St. Louis Bill Raising Taxes for Early Childhood Education Meets Opposition

A new bill making its way through the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is being supported by a nonprofit organization that says it hopes to make child care more accessible to the average St. Louisan. But the local public school advocacy group Solidarity with SLPS argues it will instead unfairly burden taxpayers and disproportionately support private education systems.

Board Bill 7, sponsored by Ward 10 Alderwoman Shameem Clark Hubbard, would add a question to the November 2024 ballot asking voters to approve a levy that would increase the city’s sales tax by 0.5 percent. The funding would be used to support early childhood education programs for kids who are not yet in kindergarten.

If approved, the revenue generated from this tax would go into an “early childhood education fund,” to be administered by the City of St. Louis Mental Health Board of Trustees.

The bill echoes a very similar piece of legislation introduced in St. Louis County in 2020. It was soon shelved following nearly the same complaints and public outcry facing Board Bill 7.

Solidarity with SLPS, an organization made up of city residents advocating on behalf of the St. Louis Public Schools, has launched a letter writing campaign against the bill. They are calling on committee members to vote against it.

In their letter template, Solidarity with SLPS argues that if passed, the additional sales tax would “put St. Louis just behind Chicago and Seattle with a sales tax rate of ~10.2% excluding additional taxes in special taxing districts,” making it among the highest in the nation.

The founder of WEPOWER was an advocate for the scuttled county legislation, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported at the time. Solidarity with SLPS points out that on the city website when the bill was first introduced, “WEPOWER” was in the title of the draft.

They say that alone should make St. Louisans leery.

“Ordinances related to education being drafted by an organization which has a history of financial ties to education privatization funders like the Opportunity Trust as well as a history of leading attacks against Saint Louis Public Schools should be objectionable to this committee,” it writes.

WEPOWER Founder & CEO Charli Cooksey acknowledged the organization’s work on the bill to the RFT, saying that staffers helped draft it after hours of community listening sessions.

“We did a lot of community listening last year to understand what public funding could fund,” she says. “We did revenue [streaming] research [with] the legal team, to really make sure that the Board Bill 7 was a direct reflection of what the community wanted to see versus a policy wonk who locked themselves in a room and developed something that wasn't truly responsive to community.”

Beyond WEPOWER’s involvement, the main arguments against Board Bill 7 are that there is little to no accountability about how the funding is distributed and it would increase taxes for working-class families without necessarily benefiting them, activist and organizer with Solidarity with SLPS Ben Conover says.

“The folks that are sponsoring this are asking voters to create a slush fund that is purportedly for early childhood education, but really will just go to consultants, nonprofits, etc. — to run programming that will have nothing to do with making early childhood education more affordable and accessible on the backs of folks that are already struggling the most,” Conover says.

But WEPOWER’s Director of Early Childhood Power Building, Paula-Breonne Vickers, says that as a parent of a two-year-old and a three-year-old in north city, she is familiar with the gaps and problems facing parents seeking affordable early childhood education programs.

“This is really, as a resident and as a parent, looking at an opportunity for this board bill to create those spaces so that us families can stay in St. Louis.,” she says.

One key issue opponents have with the bill is that it is unclear whether or not the funding it generates could be used to fund public school programs.

“My understanding with this bill is that the funds cannot go to SLPS’ early childhood education,” Conover says. “What that'll lead to is a very privatized early childhood education system.”

He says the funds will only be eligible to go towards professional development and nonprofit programs that, for example, might create better curriculums for early childhood education. It would not go towards more capacity or raising worker pay.

WEPOWER initially claimed that the revenue can be used for public programs. In the text of the bill, the funds aren’t earmarked and are instead set to be distributed by the Mental Health Board.

“This is a bill that would allow a mixed delivery model, so that means public schools, community based programs, home based programs, all types of childcare programs that serve babies zero through five would be able to access and apply for these funds, if won,” Cooksey says. “And it would be to really address whatever needs that program has, that are currently barriers from quality, affordability, and accessibility.”

A spokesperson for WEPOWER later walked that assertion back slightly in an email to RFT that acknowledged state law would have to be changed to allow public schools to partake:

“The way the Community Children’s Services Fund currently exists creates limitations. As a result, there are efforts underway to amend the structure of the Community Children’s Services Fund. At the state level, a bill was voted out of the Select Committee on Empowering Missouri Parents & Children that would allow funds to also become available to public schools. Additionally, the bill would allow Children’s Services Funds to administer dollars to improve the quality, affordability, and access to early childhood development programs. This could include but not be limited to increasing educator wages and benefits.”

Clark Hubbard has not responded to requests for comment on this story. We’ll update this story if she responds.

The bill has been referred to the Transportation and Commerce Committee and a hearing is scheduled Monday at 2 p.m. The School Board will be having a special meeting at 10:30 a.m. that same morning to consider a resolution opposing Board Bill 7.

Editor's note: A previous version of this story quoted Charli Cooksey talking about "revenue sharing research," when she said or intended to say "revenue streaming research." We regret any confusion and have updated the story accordingly.