Area Districts To Feel Brunt Of State Cutbacks
April 5, 2010
State lawmakers have said every recipient of tax dollars will have to share in the burden of budget cuts.
That is unless they’re a wealthy suburban school district, the Kansas City and St. Louis school systems, or small rural districts exempted from a 2005 formula to increase funding for all other schools, including most in southwest Missouri.
In order to trim $43 million in school funding from this year’s budget, state lawmakers faced three options:
– 2 percent across-the-board reduction for all school districts;
– $65-per-student cut for all schools;
– Or a reduction in scheduled increases for 372 schools that have been getting annual funding hikes since 2005.
Lawmakers chose the third option, which ha s sparked an outcry about fairness from school superintendents in the 372 districts that will bear the brunt of the cuts this year — and next.
"It needs to affect all school districts, and not just a portion of them," said Willard schools Superintendent Kent Medlin.
If the state gave Willard a 2 percent cut, it would have lost $288,674. But under the plan endorsed by lawmakers, Willard will lose nearly $700,000 for the current school year that ends next month, according to estimates from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The complicated and politically fractured system of funding Missouri public schools is being exposed in the latest budget battle brewing in Jefferson City.
On Tuesday, the Senate passed a supplemental funding bill for the current school year that reduces scheduled payments for 372 school districts by $43 million. The action results in $1.1 million less for Springfield Public Schools.
"They’re still getting an increase. They’re just not getting as much of an increase" in funding this year, said state Sen. Brad Lager, who secured a deal to protect small schools in his 16-county northwest Missouri district from any cuts .
The other 152 districts, known as "hold harmless" schools, were protected from the cuts . Lager said 70 percent of the schools in his district are "hold harmless," many of which haven’t had a state funding increase since 1993.
The Senate adopted Lager’s plan to shield "hold harmless" schools because those systems were not to receive an increase to begin with, Lager said.
Cutting all schools "would be an equitable way of doing it if every district in the state had received an increase in funding this year," Lager said. "But they didn’t."
Nearly 70 school superintendents from southern Missouri — including Springfield’s Norm Ridder — have signed a letter sent to the governor and legislative leaders protesting the cuts. They contend the third option adopted by the House and Senate creates "winners" and "losers" among the state’s 523 public school districts.
"Sadly enough, the ‘losers’ would be the schools that already operate with fewer resources and are least able to sustain major cuts in funding," the superintendents wrote.
Confusion on the House floor
On March 17, the House voted 73-83 against an amendment sponsored by Democratic Rep. Rachel Bringer to spread the cuts across all 523 school districts.
On the floor, Bringer said the question was simple: "Should the hold harmless districts bear their share of the pai n or should the formula districts (take the cuts)?"
Rep. Shane Schoeller, R-Willard, was among the 83 no votes.
In the rush to assess the impact to schools in his northern Greene County district, Schoeller obtained information from last November that indicated Walnut Grove schools was in the "hold harmless" category and could lose at least $40,000 from an across-the-board cut — a big chunk of money in a small district this late in the school year.
Knowing the larger school systems in his district — like Willard — could absorb the midyear cut, Schoeller voted "no."
"With the information I had at the time, I believe I made the right vote," Schoeller said.
But it turned out, Walnut Grove no longer has "hold harmless" status, further adding to the confusion, Schoeller said.
The following week, Schoeller switched positions on the issue, voting for an across-the-board cut for all districts for the next school year.
Rep. Mike Cunningham, R-Rogersville, also voted against Bringer’s amendment on grounds that the "hold harmless" districts would be getting cut after five years of no increases.
"There’s just no good answer to it," he said.
Cunningham acknowledges he also voted to give schools in his Webster County district a larger cut.
For example, if lawmakers had cut 2 percent from all schools, the Logan-Rogersville district would have lost $125,198, according to DESE.
But under the targeted cuts, Logan-Rogersville will lose $367,976, according to DESE estimates.
"That made it a tough vote," Cunningham said.
Southwest Missouri Republican House members who also voted against Bringer’s March 17 amendment include: Nita Jane Ayres of Branson West; Bob Dixon of Springfield; Ed Emery of Lamar; Tom Flanigan of Carthage; Mike Parson of Bolivar; Kevin Wilson of Neosho; and Speaker Ron Richard of Joplin.
Complicated System
School districts and lawmakers have long battled over how to best fund K-12 schools and make that funding more equitable. In doing so, the state has created different tiers and ways for how the money is allocated.
Some lawmakers believe the school funding formula made the "hold harmless" schools winners long before this year’s battle.
& #x0D;
"Hold harmless schools had more money going into the formula (in 2005)," said Rep. Sara Lampe, a Springfield Democrat and frequent critic of the funding formula.
In 2005, the legislature made the first major changes to the state’s funding formula for schools since 1993.
The 152 "hold harmless" districts that were seen as being better off were held harmless from cuts, but also didn’t get an increase. They range in size and scope from the St. Louis city schools to tiny districts like Dadeville and Everton in Dade County.
Wealthy suburban districts were included in the "hold harmless" list because they have broader property tax assessments on which to levy local funding taxes . Some rural districts in northern Missouri have higher property taxes, leaving them less reliant upon state funding than others, Lager said.
Bringer calls the "hold harmless" schools "specially treated districts."
"Because of the nuances of the formula, they’re getting more (money) than they should be," she said.
The 2005 foundation formula promised under-funded schools more money phased in over a period of seven years. But the state’s budget crisis has forced legislators to slow down or stop the scheduled increases.
"The purpose of the formula was to bring those other districts up to that level," said Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin. "The action that was taken is essentially to misunderstand the fact that the formula progression is not complete yet."
Issue settled — for now
The debate over whether to make all schools share in the state’s budget pain has not been a partisan fight. It divides representatives and senators by region, said Lampe .
Lampe said all schools should share in the cuts this year as lawmakers wrestle with a $500 million deficit.
Some legislators suggested that House members, including those who voted against the across-the-board cuts, expected the Senate would reverse its actions and adopt the across-the-board cut.
"Nobody should have expected that to happen," said Rep. Maynard Wallace, an Ozark County Republican who favored making all districts take a cut.
Since the House and Senate have adopted the same position, the $43 million funding cut likely won’t be an issue of contention in a conference committee of members from both chambers, Wallace said.
One option for stopping the cut is a veto from Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, Bringer said.
Nixon spokesman Jack Cardetti said the governor has taken no position on the supplemental funding legislation, House Bill 2014.
"The governor will review the supplemental appropriations bill carefully once it reaches his desk," Cardetti said.
Either chamber could vote to reconsider their positions, but that appears unlikely this late in the session.
"The debate now is closed," Nodler said. "And it’s closed really when many of the formula districts didn’t have much of a chance to get into that debate."