MISSOURI WATCH: LET'S BE CREATIVE ABOUT DESEGREGATION

Members of a Missouri legislative interim committee are traveling around the state seeking public input on how to conclude the $3 billion desegregation programs that have burdened taxpayers for nearly two decades. The sum total of these hearings at this moment appears to be little more than well-established sentiments espousing either a rewrite of the state's school foundation formula or the expenditure of additional millions of dollars to provide new buildings to replace those that have depreciated since the mid-1980s.

While each of these two remedies contains a certain degree of logic and equity, neither realizes the basic purpose of state aid to K-12 public education in Missouri: to provide today's children with superior educational tools that will equip them to compete in an increasingly competitive society. And let it be noted at this point that such a purpose is not limited to the operation of a laptop computer but includes knowledge in a broad area of academics, including the humanities, social sciences, professions and numerous artistic pursuits.

Given the duration of judicial presence in efforts to desegregate the state's public education system, it is not surprising that the principal proponents for workable solutions have broad experience in the law. Former senator John Danforth has proposed that foundation payments be expanded for those students from low-income families, arguing that the geographical area in which he is most interested in, namely the city of St. Louis, experiences greater educational challenges because of poverty, or at least a significant absence of affluence.

If the creative solution for ending desegregation payments was merely a matter of improving a family's income, then perhaps solutions could be more easily arrived at, but there are numerous geographical areas of the state outside the two metropolitan centers where poverty is as pervasive, if not more so, as in the core cities. There may well be an evident correlation between poorly educated children and low family budgets but there are countless real-life examples that disprove this contention.

The second major attempt to rewrite an acceptable deseg program in Missouri comes from, interestingly enough, an attorney who now holds an office held by Mr. Danforth and one who once opposed him for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Jay Nixon. As the state's constitutional lawyer, it has been Mr. Nixon's responsibility to represent all 5.4 million citizens of this state in efforts to limit and then end the $3 billion integration experiment that has assessed each and every citizen within Missouri's borders. Acting in this capacity, the incumbent attorney general has proposed a major school rebuilding program in St. Louis, where desegregation first began in the state, a plan calling for the expenditure of $304,000,000 in tax money for building repair and new-construction projects.

When compared to deseg's total cost, this is a relatively insignificant sum, yet it fails to address solutions in the second deseg region -- Kansas City -- and it falls short of meeting the vital purpose of education, as noted above, in improving the intellectual capacities of children 5 through 18.

As the interim committee continues its journey around the state, it has heard other solutions, not always offered as answers to the thorny desegregation issue, for educational improvement, and if some have been dismissed as unworkable or politically unpopular or lacking fairness, there are components of these suggestions that perhaps can be wrapped into a final, satisfactory and workable solution.

While any call for school vouchers is immediately disregarded by those who pledge allegiance to public education, the voucher program offers at least a possible alternative to expensive rebuilding projects that would most certainly amount to as much as $25,000 or more per student for only classroom space. One finds an answer in restoring buildings only if one is convinced this is the most salient requirement for better graduates. There are, however, other components, from parental support to superior instruction, that enter into this formula.

By supplementing deseg solutions with a voucher system, the state could maximize the excellent K-12 educational systems that are already in place, many of them located in suburban areas of St. Louis and Kansas City. Vouchers that utilize the excellent public schools in districts surrounding St. Louis and Kansas City would overcome much of the opposition that comes from those who are willing to embrace any argument that bolsters their resistance to ending a state gravy train that has multiplied administrative bureaucracy to the point of absurdity.

An accompanying remedy is to use a portion of the state education dollar for magnet schools, which are nothing less than the junior version of Missouri 's regional university system. State government allocates more than $1 billion each year in operating and capital expenditures for colleges and universities that are literally post-high school magnet institutions, providing students with technical, vocational and Intellectual training, ranging from agriculture to medicine, from education to law, from accounting to engineering.

In the same way state colleges offer specialized training for high school graduates, magnet schools offer specialized and technical training for secondary-level students, and the concept has become increasingly important as technology advances rapidly past the need to teach only the three R's.

By combining an enlightened voucher system with a forward looking magnet school network, planned and implemented at the local or regional level, Missouri could achieve not only a satisfactory end to the multi billion-dollar desegregation programs but install in their stead a modern, progressive and challenging educational system to meet the needs of the state's schoolchildren well into the next century.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.