Susan Pendergrass talks with Collin Hitt, executive director of the PRiME Center at Saint Louis University, about the first research report on outcomes in MOScholars, Missouri’s education savings account program. Hitt discusses how many students are using the program, how its eligibility rules have changed, what the early test score data shows, what he learned from his work on Louisiana’s evaluation, and more.
Episode Transcript
Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thanks so much for joining us, Collin Hitt of the PRiME Center at St. Louis University. You’ve been on the podcast before. We appreciate you coming back.
Collin Hitt (00:07)
Good to be back.
Susan Pendergrass (00:08)
Nice. So you know, let’s see. Missouri’s had a program for what, three, four years, four years at least, where we have six scholarship granting organizations that Missourians, individuals and companies can donate to. And those organizations give out scholarships to students with a priority on students who have disabilities and low income students, and it’s called MOScholars. It’s an education scholarship account program, just to clear that up, an ESA. And all along when the program was created, there’s always been a requirement that somebody would report on how the kids are doing. And that hasn’t happened until this year and the PRiME Center has sort of taken on that work and I’m so grateful that you have. But what if I just would like to know like what is the basic outline of this program, how many kids are using it, where are they, and what do we know about the usage of the program?
Collin Hitt (01:03)
Right, so MOScholars is an education savings account program where parents, you know, on behalf of students, can receive an education savings account from which they can pay for things like private school tuition, other educational supplies, attending a different public school district outside of their residence school district and a number of other educational supports. The revenue from that comes through two streams. One is through direct donations, for which you know Missouri donors can receive a Missouri tax credit. And increasingly a direct appropriation from the General Assembly. Nationally, it’s relatively unique in that it has those two different revenue streams. But you know, that’s where the money comes from. I think the program was created in 2021, donations started at that point, students began to enroll or rather began to go to school with support from MOScholars in the fall of 2022.
Susan Pendergrass (01:56)
Okay. So about how many kids are using?
Collin Hitt (01:58)
Right. So you know, early on you saw you know about thirteen hundred students in the program in the first year, up to three thousand by year three. That’s what our research window covers. In the year that just concluded, closer to seven thousand, and then the year that we’re talking in here, which is the 2026-27 school year, you’re looking at probably ten thousand students or more.
Susan Pendergrass (02:24)
So demand has been strong really, like once people find out about it. And also eligibility was dramatically changed a couple of years ago.
Collin Hitt (02:33)
Right. So initially the main eligibility requirements initially were, you know, sort of around geography plus income. One thing that’s been constant over time is that students with an IEP, that’s an individual education plan, special needs students, were always at the front of the line and eligible. It just where you lived has changed and expanded over time. So that’s certainly driven program enrollment growth and awareness as well.
Susan Pendergrass (02:58)
And so you have a report coming out discussing some of these things, but it’s true, right, that there’s a fairly large percentage of the students in this program are students with IEPs?
Collin Hitt (03:09)
Hundred percent. I shouldn’t say a hundred percent. That was me agreeing with you. Definitely. You know, over thirty percent of the students and MOScholars have an IEP, an even higher percentage of the students that are in our testing sample are in testing grades, have an IEP. And everybody else who’s in the program is admitted based on means testing, how much money their family has, or whether or not they have a sibling in the program. But those are the two, those are the two screens. You have a program that first in line serves students with IEP and after that, you know, students from relatively low income households.
Susan Pendergrass (03:44)
So a typical school district would have what percentage of students with an IEP? Fifteen, thirteen?
Collin Hitt (03:49)
Yeah, across the state, that’s probably right.
Susan Pendergrass (03:52)
Maybe twice as high. Why do you suppose that the take up has been so strong for families of children with IEPs?
Collin Hitt (03:57)
Well one, you know, they were first in line for eligibility. That would be one. You know, and but the second is you know, and look, parents of special needs students are always hungry for options, right? And constantly working to make sure that their kids have the supports that they get and you know, and they’re willing to do just about anything to give their kids their supports. That’s how they got the IEP in the first place. So obviously there’s a fair number of Missouri families that think that the school that they can send their kid to or the educational services that they can take advantage of through MOScholars is best for their kid.
