Bloated Bureaucracy and Failing Kids The Case for School Choice with Christopher Talgo

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Christopher Talgo, editorial director at the Heartland Institute, to discuss his recent piece in The Hill on the state of American public education. They explore why the claim that public schools are underfunded doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, how per-pupil spending often exceeds private school tuition while outcomes continue to decline, and where all that money is actually going. They also discuss the growing administrative bloat crowding out classroom resources, the dysfunction baked into teacher tenure and union structures, why school choice may be the only real path to meaningful reform, and how states like Florida and Arizona are already demonstrating what’s possible when parents are empowered to choose, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Luxury Housing Still Helps Lower-Income Renters

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

In 2019, I argued that Kansas City’s debate over “luxury” apartments missed a basic point: housing markets are connected. When higher-income households move into new buildings, they leave something behind. Those vacancies matter. New research now makes that case with concrete evidence.

A recent piece in The Atlantic detailed the study. Researchers studied a 43-story condominium tower in Honolulu and tracked what economists call “vacancy chains”—who moved into the new units and who moved into the homes they left. The results were measurable and citywide.

The building’s 512 units generated at least 557 vacancies elsewhere. On average, residents moving into the tower left homes that were 38 percent cheaper per square foot. One step further down the chain, homes were 44 percent cheaper than the new condos. Each new market-rate unit created roughly 1.6 vacancies elsewhere in the city.

This research builds on earlier national work, which found that new market-rate construction prompts substantial movement out of below-median-income neighborhoods. As households move up, older units filter down. The process is gradual but observable.

Kansas City is not Honolulu. Our housing stock is less geographically constrained, and our prices are lower. But the economics of supply do not change by region. When we restrict new multifamily construction—through zoning caps, parking mandates, or prolonged approval processes—we constrain mobility.

Mobility allows households to adjust to new jobs, schools, and changing family needs. Nationally, residential mobility has fallen sharply over the past half-century. Culture plays a role, but so does housing availability. Fewer vacancies mean fewer options.

Kansas City faces a quieter risk: complacency. Because our prices have not reached coastal extremes, it is easy to assume supply is sufficient. Yet rents and home prices have risen faster than incomes in recent years. If we make it harder to build—luxury or otherwise—we should expect fewer vacancies and higher prices over time.

Certainly, luxury housing construction should not be subsidized. Much of the local controversy over “luxury” projects arises when developers seek public incentives. But housing construction at all levels is welcome. Today’s Class A building becomes tomorrow’s middle-income housing. Aging is built into the market.

The real question is not who benefits from the first occupant of a new building. It is who benefits over the next decade.

If Kansas City wants more affordable options tomorrow, it needs more housing—of all kinds—today.

Kansas City’s Bus Riders Union Is Right about One Thing

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

Kansas City’s new Bus Riders Union says city hall and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) need to listen to riders.

On that point, it is right.

For years, KCATA has made major policy decisions without clearly anchoring them to what riders consistently say they value most. The most consequential example was the move to eliminate fares.

In late 2019, the Kansas City Council voted to subsidize fare-free bus trips tied to city service. In March 2020, as a COVID-era public health measure, fares were suspended regionally across RideKC partners. The pandemic decision effectively made the fare-free policy far broader than the original city-centered framing.

But fare-free did not make bus operations cheaper.

Before 2020, several Missouri-side municipal contracts operated under a net operating cost model: KCATA calculated operating costs, subtracted passenger revenue, and allocated the remaining loss among funding partners. In the year before fares were suspended, passenger revenue covered roughly $9 million of operating costs.

The fare-free policy eliminated that recurring revenue stream, but it did not eliminate operating costs. Fare-collection expenses declined modestly, but those savings were far smaller than the forgone revenue, and additional pressures—including ADA complementary paratransit demand—complicated the balance sheet.

During the pandemic, federal funds offset the lost fare revenue. But as one-time COVID-era funding dwindled, the structural question reemerged: who permanently pays for free fares and full service?

Multiple forces drove the budget stress that followed—expiring federal relief, post-pandemic inflation, and negotiated cost-sharing changes. Fare-free was not the only cause of rising costs, but it was a significant one.

Removing a revenue stream embedded in cost-allocation formulas increased the amount that had to be covered by subsidies. Without a dedicated replacement source, the system became more financially fragile. That coincided with contract disputes, service cut threats, and regional withdrawals—all of which riders experience as instability.

Just as important, fare-free did little to address passenger concerns. It did not fix whether the bus shows up on time or is clean and safe. It may have worsened these issues.

Research across major transit systems shows a similar pattern: riders tend to rank frequency, reliability, and safety above fare reductions as the changes most likely to increase their use.

Kansas City has tested fare-free transit. It proved impossible to sustain without stable, dedicated funding, making the service less attractive to other neighboring municipalities.

