MISSOURI
SCHOOL FUNDING EXPLAINED

MISSOURI SCHOOL FUNDING · EXPLAINED SIMPLY

First, they changed the formula.
Then came “fully funded.”

Lawmakers lowered the funding goal in 2016. And inflation means school dollars can buy less—even when the formula is called “fully funded.”

Find your district ↓What changed?

EXPLORE YOUR COMMUNITY

Find your district on the map.

Tap a district or search by name. See how its buying power changed since 2016.

447 with less buying power68 with more buying power1 comparison unavailable
Missouri school districts by change in buying power447 orange districts have less buying power, 68 teal districts have more, and one gray district has missing data. Use the district search or tap a district. Keyboard users can focus the selected district and use arrow keys to select districts alphabetically.NEVADA R-V: 18.3% less buying powerHUME R-VIII: 33.0% less buying powerNORTHEAST VERNON CO. R-I: 30.4% less buying powerPATTONVILLE R-III: 15.3% less buying powerRITENOUR: 22.7% more buying powerRIVERVIEW GARDENS: 40.9% less buying powerUNIVERSITY CITY: 23.7% less buying powerFAIRFAX R-III: 25.5% less buying powerNORMANDY SCHOOLS COLLABORATIVE: 42.0% less buying powerWEBSTER GROVES: 23.1% more buying powerSTEWARTSVILLE C-2: 25.3% less buying powerDONIPHAN R-I: 12.6% less buying powerNEELYVILLE R-IV: 5.1% less buying powerCRAIG R-III: 24.9% less buying powerSOUTH HOLT CO. R-I: 24.9% less buying powerLEOPOLD R-III: 2.3% more buying powerSOUTH NODAWAY CO. R-IV: 25.5% less buying powerWAYNESVILLE R-VI: 10.1% less buying powerOREGON-HOWELL R-III: 22.1% less buying powerSCOTT CO. CENTRAL: 26.1% less buying powerCAMDENTON R-III: 34.0% less buying powerFAIR GROVE R-X: 13.2% more buying powerMARSHFIELD R-I: 8.3% less buying powerBRENTWOOD: 16.8% less buying powerLEBANON R-III: 9.5% less buying powerRICHLAND R-IV: 41.9% less buying powerCHARLESTON R-I: 40.2% less buying powerAURORA R-VIII: 12.2% less buying powerCRANE R-III: 25.8% less buying powerWHEATON R-III: 6.6% less buying powerGIDEON 37: 27.3% less buying powerNEW MADRID CO. R-I: 40.0% less buying powerVALLEY PARK: 40.3% less buying powerHERMITAGE R-IV: 25.5% less buying powerEAST CARTER CO. R-II: 15.6% less buying powerNAYLOR R-II: 19.6% less buying powerTWIN RIVERS R-X: 40.7% less buying powerSTRAFFORD R-VI: 43.4% more buying powerWILLARD R-II: 12.9% less buying powerHAYTI R-II: 35.3% less buying powerMACON CO. R-I: 28.1% less buying powerNORTHEAST RANDOLPH CO. R-IV: 29.8% less buying powerWESTRAN R-I: 24.0% less buying powerMT. VERNON R-V: 1.6% more buying powerSCOTLAND CO. R-I: 27.3% less buying powerKENNETT 39: 24.1% less buying powerNORTH PEMISCOT CO. R-I: 25.5% less buying powerCARUTHERSVILLE 18: 31.1% less buying powerCOOTER R-IV: 25.5% less buying powerSOUTH PEMISCOT CO. R-V: 33.2% less buying powerALBANY R-III: 16.8% less buying powerBERNIE R-XIII: 24.6% less buying powerBLOOMFIELD R-XIV: 32.3% less buying powerBOSWORTH R-V: 25.5% less buying powerHALE R-I: 25.5% less buying powerCOMMUNITY R-VI: 25.6% less buying powerNEW BLOOMFIELD R-III: 11.3% less buying powerNORTH CALLAWAY CO. R-I: 19.8% less buying powerWELLSVILLE MIDDLETOWN R-I: 24.8% less buying powerKIRKSVILLE R-III: 4.5% less buying powerADAIR CO. R-I: 25.5% less buying powerMARION CO. R-II: 25.5% less buying powerATLANTA C-3: 18.7% less buying powerNORTH SHELBY: 25.5% less buying powerGASCONADE CO. R-II: 3.5% less buying powerMARIES CO. R-II: 24.6% less buying powerOSAGE CO. R-II: 22.5% less buying powerCRAWFORD CO. R-II: 38.4% less buying powerST. JAMES R-I: 29.7% less buying powerBOLIVAR R-I: 11.4% less buying powerHICKORY CO. R-I: 11.3% less buying powerWHEATLAND R-II: 25.5% less buying powerCARROLLTON R-VII: 20.7% less buying powerTINA-AVALON R-II: 25.5% less buying powerNEWTOWN-HARRIS R-III: 25.6% less buying powerPRINCETON R-V: 30.0% less buying powerCHAFFEE R-II: 18.5% less buying powerORAN R-III: 21.8% less buying powerST. JOSEPH: 18.5% less buying powerNIANGUA R-V: 7.5% less buying powerRICH HILL R-IV: 24.5% less buying powerVAN-FAR R-I: 7.3% less buying powerCOOPER CO. R-IV: 25.6% less buying powerSMITHTON R-VI: 29.0% less buying powerASH GROVE R-IV: 13.3% more buying powerNORBORNE