| Missouri
Costing Out
Historical
Background
In 1990, school districts, students, and taxpayers
filed lawsuits and later consolidated, claiming that
Missouri's school finance system violated the state
constitution's equal protection and education clauses
on both "equity" and "adequacy"
grounds. The Committee for Educational Equality, a non-profit
group, originally organized in a rural part of the state,
built an alliance of rural and urban low-wealth school
districts. The St. Louis and Kansas City School Districts
joined the litigation as intervenor-plaintiffs and four
property-wealthy school districts joined as intervenor-defendants.
The trial court, in Committee for Educational Equality
v. State, No. CV190-1371CC, slip op. (Cir. Ct. Cole
County January 1993), declared the funding system unconstitutional
and held that the state must provide the same educational
opportunity to children living in rich and poor districts.
In response to the circuit court decision, the General
Assembly passed and the Governor signed the Outstanding
Schools Act of 1993, which increased school funding
by raising taxes, improved funding equity, and instituted
education reforms such as standards and assessments.
Committee for Educational Equality (CEE)
v. State
In January 2004, the re-constituted Committee for Educational
Equality filed an equity and adequacy lawsuit against
the state, claiming that over the years, the Missouri
education finance system had again become unconstitutional,
and that students were being harmed by underfunding
of essential resources, such as teachers, courses and
programs, and facilities and equipment. In 2007, their
constitutional challenge Committee for Educational
Equality (CEE) v. State, was rejected
by Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan. He ruled against
defendants’ argument that school funding is a
political issue that “should be left to the discretion
of the legislative and executive branches of government,”
instead stating, “judicial review of legislative
enactments is central to our system of checks and balances
and this Court declines defendants’ invitation
to avoid” that responsibility. Nevertheless, the
Circuit Court held that the state constitution only
requires that at least 25% of state revenues be used
to fund public schools and that the state was in compliance
with that mandate.
In September 2009, the Missouri Supreme Court denied
the plaintiffs’ claim that the states school funding
formula is unconstitutionally disparate and inadequate.
The plaintiffs in Committee
for Educational Equality v. State of Missouri
included more than half of the school districts in the
state. In ruling against them, the Court affirmed the
Circuit Court's reasoning. The 25% minimum level of
funding delineated in Art IX, § 3(b) of the state
constitution defines "adequacy," the Court
held, and plaintiffs’ attempt to read an additional
adequacy requirement into the general constitutional
requirement that the state “establish and maintain
free public schools” because a “general
diffusion of knowledge and intelligence [is] essential
to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the
people” Mo. Const, Art IX, § 1(a), was rejected.
Constitutional Provisions
The Missouri Constitution, Article IX, states that:
A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being
essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties
of the people, the general assembly shall establish
and maintain free public schools in this state within
ages not excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by
law.
Another section of Article IX states that:
[I]n no case shall there be set apart less than twenty-five
percent of the state revenue…to be applied annually
to the support of the free public schools.
Costing
Out
In 2003, a coalition of education, business and philanthropic
organizations released the results of a costing-out
study commissioned to determine an adequate funding
level for Missouri schools. The calculated $7,449 per-pupil
amount (in 2001-02 dollars) totals over $900 million
and includes funding for "at-risk" students,
but does not include facilities or transportation.
Last updated November, 2009
|
