JACKSON SCHOOL FUNDING REMAINS DISCUSSION TOPIC

JACKSON, Mo. -- Mention the Jackson School District, and the ears of this community automatically perk up. As with most small communities, the school system and its activities take precedence, regardless of whether it's the next home football game or the regional band competition.

People in this area give to their school district. They've pitched in funding and labor to renovate the high school auditorium and built a new press box at the football stadium. They volunteer in classrooms and wherever else they're needed.

All that they ask in return is that the Board of Education and school administrators listen to their concerns and act upon their directives.

The only problem is, Jackson is quickly losing its smallness, thanks to an influx of new residents into the new community. The district's enrollment has increased every year for the past decade, and every new building that's built reaches enrollment capacity within a few years.

This trend, coupled with new opinions in the community regarding how the district should work to manage its growth, has created an unsettling new development: for the first time in many years, Jackson school officials have lost two successive elections regarding increased funding proposals.

"I only want the best for Jackson R-2" was an oft-repeated statement over the past week by residents justifying their reasons for either supporting or rejecting two funding proposals that were not approved during elections two weeks ago. It was the second time in four months school-funding measures had been defeated, which was unfamiliar territory for a district that had passed six of seven previous funding measures.

"I think the problems that we're having getting the issues passed are kind of a natural occurrence of the town's growth," said Tom Ludwig, a school board member from 1997 until April.

"Jackson is used to being a little community with a nice, small growth rate where we've been able to make decisions slowly," he said. "Now you have a community that's gotten large enough that it's hard to have a total consensus as to what's right."

Ludwig supported the funding measures.

They said the district had an obvious need for more space at R.O. Hawkins Junior High and increased funding for operating costs, Ludwig said. These costs will not go away just because the measures failed.

"I feel like people are complaining that everything has gone up, so why don't they expect the cost of education to go up?" said Dorothy Phillips, who formerly served on the school board for seven years.

But others in the community think the needs are exaggerated. They call for better spending by the district and a long-range facilities usage plan that includes community input. They discount similar committees formed in the mid-1990s, saying the district has undergone a myriad of changes since that time.

"I think they've got more than enough room," said a man who would not give his last name. "There's things they could cut in the budget that they're not thinking about, like salaries and administrators, because they don't have to."

A number of voters said they haven't supported the measures in the past, and they have no intention of doing so in the future. They cited high taxes and mistrust of the board as reasons to oppose the measures. They also wanted the board to tighten the district's budget on what they considered nonessential items -- including land acquisition for future construction to prove they were being fiscally responsible.

Many nonsupporters wouldn't give their names for various reasons, including a need to "avoid school politics."

"They've been defeated twice, which should send a strong message to the school board that they need to rethink the issues," said Henry Adams of Jackson. "They need to do something in terms of lowering costs instead of expecting people to always pick up the costs."

Board President Dr. T. Wayne Lewis said costs have been lowered. When teachers are needed but not hired, and repairs are necessary but not completed, and new library and textbooks are not purchased, that means budget cuts have taken place.

"Chances are next year we will probably have to go ahead with a salary freeze," he said. "We are bleeding right now. It's just that nobody wants to pay any attention."

Lewis has supporters who say they don't want to see the district forced into program cuts or budget freezes because those actions negatively affect students' education.

"There maybe a lot of newcomers that aren't familiar with the history of our schools," said Brian Duschell of Fruitland, Mo. "There's only one tax I don't mind paying, and that's the school tax."

Despite their support, some voters said they hesitate to put the issue back on the ballot anytime soon.

The move could mean passage due to increased participation by supporters in the general election. Or, voters tired of paying taxes and angered by the school board's persistence could overwhelmingly vote down both issues to send the school district a very direct message, they said.

The board will consider whether to place funding issues on the Nov. 8 ballot during a meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the school board office, 614 W. Adams. The deadline for getting issues on the ballot is Aug. 29.

"I don't know," said Diane Shinn of Gordonville. "With me supporting it this last time, I thought it was written well enough to pass."

"Maybe the community needs to feel affected by it before they'll pass it, and I don't know if that's enough time." The Rev. Grant Gillard also questioned whether November was the right time for a third attempt to pass the measures.

Gillard, who supported the proposals in the last election, said the board has worked well since the first loss in April to educate the community about its needs and how the increased funding would be used.

His support may be surprising to some, considering his membership in Citizens Supporting Jackson Schools. Some community members speculated the group worked to undermine passage of the funding measures, but Gillard said there was no such effort.

"Anybody that speaks out tends to be painted negative," he said. "I have three good reasons to support the election: Barbara, Austin and Claire. Politics aside, I've got to support it for the best interests of my children and for the best interests of the community. The needs are there, the passage may be inevitable, but we're talking about perhaps a compromise."

Gillard and others suggested the board should talk to nonsupporters of the issues to find out what type of measure could they support. Some additional funding is better than none at all, they said, but school board president Lewis thinks differently.

Lewis said the district has no choice but to put the same funding measures back up for consideration in November because the needs have not changed.

"I've heard so many different excuses, and it's things you can't come back and come up with an answer because otherwise you're telling folks they don't know what they're talking about," said Lewis. "I feel a commitment to the kids at the junior high. The longer we wait, the longer it's going to be before we can get them into that building."

The issues the district will have to address is not shared by all board members.

Newcomer Mark Baker, elected in April, has been the lone dissenter in several board decisions.

His willingness to discuss why he hasn't fully supported the funding measures has irritated several on the board and prompted discussion in the community the board might be better served by his or others' resignations.

"I don't even remember that for sure, but I could see that it could have been said," said Lewis of an alleged, open-meeting statement by a board member two weeks ago that suggested Baker should resign.

Baker, who did not confirm which member made the statement, said he recognizes his outspokenness may frustrate other board members.

"If they want to lash out at me, that's fine," he said. "We've disagreed in the past. Whether they hold a grudge against me for that or not, that's up to them."

Baker said the district is being served by "seven people on that board who are good people."

Conformity is not right if it means violating a person's principles, and on a school board, conformity is not necessary, he said.

"Just because I don't think like they do, it's not like I don't want what's best for the school," he said. "Maybe there's more than one way to say what's best."

MEETING TUESDAY

The board will consider whether to place funding issues on the Nov. 8 ballot at a meeting at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the school board office, 614 W. Adams. The deadline for getting issues on the ballot is Aug. 29.