MISSOURI NEWSPAPERS TAKE POSITIONS ON PROPOSITION B

(Here are samples of recent editorial comment from Missouri newspapers about Proposition B:)

FOR

Hannibal Courier-Post

...Voters should remember that Proposition B, like most legislation, is a compromise. It took most of the last session of the General Assembly to bring this proposal to the ballot. Education dominated the agenda, and because the problems and needs of education are so diverse, various legislators applied various remedies to the plan.

This is not a Democrat-or-Republican issue. House Speaker Bob Griffin, a Democrat, and Gov. John Ashcroft, a Republican, seldom line up on the same side of an issue, but both support Proposition B. That alliance should send voters a message.

We are disappointed the Legislature did not pass a fairer school foundation formula last session. If it had, some of the objections to Proposition B would have been nullified. But the money generated by Proposition B will be held in escrow until the formula is amended, and that safeguard, we believe, is enough to warrant voter approval of Proposition B.

Critics of the proposal still are dredging up a convenient straw man: The Missouri Lottery. "They told us all the lottery money would go to education and we wouldn't need a tax," the argument goes.

Wrong. What WAS said, frequently, was this: Gov. Ashcroft stated he thought all the lottery funds SHOULD go to education. The Legislature, which controls the allocation of state moneys, never went along with that idea. So the Lottery money goes to the general fund, part of which includes some for education. But the widely quoted "all the lottery money will go to education" simply is wrong.

And some opponents of Proposition B don't like the proposal because other state agencies (mental health, social services, etc.) have suffered budget cuts (education has, too) and they want to spread the money around. We could just as easily say, they want to spread the misery around: If my agency can't have more money, no one else should either.

Again, this is a question of spending priorities set by the Legislature. We realize there are needs in other areas besides education, but rejecting Proposition B will not cure that problem. Passing it will help solve one problem, though. Proposition B specifically earmarks the money for education uses, so it will not be spent elsewhere.

...Proposition B is not a luxury liner it's a life preserver. And we should grab onto it Tuesday.

The Springfield News-Leader

...While there are flaws, the ultimate question should be simple enough: Will Missouri's elementary and secondary students be helped?

The answer is yes, including:

- Financial relief for local school districts ($150 million the first year, increased by at least $15 million the next four years under a formula yet to be determined by the legislators and the governor).

- Smaller class sizes ($15.3 million).

- Help for potential dropouts ($8 million).

- Expansion of Missouri's model Parents as Teachers program ($1.1 million).

- Vocational education grants and an employer council to match training with shortages ($5.7 million).

- A longer school year (177 days, expanding to 180 days as state aid increases to $150 million).

- Alternative certification for teachers.

- A guaranteed diploma in which students can return for remedial training within three years of graduation.

- Report cards to parents and the public on student achievement, personnel and financial support; and a report by grade in elementary schools on standardized student achievement tests.

What's missing?

- A formula for Missouri's unfair school foundation formula, the criteria for distributing millions in state aid.

- Enough money to fund all of Proposition B's claims.

The missing distribution formula is what rankles many taxpayers. If the measure fails, it's because the interests of 541 school districts lobbying 197 lawmakers couldn't resolve the impasse.

Ultimately, the courts are likely to decide. Two pending cases challenge the present formula on constitutional grounds. A circuit judge could write his own formula.

Voters may be deciding whether to spend $385 million now or perhaps as much as $800 million later to resolve the foundation impasse.

Proposition B will cost now. But how much more might a court-ordered plan cost later?

The Daily Star-Journal in ~Warrensburg

Missouri ranks 46th in the nation in per person spending on higher education. The amount is $124. That translates into being a strong indicator of the extent to which Missourians undervalue education compared to all but the four states below them. It speaks of a willingness to accept the status of mediocrity in education for Missouri children.

Our neighboring state of Oklahoma ranks 27th on the per person spending list. This represents $158 compared to Missouri's $124 and 46th rank. Oklahomans, though conservative spenders, recognize the value of quality education and only last week approved a proposal similar to Proposition B. It is a tax increase of more than $200 million, accompanied by a series of reforms for their schools.

