Troubling Test Results for Missouri Students

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) just released preliminary test scores from last year. We finally have some information about how Missouri students have been faring since the start of the pandemic. The news isn’t good. It also isn’t unexpected.

The top line is that test scores are down pretty much across the board. The end-of-course (EOC) assessments in English 1 and Physical Sciences are the only two exceptions. DESE has made it very clear that last year’s scores can’t be compared to any earlier years. We can wait to do that in a couple of years. But there’s plenty of information in just this year’s scores.

Here are my takeaways (bear in mind that about 50,000 students who should have taken the tests did not. We don’t have any information on the type of students who were missing, but one can guess that most high-achieving students showed up):

  • Virtual learning was a failure. Eight in ten virtual or distance learning students scored either below Basic or at Basic in math. Those students have either a minimal or a partial understanding of the material. English/Language Arts wasn’t much better. Two thirds of those students scored below grade level.
  • We have a math problem. Nearly one third of students tested in math—including students who learned in person and virtually—scored below Basic. That equates to almost 150,000 Missouri students with a minimal understanding of their grade level’s math.
  • We have a reading problem on the horizon. One group that I have been very concerned about during the pandemic is early readers. English/Language Arts scores dropped in all the early grades. But what’s really troubling is that out of 60,000 third graders tested, 3 in 10 scored below Basic and another 3 in 10 scored at the Basic level. That’s over 35,000 third graders that will not be able to read a math book or a science book unless we take immediate action.
  • Our most disadvantaged students—Black and Hispanic students, students with disabilities, low-income students, and students learning English as a second language—were the hardest hit by the pandemic. Although the scores released by DESE for these groups bundled all three subjects together, the percentages of students who scored at the Basic level or below were dismal. Eighty-five percent of Black students, 87 percent of students with disabilities, and 74 percent of low-income students demonstrated only a minimal or partial understanding of the material.

So now what? The good news is that we have money and lots of it. DESE has received nearly three billion dollars from the federal government in stimulus spending. Although most of the money is directly distributed to districts, several hundred million will be spent at the state level. Parents are worried about their children being behind and they want services now. Students and families should be consulted about their needs and money should be made directly available.

Hopefully, more detailed data will be released soon. We need to understand this as the crisis that it might be.

Critical Race Theory in Missouri (Springfield)

Patrick Ishmael, the Show-Me Institute’s director of government accountability, sent Sunshine Law requests to Missouri schools to find out which schools are teaching Critical Race Theory. Parents, students, and taxpayers deserve to know what their schools are teaching. In October, come hear Patrick present the findings of the Show-Me Curricula Project and enjoy some light refreshments on us. Please RSVP to save your spot!

Register

Sponsored by Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity.

Missouri’s Gas Tax Hike is Coming

Recently, the final obstacle for SB 262 going into effect was cleared, as an effort to put the gas tax on the ballot failed. This paves the way for Missouri to raise its gas tax for the first time in more than two decades. On October 1, Missourians will begin paying 2.5 cents more per gallon at the pump. Then for each of the next four years the tax will increase by another 2.5 cents, eventually reaching an ultimate 12.5 cents more per gallon compared to today.

Last month, I wrote about the many complicated questions surrounding the gas tax bill. The primary question is whether the bill runs afoul of the state’s Hancock Amendment, which is a constitutional amendment that requires tax increases above a certain threshold to be subject to a public vote. Several legislators expressed their concerns with the bill and urged the Governor to veto the legislation. In the end, Governor Parson signed the gas tax into law, indicating he’s not too concerned about the potential constitutionality issues.

Perhaps that’s why the bill’s fiscal note was changed before it was signed into law. Originally, the fiscal note stated, “the net increase in state revenues by this proposal exceeds the limit to revenue growth set forth by Article X, Section 18(e)” (meaning the bill’s tax hike is expected to bring in more revenue than the Hancock Amendment allows). But the updated fiscal note added an important caveat:

However, the calculation under Article X, Section 18(e) is based on the fully implemented impacts of all legislation passed during a session. Therefore, it is unknown at this time whether the cumulative impact of all legislation passed during the 2021 session will be greater than the limit allowed.

What this means is that Missouri will be implementing a gas tax hike on October 1 without knowing whether the law violates the state’s constitution. And if it’s later determined the tax hike doesn’t comply with the Hancock Amendment, the issue will be sent to voters for approval before collections can continue.

It’s an unfortunate situation that state taxpayers will soon be facing, and it’s made worse by the fact that it all could have been avoided if the legislature had simply sent the gas tax hike question to voters as it’s done in the past. My colleague Jakob Puckett has written repeatedly about the inadequacy of Missouri’s current gas tax to maintain our state’s deteriorating roads. But is raising taxes on Missourians without their input, and without knowing whether the way it’s being done is constitutional, the right answer? I, for one, don’t think so.

Podcast: The Future of The Dome, Loop Trolley’s Comeback and Hot or Not in 2022

David Stokes, Corianna Baier and Jakob Puckett join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the possible expansion of America’s Convention Center Complex, the future of The Dome at America’s Center, another attempt at a comeback by the Loop Trolley and which policy topics will be hot in 2022.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Electric Vehicle Policy Changes Coming Soon

With Missouri’s gas tax set to rise in October, it may be easy to overlook a mix of policy and program changes that will affect electric vehicle (EV) drivers.