R-VIII: 25.5% less buying powerHARDIN-CENTRAL C-2: 25.8% less buying powerBRAYMER C-4: 25.8% less buying powerDALLAS CO. R-I: 14.7% less buying powerPLATO R-V: 26.1% less buying powerSTOUTLAND R-II: 36.4% less buying powerLACLEDE CO. R-I: 16.5% less buying powerCAMERON R-I: 27.0% less buying powerPATTONSBURG R-II: 25.5% less buying powerWINSTON R-VI: 25.5% less buying powerNORTH DAVIESS R-III: 25.5% less buying powerTRENTON R-IX: 22.3% less buying powerGASCONADE CO. R-I: 40.3% less buying powerOSAGE CO. R-I: 25.5% less buying powerMEADVILLE R-IV: 24.5% less buying powerLINN CO. R-I: 26.7% less buying powerNORTHEAST NODAWAY CO. R-V: 25.5% less buying powerWORTH CO. R-III: 25.5% less buying powerBROOKFIELD R-III: 37.6% less buying powerNORTH MERCER CO. R-III: 34.2% less buying powerMARCELINE R-V: 16.9% less buying powerSCHUYLER CO. R-I: 7.4% less buying powerDIXON R-I: 39.2% less buying powerROLLA 31: 4.3% less buying powerEAST PRAIRIE R-II: 27.7% less buying powerSCOTT CO. R-IV: 22.3% less buying powerSPOKANE R-VII: 20.6% less buying powerAVA R-I: 9.9% less buying powerMANSFIELD R-IV: 16.2% less buying powerNORWOOD R-I: 21.6% less buying powerHARTVILLE R-II: 27.7% less buying powerMONITEAU CO. R-I: 9.1% less buying powerELDON R-I: 7.8% more buying powerPRAIRIE HOME R-V: 17.2% less buying powerMORGAN CO. R-II: 29.4% less buying powerBILLINGS R-IV: 13.9% less buying powerHURLEY R-I: 25.5% less buying powerHOLLISTER R-V: 12.1% less buying powerBLUE EYE R-V: 32.7% less buying powerMACKS CREEK R-V: 25.3% less buying powerOZARK R-VI: 5.3% more buying powerSPARTA R-III: 24.5% less buying powerHICKMAN MILLS C-1: 37.5% less buying powerBLUE SPRINGS R-IV: 2.1% less buying powerKANSAS CITY 33: 9.2% less buying powerLA MONTE R-IV: 34.0% less buying powerADVANCE R-IV: 6.8% less buying powerMEADOW HEIGHTS R-II: 16.7% less buying powerSTEELVILLE R-III: 22.6% less buying powerFORT ZUMWALT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 19.5% less buying powerWASHINGTON: 30.6% less buying powerUNION R-XI: 5.3% less buying powerSULLIVAN: 23.5% less buying powerCRAWFORD CO. R-I: 32.9% less buying powerCENTER 58: 9.0% less buying powerGRAIN VALLEY R-V: 0.9% more buying powerINDEPENDENCE 30: 10.7% less buying powerRAYTOWN C-2: 25.5% less buying powerHIGBEE R-VIII: 24.6% less buying powerMOBERLY: 22.8% less buying powerSANTA FE R-X: 25.8% less buying powerLEXINGTON R-V: 20.7% less buying powerRICHMOND R-XVI: 15.8% less buying powerWELLINGTON-NAPOLEON R-IX: 9.6% less buying powerPIKE CO. R-III: 15.3% less buying powerWARREN CO. R-III: 22.2% less buying powerWRIGHT CITY R-II OF WARREN CO.: 21.6% more buying powerODESSA R-VII: 12.0% less buying powerSWEET SPRINGS R-VII: 23.8% less buying powerSHERWOOD CASS R-VIII: 24.5% less buying powerHOLDEN R-III: 12.6% less buying powerWARRENSBURG R-VI: 10.5% more buying powerKINGSVILLE R-I: 29.8% less buying powerLEETON R-X: 26.0% less buying powerCOUCH R-I: 25.5% less buying powerWINONA R-III: 19.8% less buying powerFORT OSAGE R-I: 25.1% less buying powerGRANDVIEW C-4: 35.2% less buying powerSENECA R-VII: 17.5% less buying powerSOUTH HARRISON CO. R-II: 21.0% less buying powerGILMAN CITY R-IV: 5.3% less buying powerHAMILTON R-II: 19.3% less buying powerFREDERICKTOWN R-I: 7.5% less buying powerLEE'S SUMMIT R-VII: 7.2% less buying powerLONE JACK C-6: 4.8% more buying powerBELTON 124: 17.1% less buying powerPLEASANT HILL R-III: 13.3% less buying powerSOUTH IRON CO. R-I: 27.5% less buying powerCLEARWATER R-I: 34.3% less buying powerCARL JUNCTION R-I: 10.6% less buying powerRAYMORE-PECULIAR R-II: 2.2% less buying powerARCHIE R-V: 11.8% less buying powerADRIAN R-III: 15.3% less buying powerMIAMI R-I: 25.8% less buying powerDREXEL R-IV: 25.8% less buying powerCHILLICOTHE R-II: 16.5% less buying powerMOUNTAIN VIEW-BIRCH TREE R-III: 5.7% less buying powerWINDSOR C-1: 16.5% less buying powerROCKWOOD R-VI: 9.9% less buying powerGREENVILLE R-II: 40.3% less buying powerPOPLAR BLUFF R-I: 14.1% less buying powerNEW HAVEN: 16.1% less buying powerBISMARCK R-V: 34.8% less buying powerMONTROSE R-XIV: 25.4% less buying powerCALHOUN R-VIII: 25.4% less buying powerELSBERRY R-II: 4.6% less buying powerWINFIELD R-IV: 8.4% less buying