You wouldn't believe it from listening to Sen. Gary Nodler, but Rep. Sara Lampe, D-Springfield, says that despite claims to the contrary, Missouri schools are still woefully underfunded and that the school districts who are continuing a lawsuit against the state have a point. Ms. Lampe said:
It is no secret that Missouri schools are severely under-funded. Yet there was money left over this year after the budget process. The school funding formula was rewritten but the inadequacy problem was not fixed. In fact, the funding formula may put schools in greater jeopardy by eliminating financial incentives for important programs. It is a false claim to lead us to believe that schools are getting adequate funds while actually funding fewer programs than in the past. Our children are not able to wait for those in the majority to get it right.
3 comments:
After reading this post and following the link to the original Springfield NewsLeader piece I think her arugment would have had more weight if specific cases were cited. In my opinion, she lost the high ground with her opening sentence in the SNL which said infact that more money was spent for education this year. Further along, she stated that Springfield schools were funded well, however they would need more local money to provide educational services.
So, how much is enough? She concluded that a budget surplus, "a small, but real" budget surplus was defacto evidence that the state and the majority party trampled over the state constitution by not adequarely funding education.
Therefor I am unclear which way Rep. Lampe leans. As an outstanding educator, which she is,she clearly desires education and our children to have all the funding necessary. As a member of the minoriy party, she clearly sees an opportunity to impune all others with example-less retoric designed to cloud the issue. Clearly the majority party is working to fully fund education in Missouri. The foundation formula is working. If some school districts, which really translates into the patrons of those districts, feel that more funds are necessary to provide educational stability in their district, they should vote affirmatively to raise their level of participation in their own children's education.
Woefully underfunded? Its a catch phrase, sloganeering at its best. Show the examples. Tom
Example 1: Missouri Teaching salaries rank 43 in the nation.
Example 2: Class size in high school is at an all time high because teachers laid off two years ago in bad times have not been replaced
Example 3: Students with reading scores that rank as at risk only get special reading assistance if they attend schools where 75% of the students scores qualify as at risk.
Example 4: The school foundation formula remains over $300,000,000 under funded from levels adopted as consensus "fully fundeed " levels when the new formula was written.
Example 5: School boards of 50% of the school districts in the state are suing the state for failing to live up to ists constituitonal obligation to provide adequate funding for eduation.
Thank you for citing some specifics.
So, as we clear the air, the legislature funds education to the extent possible as not all funds are able to be spent on education, what defines adequate? Adequate over how long a period of time?
When do local patrons take it upon themselves to make education spending a priority over say, parks and recreation spending? At what point in the discussion do local patrons take more responsibility for their children? Certainly teachers need more money.Class size affects the quality of the educational experience; reading is vital. I do have a problem with 50% of school boards, which are a branch of government taking to court another enity of government to secure money
in the state treasury put there by taxpayers from across the state. What defines not meeting constitional responsibility? Tom
Post a Comment