The same bill that raised the gas tax will also raise the annual fuel decal fee that EV owners pay by 20 percent each year for five years. This means that the EV fee will rise from $75 to $150. Lawmakers are increasing this charge because EVs cause wear and tear on the state’s roads (just as gas-powered vehicles do), but EV drivers don’t pay into the state’s road-maintenance fund through gasoline taxes. Show-Me Institute researchers have estimated that the average driver of a gas-powered car in Missouri pays $250 per year in fuel taxes. A $150 fee would still have Missouri’s EV drivers paying only 60 percent of what other drivers (on average) pay. Nonetheless, it would be one the highest fees for EV drivers in the country.

The bill also establishes a new Electric Vehicle Task Force to study ways to ensure EV drivers pay fairly for road maintenance, such as through a per-kilowatt hour charge on electricity used to charge their EV. The Task Force will also attempt to ensure that non-EV drivers do not end up subsidizing EV drivers, as well as study what role actors typically not part of the transportation sector, like electric utilities and the Public Service Commission, play in the process.

The bill slates several government officials and industry representatives to be on the Task Force, and also stipulates that:

The task force may hold public meetings at which it may invite testimony from experts, or it may solicit information from any party it deems may have information relevant to its duties . . . .

I hope the Task force solicits input from ordinary citizens in addition to experts so that their voices are heard as well. The Task Force should also consider what other existing policies might be affecting drivers of both gas-powered vehicles and EVs (specifically, the federal ban on electric vehicle charging stations, gas stations, and nearly all other commercial activity at interstate rest stops).

Getting EV policy right is important. EV drivers should contribute their fair share for road maintenance just like drivers of gasoline-powered vehicles—with neither subsidizing the other. The transportation landscape in Missouri is changing, with more and more EVs hitting the road. Policymakers should remember that government’s role isn’t to promote or hinder the adoption of EVs, but rather to ensure a level playing field.

In-Person Event: Critical Race Theory in Missouri (Kansas City)

Patrick Ishmael, the Show Me Institute’s director of government accountability, sent Sunshine Law requests to Missouri schools to find out which schools are teaching Critical Race Theory. Parents, students, and taxpayers deserve to know what their schools are teaching. In October, come hear Patrick present the findings of the Show-Me Curricula Project and get a donut and coffee on us. Please RSVP to save your spot!

Register

This event is brought to you by Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity

Webster Groves Has Some Decisions to Make

Webster Groves is considering the region’s latest giant, taxpayer-subsidized, “savior” type development. By that I mean the type of mixed-use megaplex that will somehow instantly “save” the city.

The fact that the developers have requested eminent domain should disqualify it from the start. From the article about the proposal (emphasis added):

The developers have asked the city for the power to use eminent domain to force property owners to sell, but said they are not considering it now.

So they want the power of eminent domain, but as of now they say they don’t plan to use it. Until they deal with a property owner who does not feel like selling, of course. Just the threat of eminent domain impacts the entire process negatively.

They also want tax subsidies:

They need approval for $35 million in tax incentives, plus an extra sales tax.

So, a big TIF, plus a CID or TDD (to be determined), so that average people throughout the region can subsidize this development.

I don’t know if there is a real market for new apartments, condos, shops, etc. in this part of Webster Groves. There may well be. But if the project has to have huge tax subsidies and the threat of eminent domain, then I would doubt it.

The TIF commission should deny the TIF and the Webster Groves City Council should refuse the eminent domain and oppose any CID, TDD, etc. Then the developer can talk with the property owners and move forward or not.

The Devil Is Certainly in the Details

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) contains the latest federal stimulus package for public education, of which Missouri is set to receive $1.9 billion. The plan doesn’t dictate how the funds must be spent, in contrast to the education stimulus packages of the Great Recession. It does contain one pesky detail, though. Before funds can be spent, the state education agency, known as the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in Missouri, must engage in “meaningful consultation.” with stakeholders.

As a parent of three, I consider myself to be a key stakeholder in their education. And the guidance from the U.S. Department of Education lists students and families first and second on the list of those to include in the meaningful consultation. Did DESE consult any parents? It’s hard to say, but there is no direct indication that they did. In its application for ARP funds, DESE claims to have involved:

  • The Commissioner’s Advisory Committee
  • The Education Roundtable
  • The Commissioner’s Teacher Advisory Committee
  • “Leaders of education organizations.”

In addition, DESE claims it surveyed all superintendents and over “100 additional stakeholders.”

If by “stakeholders” the U.S. Department of Education meant those inside the education establishment, then DESE nailed it. If, on the other hand, it meant the actual stakeholders—namely families—we may have missed the mark. Not surprisingly, considering who was surveyed, DESE’s application states, “. . . survey respondents indicated support for teachers, particularly in the area of improving teacher pay.”

At least one state is taking this guidance seriously. Governor Ige of Hawaii vetoed a proposal to use stimulus money to give teachers bonuses of $2,000 precisely because the process did not include the consultation of stakeholders. Will Governor Parson do the same if DESE doesn’t reach beyond the education establishment in its decision making?

Dr. Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University suggests that this consultation clause presents a great opportunity for districts to do “participatory budgeting.” That doesn’t mean making budget meetings open to the public or posting the budget online for review. It simply means actually involving the community in budget decision making. As Roza states: “One question is whether it was ever possible to use a federal rule to change the process by which thousands of districts decide how to spend billions in school funds. Old habits die hard. And, let’s be honest, there are a lot of vested interests when it comes to school spending.”

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