If the Bus Riders Union wants to ensure riders are heard, the focus now should be on what riders consistently say they need: buses that run frequently, arrive on time, and feel safe.

Unfortunately, KCATA’s past policy missteps have made this more difficult.

St. Louis County to Raise Park Fees—That’s Good

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

St. Louis County Executive Sam Page has announced that the county is raising park and recreation fees as part of an effort to address budget shortfalls in county government. This is after the county announced a reduction in recreation facility hours a while back (among other cuts) in response to the same budget issues.

The increase in fees is a good move by St. Louis County government. According to the article:

Page . . . [said] the changes stem from a comprehensive review of the actual cost of providing services and reflect “operational realities, market standards, and equity considerations.”

The most important part there is “operational realities.” (I’ll let you guess which one I think is the least important.) I covered this topic in my most recent paper in the free-market municipality series. The operating costs of recreational facilities should be funded to the largest extent possible by user fees. (Capital costs are generally funded through bonds paid back by taxes.) It may not be possible to get 100% of funding with user fees, but fees should consistently be updated to ensure that they cover as much of costs as they can.

One increase that the county announced is that ice rink rentals are increasing to $300 per hour. Building, managing, and maintaining an ice rink is very expensive, and it is not something that most of the general public often uses. The hockey teams that rent it out should pay the cost of the service, not the general public. The same reasoning applies to regular ice skaters during open ice time. The fee for a ticket and skate rental should cover the costs.

Parks are different. Nobody wants to pay a fee to take a walk in a park. That is why general taxes are the best way to pay for community parks. (Many national parks and some state parks are more “destination” type facilities where user fees should be and are a part of the funding.)

St. Louis County is doing the right thing here. I hope other cities and counties also stay on top of the fee structures to make sure their recreational facilities are capturing the right amount of money in user fees.

Anarchyfare in Our Schools

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

I was reading a recent post by Chad Aldeman at Aldeman on Education that touched on something I’ve been thinking about a lot: the rise of disorder in our schools.

I’ve heard anecdotes for a while, but I first saw it clearly in data while working on a project about teacher working conditions. Since the pandemic, teachers report substantial declines in their working conditions along many dimensions. Most notably, they report a sharp increase in classroom disruptions. We are losing control of the learning environment, and that’s a serious mistake.

Aldeman was thinking about the same thing in his recent post, where he opines on a different post by Noah Smith about the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in California. Bear with me for just a moment while I make the connection from Smith’s post on BART to education.

Smith describes how BART installed fare gates, after which crime and maintenance costs dropped sharply. As it turns out, a small number of riders were responsible for most of the disorder and they weren’t paying fares. Once the gates went up, order was restored. Smith’s conclusion is simple and persuasive: “You only have to restrain a very small number of people in order to maintain public order.”

He continues:

Progressives often argue against measures like fare gates, labeling them “carceral” and “racist”. This demonstrates a principle that I call anarchyfare — the idea that eliminating society’s rules serves as a kind of welfare benefit for marginalized people. But in fact, most poor and marginalized people are just peace-loving people . . . [and] they are the chief victims of the tiny number of chaotic individuals who destroy the commons and make public spaces and public services unusable.

I fear this is what is happening in our schools.

I worry most about students who attend disadvantaged and low-performing schools, where data show that behavioral problems are more prevalent. Some educators—maybe mostly administrators—seem to believe that tolerating disruptive behavior is compassionate. But I think they’re wrong. It does not prepare the misbehaving student to be a functional adult in a civil society, and more importantly, it disrupts learning for the majority of students who are not disruptive, robbing them of the opportunities afforded by a strong education.

If we care about equity and opportunity, we must restore order through stronger, consistently enforced disciplinary policies in our public schools.

Early Literacy Reform Advances in the House

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

Momentum for early literacy reform continues in Jefferson City, as House Bill (HB) 2872 recently passed out of committee.

While this version removed several provisions from the original bill, it retains the core components necessary to meaningfully improve early reading outcomes. As HB 2872 continues to move through the legislative process, it is critical to preserve two elements.

#1. A Clear, Firm, and Objective Third-Grade Retention Policy

Under HB 2872, a student who scores at the lowest level on a state-approved Missouri reading screener will be retained unless the student completes a summer reading program and scores above the lowest level on a retest opportunity, or qualifies for a good-cause exemption. Good-cause exemptions apply only to students with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or students who have already been retained.

Having a firm third-grade retention policy is important. An analysis of multiple states’ literacy policies found no consistent evidence that reading scores increase in states without a retention component. Critically, the value of the retention component is not just for students who are retained—it is also for all the students who are not retained because their reading scores improve. In most states with retention policies, the retention rate ends up being low; it is the threat of retention, more than retention itself, that spurs widespread literacy gains.