powerTROY R-III: 0.8% more buying powerBUCHANAN CO. R-IV: 25.3% less buying powerMID-BUCHANAN CO. R-V: 31.9% more buying powerNORTHWEST R-I: 30.6% less buying powerCOLUMBIA 93: 14.3% more buying powerSOUTHERN BOONE CO. R-I: 18.5% more buying powerCRYSTAL CITY 47: 20.0% less buying powerFOX C-6: 22.2% less buying powerGRANDVIEW R-II: 6.5% less buying powerDUNKLIN R-V: 12.3% less buying powerGAINESVILLE R-V: 1.3% less buying powerMERAMEC VALLEY R-III: 21.8% less buying powerST. CLAIR R-XIII: 15.1% less buying powerTARKIO R-I: 25.5% less buying powerST. ELIZABETH R-IV: 8.0% less buying powerOSAGE CO. R-III: 22.0% less buying powerKNOX CO. R-I: 13.7% less buying powerLEWIS CO. C-1: 21.8% less buying powerJACKSON R-II: 21.3% more buying powerCAPE GIRARDEAU 63: 17.5% more buying powerOAK RIDGE R-VI: 16.6% less buying powerDELTA R-V: 25.4% less buying powerADAIR CO. R-II: 25.5% less buying powerSCHOOL OF THE OSAGE: 23.2% less buying powerORRICK R-XI: 25.8% less buying powerPOLO R-VII: 29.8% less buying powerRALLS CO. R-II: 11.7% more buying powerMADISON C-3: 25.5% less buying powerMONROE CITY R-I: 1.6% less buying powerSILEX R-I: 12.1% more buying powerLOUISIANA R-II: 17.8% less buying powerBOWLING GREEN R-I: 0.9% less buying powerPARK HILL: 15.4% more buying powerEAST BUCHANAN CO. C-1 (025076): 20.3% less buying powerRIDGEWAY R-V: 25.5% less buying powerBRECKENRIDGE R-I: 25.8% less buying powerGALLATIN R-V: 27.4% less buying powerTRI-COUNTY R-VII: 25.5% less buying powerDORA R-III: 33.4% less buying powerLUTIE R-VI: 25.5% less buying powerMILLER CO. R-III: 25.7% less buying powerIBERIA R-V: 20.7% less buying powerUNION STAR R-II: 17.6% less buying powerNODAWAY-HOLT R-VII: 25.5% less buying powerKING CITY R-I: 24.9% less buying powerNORTH ANDREW CO. R-VI: 25.3% less buying powerJEFFERSON C-123: 25.5% less buying powerMARYVILLE R-II: 0.9% more buying powerPOTOSI R-III: 24.0% less buying powerVALLEY R-VI: 25.7% less buying powerWEST ST. FRANCOIS CO. R-IV: 10.2% less buying powerBELL CITY R-II: 25.3% less buying powerDEXTER R-XI: 4.7% less buying powerZALMA R-V: 36.3% less buying powerPUXICO R-VIII: 20.7% less buying powerRICHLAND R-I: 25.3% less buying powerLA PLATA R-II: 25.5% less buying powerNORTH NODAWAY CO. R-VI: 25.5% less buying powerORCHARD FARM R-V: 111.6% more buying powerWENTZVILLE R-IV: 8.7% more buying powerCENTRALIA R-VI: 19.6% less buying powerPARIS R-II: 8.3% less buying powerBRADLEYVILLE R-I: 17.1% less buying powerFARMINGTON R-VII: 6.4% less buying powerCENTRAL R-III: 18.1% less buying powerNORTH ST. FRANCOIS CO. R-I: 35.1% less buying powerSTE. GENEVIEVE CO. R-II: 55.1% more buying powerJAMESTOWN C-1: 25.5% less buying powerCOLE CO. R-I: 8.7% less buying powerFAIR PLAY R-II: 17.0% less buying powerHALFWAY R-III: 9.6% less buying powerWOODLAND R-IV: 14.7% less buying powerPERRY CO. 32: 19.0% less buying powerIRON CO. C-4: 15.4% less buying powerFERGUSON-FLORISSANT R-II: 34.4% less buying powerHAZELWOOD: 26.2% less buying powerLINDBERGH SCHOOLS: 220.2% more buying powerMEHLVILLE R-IX: 18.8% more buying powerPARKWAY C-2: 26.9% less buying powerCONCORDIA R-II: 7.4% more buying powerLAFAYETTE CO. C-1: 11.7% less buying powerOAK GROVE R-VI: 14.5% less buying powerGLASGOW: 0.0% more buying powerPETTIS CO. R-V: 25.2% less buying powerSLATER: 22.5% less buying powerARCADIA VALLEY R-II: 13.2% less buying powerMARQUAND-ZION R-VI: 25.5% less buying powerSMITHVILLE R-II: 19.8% less buying powerEXCELSIOR SPRINGS 40: 24.1% less buying powerKEARNEY R-I: 14.3% less buying powerBAKERSFIELD R-IV: 11.5% less buying powerVAN BUREN R-I: 19.8% less buying powerST. CHARLES R-VI: 29.2% less buying powerFRANCIS HOWELL R-III: 5.1% less buying powerAFFTON 101: 59.9% more buying powerBAYLESS: 22.8% more buying powerEL DORADO SPRINGS R-II: 22.6% less buying powerHUMANSVILLE R-IV: 14.9% less buying powerSCOTT CITY R-I: 12.9% less buying powerGOLDEN CITY R-III: 25.5% less buying powerLAMAR R-I: 24.4% less buying powerSHELDON R-VIII: 10.0% less buying powerCLAYTON: 22.5% less buying powerHANCOCK PLACE: 23.6% less buying powerJENNINGS: 38.7% less buying powerEVERTON R-III: 25.5% less buying powerSTOCKTON R-I: 19.3% less buying powerDESOTO 73: 39.0% less