The following weblog provides summaries of each date of testimony in the Committee for Educational Equality v. State of Missouri trial, held earlier this year in the Cole County Circuit Court in Jefferson City, Missouri.
The summaries below have been provided by plaintiffs’ attorneys. We will be providing additional information and documents as they become available.
To read media coverage of the trial, click the “Media Coverage” link to the right.
The trial commenced on Wednesday, January 3, with opening statements from counsel for the respective parties.
The CFES (Coalition to Fund Excellent Schools) then presented evidence for the balance of the day on January 3, on January 4 and 5, and the morning of January 9 with respect to property tax assessment issues which they have raised in this case. CFES asserts that real properties are not properly assessed in many counties in the State. The CEE did not take a position on those issues.
Attorneys for the CEE started their presentation of the case on Tuesday afternoon, January 9. Dr. Robert E. Bartman, who was the Missouri Commissioner of Education from the 1987 until 2000 was called as the first witness. His testimony continued Wednesday morning, January 10. Dr. Bartman gave a historical perspective of what has occurred in the last 25 years in education in Missouri, including the development of the Show-Me Standards and how they are tied to the Constitutional standard of providing for the general diffusion of knowledge to preserve the rights and liberties of the people in this era. He also reviewed the development of MAP (Missouri Assessment Plan) and MSIP (Missouri School Improvement Program) and the accountability and standards that are now required. He confirmed that the Missouri State Board of Education had requested $904.8 million in appropriations for the 2005-06 school year to fully fund the school finance formula then in effect and noted that that amount was not funded. He opined that the schools in Missouri were not adequately funded.
On Wednesday afternoon, January 11, and on Thursday, January 12, Drs. Sherry Copeland and Nick Thiele, the Assistant Superintendent and Superintendent of the Caruthersville School District, testified as to the unmet needs of that District and the problems that District faces, both before and after the tornado in April of 2006.
Trial is scheduled for January 16 - 19, January 23 - 26, January 29 - February 2, and February 20 - February 23.
The CEE (Committee for Educational Equality) witnesses continued on Tuesday, January 16, with Dr. Phyllis Chase, Superintendent of the Columbia School District. Dr. Chase testified about the needs of at risk children in the Columbia School District, how the model school project at West Boulevard Elementary was working, the need for the resources to provide similar programs in several other elementary schools in the district, and the need for early childhood programs. She also testified about the large number of LEP students (over 40 languages for over 600 students) in the Columbia School District.
Dr. Chase was followed by Dr. Kathy Thornburg, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri-Columbia, and Director of the Center for Family Policy and Research. University of Missouri-Columbia, who testified on the need for early childhood programs especially for children living in poverty.
Tyler Laney, Superintendent of the Crane School District, began his testimony on Tuesday afternoon. He testified about the need for early childhood education and the resource and facility needs in his district.
Mr. Laney’s testimony continued on Wednesday. In addition to his testimony relating to his school district, Mr. Laney testified regarding the number of reports which must be filed with DESE, the underfunding of transportation and the problems with Senate Bill 287.
Also testifying on Wednesday was Dr. William Schafer who ran the assessment system in Maryland. Dr. Schafer did an evaluation of the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) which was commissioned by MNEA in 2002, and he testified regarding the 10 ways to meet MAP scores in Missouri.
Dr. Pam Hedgpeth, Superintendent of the Republic School District, followed Dr. Schafer. She testified about the facility needs of her district because of the growth in the district and the lack of bonding capacity to meet those facility needs. Dr. Hedgpeth’s testimony will continue the week of January 22.
On Thursday morning Dr. Don Hamby, former Superintendent of the Willow Springs School District, testified about that district’s high LEP student population (Russian) and its high free and reduced lunch count and the needs of those students as well as generational poverty problems in that district. Additionally, he testified about the facility needs in that district as well as overcrowding issues and student to teacher ratio issues.
Chris Gaines, Superintendent of the Crawford County School District in Bourbon, Missouri, testified next about the problems recruiting and retaining teachers, the growing number of special needs students, the lack of space for college prep or advanced placement classes and other facility problems in his district. He also testified regarding the dollar value modifier under Senate Bill 287.
Dr. Gene Oakley, Presiding Commissioner, Carter County, Missouri, related the history of education in Carter County and the problems of generational poverty in that county. Dr. Oakley testified about the lack of industrial and commercial businesses in the county. He also testified that the US Congress has failed to renew legislation which provided money to counties and school districts with large amounts of federal forest lands, and how that would hurt the school districts in Carter County if that is not funded.