A number of states—Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Florida, and Tennessee—use a rule-based retention policy. These states have seen significant gains in reading, and all have higher test scores than Missouri.

Without a rule-based policy, teachers and parents talk themselves into promotions that are ultimately to the detriment of children. It feels mean to hold a child back. But it is no kindness to promote a child from the third to fourth grade if the child cannot read. It is not setting the child up for success.

HB 2872 requires that parents be notified if their child is identified as having a reading deficiency at any time during grades 1–3. This level of transparency can help parents be part of the solution for their children.

Retention can be a difficult experience, but research shows it is much easier on young children; it is primarily students in later grades who are negatively impacted when retained. Younger students who are retained under these types of policies benefit tremendously in terms of on-grade academic achievement, even years after retention.

#2. Accountability for Teacher Preparation Programs

It is also critical to align the training in teacher-preparation programs with evidence-based reading instruction. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality evaluated teacher-preparation programs nationwide and awarded nearly half of Missouri’s participating institutions with an “F” for their coverage of scientifically based reading instruction.

HB 2872 allows the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to bring teacher preparation programs into alignment with the science of reading for the benefit of our students. Specifically, it allows DESE to review teacher preparation programs for compliance with evidence-based reading instruction and prohibit noncompliant programs from certifying new teachers.

The new version of HB 2872 that emerged from committee has changed in the following ways. The new bill:

  • Has no explicit ban of the use of three-cueing (a reading method relying more on cues, guessing, and memorization rather than systematic phonics) in K-12 classrooms.
  • Eliminates the proposed $500 incentive to districts for students who remediate a substantial reading deficiency.
  • Redefines the Missouri Reading Screener to include multiple DESE-approved assessments rather than a single (new) statewide test.

These changes weaken the bill, but are secondary to the structural pillars of reform: an objective, assessment-based retention rule and stronger accountability for teacher preparation programs. As long as these pillars are in place (especially retention), HB 2872 represents meaningful progress.

We encourage our Missouri lawmakers to continue to take our literacy crisis seriously and to enact policies that help more Missouri students become confident, capable readers.

Missouri Doesn’t Have To Be Kansas

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In his January 30 op-ed for the Post-Dispatch, Kansas political scientist Michael Smith called Governor Mike Kehoe’s proposal to cut income taxes in Missouri a “near carbon copy” of Governor Sam Brownback’s 2012 income tax cuts in Kansas.

But Kehoe’s proposal for Missouri has large and important differences from Brownback’s. It isn’t a “carbon copy” at all.

The single largest flaw in Brownback’s tax cut was a peculiar change that eliminated all income taxes on “pass-through” business entities such as limited liability corporations (LLCs) without changing the tax code for other types of businesses. Even the right-leaning Tax Foundation criticized the provision at the time. Put simply, it didn’t encourage investment; it ended income taxes for one type of business while keeping them for others.

Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their corporate structure to suddenly become pass-through entities. The Tax Foundation found that over 390,000 entities claimed the exemption by 2015, more than double what was projected. These businesses didn’t invest in the state, hire more workers, or do anything other than change their legal status. Tax revenues declined significantly, and little growth followed.

Kansas also made critical mistakes in how it implemented income-tax cuts. The state slashed its top income-tax rate by nearly 30 percent immediately in 2012, with plans to cut even further. At the same time, Kansas’s elected officials failed to rein in spending. The combination of the pass-through exemption, immediate and deep rate cuts, and lack of spending discipline during this period fostered a fiscal crisis that could have been avoided. Even worse, the timing of these actions gave the state little room to adjust when projections weren’t borne out.

Kehoe’s proposal is fundamentally different. It asks Missouri voters whether they want to eliminate the income tax. If they do, the state can then expand and adjust its sales tax to replace the lost revenue. While many details remain to be finalized (and Missourians have every right to be skeptical while awaiting those details), the plan ensures that income tax rates can only be lowered after meeting revenue benchmarks, meaning Missouri would only cut taxes when it has the fiscal capacity to do so.

Setting aside the phasing out of the income tax, addressing Missouri’s outdated sales tax system is long overdue. While states nationwide are broadening what they tax, Missouri’s system remains narrow, with much of what is sold today escaping taxation entirely. Larger exemptions like home sales and healthcare services might make sense, but other current exemptions clearly don’t.

When you buy a book in person at Barnes & Noble or have the same book delivered to your house by Amazon, you pay the sales tax. However, when you buy the same text as a download to your Kindle, you pay no sales tax. Correcting such inconsistencies in Missouri’s tax code can level the playing field while expanding the sales tax base at the same time.