buying powerFESTUS R-VI: 7.9% more buying powerHILLSBORO R-III: 21.1% less buying powerKINGSTON K-14: 7.7% less buying powerJOHNSON CO. R-VII: 17.2% less buying powerHARRISONVILLE R-IX: 32.2% less buying powerMIDWAY R-I: 25.1% less buying powerSOUTHERN REYNOLDS CO. R-II: 27.8% less buying powerLESTERVILLE R-IV: 35.2% less buying powerJASPER CO. R-V: 20.8% less buying powerKIRKWOOD R-VII: 108.9% more buying powerLADUE: 25.8% less buying powerMAPLEWOOD-RICHMOND HEIGHTS: 113.1% more buying powerHALLSVILLE R-IV: 6.5% more buying powerSTANBERRY R-II: 17.1% less buying powerCAINSVILLE R-I: 25.5% less buying powerCHADWICK R-I: 5.0% more buying powerMILLER R-II: 2.4% less buying powerMOUND CITY R-II: 24.9% less buying powerGALENA R-II: 39.9% less buying powerCASSVILLE R-IV: 9.1% less buying powerREEDS SPRING R-IV: 15.3% less buying powerVERONA R-VII: 30.3% less buying powerMAYSVILLE R-I: 36.1% less buying powerSAVANNAH R-III: 9.4% less buying powerEMINENCE R-I: 20.4% less buying powerWEAUBLEAU R-III: 6.0% less buying powerHENRY CO. R-I: 9.4% less buying powerCLIMAX SPRINGS R-IV: 24.9% less buying powerCOLE CAMP R-I: 5.1% less buying powerLINCOLN R-II: 13.6% more buying powerOSCEOLA: 0.3% less buying powerMORGAN CO. R-I: 65.8% more buying powerMCDONALD CO. R-I: 12.5% less buying powerEAST NEWTON CO. R-VI: 9.9% less buying powerNEOSHO SCHOOL DISTRICT: 6.5% more buying powerWEST NODAWAY CO. R-I: 25.5% less buying powerBRANSON R-IV: 4.3% more buying powerGREEN RIDGE R-VIII: 10.7% less buying powerKNOB NOSTER R-VIII: 26.2% more buying powerSEDALIA 200: 3.0% more buying powerMACON CO. R-IV: 25.5% less buying powerMEXICO 59: 0.8% less buying powerSTURGEON R-V: 29.8% less buying powerST. LOUIS CITY: 38.0% less buying powerNORTHWESTERN R-I: 25.5% less buying powerBRUNSWICK R-II: 23.4% less buying powerKEYTESVILLE R-III: 25.5% less buying powerBEVIER C-4: 19.3% less buying powerBUCKLIN R-II: 26.7% less buying powerSHELBY CO. R-IV: 33.3% less buying powerSEYMOUR R-II: 13.4% less buying powerBALLARD R-II: 25.8% less buying powerBUTLER R-V: 21.7% less buying powerHANNIBAL 60: 20.7% less buying powerPIERCE CITY R-VI: 10.4% less buying powerEXETER R-VI: 3.8% less buying powerSOUTHWEST R-V: 10.5% less buying powerMONETT R-I: 4.9% less buying powerPURDY R-II: 20.3% less buying powerMARIES CO. R-I: 21.3% less buying powerCROCKER R-II: 28.3% less buying powerLAQUEY R-V: 34.3% less buying powerCANTON R-V: 24.5% less buying powerBUNKER R-III: 27.7% less buying powerSALEM R-80: 13.0% less buying powerSUMMERSVILLE R-II: 5.0% less buying powerCLARK CO. R-I: 7.0% less buying powerPALMYRA R-I: 4.6% less buying powerGRUNDY CO. R-V: 26.0% less buying powerPUTNAM CO. R-I: 31.9% less buying powerMILAN C-2: 5.0% less buying powerNORTH HARRISON R-III: 25.5% less buying powerLATHROP R-II: 25.3% less buying powerOSBORN R-O: 25.3% less buying powerBRONAUGH R-VII: 26.3% less buying powerLIBERAL R-II: 33.2% less buying powerSENATH-HORNERSVILLE C-8: 23.7% less buying powerSOUTHLAND C-9: 27.7% less buying powerCLINTON: 7.2% more buying powerFORSYTH R-III: 1.0% less buying powerWEST PLAINS R-VII: 11.9% more buying powerDIAMOND R-IV: 27.1% less buying powerWEBB CITY R-VII: 2.8% more buying powerSARCOXIE R-II: 21.1% less buying powerCARTHAGE R-IX: 3.4% more buying powerJOPLIN SCHOOLS: 13.0% more buying powerNORTH PLATTE CO. R-I: 33.3% less buying powerWEST PLATTE CO. R-II: 27.1% more buying powerLAKELAND R-III: 8.7% less buying powerWARSAW R-IX: 2.8% less buying powerCHILHOWEE R-IV: 31.3% less buying powerBLAIR OAKS R-II: 14.7% less buying powerCOLE CO. R-V: 10.9% less buying powerJEFFERSON CITY: 1.0% less buying powerSOUTH CALLAWAY CO. R-II: 28.2% less buying powerMONTGOMERY CO. R-II: 21.9% less buying powerFULTON 58: 3.6% more buying powerLOGAN-ROGERSVILLE R-VIII: 15.0% more buying powerREPUBLIC R-III: 6.6% more buying powerWALNUT GROVE R-V: 5.5% less buying powerMARION C. EARLY R-V: 9.8% less buying powerSPRINGFIELD R-XII: 5.1% more buying powerPLEASANT HOPE R-VI: 37.8% less buying powerBOONVILLE R-I: 8.7% more buying powerOTTERVILLE R-VI: 25.6% less buying powerTIPTON R-VI: 9.8% less buying powerPILOT GROVE C-4: 25.6% less buying powerHOUSTON R-I: 12.4% less buying powerMOUNTAIN