This fall, Missouri public school districts scrambled to create plans to deliver education to families that needed virtual instruction and families that needed in-person instruction. They surveyed parents and let them pick one or the other. They tried opening buildings for the youngest students only.
Then COVID exploded, and many of those plans became irrelevant. As we head into the holidays, almost one quarter of Missouri public school districts have gone back to the fully remote mode of last spring’s shutdown. And most districts that are continuing to operate in-person are very small, such that fewer than 74,000 of the nearly 870,000 Missouri public school students, or around 8 percent, are still learning completely in person, while over one quarter of Missouri students are now in districts that are virtual only.
What I (and just about every parent) find most disturbing is how the numbers keep changing. In just two months, dozens of districts have switched from one mode to the other.
Parents have a right to be frustrated, and students have a right to gain a grade level of learning this year. How likely is the latter? The Missouri Legislature should be making immediate plans to make sure that every Missouri public school student has access to a virtual or in-person education of their choice. It’s time to stop forcing families to constantly adjust and have at least some state education funding available so everyone can find long-term solutions.
Missouri is still dealing with COVID-19, and the hole in the state’s budget is only getting deeper. Last week, the state legislature began its second special session of the year, and it is expected that this session will add more than a billion dollars to the budget. This new funding is on top of the record-setting $30-billion spending plan approved roughly six months ago. While most of this soon to be approved funding will come from the federal government, the extraordinary session offers an important reminder of the trouble that lies ahead.
The pandemic has already taken a serious toll on our government’s budget. The virus, combined with lockdowns and other restrictions placed on businesses, has drastically decreased economic activity, which in turn has lowered state and local tax revenues. For the fiscal year that ended on June 30th, Missouri’s collected 6.6 percent less in revenues than it did the year before. And this year, the governor has already restricted more than $400 million in state spending, indicating his budget staff believes the decline in tax revenues will persist for some time.
Over the past eight months, Missouri has been unable to spend hundreds of millions in state tax dollars that otherwise would have gone toward priorities such as education and public safety. At the same time, the cost of other state programs has increased as a result of the virus. It is true that some of these issues have been temporarily alleviated by generous federal relief efforts. But federal support cannot fill the hole created by COVID-19 for every state priority (the federal government places restrictions on where the money can be spent). More importantly, this funding is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Missouri was unprepared for the current situation in large part because state spending has been growing for years. We must also realize that it’s becoming increasingly likely the virus will be defeated before tax revenues return to pre-pandemic levels. For that reason, it’s time to start thinking about how our elected officials will respond once the state’s budget is no longer being propped up by federal aid.
In the coming months, Missouri’s policymakers should consider every option that could help contain the state’s runaway spending trajectory and shrink the size of government to match the revenue projections of the years ahead. There’s no doubt the task will be difficult, but it’s all but certain the cost of acting now will be lower than if we wait until it’s too late.
The Normandy School District might be getting its first charter school. That is, unless a coterie of local functionaries scupper the plan. The Post-Dispatch has all of the details.
Two paragraphs in the Post-Dispatch story are worth highlighting:
Normandy schools have not been fully accredited for the last decade and are under the control of the Missouri Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Starting in 2013, the district paid tuition and transportation for about 1,000 students to transfer to higher-performing districts, as allowed under state law. The district nearly went bankrupt after spending $35 million on the transfer program. It returned to provisional accreditation in 2017, effectively ending the transfer program.
The district’s test scores still rank as lowest in the state, with 15% of students proficient in English and 7% proficient in math in 2019. There have been recent improvements, including the graduation rate at Normandy High rising from 53% in 2013 to 78% in 2019.
Families are already voting with their feet. Normandy has been shedding students, either through the transfer program or now just the old fashioned way (the Post-Dispatch reports elsewhere in the story that enrollment in the district is down 316 students, or 11 percent, this school year).
It is the school board of this district that approved a resolution last month expressing its “complete discontentment” with the Missouri Charter School Commission’s process of soliciting and developing a charter school in the district, as the board wanted to be included more in the process. Why on earth should a district that has manifestly failed to educate its students or even keep its financial house in order have any say on a new school that is coming in to try and do better? Lunacy.
And it is the civic leaders quoted in the story who believe that this district should have a monopoly on education provision within the boundaries of the Normandy School District. Also lunacy.
The question has to be asked of these leaders: How can you, in good conscience, look into the eyes of the children of Normandy and tell them that they don’t deserve a different option? Why must they stay tethered to a district that has been foundering for longer than they have been alive? Would you accept this for your own children?
About 30 percent of Missourians, age 25 and older, have a bachelor’s degree or higher. It’s estimated that about 60 percent of Missouri students graduate from college with student loan debt. So per a very rough calculation, about 18 percent of Missourians have student loan debt. That lines up pretty well with the national average of around 22 percent.
While starting your career with $25,000 plus in student loan debt can create challenges, these are somewhat offset by the higher earnings a college degree holder can expect. Yet, once again, student loan debt forgiveness is being floated as an economic policy. Let’s be clear: This relief is directed at the one in five Missourians who can expect significantly higher earnings over their lifetimes. Everyone else is left with nothing except picking up the tab. What about car loans? What about credit card debt?
This is a textbook example of a regressive tax; relief for higher earners at the expense of lower earners. Expensive government giveaways create bad precedent. They incentivize bad behaviors. And, like it or not, they have to be paid for at some point. Sorry to be a Grinch, but don’t ask Santa to forgive your student loans.
For more on this topic, click here to listen to our podcast with the Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey:
On this episode of The Show-Me Institute Podcast, Dr. Susan Pendergrass is joined by John Pelletier. They discuss the lack of real-world financial education in American schools, what some states are doing well, and the issues with the gamification of investing by tools like Robinhood.
John Pelletier is the director of the Center for Financial Literacy at Champlain College in Burlington Vermont.
The Show-Me Institute Podcast is produced by Show-Me Opportunity.
Missouri’s roads are more than just a convenience—they’re an economic asset.
According to the most recent data from 2011, roughly $711 billion worth of freight crosses Missouri each year, and this is projected to increase to $1.2 trillion by 2030. More than 83,500 Missourians work transportation and warehousing jobs, and more than half of Missouri’s economy is affected through freight movement or systems.
However, according to a new study by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, this vital part of Missouri’s economy is in danger of falling into disrepair. Missouri’s transportation infrastructure, specifically roads and bridges, is aging rapidly. Traditional methods of funding are inadequate to maintain current systems, let alone provide enhancements.
Missouri’s fuel tax of 17.4 cents per gallon has not been raised since 1996. Due to inflation, 17 cents then are worth 8 cents now. Additionally, vehicle registration fees were last increased in 1980, and a dollar in 1980 is worth about 30 cents today. Together, these two revenue sources make up nearly 40 percent of the Missouri Department of Transportation’s total road budget (and 65 percent of in-state revenue, once federal reimbursement is considered). As a result, $745 million in high-priority road needs go unfunded each year.
According to the Chamber of Commerce report, this funding crisis “is the biggest roadblock preventing the state from reaching our logistics potential.”
To start closing the gap in Missouri’s road funding, the Chamber of Commerce report recommends exploring tolling and also indexing the state fuel tax and registration fees to inflation. These measures would help keep funding sources up to date in terms of purchasing power and start to close the funding gap as well as keep a “user pays” principle.
While these methods are not always the best ways to match road damage to payment for upkeep, they are the type voters were most inclined to consider. Public opinion surveys of Missouri voters conducted for the report revealed that 57 percent support highway express lanes, akin to tolling individual lanes, although tolling proper received lower (40 percent) support. Fifty-one percent of voters support increasing the fuel tax, while 47 percent support raising registration fees. Mileage-based user fees can be effective, but only 24 percent supported the idea. Despite the different levels of support for different funding methods, 85 percent of Missouri voters agreed that Missouri needs more funding for transportation infrastructure.
Missouri’s roads are an economic asset that support jobs across the state. Making sure we have the money to keep them in good shape—while ensuring those who use them pay for them—is something policymakers need to address.
