Annelise Hanshaw
| Missouri Independent
Sarah Laub tried everything to get her son with learning disabilities a better education.
She drove him to a private school an hour and a half away from their home in rural Missouri before being directed to the local public school. When he continued to struggle, she tried homeschooling.
The local school district in Stockton, a town with a population under 2,000, just couldn’t provide everything her son needed, despite teachers’ best efforts.
“They really did not have the funds to provide him with everything he needed, and he really, really struggled,” Laub told The Independent.
As her son approached high school, she researched schools near Kansas City and decided to move her family to Blue Springs, a growing suburb with 20 schools awarded a National Blue Ribbon by the U.S. Department of Education. There, her son learned to enjoy his education and immerse himself in activities like theater.
“Seeing the difference that funding made and the difference in resources that a rural school versus a suburban school had was so infuriating,” Laub said. “All kids deserve to have access to those resources.”
For years, she fought for her son to get what he needed, but now she’s bringing her anger to a larger fight — one she believes has vast implications for public schools statewide.
Laub is part of a coalition called Parents for Missouri Public Schools that is organizing families against a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow state lawmakers to raise sales and use taxes in order to repeal the state’s income tax. Fueled by parents worried about the future of their kids’ schools, the organization is one of many groups labeling Amendment 5 an affront to public education.
The fight over Amendment 5 has largely been framed as a tax debate, with those in favor of the proposal pitching it as a way to drive more business to Missouri. But for public school advocates, the central question is what happens to classrooms if the state phases out a tax that supplies a major share of general revenue and replaces it with sales taxes under the purview of the state legislature.
“Amendment 5 could dramatically harm the bottom line of public education funding in a time in which public schools cannot take another hit,” Molly Fleming, a professional organizer behind Parents for Missouri Public Schools, told The Independent.
State funding of public schools came up $138 million short this fiscal year due to the state budget’s overreliance on lottery and gaming taxes, reducing the amount of per-pupil funding by a couple hundred dollars. The discrepancy has a disproportionate effect on schools who rely more heavily on state support, which tend to be Missouri’s rural districts.
The budget lawmakers passed this spring, which has yet to be signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe, keeps funding flat, coming $190 million under what the state’s formula for determining aid to public schools called for. And officials are predicting lean years ahead as the state reserves dwindle.
“The cut to public-school funding was a very serious thing for me to want to be able to get involved,” Sierra Kilpatrick, a mother of five in North Kansas City and regional organizer with Parents for Missouri Public Schools, told The Independent. “I need to do something, so I don’t feel helpless. I can go out and talk about this.”
Supporters of Amendment 5 argue Missouri should move away from taxing income and toward a system they say would make the state more competitive, attract investment and let residents keep more of what they earn. They have framed the proposal as a way to force lawmakers to modernize the tax code while giving them flexibility to replace lost revenue.
“Other states with no income tax have grown at a pace much faster than Missouri,” Gov. Mike Kehoe said in a recent radio interview. “We’re losing population, they’re gaining population. That isn’t sustainable.”
But opponents say the measure asks voters to trust lawmakers to replace the state’s largest revenue source without guaranteeing that public schools will be protected if the math does not work.
A woman at a pro-Amendment 5 town hall in Grandview earlier this month asked if public schools would face additional cuts, saying she worried lawmakers might not prioritize stable education funding if given more control over taxation.
Republican state Rep. Bishop Davidson of Republic, who sponsored the tax cut amendment, said he thinks public education would benefit from revenues being tied to consumption rather than income.
“States that rely on consumption taxes rather than income tax revenue have more stable budgets and more predictable budgets,” he said.
Davidson’s claim is largely true, with research showing that income tax revenues decline faster in a recession than sales taxes. But policy analysts have varying recommendations to fight volatility, advising states to plan ahead with large reserves or diversify its tax portfolio by not leaning too heavily on one tax system.
Amendment 5 calls for local governments to cut tax rates to keep revenue neutral, since it assumes more goods and services will be subject to both state and local sales tax. It includes a provision barring municipalities from lowering local funding of public schools under these clawbacks, but it does not prescribe any protections at the state level.