GROVE R-III: 13.1% less buying powerFAYETTE R-III: 2.1% less buying powerSALISBURY R-IV: 31.1% more buying powerNEW FRANKLIN R-I: 29.6% less buying powerLAWSON R-XIV: 20.4% less buying powerPLATTE CO. R-III: 8.4% more buying powerLIBERTY 53: 13.0% less buying powerCLINTON CO. R-III: 21.3% less buying powerNORTH KANSAS CITY 74: 21.3% more buying powerALTON R-IV: 34.6% less buying powerTHAYER R-II: 4.7% more buying powerMALDEN R-I: 37.3% less buying powerDELTA C-7: 25.5% less buying powerCAMPBELL R-II: 30.3% less buying powerHOLCOMB R-III: 35.5% less buying powerCLARKTON C-4: 27.6% less buying powerDADEVILLE R-II: 11.7% more buying powerLOCKWOOD R-I: 29.2% less buying powerGREENFIELD R-IV: 25.9% less buying powerROCK PORT R-II: 3.8% more buying powerAPPLETON CITY R-II: 24.6% less buying powerPORTAGEVILLE: 20.8% less buying powerSIKESTON R-6: 14.6% less buying powerRISCO R-II: 27.3% less buying powerCLEVER R-V: 2.6% more buying powerFORDLAND R-III: 6.6% less buying powerMARIONVILLE R-IX: 0.2% less buying powerNixa Public Schools: 6.4% more buying powerSOUTHWEST LIVINGSTON CO. R-I: 25.6% less buying powerMALTA BEND R-V: 25.6% less buying powerMARSHALL: 8.1% less buying powerHARRISBURG R-VIII: 2.1% less buying powerCABOOL R-IV: 11.0% less buying powerWILLOW SPRINGS R-IV: 28.9% less buying powerLICKING R-VIII: 23.8% less buying powerNEWBURG R-II: 32.4% less buying powerGREEN CITY R-I: 25.6% less buying powerALTENBURG 48: 25.4% less buying powerAVENUE CITY R-IX: 10.2% more buying powerAVILLA R-XIII: 39.0% less buying powerBELLEVIEW R-III: 52.0% less buying powerBLACKWATER R-II: 25.6% less buying powerBONCL R-X: 25.5% less buying powerCALLAO C-8: 32.3% less buying powerNELL HOLCOMB R-IV: 23.4% less buying powerCENTERVILLE R-I: funding comparison unavailableLIVINGSTON CO. R-III: 25.6% less buying powerCLARKSBURG C-2: 25.5% less buying powerCOWGILL R-VI: 25.8% less buying powerDAVIS R-XII: 25.4% less buying powerNORTH WOOD R-IV: 25.2% less buying powerDENT-PHELPS R-III: 18.4% less buying powerSKYLINE R-II: 14.8% less buying powerPLAINVIEW R-VIII: 21.4% less buying powerEAST LYNNE 40: 25.8% less buying powerFAIRVIEW R-XI: 16.3% less buying powerSPRING BLUFF R-XV: 36.6% less buying powerSTRAIN-JAPAN R-XVI: 10.1% less buying powerFRANKLIN CO. R-II: 25.7% less buying powerGASCONADE C-4: 10.9% less buying powerGILLIAM C-4: 25.6% less buying powerGREEN FOREST R-II: 40.2% less buying powerPLEASANT VIEW R-VI: 11.7% less buying powerHOLLIDAY C-2: 25.5% less buying powerJUNCTION HILL C-12: 25.5% less buying powerGLENWOOD R-VIII: 16.5% less buying powerHOWELL VALLEY R-I: 18.8% less buying powerHUDSON R-IX: 16.2% less buying powerJEFFERSON CO. R-VII: 6.1% more buying powerKELSO C-7: 99.9% more buying powerKINGSTON 42: 25.8% less buying powerKIRBYVILLE R-VI: 16.6% less buying powerLACLEDE CO. C-5: 6.0% less buying powerLAREDO R-VII: 13.8% less buying powerLEESVILLE R-IX: 16.8% less buying powerLONEDELL R-14: 24.6% less buying powerMANES R-V: 25.5% less buying powerMARK TWAIN R-VIII: 22.4% more buying powerMIAMI R-I: 25.6% less buying powerMIDDLE GROVE C-1: 25.5% less buying powerMIRABILE C-1: 25.8% less buying powerMISSOURI CITY 56: 25.8% less buying powerHIGH POINT R-III: 25.5% less buying powerMONITEAU CO. R-V: 50.8% less buying powerNEW YORK R-IV: 25.8% less buying powerOAK HILL R-I: 6.3% more buying powerTHORNFIELD R-I: 26.4% less buying powerPEMISCOT CO. R-III: 25.5% less buying powerPETTIS CO. R-XII: 25.2% less buying powerPHELPS CO. R-III: 23.5% less buying powerRAYMONDVILLE R-VII: 26.4% less buying powerRENICK R-V: 24.6% less buying powerRICHARDS R-V: 24.3% less buying powerRIPLEY CO. R-III: 4.3% less buying powerRIPLEY CO. R-IV: 30.7% less buying powerROSCOE C-1: 41.5% less buying powerHARDEMAN R-X: 25.3% less buying powerOREARVILLE R-IV: 0.8% less buying powerSHAWNEE R-III: 25.4% less buying powerSHELL KNOB 78: 25.7% less buying powerSPICKARD R-II: 26.0% less buying powerSTRASBURG C-3: 1.1% less buying powerSUCCESS R-VI: 21.6% less buying powerSUNRISE R-IX: 0.2% more buying powerSWEDEBORG R-III: 45.7% less buying powerTANEYVILLE R-II: 25.5% less buying powerRICHWOODS R-VII: 30.3% less buying powerWESTVIEW C-6: 35.1% less buying power

