The Missouri State Board of Education voted Sept. 15 to approve a budget that falls $270 million short of what is needed in fiscal year 2028 to fully fund schools across the state. Calculations for school spending are based on the Foundation Formula, which determines state funding based on attendance, costs and local taxes. Instead of increasing the budget, the board decided to request the same amount that was provided in public education funding last year.

According to a statement released by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) after the vote, “The department recommended full funding for the foundation formula. The State Board of Education voted instead to request the same amount of formula funding that was appropriated in FY-2026 and FY-2027. At this level, the formula would be underfunded by approximately $270 million for FY2028.”

According to DESE, under the approved budget, state spending will remain at $6,750 to $6,790 per student, less than the $7,145 per student the Foundation Formula calls for in fiscal year 2028.

Missouri educators have said that the decision will leave public school districts across the state critically underfunded.

Following the Missouri State Board of Education’s decision, the Missouri State Teachers  Association released a statement.

“This is an unacceptable decision from a board entrusted with advocating for the needs of Missouri’s public schools and the students they serve,” the document from the Missouri State Teachers Association read. “The foundation formula is not a wish list. It is established in state law to determine the resources necessary to educate Missouri’s students. The state board is being asked to fund obligations lawmakers created through their own policy choices, and the board is now asking the legislature not to fund the very items they placed into law. That sends exactly the wrong message to lawmakers, educators, parents and communities across Missouri.”

Kerry Casey, a board member from Chesterfield, defended the decision by saying that requesting less funding is necessary at a time when both state revenue and budgets across state departments are shrinking.

“The question gets down to: Do we ask for money that we know we’re not going to get?” Casey told the Missouri Independent. “I think we have an obligation to inform the legislature as to what the full funding would look like.”

Educators and school administrators in Crawford and Phelps counties said that their school districts are already feeling the effects of last year’s funding shortfalls and fear further cuts will be necessary next school year.

St. James R-1 Superintendent Tim Webster said the previous years’ budget cuts, coupled with the newest round of reductions, have meant that school districts across the state are tightening their belts, including his.

“Statewide, especially a lot of the smaller schools, are struggling right now. We are no different than that. We are struggling as well,” Webster said.

According to Webster, the two biggest expenses for most schools are for staff and activities, which means they usually face the brunt of budget cuts when money is tight. When St. James R-1 heard that budget cuts were coming, the first step was assessing the school’s staff needs.

“When we found out the cuts were coming, we just assessed every open position that we had in the district,” Webster said, adding that one of his goals was to avoid letting existing staff go. “We don’t want to get into a space where we have to cut jobs, but if somebody leaves on their own, do we need to fill it?”

Last year, the school district already cut, or declined to refill, some classified positions, which are non-teaching, non-administrative jobs. The school district also declined to refill some administrative positions.

“Across the board, we just assessed: can we do without that without negatively affecting student learning?” Webster said, adding that with more cuts coming in the next fiscal year, he expects his office will have to analyze every open position to see what staff the school can afford to lose.

Steelville R-3 School District has also been bracing for budget cuts, according to Superintendent Steven Vetter, who said that his district saw the cuts coming and has already taken steps to cut spending.

“We started to see this coming a year-and-a-half out, so we’ve tried to get ahead of the last two years to prepare for it, which has hopefully put us in a better position than we would have been if we had waited,” Vetter said.

Part of those preparations came from cutting non-essential positions and cutting costs in other areas. Steelville R-3 School District has limited its budget for some supplies and services. In the last two years, the school district has also cut six non-instructional positions at its schools, such as custodial and administrative positions.

Vetter said that to avoid directly firing staff, which the district hasn’t done yet, their strategy has been to freeze hiring for open positions or cut them altogether.

“No one ever wants to reduce staff in the manner of telling someone they don’t have a job. When you’re trying to get out in front of it, that’s the easiest flowing way to go about it,” Vetter said.

According to Vetter, having less staff on payroll means that existing staff have to carry the burden of covering manpower shortages.

“You know, whether it’s office staff or custodial staff, those folks will have to work a little bit harder,” Vetter said.

With cuts happening across the board for staff, trips and supplies, one thing that both school districts want to avoid is cutting teaching staff, which would result in larger class sizes and could affect student learning.

Last year, St. James R-1 School District declined to fill some teaching positions.

Webster said that school leadership had to make difficult decisions about what it could do without.

“Across the board, we just assessed: can we do without that, without it negatively affecting student learning?” Webster said.

Faced with the prospect of a $270 million funding shortfall in the public school system, according to what DESE says schools need, Webster said that they will likely have to cut spending on staff further.

“Hearing that more cuts are coming, we anticipate doing the same thing this year,” Webster said. “I would anticipate that we’re going to have to heavily analyze every open position this year again.”

Educators and scholastic researchers, such as The Brookings Institution, advocate for smaller class sizes, particularly for younger students. Research has generally found that smaller class sizes can improve student performance by allowing teachers to provide more individual attention to students. Larger class sizes, meanwhile, can make it more difficult for teachers to give students the same level of individual attention.

Vetter said that, while classroom sizes may increase due to cost-cutting measures, he hopes to limit classroom size growth as much as possible.

“As classroom sizes may increase, hopefully it’s not a significant increase. I think we’ve been able to keep them relatively low and reasonable. That would be our plan going forward as well,” Vetter said.

School management can prevent some of the effects of budget shortfalls by cutting costs. One thing they can’t prevent is the rising cost of operating schools.

According to Vetter, it becomes costlier to run a school every year primarily due to general inflation, but enrollment and costly necessities like fuel costs, products and services all play a role.

“It’s due to inflation and the cost of products and services. The biggest thing is those services and products that we have to purchase and to run the buildings. Those prices go up. In some years, it’s a significant increase,” Vetter said, adding that despite significant budget cuts, he is positive his district will be able to handle what is coming. “Not that it’s always pleasant and fun, reducing staff and having to go down in areas, but I think that everyone’s handled it well, and I’m sure we’ll continue to do that as we navigate the next few years.”