Susan Pendergrass (04:34)
So this is the real question because I’ve been working in this space for I don’t know decades now when vouchers were very exotic and novel and controversial, they’re still controversial. And the main argument was well, a couple things, two arguments were number one, it’s just gonna cream the best students out of the program. You know what I mean? Like the best students are gonna be the ones that get the vouchers and so it’s not even fair because the most disadvantaged students will be left behind. But secondly the kids that do at these vouchers don’t do any better than they would have done in their traditional public schools. So I want you to talk about your findings, but the huge caveat that these are early and small. We can’t say definitively, but you know, to the extent that that first one doesn’t seem to be true, ’cause twice as many of the kids have IEPs and the rest of them, by definition, are from low income families. What about this second idea that they’re doing no better, maybe even worse?
Collin Hitt (05:31)
Well, you know, you know, first of all, we’ll just talk about like what the data is available there and then I’ll get to your question.
Susan Pendergrass (05:35)
Yes, please. Yeah.
Collin Hitt (05:36)
So one of the things is, you know, in terms of accountability, every student in a testing grade that’s considered grades three through ten in MOScholars is required to submit reading and/or English language arts and math results on a nationally norm-referenced test.
Susan Pendergrass (05:54)
What does that mean?
Collin Hitt (05:55)
There we go. So it isn’t the official state test that’s given within public schools, which is called the Missouri MAP test. But listeners may have had their kids take an NWEA test or an Iowa test of basic skills, something like that. You know, these are standardized tests that are out there. ACT would be an example of a high school level nationally norm-referenced test. And where norm-referenced is important, especially for our analysis, is whereas you get a test score for your student, you also get a sort of test percentile. It tells you, say if your student you know has a national percentile of 55, that means that your kid scored in the 55th percentile nationally, which is to say out of every one hundred kids, you know, your kid is scoring higher than fifty five of them and lower than forty five. You know, so the cool thing about that is that no matter what test a student is using, we can then equate it on that nationally norm-referenced scale. You know, across the program, you know, we identified, you know, somewhere between fifteen to nineteen different tests in use. Go ahead.
Susan Pendergrass (07:18)
Yeah, wow. I mean but most kids are taking a couple of them, right?
Collin Hitt (07:21)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s certainly the ones that I just mentioned, you know, there certainly are those that are most popular and stand out. Iowa assessments, NWEA, anything in the ACT, battery attests, you know, you know, very, you know, pretty commonly named assessments. And again, these are assessments that are in use in schools, all across Missouri, across the country for the most part, the norm-referenced tests that we identified in the program. And so what do we see? That was your question. So, you know, in the first year of the program, or rather from the first to the third year of the program, you know, we see students language arts scores improve from the forty-sixth percentile nationally to the fifty first percentile nationally. And math, forty seventh to the forty ninth over that same period of time.
Susan Pendergrass (08:11)
So I mean, so basically what you’re saying is the students in this program, and in your case it’s about three thousand students, right, that have test scores or twenty five hundred.
Collin Hitt (08:20)
So that has increased dramatically across years. So yeah, pooled across all years. That’s about right. So in the first year the program, about six hundred and twenty-nine well exactly six hundred and twenty-nine kids had tests. You know, again, you’re only gonna have tests for students who are testing grades, which right now is grades three through ten in MOScholars. That increased to nine sixty-one in the second year, thirteen fifty-one in the third year. And by the fourth year of the program, which this will be in future reports, you’ve got 2,972 students in those same, those tested grades. And that’s just going to explode further for a couple of reasons. One, the program is growing. Second of all, at present, fully half of the students in the MOScholars program are in grades kindergarten, first, and second. So as those students age into the program, the number of students in tested grades is going to explode. And so these results could very well look different as that sample of kids changes, but we will see in future years.
Susan Pendergrass (09:21)
But what we know with the small sample is it isn’t biased towards it. We don’t have any information that it’s biased towards higher-performing kids. And when they are being norm-referenced, they’re not being norm-referenced to students with disabilities or to low-income students, right? It’s the national average number, and these kids are scoring at or just above or just below basically the average kid in the United States, which seems kind of incredible to me.