Use + to zoom, then drag to move around.

This compares total state formula aid after inflation—not the whole school budget or aid per student. Sources and details ↓

District lists, downloads, and map source

447 districts with less buying power · 68 districts with more buying power · Download all comparisons

Boundaries: NCES 2024 district boundaries, simplified for display. Not an address-lookup tool.

YOUR DISTRICT

Does your school aid buy more or less?

Choose your district. See the result, then share it with friends.

Total state formula aid, including the Classroom Trust Fund. We compare the completed 2015–16 and 2025–26 school years, after inflation.

A LITTLE RESTAURANT MATH

Same label.
Smaller serving.

2016: a smiling waiter brings a modest restaurant steak to a pleased customer.
2026: the same waiter brings a tiny steak to a confused customer and says, ‘Oh yes, this is our new fully funded steak!’
An illustration of buying power—not a measurement of every district’s funding. Download the cartoon.

TWO REASONS THE LABEL CAN MISLEAD

“Fully funded” doesn’t tell the whole story.

01

Lawmakers lowered the goal.

The legislature’s own 2016 analysis projected a funding target 8.4% lower under the new rules. Reaching a smaller goal changes what “full” means. Read the fiscal note ↗

02

Prices kept rising.

Prices rose 34.1% from 2016 to 2025. So a bigger check can still buy less. Our district comparisons account for that inflation. Check the inflation data ↗

These comparisons cover state formula aid—not all school funding. Changes in enrollment and other rules also matter; the figures do not measure the 2016 law’s effect alone.

See the 2016 goal change in numbers
THE 2016 CHANGE · ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

Both goals in 2025 dollars

Missouri lowered the projected full-funding targetThe projected FY2017 targets expressed in 2025 prices: previous goal $8,944; revised goal $8,197. The inflation-adjusted gap is $747, or 8.4%. Both bars start at zero. $8,944$8,197 Previous goalRevised goal $6,810 in FY2017$6,241 in FY2017 $0

$747 lower in 2025 dollars · an 8.4% reduction

Both projected FY2017 goals are converted to 2025 prices using U.S. inflation (CPI-U, 2017–2025). These are historical formula targets, not today’s target or actual payments. Bars start at zero. Fiscal note [4] ↗ · Inflation data [15] ↗

CHECK THE EVIDENCE

The sources are here.

Read the original records. Open the details if you want to dig deeper.

2016 legislation ↗Legislature’s fiscal note ↗DESE district payment records ↗Federal inflation data ↗
How we calculate buying power—and the optional estimate

The main comparison uses actual payments, adjusted for inflation. We multiply each district’s FY2016 payment by 321.943 ÷ 240.007 (about 1.3414). We compare that amount with the recorded FY2026 payment, using 2025 prices as an approximation. Percentage change = (FY2026 payment ÷ inflation-adjusted FY2016 payment − 1) × 100. The dollar gap measures how far above or below its 2016 buying power the district is. This is total aid, not aid per student.

