In the effort to ensure all Missouri school children get an equal crack at a quality education, the state government has performed a routine of fiscal gymnastics in recent times. Beginning with tax-and-reform Senate Bill 380, approved in the 1993 session of the General Assembly, the legislature came back this year with Senate Bill 676, the alleged "cleanup" action for the previous measure. According to school superintendents who gathered in Cape Girardeau last week, the "cleanup" messed up, turning a bad situation worse. If this is the feeling at the most fundamental level of the educational funding process, the legislature faces another task in 1995 for cleaning up the school financing problems in Missouri.

As suggested in this space previously, the concept of legislative "cleanup" gives the public ample reason to be wary. The very title argues that a flaw exists in the original measure. Of course, mistakes find their way into the best and most well-intentioned pieces of legislation, but the notion of "cleanup" raises a red flag all the same, implying the measure lacked some elements of thought and proper reflection. In fact, Senate Bill 380, with its massive tax increase, was approved by the General Assembly in the waning hours of the 1993 session, offering reason to doubt all last-minute changes were properly digested and all possible consequences were thoroughly considered.

Thus comes a "cleanup," which the legislature intended to close a loophole involving the amount of money that could be spent by districts in lease-purchase arrangements. In doing so, lawmakers limited the flexibility local school boards enjoyed in determining the spending of dollars for public education.

About 70 school officials from Southeast Missouri gathered with representatives of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education last week to try to make sense of the changes. Regarding Senate Bill 676, the word "atrocious" was heard. It was also called a "handicap" and "such a mess." Ironically, many in attendance at the meeting stood at the forefront of a movement two years ago that prompted the courts (and ultimately the General Assembly) to take steps to make the distribution of state educational funds more equitable; today, after two legislative sessions in which this was addressed, the superintendents remain more skeptical than ever.

Even the state officials charged with implementing the changes voice apprehension. Said one assistant director of school finance at the Cape Girardeau meeting, "This bill, as with any other, is not black and white." With this, we scratch our heads. We think the product of two consecutive legislative sessions should be a measure in which ambiguity is erased, not increased. As taxpayers, our confidence falters at the expression of doubt by the public servants whose job it is to know the black and white of governmental policy.

Certainly, state education officials know what it is to put a good face on a teetering proposition. If not, they are getting an education with the handling of Senate Bill 676. If superintendents remain disgruntled with this measure (and there is nothing that can happen the remainder of this year to ease their misgivings), more "cleanup" will be required next year. The old saying goes that if you plant peas, you get peas. Missouri legislators planted a bad bit of law with Senate Bill 380, and the harvest is predictable.