Fully Funded Defunding

While Missouri’s public schools struggle for resources and teachers work second jobs just to survive, conservative legislators shamelessly boast about “fully funding” education. What they don’t say is that they rigged the system using a funding formula they modified nearly twenty years ago, and then refused to maintain.

That formula, called the Foundation Formula, determines how much money the state allocates to public schools. Each school district gets a fixed amount based on several factors, the most important of which is the State Adequacy Target, or SAT. This target sets a baseline funding level needed to educate a student for a year. Where does that number come from? The SAT is based on the actual spending of certain high-performing school districts. The idea is to raise all children up to the funding level of the highest-performing districts.

That doesn’t mean that all school districts are funded the same. A school district’s funding might be slightly above the SAT, depending on other factors such as regional cost-of-living differences, the number of students with special needs, and a guaranteed minimum amount based on something called a “Hold Harmless” clause in the formula.

In short, the SAT defines a baseline for what conservative Missouri legislators consider an “adequate” education for each child.

When the formula was last modified under conservative leadership in 2005, the State Adequacy Target (SAT) was set at $6,117 per student per year. According to the law, the SAT was supposed to be updated every two years to match changes in the cost of living and other relevant factors. However, instead of honoring that commitment, conservative lawmakers sidestepped it. In their relentless crusade to “cut taxes” regardless of the consequences, they failed to adjust the SAT to keep up with the economy, claiming to fully fund education while defunding it.

Most people weren’t paying much attention; they simply believed the conservatives’ talking point that the education system was “fully funded” and in good hands. The reality is that conservatives, who had held the majority in both houses of the Missouri Congress since 2002, watered down any efforts to adjust the SAT, choosing instead to use a Jedi Mind Trick to deceive the public.

As a result, the SAT fell further and further behind. Since 2005, the cumulative effect of inflation has raised the cost of living by roughly 65%. In the most recent legislative session, conservative lawmakers raised the SAT to just $7,145 — a paltry 16.8% increase over the 2005 level, far short of meeting the needs of 2025. And yet, there they were, popping Champagne corks, breaking their arms patting themselves on the back, and belittling anyone who dared suggest that schools still need more support.

And here’s where the wheels really come off the formula: schools in affluent areas are already well-funded by local property taxes. The Clayton School District, for example, spends nearly $22,000 per student each year. That’s three times the amount that lawmakers claim is an adequate baseline statewide. Ironically, Clayton still receives state aid under the formula, thanks to the Hold Harmless clause, which guarantees districts won’t receive less than they did in 2005, regardless of whether or not they need it.

This isn't to suggest that legislators should triple the baseline SAT amount, but it certainly undermines any conservative argument about the virtues of meritocracy when such blatant inequities exist in our system.

This baked-in inequity helps explain why Missouri’s teachers are among the lowest paid in the country — and why nearly 30% of Missouri school districts have moved to a four-day school week, not as an educational innovation, but to give teachers time to work second jobs.

And just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does.

Conservative lawmakers have implemented a 100% tax credit scheme that lets wealthy donors redirect their tax dollars into private schools through the MoScholars program. That money comes out of Missouri’s general fund — the same fund that supports public schools. They’re using public money to support private schools. And now, they’re pushing even more redirection of funds through voucher programs disguised as “school choice.” It’s a great deal for wealthy families who live near private schools and can afford the tuition. But for rural families or working-class communities in struggling districts, “school choice” is a cruel joke.

Conservatives are even floating the idea of implementing virtual schools, where students return to the Covid-era approach of attending classes via Zoom. Why? Because it saves money and allows them to continue their mindless mantra of “cut taxes,” no matter the consequences. This isn’t education; it’s a corporatized assembly line for dysfunctional education.

The Foundation Formula began with good intentions. It was supposed to lift up all schools by using the best-performing districts as a model. But that vision depended on lawmakers who were willing to maintain it. They didn’t. They let it rot — and now they act like heroes for tossing a few crumbs at a system they spent years defunding.

What Missouri needs now is a complete overhaul of the education funding system. To his credit, Governor Mike Kehoe has appointed a task force to study the formula and propose changes. However, the task force isn’t expected to issue its report until December 2026, and by the time state legislators digest it and propose changes to the law—if any— it’ll be far too late for many students.

Public education in America began as a bold experiment in 19th-century Massachusetts, and it quickly became one of our greatest national achievements. For nearly 200 years, it lifted generations into the middle class and helped make the United States a global leader in science, innovation, and industry.

Today, that legacy is being dismantled piece by piece. Conservative lawmakers want to gut the public school system, strip it for parts, and hand it over to private interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in academic performance. If this trend continues, we’ll fall behind in everything else: medicine, technology, space exploration, economic strength, and quality of life.

The question isn’t whether we can mindlessly chant “cut taxes” for another election cycle. The question is this: Are we willing to invest in the next generation, or will we sell it off to the highest bidder?