Collin Hitt (09:49)
Right. So, you know, you’re again, you know, the sample that we’re looking at, you know, is thirty to forty percent of these students have IEPs. So the typical student in MOScholars is far more likely to have a special education plan than your average student nationally. And the rest of the students in the program are admitted through means testing. These are relatively low income households in Missouri, which would then mean relatively low income households nationally. So I think a lot of people, if they had to guess, you know, knowing that about your student sample, you know, you know, would probably predict test scores that are lower than what we’re seeing. That’s certainly the case for me. I was surprised at what we saw.
Susan Pendergrass (10:34)
And I know you can’t really compare them to the average Missouri student, but certainly these kids aren’t doing worse than the average Missouri student. Would that be fair to say?
Collin Hitt (10:42)
Missouri’s official state test is not nationally norm-referenced. It’s tough to take it and say, okay, the average Missouri student scores at this part nationally, using Missouri’s official state test. But we have another test out there called NAEP, right? Most people would recognize that as the nation’s report card. Every state gives this. It’s a federally funded and administered test given every other year to fourth and eighth graders. And the typical Missouri student that takes the NAEP, and this is a representative sample. Of Missouri students scores between the 47th and the 45th percentile nationally on reading and math. So if you want to compare that number to what we’re seeing in MOScholars, you can say the typical student in MOScholars is scoring at or above, where the typical student in Missouri is scoring on NAEP. It’s a bit of a back of the map calculation, but it’s the best we can do right now.
Susan Pendergrass (11:38)
I still think that’s kind of incredible because as you know, like early results of other programs, Louisiana comes to mind, you know, they were not positive. They weren’t even average and in DC too, I think, because these programs take a little bit of time and the kids have to adjust to a new school and now they’re taking a different test. Maybe they used to take the math test, or maybe it’s their first round of testing. And normally there’s sort of this kind of you know, this period of time where everyone’s getting used to the program and warming up to it or something. But these are our earliest test scores and they look good. Were you surprised when you saw?
Collin Hitt (12:15)
Well, I was a member of the research team on Louisiana’s evaluation.
Susan Pendergrass (12:19)
Tell me what happened in Louisiana.
Collin Hitt (12:20)
Well one of the things that happened in Louisiana is the program was passed and rushed to implementation right away. And students also had to take the official state test. So there are a couple things happening there. But one of which is that schools themselves would not have had time to sort of adapt their curriculum or their teaching in any way to the state test. The whole idea of a state test is that it’s built around a curriculum that public schools are using in one way or another. And another is, you know, the schools themselves. You know, it was not ideal across the board. One, you know, sort of rushed implementation. Schools hadn’t had time to adapt their curriculum. One, the second, this wasn’t a test that they were used to giving in their particular schools. Third, the program was definitely targeted towards neediest students. Fourth, you know, there’s a possibility that some of the schools that rushed to be first in line for that program were schools themselves that had a ton of open seats. And you can infer what you will about maybe what the quality of those schools were. But again those were year one results over time.
Susan Pendergrass (13:31)
What were the results? But what were
Collin Hitt (13:33)
Now, in Louisiana, they also had an enrollment lottery. So most school choice programs of different sorts have enrollment lotteries, because mainly to be fair, right? Because folks have concerns that the programs could end up being selective. They want to make sure that everybody who applies has an equal chance at getting in. But it also creates a really cool opportunity for us as researchers and that the only thing that separates students who were admitted versus those who weren’t is random chance. We don’t yet have a design like that in Missouri. It should be very clear. But, you know, in Louisiana that was the comparison. So those kids that were admitted to the program by lottery versus those that weren’t in year one certainly scored significantly lower. Those results faded over time such that those two groups of students were performing roughly comparably in Louisiana. And you saw some suggestive evidence, although imprecisely estimated, that maybe there were even some graduation rate you know benefits over time. But again, you know, that was a program that was studied, you know, at launch and versus a mature program that had had a chance to get its feet under it.
