Missouri school officials worried about tight budgets without a fully funded education formula 93%

By Lilley Halloran0%

5/7/2026, 10:17:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.4% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 1,974 faulty-reasoning hits from 715 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.4% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,515 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.90% of the article peer group.

Some Missouri school officials say the state’s decision to fall about $190 million short of fully funding its K-12 foundation formula will create uncertainty for districts. 
The legislature sent its annual budget to Gov. 
Mike Kehoe on Wednesday, which keeps the same amount for schools  over $4.2 billion  as last year's. 
It’s the first year since 2017 the General Assembly has not increased funding for public education. 
That decision has undermined confidence in lawmakers’ ability to send money to schools in future years, said Matt Michelson, director of education policy for the Missouri State Teachers Association. 
“And so when that confidence is shaken, districts are more reluctant to give teachers raises,” Michelson said. 
“They're more reluctant to fund programs, to start new programs.” 
Michelson said districts across the state have made an effort to improve teacher recruitment and retention, but the budget could harm any progress. 
“When teachers start seeing their pay stagnant, and districts start pushing back and saying that budgets are tight because the legislature has said budgets are tight, it's going to make it harder to really beef up those recruitment (and) retention efforts,” Michelson said. 
Tough decisions had to be made in a tight budget year, said Rep. 
Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, a former teacher who helped craft this year’s budget. 
“It's so easy to tear down, it's very difficult to govern,” Lewis said. 
“It's a lot harder to actually get down here and make the choices and say, 'Well, we've increased, we've increased, we've increased. 
It's time to be flat this year and make sure we have a little bit on the bottom line so that we're not going to short people next year.'” 
Although each district will feel the change differently, Ritenour Schools Superintendent Chris Kilbride said the money his schools won’t get this year would have been enough to cover all of the bus drivers’ salaries and benefits, or the cost of running the district's libraries and media centers, for a year. 
The district will have to scale back on curriculum development and supplies to prioritize paying teachers, Kilbride said. 
“It amounts to us looking everywhere outside of salaries where we can trim, so that we can work to make staff whole, and so that we can try to minimize the impact to kids,” Kilbride said, adding that it’s not enough to keep state funding for education the same because “everything else in life is getting more expensive.” 
St. 
Louis Public Schools is “already doing some belt-tightening as it is,” said Byron Clemens on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers St. 
Louis Local 420. 
“It seems the legislature has abdicated its responsibility in not fully funding the public schools while prioritizing giving taxpayer dollars to private and religious schools,” Clemens said, referencing the legislature’s decision to allocate $10 million more for private school vouchers than last year. 
Lewis said the legislature has appropriated record levels of funding for Missouri schools in recent years. 
He also pointed to money for education not included in the foundation formula, including transportation funding and grants for small schools. 
“What we are seeing are superintendents telling their teachers that, ‘You got to get up there and whine, and whine, and whine and complain because you know they're underfunding us,’” Lewis said. 
“It isn't true.” 
Lewis, who said the way the foundation formula calculates funding increases for schools is “arbitrary,” is one of the lawmakers appointed by Kehoe responsible for rewriting it by December. 
And schools should not be concerned about funding because they have a record amount of money in reserves, Lewis said. 
Kilbride this isn’t true for every school district. 
Ritenour already relies on the fund to pay teachers until the state provides its annual funding. 
Adding to the future uncertainty are the facts that lottery money for schools fell short of expectations last year and voters will decide whether to replace the state income tax with higher sales taxes  both of which could also affect the education budget. 
“We're heading into a time of a high level of uncertainty around funding, and that's the worst thing I would say for children,” Kilbride said. 
“Children deserve stability. 
Children deserve consistency, and so do teachers and staff.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 5.6%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.6%This article: 16.8%Lilley Halloran: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 2.2%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.2%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 6.7%Lilley Halloran: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 16.6%Lilley Halloran: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion16.6%This article: 5.9%Lilley Halloran: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Lilley Halloran: 3.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 16.9%Lilley Halloran: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias16.9%This article: 39.4%Lilley Halloran: 6.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias39.4%This article: 1.8%Lilley Halloran: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 10.5%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man10.5%This article: 8.1%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 12.9%Lilley Halloran: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma12.9%This article: 6.0%Lilley Halloran: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.6%Lilley Halloran: 4.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization13.6%This article: 2.9%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring2.9%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.7%Lilley Halloran: 10.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion20.7%This article: 2.8%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 29.4%Lilley Halloran: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)29.4%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.4%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.4%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.5%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal11.5%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.7%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.7%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground3.5%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.1%Lilley Halloran: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

715 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers77%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Michelson • 29 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Michelson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Michelson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Michelson • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Michelson • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 13 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 22 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 29 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 50 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 58 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageByron Clemens • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageByron Clemens • 43 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 21 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 32 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 3 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 29 words • 0.0% coverageEd Lewis • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 3 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kilbride • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Byron Clemens

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words12% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%Byron Clemens: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.