If the states on our borders forge ahead of Missouri in that manner, not only our schools but our economy will reap the consequences. Business and industry, so vital for maintaining job opportunities and creating new ones, will go elsewhere because more adequately trained people will be found in the job market.

Missouri legislators established the act - Proposition B - as the "Economic Survival Act of 1991" for the purpose of investing in education and training. There could be no title more appropriate.

Educated people translate into jobs, and jobs into prosperity, which touches all Missourians from the youngest to the oldest. Approval of Proposition B figures heavily in that picture.

AGAINST

Columbia Daily Tribune

Proposition B support mostly stems from the simple and thoughtless premise that education needs more money. Its reform package was only added to appease those who would not support a tax increase for the status quo. The result was a sausage of a bill that actually would slow the essential process of education reform, now just barely beginning and certainly not far enough along to constitute a credible spending plan.

Proposition B is a pig in a poke. Voters are asked to approve a permanent tax increase, the largest in the state's history, on the mere promise that politicians and managers of the education bureaucracies will become much more adept at using their public money. After generations of steady revenue growth with poor results, they ask us to reward them with additional funding.

Extraordinary new funding at this time will relieve the pressure for change and tend to perpetuate the status quo. Bureaucrats will avoid painful change as long as possible. They hate to say no to any of their constituents. Hard choices simply are not made until resources dry up.

Resources are drying up, not only for education but for most of our public programs. The unremitting upward trend in public spending of the past 50 years is ending. We must begin to make hard but good choices hitherto unnecessary. The next step is for public spenders to do some serious zero-based budgeting ...

Zero-based budgeting forced by sparse resources is the only way to root out the tangle of wasteful education spending that has grown up through the years and put the resources to better work. People in education are happy to point out needs, but nobody is willing to identify serious areas of saving. No real process yet exists for making the tough choices this entails, and no such process will be triggered by Proposition B. The process of tough choice must be established before new money is considered.

...Promoters are making idle promises and outright misrepresentations.

They know, or ought to know, that if linked to increased funding their reform procedure will be mushier. What is potentially good about it will be much more effective if the reforms are made first and funding decisions made accordingly. They should establish a reform procedure not linked to new money.

...We must pay more attention to education and make serious changes. Finally, we are beginning to do so. It always makes sense for planning to precede funding. Proposition B seeks to put the cart before the horse. Vote "no" on Tuesday so we can start the process in earnest.

West Plains Daily Quill

Passing Proposition B would be like having a contractor present you with some rough drawings of a house he would like to build for you. You give him the go-ahead.

A year and half later you move in to discover that not only does your house have only two of the three bedrooms you thought you were getting but, also, only one bathroom instead of the expected two.

Additionally, you find out, unspecified by you, he has added a solarium, a five-car garage, a hot tub and a swimming pool.

Finally, you discover that he has taken additional steps in your behalf that have nothing to do with building a house. He has taken some left over funds and opened a savings account for you at a local bank, invested some of your money in a mutual fund and applied for membership in your name at a local country club.

Asked about his actions, the contractors replies that all you gave him was a rough set of plans, not a blueprint, and he did what he thought was best both with your house and other aspects of your life over which he had control by controlling some of your money.

Carry this analogy to what the legislature could do with the proceeds of Proposition B and you get the picture.

Here is what I think needs to happen instead:

- Testing of students and school systems should be put into place now. They shouldn't cost that much. Also, accountability for how the money from such an initiative would be spent should be specified.

- A foundation formula should be developed now - giving all Missourians confidence that any funds generated by a tax increase for education will be spent equitably.

- Omit any extraneous items from any future proposal to raise taxes for education.

- Forget public funding for private schools.

- Lock the legislature into performance of approved-in-advance programs and projects. No tinkering later.

I trust my local lawmakers but I don't trust the legislature as a whole; it has a lousy track record with "perfecting flaws" such as we find in Proposition B...

It is true that the state government has been to the well many times for more money for education. But I believe there is still "water" in the bottom of the well that we are willing to give.

But if Proposition B is the best bucket our state leaders can find to dip that water out of the well, we should deny them use of that bucket and make them fashion a better one after having met some of the above conditions.

Vote no on Proposition B. Then pick up your pen and make sure your lawmakers get the right message from your vote.