Susan Pendergrass (14:42)
Yeah, I think sometimes with these programs, the folks who support these policies and want these programs to happen, I might just be making this up. But it seems to me that sometimes folks don’t want the students to have to take testing or to have to prove that they’re doing better than just the fact that their families want this other school is enough to say that, you know, that’s the market working and they shouldn’t have to prove that their test scores improve. And so sometimes I think there’s a little bit of a reluctance to work that into the program. But Missouri included it in the legislation right when it was passed. They have to take a nationally norm-referenced test and they gotta submit these test scores now to you guys at PRiME. And that leaves a little bit of vulnerability and exposure, but the results I think are much better than what I would have expected.
Collin Hitt (15:29)
Again, you know, you know, I would be encouraged by this. You know, people who thought that, okay, students who enroll in this program are gonna be scoring in the 90th percentile nationally right away, I suppose would be disappointed. Those who were predicting that these students are gonna be scoring far, far below the average Missouri student would have been wrong as well. You know, overall, again, like I said, you know, I was surprised at where we saw the numbers and I view it as relatively encouraging as somebody who’s, you know, you know, really hoping. To identify programs that can improve kids’ reading and math skills, whatever that program is.
Susan Pendergrass (16:06)
Yeah, I mean, from what I’ve seen, the virtual programs in Missouri, MOCAP, what they’re called, their achievement results are not very good, honestly. And again, we’re talking about kids who, for any number of reasons, the school that they’re assigned to, their traditional public school, isn’t a fit. It doesn’t work well. So they’re looking for an option. So some parents are choosing the virtual option, the MOCAP option. If you live near St. Louis or Kansas City, you can choose a charter school if you’re in the right district. And those kids generally do better than they would have done if they stayed in a traditional public school. And now we’ve got this new third option for Missouri families, which is MOScholars, right? So we at the Show-Me Institute are just pressing for every family to have at least two or three high-quality options. I don’t, whatever they are. I want people, if they’re like, my child’s being bullied, the teachers aren’t getting along with my child, whatever the reason is, it’s too big, it’s too small, I don’t really care. I need another option, I want them to have it. But we need to look at how these programs are designed and how they’re doing, and it seems to me like MOScholars might have a good design and it might have some pretty promising results for participants.
Collin Hitt (17:15)
Well, on that front as well, other data that we’ve looked at is parent satisfaction data. The law not only has testing requirements, it also requires that the state treasurer’s office who oversees this program conduct a parent satisfaction survey and the parents that responded to that survey were overwhelmingly satisfied with the program and one of the questions that’s asked is would you recommend this program to somebody else and again that was, you know, an overwhelming yes
Susan Pendergrass (17:45)
And the kids, if you know, the students with IEPs, are they attending schools that are designed for students with IEPs? Because I think another potential I’m thinking like, what are the reasons for all these? I do think program design, having that intermediary organization that gives out the scholarships that has a vested interest in having the program work, right? So they’re trying to match families to schools that are a good match for them. I think that that might be helpful. But also, you know, Missouri’s got five hundred and fifty odd school districts. We have a lot of tiny school districts. And if your child is identified, especially early as having a disability, let’s say they are hearing impaired, right? You know this right after they’re born. You know they’re hearing impaired. You’re going to be looking for the best program to give your child a full, robust education. And challenge them and everything. And not every school district out in the middle of Missouri that’s got a hundred kids is equipped to have a hearing impaired child, right? So I could see this being a much more successful program given the structure of public education in Missouri, because all these small districts that have to be everything to everyone and they just can’t be.
Collin Hitt (18:53)
Yeah. So, you know, one thing about your kind of questions in order there is there are some schools that are sort of participating in the program that are, you know, specially geared towards special needs kids. But I think, you know, you know, by and large the students with IEPs and MOScholars are spread over a wide variety of schools, some specialized schools like what you’re talking about, but otherwise traditional brick and mortar private schools. There’s also family-paced education students, otherwise, you know, homeschool or micro school students, you know, as well. But I would say this, you know, as well, that for a parent, for a family that is in this program that has a student with an IEP that is not in a traditional public school through the program, they are still entitled to the same services that a private or non-public school student is entitled to who has an IEP. They’re no different in this case than they are a straight up tuition paying parent at the school that they’re at. They’re getting tuition assistance, but they’re tuition paying parent. But that doesn’t change that their child is still legally and frankly morally entitled to you know federally funded special education services in their area through their local school district.
