Rolla Superintendent defends poor decision to stay in school funding trial

Rolla’s School Superintendent Dr. Jerry Giger had this to say defending Rolla’s involvement in the state’s school funding adequacy trial. I was glad to hear that questions had been raised about the wisdom of continuing involvement, unfortunately Dr. Giger has decided to push ahead. He offers a thorough dissemination of his rationale and I do applaud him for having given it a good deal of thought and then educating the public about the nuances of this case. Those who pay taxes have a right to know not only how, but why, their dollars are being spent, and I also believe Dr. Giger’s heart is in the right place. I disagree with some major points of his argument, though, as well as Rolla’s involvement in the case.

The hinge of Dr. Giger’s argument is a rift between spending between rich and poor schools. This necessitates a change in the funding formula if and only if additional money does in fact improve student performance. The job that public education strives to do is to adequately educate all students, not to spend money and hope that results follow. The circuit court decision in this case, as Giger notes, said that the court does not have the authority to demand that the legislature spend more that the required 25% of the state budget. A following ruling said that Missouri is spending at least 25% of its budget on public education.

Furthermore, as we look at the gap between the districts that spend the most money per pupil, achievement DOES NOT follow accordingly. St. Louis public schools’ spending is some of the highest in the state and spends almost twice what MacDonald school district does, but St. Louis is one of three districts that have lost accreditation and has among the worst test scores in the state. Obviously, some districts can achieve more with fewer resources, and some districts do the opposite.

Essentially, the buck stops there. I commend Dr. Giger’s concerns and commitment, but the court has not only rejected the premise of the argument, but said that any changes have to come from the legislature. Giger applauds the Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan for not legislating from the bench, and then incongruously says an appeal is the next step. The appropriate next step would be to take the text of that decision to the legislature and define exactly what Rolla needs that it is not getting—since what would be done with additional money never came up in this article.

The last point is that there is no way to tie the defendant intervenors with an increase in CEE's costs, especially since they joined the trial right before the hearing. No post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments fly in my book. It is my understanding that they joined to protect taxpayers and to offer expertise that should but was not being considered.