The optional estimate is an inflation-based scenario, not an exact reconstruction of the uncapped law. The $6,810 old goal was a projection for FY2017 in the 2016 fiscal note. We carry that goal forward using annual-average U.S. inflation from 2017 to 2025, the latest published annual index. That produces a benchmark of about $8,944, expressed in 2025 prices.

We apply that benchmark to the district’s actual FY2026 weighted student count and regional cost adjustment, using DESE’s local-effort and hold-harmless inputs. We compare it with the FY2026 paid target of $6,958.19, holding other payment adjustments fixed. We assume the legislature provides enough money to pay the higher amount.

The difference includes assumptions about inflation and appropriations. It does not isolate the 2016 law’s effect, reconstruct subsequent uncapped targets, or estimate cumulative losses. Student counts, need thresholds, local effort, future legislative decisions and district behavior could have evolved differently.

For federal-land districts, we combine separately reported actual payments but do not offer the alternative estimate. Missing records are shown as unavailable. This selector covers the site’s 516 geographic districts, excluding the state’s two separate special school districts. There are 515 complete payment comparisons and 512 alternative estimates.

The approximate buying-power comparison expresses FY2016 aid in 2025 prices using calendar-year CPI averages. It does not adjust for changes in enrollment or student needs. Formula aid excludes Prop C, transportation, small-school grants, other state payments, local revenue, and federal grants.

DESE payment records [13] · DESE calculation inputs [14] · Inflation data [15] · Download all district comparisons

All sources and calculation notes
02

The cap’s removal · SB291 (2009)

The Senate’s official legislative summary describes the removal effective July 1, 2010. Printed page 28.

Read the official summary ↗
04

The official before-and-after estimate · June 8, 2016

Legislative Research Oversight fiscal note, page 4. Provides the $6,810 and $6,241 targets and distinguishes the reduced goal from immediate payment reductions.

Read the fiscal note ↗
05

Independent state audit · Report 2021-027

Printed pages 9–10 discuss the cap and declining real value of the target. The audit separately found overall state education funding kept pace with inflation during its study period.

Read the State Auditor’s report ↗
06

How “adequacy” is defined in law · §163.011

Subsection (3) defines the expenditure calculation; (18) defines the target and its recalculation. The statute also defines student weights.

Read the current definitions ↗
07

How payments are calculated · §163.031

Subsection 1 provides the payment calculation. Subsection 2 addresses hold-harmless payments; subsection 7 addresses insufficient appropriations.

Read the distribution statute ↗
08

The target freeze and later increases · DESE

FY2025 budget presentation, slide 3: $6,375 unchanged since FY2020, followed by $6,760 in FY2025 and $7,145 in FY2026.

Read the DESE presentation ↗
09

The inflation adjustment · U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Annual-average CPI-U, all items, U.S. city average. $6,375 × (313.689 ÷ 258.811) = $7,726.75. Real change: (258.811 ÷ 313.689 − 1) × 100 = −17.49%.

Check the CPI series ↗ How constant dollars work ↗
10

The student-count change · SB727 (2024)

The weighted attendance calculation begins incorporating weighted enrollment in FY2026 and reaches a 50/50 blend in FY2030.

Read the legislation and summary ↗
11

The current funding gap · DESE, October 20, 2026

See “Basic Formula” and “Commentary on Calculated SAT vs. Funded SAT.” These current-year figures are explained in the optional background section.

Read the finance memo ↗ DESE’s memo archive ↗
12

The FY2028 request · State Board of Education

DESE’s September 2026 meeting recap documents the flat formula request and the approximately $270 million gap.

Read the meeting recap ↗
13

Actual district formula aid · DESE, July 17, 2026

Hold Harmless Districts for 2006–07 to 2025–26, Sheet1: June payment rows, ANNUAL_TOTAL_PAYMENT or the numeric PRORATED_ANNUAL_TOTAL_PAYMENT. The payment includes the Classroom Trust Fund. Districts are matched by DESE code.

Download the official payment history ↗
14

District calculation inputs · DESE, September 2026

The projection workbook supplies FY2026 DVM, Local Effort 2026, historical hold-harmless inputs, and the FY2026 paid SAT on Formula Calculation, cell F8. Our alternative holds the other FY2026 conditions fixed; it is not a DESE forecast.

Open the official projection tool ↗
15

Inflation for the district comparison · BLS

Annual-average CPI-U: 2016 = 240.007; 2017 = 245.120; 2025 = 321.943. Alternative benchmark: $6,810 × 321.943 ÷ 245.120 = $8,944.32. No complete annual 2026 CPI is assumed.

Check annual inflation indexes ↗

A note on dates and calculations

Student shares: we match 2025 enrollment to the same 516 geographic districts by DESE code. The 68 districts with more buying power enroll 251,511 students; the 447 with less enroll 574,536; the district without a complete funding comparison enrolls 28. Total enrollment is 826,075. Shares use that full denominator: 30.4465% and 69.5501%, rounded to 30.4% and 69.6%. These are enrollment counts, not counts of children residing within the boundaries, and exclude charter schools and separate special school districts. Download enrollment counts by district.

This explanation was researched October 24, 2026. Historical projections are labeled as projections. The inflation comparison uses calendar-year CPI averages for fiscal-year target amounts. Current-year estimates may change as revenue and student counts change. No district’s full budget or educational adequacy is inferred from the target alone.