Susan Pendergrass (20:08)
Yeah, and certainly the point of this program isn’t to save money, but these kids are getting six thousand on average, but perhaps students with IEPs are getting more. I think they are eligible for higher dollar amounts. But it still seems to me it would be a small fraction of what is spent on those children in a traditional public school, certainly lower than six thousand dollars. So for folks, you know, right now the legislature’s put sixty million dollars towards this. I suspect that the demand in Missouri easily could justify double that. But I’m concerned more about people are saying that Missourians are getting ripped off by this program and yet the families are taking much less money and the kids are doing average or better than average. To me it feels like a very productive, efficient program.
Collin Hitt (20:59)
Well, I mean, public spending, be it through a tax expenditure or through a direct appropriation on this program, is almost certainly less per pupil than what you would see if these students were attending a public school. And then as for the expense associated with IEPs, I think it’s important to point out, especially as is, you know, we as a country, you know, we as a planet are getting better at spotting, say, for example, kids with autism or kids on the autism spectrum. Very often what these kids need is not a whole host of really expensive services. They need accommodations, they need an inclusive environment. They need a school that understands their needs and is just willing to be flexible to give them what they want. And so for these students, you know, the resources are there if they can find an environment like that through this program.
Susan Pendergrass (21:57)
Yeah, which is great. And I know like Arizona’s got a similar sort of similar ESA program, all publicly funded, and they have over a hundred thousand kids in theirs. But there are, as you mentioned, schools that are specifically focused on children with autism and you know they have like better soundproofing and they have like less distraction. I mean there are ways, not necessarily expensive, to arrange the environment in a way that’s more advantageous. Do you have any speculation as to what you would see as the maximum take up of this program in Missouri? Speculating.
Collin Hitt (22:34)
And we don’t know. Yeah, it’s speculating. I believe it was just announced that there are ten thousand students approved for the upcoming year and a few thousand more on a wait list. And that’s even as you know, you know, parents can continue to sign up. Arizona’s a similarly sized state. There are a hundred thousand students in Arizona’s program. Make of that what you will.
Susan Pendergrass (23:00)
I mean, Texas, they announced a billion dollar program for a hundred thousand kids and they had filled all the spots. Like I mean, when these programs become available, and certainly there are a few states that are universally eligible, universally paid for, like Florida, you know, it’s not every kid. I think it maxes out at ten percent, twenty percent, but you know, for those ten or twenty percent, it’s an incredible opportunity to fix something that’s going wrong. So to me it feels worth it. But that’s, you know.
Collin Hitt (23:31)
Well, I think the real numbers to look at, Susan, are not just what percentage of kids in the state of Missouri are enrolled in this program right now. The better way to think about it, and we’ll know this over time, is what percentage of kids in the state of Missouri will ever be served by this program? Some of the students who are in MOScholars now will move back into the public school system, you know, if that’s the better option for them. Some of the students who are presently in the public school system will move into MOScholars. So then the percentage of students who are served by a program like this is over time, is always going to be higher than that single point in time. Do that math again then with families, right? You know, almost every family I know, you know, that’s got multiple kids in, say, St. Louis, where we’re located, the St. Louis University has got their kids spread across, you know, multiple sectors, right? Different kids have different needs at different ages, you know, there’s different opportunities available. So, you know, a higher percentage of families will probably experience or take advantage of this program at some point in time.
Susan Pendergrass (24:36)
Yeah, it just like to me, I feel like it’s got a good design. We seem to have some evidence of that. We seem to have some evidence that the kids are doing well. And we seem to have some evidence that it’s costing taxpayers less than these kids cost in their traditional public school district. And I really would hope that Missouri legislators realize what a great program we have and that they do whatever they need to do to keep it going. ‘Cause I mean it’s already been sued. There’s already, you know the wolves are at the door to try to kill this program and now we’ve got ten thousand Missouri children. I mean, we’re just growing the number of families, like you said, that have had any contact with it and you know, to kill it or to try to limit it in any way I just think would be such a mistake.
