THE FUTURE IN KC

Missouri officials have reached an agreement on ending the court-ordered desegregation fiasco in Kansas City. But it is too early to cheer. The agreement is expensive. Taxpayers will send nearly a third of a billion dollars to the school district over the next three years if the agreement is approved.

If it is, the Kansas City district will be left to run U.S. District Judge Russell G. Clark's gold-plated schools. The predictions for the future of the district are pretty grim when left to its own resources: bankruptcy or dissolution. Call it cynicism, but it is hard to believe that Judge Clark will approve an agreement that includes no financing plan after three years. This is the same judge who imposed higher local taxes to help pay for improvements in the district and demanded $1.7 billion from state coffers since the mid-1980s.

The big question: Will his ruling on the agreement come before the November elections? Both Gov. Mel Carnahan and Attorney General Jay Nixon are making political hay out of the agreement. It is ironic that the plan may never come to pass. The celebrations should wait for Judge Clark's stamp of approval. Only then can Missourians be assured that desegregation in Kansas City can come to an end.

Nixon points out that the plan would allow the Kansas City Board of Education to take back control of the district. But is that what the board really want? The attorney for the plaintiffs, Arthur Benson II, is still singing his same old song. He intends to argue that desegregation funding shouldn't end until every vestige of segregation is eliminated. Many teachers are also opposed to the plan, since between 125 and 200 teachers might be cut.

These are the same people that Clark has heeded in the past, mandating ridiculous amounts of money for programs that never really worked. In addition to huge operational costs, The district still has commitments for about $65 million in building projects, and the state has already agreed to pay about half that cost.

That isn't to say the state payments should continue. They shouldn't. But the agreement should have some kind of plan for future financing of the district.