I'm usually not a supporter of "legislating from the bench." It seems like the court systems have controlled our lives way too much over the last fifty-plus years, and they have often ruled in ways that have made our jobs as educators much more difficult. Our representative form of government ensures - if only in theory - that the will of the people is considered before laws are passed. Activist judges do not answer to constituents, and are therefore free to rule without fear of losing their jobs. So in most cases, law-making ability should, as it does, belong to the legislative branch, and interpretation should, as it does, belong to the judicial branch.

Another beautiful aspect of our government is the system of checks and balances. When one branch of government has overstepped its bounds or not adequately performed its job, another branch can overrule its actions.

During the last legislative session, the Missouri legislature passed, and Governor Blunt signed, a new funding formula for school districts. As a result of threatening legal action from the Committee for Educational Equality, leaders in both houses took up the issue and, in a matter of a few months, passed what they thought was an adequate and equal formula.

Some would say that the legislature succeeded in its attempt to rewrite the way the state funds its 524 school districts. Others contend the new formula caters to certain areas of the state, adversely affects funding of rural districts, and with its seven-year phase-in period, will not be adequately funded for almost an entire generation of students. The CEE followed through with their lawsuit this year.

Alex Bartlett, attorney for the committee, said, "I don’t think that one can say with a straight face that an equal opportunity is being provided to kids throughout the state."

Bartlett's arguments have been countered by the attorney general's office. Chris Quinn asserts that the students and parents have not testified that Missouri's educational system has harmed or hindered them. "This is not a case brought by concerned students or parents," Quinn said. "This case was brought by a political organization funded by Missouri public school boards that voted to fund litigation."

According to msta.org, "many of the superintendents who testified came from districts where ACT and MAP scores were above the state average, Quinn said, making it difficult to argue a lack of achievement."

So here's our problem . . . outsiders who view the state's education system as a burden to society want to link funding and achievement. You can't! You could search all day and not be able to prove that more money equals better education. I agree with Republican leadership that "throwing money at the problem" will never, in and of itself, solve the problems with education.

If you look at the achievement of the districts who are involved in the lawsuit, they are making ends meet - they may have to reduce their work force; they may have to freeze salaries; they may have to use decades-old texts. But the teachers in those districts are doing their jobs. They are performing - and so are their students.

I wonder if Mr. Quinn has looked at the districts who are not in the suit - the suburban and urban districts who have the maximum dollar value modifier . . . the ones who have 75%, 100%, 125% reserves . . . the ones who have high tax levies and assessed valuations. I wonder if he has compared the resources those districts receive and their test scores with the resources poorer districts receive and their test scores. I would bet that if he would, he would see that those districts who are financially strapped are providing the same - if not better - quality of education to their students.

As we reach the end of the 2006-07 school year, and make plans for next year, I see the results of the new formula in two districts - mine and my wife's. My district cannot afford a raise for its teachers, while many similar-sized districts, who are better funded under the new formula, can. My wife's district is freezing salaries for next year. Teachers will not move on the salary schedule - they will be making the same amount next year as they made this year (minus .5% for the increase in retirement contributions.) Both districts are forced to look for areas to cut a few positions to balance their budgets. Will student achievement be hurt? Probably not. Will teachers have to work that much harder to provide a quality education? Probably.

For years, teachers in urban and suburban districts have been paid better while their districts have received substantially more money. And for years, rural educators have settled for lower pay and less resources. It seems to me that our state has been getting a lot of bang for its buck, and I only hope Judge Richard Callahan understands that and forces the legislature to re-examine the formula to provide for districts like mine that continue to improve and perform without adequate funding.