Collin Hitt (25:21)
Well, you know, one of the things that’s interesting, you talk about demand and all of that, you know, another piece that we’ve done in partnership with the State Treasurer’s Office again, who runs this program in Missouri, is look at where students are located by school district, by legislative district. And you can see as geographic restrictions have been lifted on the program all over time, you just see the map of Missouri really fill up as to the reach of the program, which is just a really interesting thing to watch.
Susan Pendergrass (25:48)
I think it’s cool. I haven’t seen the Missouri data. I do recall seeing the Iowa data the first year of their program and they had at least one scholarship student in every county. You know what I mean? It’s just like there is no reason to say that rural families don’t want this or that urban families don’t want this or families in southeast Missouri don’t want this. It is not that you know, it’s like you said, it’s a kid by kid thing.
Collin Hitt (26:08)
Right. Well, if that’s what the data showed, we’d be obligated to say so. But we’re seeing otherwise. You know, and I think the last time I was on your show we were talking about the percentage of kids in Missouri who were homeschooling. And it went from somewhere around thirty thousand pre pandemic to 60,000, 60,000 students post-pandemic, out of 1 million total kids in Missouri, and has stayed there over time. Some percentage of that growth, some percentage of that extra 30,000 kids, are actually in micro schools or cottage schools or co-ops or whatever you want to call them. And you’re gonna be able to learn more about that through the data that comes through MOScholars, as well as, you know, as we see, who the providers are that are attached to the program. And that’s part of the mechanism of action as well. You know, the idea behind a program, like MOScholars, is one, perhaps there is a setting out there that is a better fit for your kid right now. That’s one idea of how this is gonna work. Another would be it creates the opportunity for new actors to enter. For folks that have new ideas of how to educate kids or new ideas for a school, even if it’s a micro school or something like that, suddenly they have a way for the kids that they hope to serve to be able to afford to go to something like that. So you know, I expect that what you’re gonna see over time with something like MOScholars is a sort of catalyst for this sort of social entrepreneurship if you will you know these folks that are starting their own or expanding their own organizations to serve kids and I think in rural areas a lot of that is going to be in this micro schooling space
Susan Pendergrass (27:49)
Yeah, we’ve seen that in Arizona, where suppliers, I mean, people who specialize in dyslexia or, you know, woodcrafters or baking schools, whatever like these suppliers are like, the families want the services and the suppliers wanna provide them to the families. And now you have this great overlap on the demand side and supply side, which is cool.
Collin Hitt (28:12)
Yeah, so there’s a really interesting school like in Columbia, for example, Columbia, Missouri, that you know, was a tutoring program, a reading intensive tutoring program into the pandemic. And then families started to ask, would you consider a sort of full-time option? And started out with a handful of kids. Now is a full K through twelve school. At any particular grade, you would certainly call it a micro school. And you know, a large percentage of those kids are now able to participate in MOScholars. So it’s an example of an organization that was serving kids already that sort of became a school. And now is able to serve more kids than it otherwise would thanks to a program like MOScholars. And that’s part of the theory of action behind a program like this, is that it sort of spurs innovation or pulls other folks sort of off the sideline and into the full with new ideas and you know new environments.
Susan Pendergrass (29:09)
That’s awesome. So you guys will continue to take the test score data and all the other data that are collected, analyze it, organize it for those of us who wanna find out more and then assemble it into reports. You’re gonna do this every year.
Collin Hitt (29:24)
Yeah, no, wait, yes. The report that we’re discussing is the first in what now will be annual reports where the research and data partner for the MOScholars program for the state of Missouri through 2029 at least.
Susan Pendergrass (29:36)
That’s awesome. And where can we where can listeners find these reports if they want to read them?
Collin Hitt (29:40)
Well, you can certainly find them at primecenter.org. Or if you so desire, you can go to the State Treasurer’s MOScholars website as well.
Susan Pendergrass (29:47)
Awesome. Well thanks so much, Collin, for coming back. I appreciate it. Well, I’m sure we’ll have you back again. Thanks so much.
Collin Hitt (29:50)
Always a pleasure, Susan. Thank you much.
Produced by Show-Me Opportunity
