Better Together left St. Louis schools out of its proposal. Local experts are split on whether that was a good idea.

Better Together’s ambitious proposal addresses a great many things, but it leaves out the linchpin of life in St. Louis: education. 

In its report, Better Together explained that recommendations didn’t address school districts directly because the task force was charged with finding efficiencies in government and municipal services, and that schools in Missouri are a type of “political subdivision separate from a city or county in which they are located.” As Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education spokeswoman Nancy Bowles says, “This is strictly a local government decision. The school district boundaries would not change.”

Better Together spokesperson Ed Rhode says the task force did closely examine the potential for improving services for children throughout the region—for example, reforming incentive abuse that redirects tax revenue away from school districts. The task force, he says, believes that education is a critical issue for the region that would require an entirely separate effort. (Better Together backer Rex Sinquefield has long promoted charter education as a promising alternative.)

At least one expert believes that education should be part of the conversation. Jerome Morris, an education professor at UMSL who specializes in the structures and cultures of schools, says it’s perplexing that there’s been a general “unwillingness to put schools into the conversation.” He notes that “schools are the places where people connect, possibly more than communities,” citing the classic St. Louis question to prove his point. 

“When you have a conversation about education, you are having a conversation about housing,” he says, which means addressing socioeconomic inequalities. “I am leery of any grand proposals that don’t center on marginalized communities,” he adds. “There are some brilliant scholars who do work in this area and should be part of that conversation.”

Saras Chung, executive director of SkipNV, a consultancy that examines system-level strategies to improve educational equity, believes it is wise to not bring school districts into the merger discussion. Otherwise people who are open to the possibility of consolidating the city and county might resist the idea solely on the basis of how it would affect their local schools. Though it’s possible to make reasonable projections about tangible budget items, Chung says, it’s much harder to predict what could happen with intangible factors, such as the level of trust between various communities and stakeholders.

Even if reorganized school districts are off-limits in the merger talks, some pieces of the education equation might need to be reconsidered. The Special School District, which provides services to children with disabilities in the county, has been supported by a tax levy on county residents since 1957. Would this arrangement continue in the same way? And what would it mean for the city, where the equivalent work is folded into the remit of the Saint Louis Public Schools? Likewise, current state law authorizes charter schools to exist in the city but not in the county. What happens if those geographical labels become a thing of the past? 

At least for now, Better Together would rather not take on these issues. Any further reorganization would likely need to come from state legislators.