cash.

And what do we have to show for this grand experiment? Kansas City public schools continue to falter as student achievement scores plummet in step with enrollment. Those who can afford it send their children to private schools or move to the suburbs. The lavish public schools are as segregated as ever, and efforts to change that can only be considered an utter failure.

When the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that judges could end supervision of desegregation cases piece by piece, Missouri sought an end to the mandated payments to Kansas City. Now the Clinton administration has joined the debate. The Justice Department has concluded that until Missouri can prove its efforts have produced results and education performance has improved in Kansas City, desegregation must continue.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has asked U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to overrule that decision, saying the Clinton administration decision "sides with special-interest groups who seek to extend federal court control over the schools."

But the Clinton administration fears that a ruling for the state would make it too easy for governments to end court-ordered desegregation plans. It probably would. And why not? When those plans fail to achieve their stated goals while bankrupting non-offending school districts, it is high time they cease.

Was segregation proven to be solely responsible for the low test scores in the first place? If not, why should test scores be used as the only yardstick for determining whether segregation remains?

Clearly, such test scores are influenced by much more than segregation. Inner-city schools across the country face similar problems as Kansas City's with poverty, crime and a lack of parental involvement. To say that sending more money to build even more gilt-edged school buildings will change that is naive at best and, at worst, recklessly irresponsible.