All main historical money comparisons use 2025 prices. For FY2016 payments, we multiply by 321.943 ÷ 240.007. For the projected FY2017 goals, we multiply by 321.943 ÷ 245.120. The 8.4% change is ($6,810 − $6,241) ÷ $6,810 and is unchanged when both goals use the same inflation adjustment. The 447/68 counts compare each district’s recorded FY2026 aid with its inflation-adjusted FY2016 aid; they include districts with federal-land or virtual-program notes. The district selector distinguishes recorded payments from a modeled, inflation-indexed alternative. It does not claim to reconstruct what the uncapped statute would have paid today.

More background: how the formula changed over time
01 / THE BASICS

Which school money are we comparing?

Schools receive local, state, and federal money. Our district comparison tracks one important part: state foundation-formula aid, including the Classroom Trust Fund. A district’s overall budget can move differently.

A diagram of funding sources, not their relative shares. Source 5

ONE TERM TO KNOW

The State Adequacy Target

Think of it as a starting dollar amount in the formula. The state adjusts the calculation for student counts and needs, regional costs, and specified local resources. It is not an amount every school receives for every student. [7]

03 / HOW WE GOT HERE

The rule changed more than once.

The 2016 restriction was a return to an earlier cap. That history matters when comparing today’s promise with past promises.

  1. 2005

    A new formula, with a restriction

    Missouri adopted a student-needs formula to replace its tax-rate-driven system. The original calculation included a 5% restriction on qualifying state-funding increases used in the target calculation. Implementation began in FY2007. [1]

  2. 2009

    The restriction was removed

    SB291 removed the 5% limit beginning July 2010. The calculation could recognize more growth. [2]

  3. 2016

    The restriction returned—and the target fell

    SBs586 and 651 restored it and reset the target’s protection against decreases around FY2017–18. The legislature overrode Governor Nixon’s veto. [3]

  4. 2018

    “Fully funded” under revised rules

    The State Auditor later identified FY2018–20 as fully funded, while also documenting the reduced target and its loss of purchasing power. [5]

  5. 2024

    Another change to who gets counted

    SB727 added enrollment to the attendance-based student count, phased in from FY2026. Funding requirements can change even when the dollar target stays flat. [10]

What does the 5% restriction actually limit?

It limits certain state-funding increases counted when updating the formula’s expenditure measure. It is a restriction within the target calculation, per recalculation—not a simple annual 5% cap on every school district’s total budget.

The law’s special expenditure definition begins with FY2004 data and adds qualifying later state-funding increases. It is not simply a fresh count of every cost schools face today. Read §163.011(3) and (18). [6]

04 / WHAT A DOLLAR BUYS

A full amount can buy less.

Even without a change in the law, a flat dollar target loses buying power when prices rise.

The same dollar target, shrinking buying power

Both years in 2025 prices · bars start at zero
FY2024 goal · inflation adjusted$6,543
FY2020 goal · inflation adjusted$7,930
$0$7,930
The original target was $6,375 in both years. In 2025 prices, that equals $7,930 for FY2020 and $6,543 for FY2024. CPI-U: 258.811 (2020), 313.689 (2024), and 321.943 (2025). Calendar-year inflation approximates fiscal-year prices; it is not a school-specific cost index. [8] [9]
17.5%

less buying power

The target stayed the same. Prices did not.

This is one example of inflation at work, covering FY2020–24. Later increases do not change that earlier loss. For the change since 2016 in your district’s payments, use the selector above. [8]

05 / WHAT ABOUT THE LATEST YEAR?

Use a finished year
for a fair comparison.

Our district charts end with FY2026—the completed 2025–26 school year. We compare its payments with 2016 after adjusting for inflation. FY2027 is still in progress, so its final payments and full-year prices are not yet known.

2025 prices are our common measuring stick. We increase the 2016 amount by 34.1% to reflect rising consumer prices. Then we compare that with the completed FY2026 payment, using 2025 prices as an approximation. We do not present an incomplete 2026 inflation figure as a full-year result. [15]

See the current budget figures in their original dollars

These are same-year budget figures, not an inflation-adjusted trend. DESE’s October 20, 2026 memo lists the FY2027 calculated target at $7,145 and the initial payment target at $6,750. It said about $190.6 million more was needed for full funding and estimated the paid target could reach roughly $6,900 if revenue meets projections. Final payments may change. [11]

For FY2028, the State Board requested the same formula appropriation. DESE described the request as about $270 million below full funding. This is a request, not an enacted FY2028 budget. [12]

06 / ASK A BETTER QUESTION

Start with buying power.
Then ask what changed.

01

Can it buy more or less?

Put both years into the same price year. More dollars can still mean less money for the same goods and services.

02

Which part of the budget?

Our comparison covers state formula aid. Local taxes, federal aid, and other state payments may tell a different story.

03

What else changed?

Student counts, student needs, and funding rules affect district totals. A change in buying power alone does not tell us its cause or the amount per student.

What this explanation does—and does not—show

447 of 515 districts had less buying power in their state formula aid than in 2016; 68 had more. That is a comparison of total payments after inflation, not proof of the 2016 law’s effect. Missouri also lowered its projected funding goal in 2016. The optional old-goal estimate is a separate illustration, not a measured loss caused by that law.