Dr. Jeff Lindsey, Superintendent of the Van Buren School District, testified on Thursday regarding resource and facility needs of his school district which has a large geographical area. He noted that there were 12 different school building on the District’s “campus” in Van Buren to accommodate a student population, with the most substantial building a WPA building which serves as the high school. He testified regarding the large free and reduced lunch count in his district as well as the large number of students who are homeless and the problems associated with educating those students. He also testified about the problems of recruiting teachers in his district.
Dr. Lindsey’s testimony continued on Friday, January 19.
This was followed by testimony of Dr. Tim Hager, Superintendent of the East Carter County School District. Dr. Hager testified about the resource and facility needs in his district, the lack of bonding capacity to meet basic facility needs and the large free and reduced lunch count in his district. A number of the school facilities were built by high school shop classes. A WPA built building is the most substantial building on the school district “campus” in Ellsinore. He also testified about the high unemployment rate in his district and the lack of any substantial businesses.
Sid Doerhoff, Superintendent of the St. Elizabeth School District, then began his testimony with respect to the pluses of a small school and the difficulties caused by inadequate resources to provide educational opportunities While the St. Elizabeth School District will receive a small initial increase in funding under Senate Bill 287 because it qualifies for the small school grant provisions, its will receive only about $2000 a year in additional funds thru the balance of the seven year phase-in. His testimony will continue on Tuesday, January 23, when the trial reconvenes.
The scheduled witnesses after Mr. Doerhoff for the trial week starting on Tuesday, January 23 include with Dr. Richard Salmon of Virginia Tech who will present a study on school finance equity in Missouri. Others who Dr. Linda Gray-Smith, Superintendent of the Worth County R-III School District, Dr. Pam Hedgpeth, Superintendent of the Republic R-III School District: Tanya Vest, Superintendent of the East Newton R-VI School District; and others.
The testimony of Sid Doerhoff, Superintendent of the St. Elizabeth School District, continued from the previous Friday.
Dr. Richard G. Salmon, Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, who also testified for the plaintiffs in the 1992 school case, was the next witness. Dr. Salmon presented two reports he authored with Dr. Lisa Driscoll upon which his testimony was based. Those reports show the various statistical methods of measuring equity he used to determine that the equity among the districts in Missouri remains unfair. He testified that while the gap between the richest and the poorest districts narrowed in the late 1990s it has widened again. Dr. Salmon also testified that Missouri’s system is “one of the most disparate systems in existence in the United States.”
Dr. Salmon’s testimony concluded on Wednesday, January 24.
Dr. Linda Gray Smith, Superintendent of the Worth County R-III School District, was the next witness. She testified about the financial implications of being a geographically large, county-wide district. She identified several courses and programs that Worth County is unable to offer due to difficulty attracting and retaining teachers. Dr. Smith identified low teacher salaries as one of Worth County’s impediments in that regard. She testified that Worth County’s base teacher pay is 93% of the northeast conference average and Worth County’s pay schedule is 94% of the conference average. She also explained that many of the programs Worth County currently offers for at-risk students and much of the school district’s technology are funded, in large part, by grants that are expiring. When the grant funds dry up, Worth County will not have the money to make up the shortfall. Dr. Smith also testified about the fact that, although Worth County’s enrollment is relatively low, it is not low enough to qualify for the extra money for small schools under Senate Bill 287.
The testimony of Dr. Pam Hedgpeth, Superintendent of the Republic School District, continued from the previous week. She testified about MAP scoring and the various ways, in addition to actual achievement, that a school district would be considered as having “met” a standard under the old method as well as under the new method of scoring. Dr. Hedgpeth testified that her district is a growing district, adding 100-200 new students each year, and that it was projected that trend would continue. She also testified that the state funding for her district for the next several years would not cover much more than a cost of living increase and that the money the school district would get from increased assessed valuation in the district would not be enough to meet the needs of the district because of the increasing numbers of students in the district. Dr. Hedgpeth listed cuts which would need to be made for the 2007-08 school year in order afford higher priority items such as teachers in the lower grades.
Tanya Vest, Superintendent of the East Newton School District, was the first witness on Thursday. She testified about the three campuses in the district – the high school, which is located outside of Granby, was built in 1968, and two elementary schools, one at Granby and one at Stella, with one of the buildings at Granby dating back to 1921. All buildings are overcrowded and are in need of basic repairs. Ms. Vest also testified that the number of LEP and special education students in her district was growing as well as the general student population. Because of the size of the district and the three locations 10% of the district’s budget goes towards transportation. Ms. Vest also testified that with the proximity of the district to Arkansas, the district loses teachers to Arkansas because teachers can make more money in Arkansas.
