Proposed Missouri school funding overhaul could reshape future for rural districts  

ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (KQTV)-- According to the National Rural Education Association, Missouri ranks seventh in the nation among states where rural education is considered an urgent priority for lawmakers, school districts and local communities.  

Right now, the state’s Adequacy Target sits at $7,145 per student.

Rural districts in Missouri currently receive an average of just $6,449 per student in state funding—one of the lowest levels in the country. On top of that, for every $1 raised locally through taxpayers, the state contributes 71 cents. 

The state's funding contributions make Missouri one of the five states most dependent on local property taxes to fund rural schools. For small communities with limited tax bases, doing so can stretch budgets thin.  

Travis Dittemore, the superintendent of the Buchanan County R-IV School District, said his focus is less on political headlines and more on proposed legislation and what it would mean for his schools.  

“Our point is we look mostly at how it affects us directly. What kind of cuts we would see, and for the first time...We started to get some numbers on potentially what those cuts could mean to us,” Dittemore said.  

Dittemore said if funding changes go into effect, stakeholders probably wouldn’t notice major differences right away.

Over the next three to five years, changes in district operations and offerings would likely be gradual.  

Dittemore also reassured families that the district is currently in a solid financial position. Major cuts to programs or services aren’t on the table right now. However, he said long-term changes—especially to the state’s foundation formula—would be a bigger concern.  

"As far as cutting programs go, it would have to be something long-term and in terms of house bills. Perhaps we are more worried about whether there would be any major changes to the foundation formula that we receive from the state,” Dittemore said.  

He said most of the challenges would come to personnel and keeping staff paid according to what they deserve.

Like many rural districts, the district's budget is largely tied to fixed costs—utilities, transportation and other operational expenses—which typically account for 75% to 85% of total spending.

After the fixed costs, that leaves only 15% to 20% left of the budget to move money around where it may be needed.

"That would be the concern if that number were to grow even higher, of what we are required to spend,” Dittemore said.  

Josh Barker, superintendent of the North Andrew R-VII School District, shared similar thoughts.

Barker said the district hasn’t faced major financial issues in recent years, thanks in part to small-school grants aimed to help bridge gaps.  

Barker said recent conversations at the state level have caught his attention. He specifically pointed to conversations surrounding Senator Rusty Black’s (R-District 12) school consolidation plan and efforts to rewrite the state’s foundation formula.  

“They are working to rewrite the foundational formula currently, and some of the task force conversations have led to some changes in how the formula would be. We have done some research on what those changes could be, and it could impact the small rural school districts,” Barker said.  

One of his biggest concerns is staying competitive when it comes to teacher pay. Smaller districts often struggle to match the salaries offered in larger city schools.  

Barker also mentioned that the “Hold Harmless” provision has helped stabilize funding for their district. The idea of eliminating it, however, is troubling.  

“Right now, the task force is just having conversations, so nothing set in stone, but some of the conversations with getting rid of some of those things are concerning, and as an advocate for our school district, I hope that isn’t the route they take,” Barker said.  

Much of North Andrew's special education funding comes from federal sources, which could also be affected. 

“Things get tougher with less money. Federal funding, which is where most of our special education money comes from, might be negatively impacted. But we will do what we need to do to provide the services that we need to,” Barker said.  

For now, both superintendents are watching closely, running the numbers, and preparing for different possibilities. While no immediate changes are in place, the long-term future of rural school funding in Missouri remains a key concern for the communities that rely on it most.  

Sen. Black explained that a committee is reviewing Missouri’s school funding formula for the first time in state history. That group is expected to submit a report to Governor Mike Kehoe by the end of 2026.  

“The timeline is supposed to be by the end of this year, 2026. Hopefully, we get to the point of doing that and then to produce a new formula that’s a state law, so we would have to go through a process of the legislature, the Governor signing that, and the quickest for that would be 2027,” Sen. Black said.  

Sen. Black acknowledged that some schools and administrators are predicting worst-case scenarios if the formula changes. However, he said that based on his own review of past formulas — including ones written in 1993 — Northwest Missouri schools benefited from those adjustments in the past.

“There would probably be people who would be harmed by the formula, and that’s what happened in 2005, which is why some people in Northwest Missouri who don’t recognize this, but there’s two hold harmless provisions,” he added.  

Sen. Black said one “hold harmless” provision protects small schools with fewer than 350 students. Another protects larger schools that would have been financially hurt under the 2005 formula. Those protections, he said, were part of the political negotiations required to pass the funding changes at that time.  

Sen. Black also added that anytime a major change is proposed, it naturally makes people uneasy.  

When asked why the formula is being revisited now, Sen. Black pointed to history. Missouri revised its funding formula in 1973, again roughly two decades later and then in 2005.  

"What caused the rewrite was we went from 2005 to 2024 with small calls or increases in the funding that was required in schools. I think people overreacted to the idea of people rewriting the formula, although there are things we need to look at,” Sen. Black said.  

Sen. Black said school leaders are part of the review process. Superintendents serve on the committee, and he hopes they are looking out for the interests of their districts and communities. 

Sen. Black said a $400 million increase tied to the current formula sparked much of the renewed attention and worry in the creation of the new formula, prompting lawmakers and education leaders to take another look at how the system works.