The Missouri Budget Project, a left-leaning public policy think tank opposing Amendment 5, estimates that the change could cut school budgets by 18%.
“It really does feel like a tax break for billionaires and millionaires versus safeguarding funding for public schools,” Fleming said. “There are a lot of parents who also are worried about their own bottom line, or worried about increased gas taxes, or whatever it may be.”
Fleming has an extensive background in organizing work, including the formation of a group called Parents for KC Kids which advocated for the passage of Kansas City Public Schools’ bond measure last year. Voters widely approved the $474 million bond, the first capital improvement bond to pass in the city since the 1960s.
Around 90% of those involved in Parents for KC Kids had never campaigned before, Fleming said. The group raised just over $11,000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission filings, contributing to a decisive victory through volunteer efforts and word of mouth.
The families who got involved in the campaign kept their advocacy work going, helping lay the foundation for Parents for Missouri Public Schools.
“When the bond passed, it was like a trigger went off in everyone’s head that, oh my gosh, we can do important things,” said LaNeé Bridewell, a mom in the district. “It is kind of like a bug. We got bit by the bug, and that first one gave us momentum and clarity about our ability to make change.”
Kathryn Evans, a Kansas City mom and nonprofit consultant, was used to helping charitable organizations advocate for themselves but hadn’t yet gotten involved in school matters apart from the parent teacher association. She joined the bond fight to help secure better facilities for neighborhood schools. But after the win, she hasn’t stopped seeing needs.
“Once we won that campaign, I became more aware that there are a lot of threats,” she told The Independent. “We just won a lot of money for our schools so that we can have nicer buildings and facilities, but there are plenty of threats to public education fundamentally.”
Across the state, parents in the Francis Howell School District in St. Charles County took on a similar battle this year.
In April, the county voted on a proposed property tax freeze, which would have stalled local revenue that public schools rely on, with 59% of voters rejecting the measure. The proposal was part of a bill passed by state lawmakers last year that also sought to incentivize sports teams to stay in Missouri.
Jamie Martin, who is president of a group called Francis Howell Forward, partnered with Fleming to educate her neighbors on why frozen property tax rates could harm local schools.
“Because of the property tax fight, I had learned a lot about taxes and how they’re divided up and how they work and how they fund schools,” Martin told The Independent. “So when I saw Amendment Five come on the horizon, I was like, ‘Oh, that is going to have major impacts for public schools,’ and public schools are something I care a lot about.”
Earlier this month, Martin led a training for parents in St. Charles to learn about Amendment 5. Her profession as an education researcher has put her at the front of countless training sessions, but the energy in this room stood out.
“These parents are ready, not just to hear the information and to complain, but these parents are ready to act,” she said.
Over the past few weeks, volunteers with Parents for Missouri Public Schools have held regional meetings in community centers, homes and restaurants. They ask attendees to spread information in a way that fits their schedule, whether it be in social media posts, play dates or more formal campaigning by flyering or making calls.
“The goal is to educate people on this so that they can go out into their communities and educate more people by word of mouth,” Kilpatrick said.
Although summer schedules are busy, Evans said, volunteers are finding ways to work advocacy into their schedules, motivated by the hope of helping their kids’ education.
“We as parents have the highest stakes, but we also have a lot of agency to make a difference in the outcome because of our relationships with each other,” she said. “We are going to be connected as a parent community because we all care about our kids.”
The coalition is also working to influence school boards to pass resolutions warning about potential impacts of Amendment 5. In the past week, school boards in Lee’s Summit and Kansas City have adopted such statements.
Parents for Missouri Public Schools has not taken a partisan stance, instead focusing on the impact to school funding and parents’ personal budgets.
“We are not affiliated in any way with any party,” Evans said. “There is a shared interest in protecting public schools, and that spans all kinds of differences.”
So far, the group has reported one contribution large enough to trigger 48-hour disclosure requirements: a $10,000 contribution from St. Louis-based Missouri Wins Investor Network. Smaller donations will be included in the committee’s July 15 report.
“It is pretty rare that we have an opportunity in Missouri to bring people together across such broad differences to all walk together towards something that we want to protect,” Evans said. “In this case, it is protecting public schools, protecting everyday Missourians.”
