Tennessee Lands Another Nuclear Project

Posted on by Scott Tanner

I really love my hometown of Clinton in East Tennessee. It’s a beautiful place where I grew up, went to school, and made so many wonderful friends. Plus, the fried chicken, sweet tea, and banana pudding are always magnificent.

These days, though, I have come to love St. Louis too. It is a big city with a small-town feel. I go to an amazing church, and there is always something new to do or see.

Growing up in East Tennessee, I know firsthand how much that region has been defined by nuclear innovation, a tradition that continues today. Recently, Oklo Inc. announced that it plans to build a $1.68 billion nuclear recycling facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is a stone’s throw away from my hometown. This project joins a wave of planned nuclear investments in the region, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility and the planned construction of a new small modular reactor (SMR).

While I am excited for East Tennessee, I also want Missouri to grow and thrive. Leaders here have recognized the importance of nuclear power, with Governor Kehoe stating that we need to build new nuclear at “business speed.” If Missouri wants to attract the same kind of investment Tennessee has, we should follow its example, starting with the creation of a nuclear advisory council.

What Could a Nuclear Advisory Council Look Like?

Just as Missouri should take note of Tennessee’s zero-income-tax advantage, we should also learn from its policies on nuclear energy.

In my recent report, Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, I detail how the formation of a nuclear advisory council—modeled after Tennessee’s—could help fortify our grid and attract needed investment to our state. A council would bring together the brightest minds to provide accessible information, engage with stakeholders, and foster key partnerships at no cost to taxpayers.

Our state already has unique assets that position us well for nuclear development, and a council could advise how to best use these strengths. It could also flag weaknesses in regulation, workforce development, or siting. Further, a council could help identify opportunities for utilities or even independent off-grid electricity providers if our state allows it.

Tennessee’s council, created by an executive order from Governor Bill Lee, has already helped signal resolve to interested developers and foster a more nuclear-friendly environment. Missouri has the ability to do the same.

Creating a nuclear advisory committee is a simple first step. Hopefully, another big nuclear investment next door can motivate Missouri to follow in Tennessee’s footsteps (and maybe we can also start making all iced tea sweet by default, please).

Interested in this idea? Read a more in-depth analysis in my recent report:

Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future

Check out these other related articles:

Forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council

Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank

What Could New Executive Orders on Nuclear Mean for Missouri?

The Rise of Equitable Grading with Adam Tyner

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Adam Tyner, national research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, about his new report, “Equitable” Grading Through the Eyes of Teachers. They discuss what “equitable grading” means, how widespread policies like no zeros, unlimited retakes, and no late penalties have become, and what teachers really think of these reforms, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Equitable Grading
02:33 Understanding Equitable Grading Practices
05:25 Teacher Perspectives on Grading Policies
08:10 Survey Findings on Grading Policies
10:49 The Impact of Grading Policies on Student Engagement
13:43 Concerns Over Lowering Academic Standards
16:28 Recommendations for Grading Reform
19:16 The Future of Grading Policies in Education

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Students Who Can’t Read Benefit from Third-Grade Retention

Posted on by Scott Tanner

This is the headline from a recent study I conducted in Indiana with my coauthor NaYoung Hwang. We study a statewide policy in Indiana that required students who failed a literacy test in the third grade to be held back. Students had two chances to pass the test—once in the spring of the third grade, and once during the summer after a mandatory remediation program. Students who failed both assessments were held back.

Our study shows that retained students improved tremendously in terms of their on-grade academic performance. They did not suddenly become top performers in their new third-grade classrooms, but they moved meaningfully toward the middle of the performance distribution. The positive effect of third-grade retention on test scores persisted through at least seventh grade, which was as far as we could track with our data. We also found no evidence of harmful side effects. In particular, retained students were no more likely to be subject to school discipline and had no changes in attendance after their retention.

How do we know the retention itself is responsible for the improvement in test scores, and not something else? We used what researchers call a “regression discontinuity design” to estimate the retention effect. This approach compares students whose test scores fall just above the cutoff for promotion with those just below. When we compare students very close to the cutoff, the only difference between the ones on different sides is whether they were held back—in all other respects, they are the same, at least on average. This design mimics random assignment, and gives us strong confidence that the improvements we observe were caused by retention.

Our findings in Indiana corroborate similar findings in several other cities and states showing that early-grade retention greatly improves academic outcomes without negative behavioral consequences. Retention in later grades is more problematic. This has led researchers to theorize that the negative stigma and weakened sense of belonging associated with retention are problems that affect older students, but not younger ones.

It is increasingly well understood that grade retention for struggling readers is an important part of a robust early literacy policy (e.g., see here). If students can’t read by the end of the third grade, it is in their best interest to be held back while they catch up. Missouri currently has a weak and ineffectual retention policy that as far as I can tell, is not in active or meaningful use. We should update our state retention policy to make it objective and rigorous, and stop socially promoting children who can’t read.

Is Consumer-Regulated Electricity Going Worldwide?

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Electricity demand from data centers is exploding. This surge has spurred an intense buildout of new generation capacity, as businesses and governments are seemingly scrambling for solutions.

In my recent report, Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, one of the policy solutions I offer to meet electricity demand is consumer-regulated electricity (CRE). In short, CRE would allow for the creation of private energy entities, disconnected from utility grids, in order to serve the largest customers more efficiently.

A recent article on this topic caught my eye. The article mentions that delegates at the World Nuclear Association summit in London discussed forming private energy clusters, disconnected from the grid, to meet surging demand from data centers.

Doesn’t that sound familiar?

Bringing Energy Clusters (or CRE) to Missouri

A few weeks ago, New Hampshire’s governor signed into law House Bill 672, which allows for “off grid electricity providers”—independent and disconnected from the main grid—to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity.

Whether you call it CRE, off-grid providers, or private energy clusters, the concept is similar: enabling private energy systems to serve large industrial customers with less delays, less red tape, and less pressure on the main grid and ratepayers.

Poland and the Netherlands are beginning to consider the use of energy clustering to meet industrial energy needs. The previously mentioned article identifies a few potential benefits from energy clustering:

  • It would allow large customers to take their electricity from a co-located generation source
  • If a thermal energy source like nuclear is used, large customers could use its industrial heat (high-temperature steam used in industrial processes like manufacturing)
  • The energy developer would benefit from simplified project finance
  • Both consumers and developers would avoid long transmission lines
  • These clusters would also help reduce the burden on grid resources, which are at a premium in most markets and in Missouri

CRE gives large customers the option to use an energy source of their choice, so long as they meet the still-applicable regulations (such as the Clean Air Act for fossil-fuel plants).

As we have seen with the drastic actions of Meta, Microsoft, and Google, there is a market for this type of arrangement as these huge customers have sought connection to nuclear reactors. States and countries are taking notice of these market conditions and are bringing the free market into the energy sector.

Missouri needs to reduce pressure on the grid and attract investment. In the upcoming legislative session, lawmakers should seriously evaluate how CRE—or private energy clustering—could benefit consumers, energy developers, and ratepayers in our state.

Want to read more? Check out these related articles:

Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future

New Nuclear Energy: Business-Speed and Business Friendly

Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy

One Way Missouri Could Keep its Grid Reliable

Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth

Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand

Third-Grade Retention and Early Literacy Policies

Posted on by Avery Frank

Reading scores in Missouri continue to fall, relative to both past performance and other states. But this trend doesn’t have to continue. Across the country, numerous states have improved reading outcomes, and a common thread among these states (which include Mississippi, Indiana, and Louisiana) is their focus on early literacy policies.

The premise is simple: if you can effectively teach students to read in their early years, then they will be better at reading to learn for the rest of their years.

While there is of course need to continue reforming education practices at all grade-levels, the research literature and recent real-world examples show the positive outcomes that can result from focusing on helping students learn to read effectively at a young age.

This report explores the beneficial effects of a focus on early literacy. Drawing on the findings of a 2023 study by John Westall & Amy Cummings at Michigan State University, it provides a road map for Missouri: establishing a mandatory, academic-based third-grade retention policy, fully eliminating the three-cueing method for teaching word reading, and aligning teacher preparation programs with the science of reading.

Click here to read the full policy brief.

Platte County Agreement Could Be a Model for Missouri

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Platte County has had a difficult 2025 reassessment cycle. Most stories I have read and heard put the blame on the county assessor. I have no idea if that is true or not, and the assessor defended himself here. All I know is that county assessor is a quirky elected position where if you simply don’t do your job, you actually make voters happier.

The state tax commission (STC) stepped into the below-market mess and required Platte County to increase its assessed valuations to a more accurate level. The county and the STC agreed to an across the board 6.8% increase on residential property in Platte County. This agreement is exciting to me, and yes, I realize it is weird to be excited by something like that. But I have been calling for years for counties to stop individually assessing every property and to do it using an average-based system. As I explained in my recent testimony before a House committee on property taxes:

Missouri should eliminate the practice of sending thousands of assessors out into our neighborhoods every other year to assess residential property. In the current system, each county assessor uses sale prices of comparable homes or other, less accurate, methods to assess every home in the county. The county’s average rate of increase—which is used for tax rate–setting purposes—is determined only after all of the homes are reassessed. I believe the process should be reversed.

. . . This article could serve as a starting point for the Missouri State Tax Commission as it worked with county assessors, local realtors, and online real estate resources to determine average county increases (or decreases) in valuation for each reassessment cycle.

Each residential, commercial, or agricultural property in a county could then be adjusted based on the county’s average for that particular class or subclass of property. The various tax rates could then be adjusted based on that average, and the vast majority of homeowners would be subject to the same resulting increase (or decrease) in their overall property taxes. This would eliminate wide discrepancies from house to house that undermine faith in the current system and sometimes lead to high tax increases for some homeowners even when the overall assessment increases are modest.

The final part is really the key. If everyone sees the same residential increase, then everyone’s tax rates can be rolled back the same amount as dictated by the Hancock Amendment, and everyone will more or less see the same, small property tax increase.

There is one potential flaw in the plan, which Platte County may be experiencing this year. If taxing districts find ways around rolling back their tax rates, then the idea doesn’t work. And from what I have been told by knowledgeable sources, school districts have started to aggressively move funding from their general service funds to their debt service funds. The latter is exempt from rate rollback requirements. I have been told that two school districts in Platte County are going to do this. (I hope that’s wrong.) I know of one school district in Lebanon that was planning to do it but instead “compromised” and moved most of the general fund rollback to the debt service fund but did allow a very small overall decrease in the total fund.

These are just a few specific examples, but I hear about it happening all over Missouri. However much ignoring the tax rate rollback by raising the debt service rate may be happening, it is wrong. School districts (or any government bodies) should not do this, and state government needs to amend the laws to make sure it can’t happen going forward.

SNAP Back to Reality

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Medicaid wasn’t the only welfare program that received significant reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, will similarly be seeing major changes very soon.

For Missouri, perhaps the biggest change will be the cost of SNAP going up. Unlike Medicaid, the federal government has historically paid for 100% of the SNAP benefit, with states only on the hook for 50% of its administrative costs. The OBBB increases the share of administrative costs borne by states to 75%, and has the potential to start charging states for some program benefit costs as well.

There’s a noticeable focus in the OBBB on improving program integrity in America’s welfare programs. With Medicaid, the focus was on checking program recipients’ eligibility more frequently. For SNAP, the focus is on reducing state payment error rates. Last year, the national rate of overpayment for SNAP (awarding benefits to people who don’t qualify or offering more benefits than the recipient was eligible for) approached 10%, with Missouri not much behind at 8.16%. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the payment errors is that they’re almost entirely overpayments. The error rate for underpayments barely exceeds 1%.

To be clear, there could be myriad reasons for the errors, but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that the government needs to do better. One possible explanation is that states tend toward overpayments because they aren’t responsible for the cost. The OBBB tries to address this misaligned incentive by requiring states to get their error rates below 6% by 2028; states that fail to meet this goal will need to start paying for a portion of the cost, with the share scaling by how far away the state is from the 6% goal.

All told, the SNAP changes contained in the OBBB could have a greater impact on Missouri’s budget than the changes to Medicaid. According to the Tax Foundation, these new costs could reach up to $400 million per year for Missouri if the state isn’t able to sufficiently reduce its payment error rate. It’s important to remember that the only guaranteed increase in cost for states is the higher share required for administrative services. If Missouri can find efficiencies in how it administers the program, the state’s cost might not need to go up much at all.

In the coming weeks, I’ll explain more about the OBBB’s changes to SNAP (no, these aren’t all of them), but these are the two that could have the largest impact on Missouri’s budget. Now that the federal government has finally gotten around to tackling the many broken incentives in America’s welfare system, it’s time for Missouri to step up and follow through on enacting comprehensive reform.

Massachusetts Joins NYC and KC in Shifting Fees to Landlords

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Massachusetts lawmakers recently approved a measure requiring landlords—not tenants—to cover apartment broker fees, which often equal one month’s rent. The move mirrors a new policy in New York City, where landlords are likewise barred from charging tenants unless the tenant directly hires the broker. Proponents claim the change will save renters money. But early evidence suggests it merely repackages the same cost—and may even drive rents higher.

In New York, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act took effect on June 11. Within a week, average listed rents jumped 15 percent, from $4,750 to $5,500. Many landlords, faced with absorbing fees once paid by tenants, simply raised rents to cover the difference. Others introduced vague “management” or “technology” fees—charges that resemble the old broker fees in everything but name. At the same time, the number of apartment listings fell, suggesting some landlords were withholding inventory to preserve pricing power.

This cost-shifting dynamic isn’t unique to New York. In Kansas City, for instance, landlords must pay a $20-per-unit annual inspection fee—and are legally barred from passing it on to tenants. Yet few believe it doesn’t show up in the rent. As with most expenses in housing, the end user ultimately picks up the tab.

Even if renters are no longer writing separate checks to brokers or city departments, they’ll still bear the cost indirectly. Landlords operate in competitive markets and adjust pricing in response to total expenses, no matter how those costs are labeled. The illusion of savings may please voters, but it won’t lower rents.

Such policies also obscure the true cost of housing. When fees are baked into rent rather than itemized, it’s harder for renters to assess value. And as seen in New York, shifting fee obligations may reduce supply if landlords delay listings or forgo using brokers entirely, which limits choice for renters.

Some argue landlords are better positioned to negotiate broker fees, or that renters shouldn’t face steep upfront costs. That may be true in theory. But it assumes landlords won’t pass on those costs—an assumption contradicted by New York’s immediate market response.

If the goal is housing affordability, policymakers should focus on fundamentals: zoning reform, faster permitting, and reducing regulation to increase supply. Reassigning fees won’t create more apartments. But it can inflate rents.

Missourians—and Massachusetts residents—should be skeptical of promises to cut costs by simply shifting who pays them. As Kansas City and now New York have shown, policies that ignore how markets behave rarely deliver the relief they promise.

Most Teachers Don’t Like Equitable Grading Practices Either

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Rather than being viewed as accurate indicators of knowledge and skills, traditional grades are viewed by some as contributing to longstanding social inequities. In response, some districts have adopted “equitable grading” practices, which can include giving students partial credit for assignments that are not turned in, allowing multiple test retakes without penalty, and not penalizing students for failing to complete homework or participate in class.

For my take on why equitable grading policies are illogical and misguided, see my previous post about San Francisco’s recent bid to introduce a sweeping Grading for Equity policy. It ultimately failed under intense public pressure once families understood what was happening, because most people do not support these ideas.

It turns out most teachers don’t support them either. That’s the main conclusion from a new report by David Griffith and Adam Tyner at the Fordham Institute. The report draws on a nationally representative survey of teachers to examine their views. Key findings include:

  • Equitable grading practices are widespread: About half of teachers say their school or district has adopted at least one “equitable” grading practice, and a third report multiple such policies.
  • Most teachers believe these practices are harmful to academic engagement.
  • Most teachers want high standards for students but feel pressured to inflate grades.

I encourage interested readers to take a look at the full report. Among other things, it’s a good reminder that teachers aren’t so different from everyone else, and they’re also frustrated by policies that lower expectations.

(Note: In a previous post about the San Francisco policy, I indicated that I hadn’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” policies in Missouri, but a reader reached out to explain that many Missouri districts have adopted them. It is hard to know how many, but their widespread use nationally—as documented in the Fordham report—suggests it could be a lot.)

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