![[Dexter Daily Statesman]](http://www.dailystatesman.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (2)Managing Editor
When Missouri voters go to the polls on November 4, they will be voting on Proposition A, a proposal that would repeal the state's unique loss limit that prevents casino gamblers who take a $500 loss during a casino visit, from continuing to gamble for a two-hour period.
If passed, Proposition A would also mandate a tax hike for the state's casinos and cap the number of casino licenses that can be granted in the state of Missouri.
The proposal, also referred to as, "Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative," promises school districts a piece of the pie that would stem from what is predicted to be a 30 percent increase in casino revenues in Missouri.
According to Education Week, as a result of the larger tax base and higher tax rate, the Missouri auditor's office estimates that kindergarten through grade 12 schools will receive between $105 million and $130 million annually.
Based on a more conservative outlook from the Missouri Association of Rural Educators, using an estimate of $118 million being generated through the passing of Proposition A, districts in Stoddard County would benefit to the tune of nearly half a million dollars. The $450,629 estimate would be allocated using the state's current funding formula, with Dexter Schools coming out on top with an estimated $165,638. Richland would benefit by receiving $32,717, Bell City $21,030, Advance $36,330, Puxico $80,181, Bloomfield $65,008 and Bernie $49,726.
The Missouri Association of Rural Education (MARE) neither opposes nor endorses the proposal, but states, "Board members chose not to provide an endorsement for or against Prop A, but did feel it was necessary to make everyone aware of its existence and encourage further research."
Sen. Rob Mayer (R-25), opposes the repeal of the current loss limit law. Mayer, chairman of the Joint Committee on Education panel, says his concern is that the ballot initiative could open the state to a new round of legal challenges against Missouri's school funding method.
"With this petition," Mayer says, it appears to me adequate funding would be based not only on how much the accredited schools have spent on their education, but also on how much people lost at the gambling boat, which I don't think the court would find as a rational basis for funding."
Supporter of the measure cite that if Proposition A meets with voter approval on Nov. 11, about four fifth's of Missouri's school districts will get new money without a tax increase involved.
Missouri is the only state in the US to abide by the casino "loss limit" regulation which would be repealed by Proposition A's passing.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
I think government and the people we elect to run it have proven over and over again that they do not do as they say! This is just another way to get us to vote for something that isn't good for us with the promise of money for schools. Our tax money should be directed in large part to education and we shouldn't have to depend on gamblers to provide it!
I remember many years ago when this proposition was past to allow monies from the casino's along the mississippi river to be utilized for education in the state. I was very suprised to learn later that the money was not going to just our state but also to many other states. For instance, I have a sister-in-law who at the time lived in California, and was a teacher. She was getting over $300 a month from the casino's monies. I asked her how she was getting the money from the casino's that was suppose to go back to the state's education system. She told me that because she was a member for the National Teacher's Association she was given this money as part of her pay. It irritated me dearly because the High School I attended was a very small school and at the time was facing risk of having to merge with bigger school's in the area because of fundings. I say no the the proposition A unless it is guaranteed that money's from our casino's stays with the state and is distributed fairly and equally among all school. But sadly, as last time, much of the monies will go for the bigger city school's and then trickle down to our school's. We may or may not see much funds from this at all.