LACK OF NEW FORMULA MAY HURT PROP B

It has become increasingly apparent in recent days that the proposed $385 million tax increase to improve public and higher education in Missouri has a shaky foundation, one that could cause its defeat at the polls in November. The problem is the state's public school foundation formula, or more accurately, the absence of one in the Education Reform and Quality Improvement Act, now known as Proposition B. The reform act and its financing proposals will be submitted to voters in a special election on Nov. 5.

Since there will be no political offices to fill, and since special elections rarely attract more than 15 percent of registered voters, it is essential that the proposal have a solid core of teachers, educators and university faculties supporting it. Because state teachers' organizations provide a formidable political block for school improvement, it goes without saying these groups must lend their support to Proposition B for it to have even a ghost of a chance.

Even with teacher support, the reform act has a long way before it's successful in November. The multimillion-dollar price tag is an instant red flag to senior citizens, trade and business groups and even such progress-minded organizations as the Missouri League of Women Voters. The latter group has already declined to support Proposition B because of its taxing provisions. Specifically, the league finds fault with reliance on a small sales tax increase for a portion of its total funding. Other civic and commercial groups may follow suit and object to some or all of the proposal's funding combinations, in spite of its tax-reduction provisions for lower-income Missourians.

By now it should be obvious that, even under the best of circumstances, the education reform and improvement plan has a difficult way to go before its passage. In recent weeks, however, an even more serious obstacle to the proposal has arisen, one that if allowed to remain could spell defeat for Missouri's first serious educational improvement plan in decades. This obstacle is from a seemingly growing number of school superintendents and board members in Missouri's suburban districts.

These officials are objecting to the absence of a badly needed revision of the school foundation formula, which provides direct state aid to every local district in the state. For many districts this foundation funding is the principal revenue source, and the bulk goes to pay teachers' salaries. It is stating the obvious that personnel costs are of critical importance to each district and determines in no small measure the quality of instruction in all of the 543 districts.

Although this year's General Assembly sought to write an improved formula, members failed to agree on its final form. The difficulty in writing a formula that will gain even a bare majority should be understood. The formula must meet a broad range of criteria and must deal with a wide range of problems affecting each district in varying degrees.

In some districts the problem is a loss of students, which is an essential component of the formula, while in other districts the opposite problem is creating fiscal havoc. Devising a formula to deal with these and a number of other difficulties that vary from region to region is understandably complex. It is not surprising this year's session experienced difficulty in reaching agreement, and when efforts were being exerted to secure legislative approval of the education improvement act, there was little time or room for accord on a formula revision, controversial even under the best of circumstances. The decision of Gov. John Ashcroft, House Speaker Bob Griffin and Senate President Jim Mathewson to present the proposal without a bitterly debated formula revision was both the expedient and practical course of action.

The emergence of opposition form suburban districts fearing outstate advantage, under a formula now scheduled to be revised by next year's Legislature, adds a major and serious risk to Proposition B that was not present when the assembly adjourned in May. We believe it is possible this newly surfaced opposition will scuttle Missouri's chance to provide more than 800,000 public school students with the education quality they deserve and should have to compete in the future and to keep our state-supported colleges and universities from falling even further behind.

We urge Messrs. Ashcroft, Mathewson and Griffin to reconsider their earlier decision, call a special session of the General Assembly to rewrite a foundation formula, and present a complete education improvement proposal to the voters on Nov. 5. We believe failure to follow this course will harm not only the cause of public and higher education in our state, but even more importantly, will jeopardize the nearly 1 million boys and girls whose future depends no education improvement in Missouri.