Mark Mayo, Superintendent of the Diamond School District, also testified on Thursday. The Diamond School District had the dubious distinction of have the lowest expenditure per pupil for a Missouri school district in the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Mayo discussed the programs that had to be cut because of a lack of resources and the unmet needs of students in the District. He also discussed the problems of meeting the needs of LEP children in the District, as well as a number of other subjects.
Dr. Allan Crader, formerly a school Superintentent and retired school finance professor at Missouri state University, testified about how calculations are made to determine how much an individual school district would get for the 2006-07 school year. Dr. Crader testified he did not believe SB 287 would provide much more than a cost of living increase over the next seven years even if it was fully funded; that it was not certain SB 287 would be fully funded given the past history of legislative under funding of school funding formulas; that it was his opinion school districts generally were better off under SB 380 had that formula been fully funded; and that the distribution of funds under SB 380 was more equitable.
Dr. Daniel Keck, who previously taught school facility planning at St. Louis University, testified about the facility study he did for the Columbia School District and what that facility study showed in terms of the needs of the district. He testified that just as such things as climate control, lighting, and aesthetics are important factors in creating a good work environment those same things are also important in creating an environment which is conducive to learning. Dr. Keck also testified that school facilities affect academic outcome.
Witnesses for the week of January 29 include Dr. Jacque Cowherd, Deputy Superintendent, Columbia School District; Tom Nichols, Area Supervisor, DESE; Dr. John Jones; Dr. Andrew Wall; John Myers, Augenblick, Palich and Associates; and Dr. Bruce Baker. Dr. Cowherd, Mr. Nichols and Dr. Jones will start on Monday, with it being anticipated that Dr. Jones will continue over on Tuesday, January 30. Dr. Wall will be on Wednesday, January 30; Mr. Myers will be on Thursday, January 31; and Dr. Baker will be on Friday, February 1. Other witnesses may also testify during this week.
Tom Nichols, Area Supervisor (South Central Missouri), Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, was subpoenaed to testify on behalf of the CEE plaintiffs. He testified that during an MSIP review the quality of the school facilities would not be evaluated and that upkeep and maintenance for poor buildings takes away from other programs.
Dr. Jacque Cowherd, Deputy Superintendent, Columbia School District, testified on behalf of the CEE plaintiffs about the facility needs in his district — only 6 of the 19 elementary schools are air conditioned, 154 modular units are being used for classrooms because of a shortage of space, and many buildings need repairs and/or renovations. Dr. Cowherd testified that the cost to build three new elementary schools and a new high school and to repair and renovate existing buildings would be about $295 million and that the current debt limit did not allow the district to do a $295 million bond.
Dr. John Jones, formerly with the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, testified on behalf of CEE regarding problems with SB 287. He testified he found problems with the districts included in the pool of districts used to determine the state adequacy target, freezing the local effort computation, the way the dollar value modifier was determined as well as applying it a second time to hold harmless districts, the lack of the inclusion of a cost of living increase, and the way the small schools grant is handled.
There was no testimony on Tuesday. The state’s motion to exclude the testimony of John Myers of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., was heard and overruled by Judge Callahan.
Dr. Andrew Wall, Assistant Professor of Education Leadership, University of Rochester, testified on behalf of the CEE plaintiffs about an article he wrote with Dr. Kern Alexander regarding weighting of students and that using a conservative approach low income students cost two times as much to educate. Dr. Wall also testified that in his study of Missouri he found a statistically significant and positive “linear relationship” between expenditures per pupil and student achievement in Missouri. He concluded from his analysis that when weighting for at-risk students was made, the public schools in Missouri were underfunded by approximately $1.3 billion.
Following the testimony of Dr. Wall, the state put on defense witnesses relating to tax assessment issues.
John Myers of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., testified on behalf of the CEE plaintiffs regarding the adequacy study (successful schools and professional judgment) his firm did in 2002-2003 for MECA (Missouri Education Coalition for Adequacy). He testified that the study is similar to the one he did in Kansas for the Legislative Coordinating Council and that in Missouri an additional $913 million was needed to meet the standards for the 2001-02 year. Mr. Myers further testified that since that study Missouri standards have gone up and the dollar amount needed would be more for the current school year.
Dr. Bruce Baker, Associate Professor, University of Kansas at Lawrence, testified on behalf of the CEE plaintiffs relative to vertical equity and adequacy. He testified that he had authored part of the report Dr. Wood did for the Joint Interim Committee in Missouri. In Dr. Baker’s report for this case he used various demographic measures and outcomes to show that in Missouri there are strong relationships between poverty and certain outcomes and race and certain outcomes. He testified that in southeast part of the state where there is high poverty and low funding there are strong relationships between poverty and lower outcomes. Dr. Baker indicated he was not agreeing with the $6,117 and not addressing its validity; that he was asking if the $6,117 together with the weights put enough money into districts with high poverty and it was his conclusion that it did not. He believes that the weights are more of a problem than the $6,117 because $6,117 is more than what some districts needed to get the 2005 scores. Additionally Dr. Baker indicated that the dollar value modifier suggested that children of undereducated parents should be paid less.
Dr. Baker’s cross examination concluded. In answer to a question by the Court, Dr. Baker indicated that his conclusion was that SB 287 fails substantially in compensating the needs of the highest needs districts, i.e., insufficient targeting to the highest needs districts.
Dr. William Duncombe, Syracuse University, an expert witness for the St. Louis Public Schools, followed Dr. Baker. Dr. Duncombe’s conclusion from his econometric study was that St. Louis Public Schools will require 69% more money than an average district to reach performance standards set by the State of Missouri with that being driven by the high poverty rate and the higher salaries required.
Following the conclusion of Dr. William Duncombe’s cross examination, Dr. Kendra Johnson, Assistant Superintendent Curriculum, North Kansas City School District, testified on behalf of the CFES plaintiffs. Dr. Johnson testified the free and reduced lunch number varies by school within her district from 15% to 70% and that since 2001 there has been a 25% increase annually in the number of LEP students in the district. She also testified how the North Kansas City School District committed additional money to schools in need under a plan they call “achievement plus” which is funded locally.
David Glaser, Chief Financial Officer, Rockwood School District, also testified on behalf of CFES plaintiffs. Mr. Glaser testified about a number of unfunded and underfunded mandates – underfunding of gifted programs, underfunding of transportation, underfunding of the SB 380 formula and the proration factor, unfunded MAP test costs, increased costs of contributions to the public school retirement system, costs of background checks on new employees, and lack of funding for the new additional graduation requirements.
David Glaser cross examination concluded.
Dr. David Damerall, Superintendent, Kirkwood School District, was the next witness who testified on behalf of the CFES plaintiffs. Dr. Damerall testified his district has one of the largest populations of people over 65 in St. Louis County and that the district also has one of the most diverse student populations in St. Louis County. He also testified about the maintenance problems associated with aging buildings and how buildings constructed years ago did not include such things as accommodations for special education students and the space or wiring for computers or libraries to meet standards for today. Dr. Damerall also testified that the preschool and kindergarten programs are needed for early intervention because it was difficult to remediate the older child.
Dr. Diana Bourisaw, Superintendent, St. Louis Public Schools, testified on behalf of plaintiff St. Louis Public Schools regarding budget cuts she has had to make since she became superintendent in July 2006 and the unique problems of a large inner city school district. Her testimony was particularly poignant with respect to the problems faced with at-risk children (85% free and reduced lunch), limited English proficient children (2900 students, over 50 languages) and with 10% of the students being homeless on any given day and 30% of the students being homeless at one point during the year.
Senator Charlie Shields, the principal sponsor of SB 287 and the current majority leader of the Missouri Senate, testified on behalf of the state defendants. Senator Shields testified that the purpose of the Wood report was to investigate if equity could be improved without additional revenue with the long term goal being to move to a formula based on student needs. He also testified that he does not know if any equity simulations had been done for SB 287.
Senator Shields was followed by a witness for the state defendants on tax assessment issues.
Dr. Don Francis, Superintendent, Affton School District, testified on behalf of the CFES plaintiffs. He testified that under SB 380 his district was a hold harmless district and got $786 per pupil and that under SB 287 his district will get $801 per pupil or only $100,000 and that his district lost money for free and reduced lunch. He also testified that 91% of the funding for his district was from local funds. He also testified that the buildings in his district are from 40 – 100 years old, that the district has a large population of students who do not speak English at home, that the mobility rate for students in his district is 30%, and that the free and reduced lunch count is 35% and growing.
Becky Kemna, Coordinator of School Improvement and Accreditation, Federal Programs and Early Childhood, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, testified on behalf of the state defendants on the numerous ways and the complexity of how a district could earn points under MSIP.