Opponents can point to Missouri’s western border all they want, but Missouri has other neighbors besides Kansas. Look at Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which have all cut income tax rates significantly in recent years without any of the issues Kansas had. Look to our southeast border to see Tennessee, a state that has been growing rapidly for years thanks, in part, to having no state income tax. This isn’t surprising, as decades of economic research have shown consistently that states without income taxes grow faster economically than those with them.

As the Tax Foundation, which was highly critical of Kansas’ tax cut, wrote in 2024 about the larger picture of state tax cuts between 2012 and 2022:

In fact, far from tax cuts precipitating a Kansas-like crisis, tax collections have risen more on average in the past decade in the 25 states that cut income taxes (31.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms) than in the four states and D.C. that raised them (27.8 percent).

The lesson from Kansas isn’t that eliminating the income tax is a bad idea, it’s that implementation matters. There’s no doubt that states without income taxes are growing faster than Missouri, and our state needs a new approach to keep pace in the national competition for families and businesses. Voters deserve the full picture, not an overly simplistic “Kansas” bogeyman, when debating our state’s tax future.

Another Step for Improving Missouri’s Licensing Regime

Posted on by Scott Tanner

In occupational licensing, Missouri has been ahead of the curve. In 2020, the state established a universal licensing reciprocity regime, allowing licensed professionals from other states to have Missouri requirements waived when they locate here. Last session, Senate Bill (SB) 150 strengthened that regime by removing the “compact exception,” which allowed certain interstate compacts to supersede Missouri’s reciprocity framework.

Senate Bill 895 would continue to strengthen Missouri’s occupational licensing laws. The bill mirrors SB 61 from last session (which nearly reached the governor’s desk), and would establish a form of licensing reciprocity for professionals who were not required to hold a license in their previous state but must obtain one when moving to Missouri.

The Mechanisms and Potential Intent of SB 895

There’s been a recent push in Missouri to join interstate compacts for various professions. While those may make things easier for Missouri’s licensing boards, they primarily help people leaving Missouri to work in other states. This bill focuses on making it easier for people to come here.

Specifically, SB 895 would allow professionals who have been working for three years in states that do not require a license to receive a two-year, nonrenewable, temporary license in that same field when they move to work in Missouri.

Oversight bodies can still charge fees and require that applicants take license-related exams. The goal of this bill does not appear to be reducing licensing requirements, but to allow people who move to Missouri to work during the process of acquiring a license. This is evidenced by a provision that requires the individual to complete Missouri requirements and apply for a permanent license once their temporary license expires.

Currently, unlicensed professionals would need to apply for a permanent license if they were to relocate to Missouri, so SB 895 would certainly improve the status quo. But it also forces us to consider why Missouri requires a license in certain occupations when other states do not.

Considering What Missouri Licenses

With every single occupational license, there are real costs: higher prices for consumers, higher barriers to entry for workers (resulting in fewer providers), reduced innovation, and loss of time and money for licensees. The central question in occupational licensing is whether these costs

are justified by clear and demonstrable benefits to public safety or product quality.

It is not unprecedented for Missouri to require unnecessary and burdensome licenses. For example, our state recently reformed licensing requirements for hair braiders.

Over the past few years, our annual Blueprint has included a section outlining the need for a review of Missouri’s existing occupational licenses. Many licenses are created and then exist for years without scrutiny. Licenses that are found to do more harm than good ought to be eliminated.

SB 895 would be another step toward improving Missouri’s existing licensing regime. However, if individuals are permitted to work in other states without a license, Missouri should carefully evaluate whether a permanent license is truly necessary here. Our state has been a leader in occupational licensing reform, and we should continue that trend.

Kansas City Reverses Costly Energy Code Legislation

Posted on by Scott Tanner
Listen to this article

It’s not often that there is good regulatory news out of Kansas City, but today there is.

Recently, the city council passed Ordinance No. 260144, repealing and replacing the city’s residential energy code provisions and loosening several of the most burdensome elements of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) implementation. Under the new ordinance, the code will allow lower insulation requirements, a more flexible performance compliance threshold (measured via Home Energy Rating System and Energy Rating Index scores), and the removal of mandatory duct leakage testing when ducts are within the building envelope.

These aren’t just technical tweaks. They speak to the central concern I raised in 2024: that rigid energy mandates can act as a hidden tax on housing supply, particularly at a time when the ability to build more homes quickly and affordably matters to families across the metro.

Dennis Shriver of Hearthside Homes told me the regulatory rollback could reduce new home costs by an average of $15,000.

The bill, sponsored by councilmember (and former Show-Me Institute intern) Nathan Willett, takes effect now that the deadline for Mayor Lucas’s veto has passed.

The original regulation should never have passed, of course, but it is no small victory that despite the damage done to housing construction in the interim, the council had the courage to reverse itself.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging