Missouri’s Special Session and Giveaways to Billionaires with Patrick Tuohey

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri’s upcoming special legislative session, slated to begin on June 2, and the debate over taxpayer subsidies for stadiums. They discuss why stadium subsidies often fail to deliver promised economic benefits, how billionaire sports team owners leverage public funds for private gain, and the potential impact of a $50 million annual giveaway to the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. Tuohey explains the flawed logic behind the argument that Missouri must compete with Kansas in a “race to the bottom” and argues that the state should instead focus on core services like public safety, education, and infrastructure. They also cover the broader implications of using taxpayer dollars to benefit wealthy team owners, the political dynamics driving these proposals, and what citizens and lawmakers should consider as the special session begins.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Download a Transcript of the Episode

Timestamps: 

00:00 Introduction to the Special Session
01:59 Stadium Subsidies: The Chiefs and Royals
05:35 Economic Impact of Stadium Subsidies
09:43 Political Dynamics of the Special Session
12:34 Public Sentiment and Legislative Challenges
16:29 Conclusion and Future Implications

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

A Step Backward for Transparency

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Why would anyone be against transparent pricing? Last year, after taking a step forward on hospital price transparency, Missouri’s general assembly reversed course.

For several years now, my colleagues and I have been writing about the benefits of price transparency in healthcare, and the fierce opposition the idea has faced in Jefferson City. Naively, I assumed that informing patients of the cost of healthcare services before they were provided would be uncontroversial. After all, what other expensive goods or services do consumers purchase without knowing what they’ll pay beforehand? But after several price transparency bills received hearings last year the points of contention became a little clearer.

During public testimony on House Bill (HB) 1837 last year, the Missouri Hospital Association stated that complying with the bill’s price transparency requirements would be financially burdensome. This was confusing because HB 1837 simply added state-imposed penalties if hospitals didn’t comply with federal transparency requirements that are already on the books. As I’ve written previously, back in 2019, the Trump administration issued an executive order requiring hospitals to publish a list of standard charges for 300 common procedures in a user-friendly, shoppable display. This was a requirement that has since been extended to health plans and was kept in place throughout the entire Biden administration.

But as I’ve also explained at length, Missouri hospitals have been reluctant to comply (at least in spirit) with the federal requirements. In the years since, state legislators across the country have begun filing bills to encourage greater compliance. At first, the Missouri bills languished in committee without receiving public hearings. Then, last year, bills received hearings in both chambers of the legislature and were even voted out of committee. Unfortunately, this year, the subject didn’t receive a hearing in the House and wasn’t successfully voted out of committee in the Senate.

It’s hard to know what changed since last year that led to the policy losing support among Missouri’s legislators, but I think it’s safe to assume that hospitals still oppose the effort. Going into next year’s session, I’ll continue highlighting the benefits of price transparency and the importance of policymakers taking action to help rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs. While it may be true that price transparency isn’t a silver bullet for all that ails America’s broken healthcare system, it’s a step in the right direction that shouldn’t be delayed because certain providers claim they can’t afford it. Missouri patients can’t afford the wait.

Senate Bill 68: Another Education Omnibus, Part 2

Posted on by Scott Tanner

In Part 1 of the post, I detail the journey Senate Bill (SB) 68 took to become another education omnibus bill. When it first passed the Senate, SB 68 focused solely on prohibiting cell phones and other devices in school. It then grew to a more than 100-page bill with more than 30 additional policies attached—some of which are problematic.

Below, I will highlight problematic additions to the bill.

Phonics and Three-Cueing

The finally agreed bill now includes language to make phonics instruction (recognizing written words by connecting letters to their corresponding sounds) the primary instructional strategy for teaching word reading in early literacy. It also restricts the use of the three-cueing system (encouraging students to guess what an unfamiliar word is based on meaning, structure, or visual cues instead of sounding out the word entirely). The original amendment would have prohibited the use of three-cueing for teaching word reading, but the final version only prohibits “instruction in word reading relying primarily on the three-cueing system.” This change leaves the door open for its use and weakens the policy’s impact. I will write more about this in a future post.

New “Grade-Level” Category for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)

The new version of SB 68 also includes the addition of a fifth performance category (called “grade level”) for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The MAP currently has four measures: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. “Proficient” is defined as mastery over all appropriate subject matter and introductory knowledge for the next grade. This sounds like an appropriate benchmark to set.

The new “grade-level” category essentially means partial mastery—a student “may be ready, with appropriate reinforcement” for the next grade. For parents, telling them their children are at “grade-level” makes it sound as if they are where they ought to be academically. But that is not what it means. Why is Missouri adding a new standard that is confusing at best and will make it harder to interpret scores? Do we really want to water down our standards when so many are at basic or below in the state?

Repurposing Scholarship Funds

Another provision allows unused funds for the Teacher Retention and Recruitment Scholarship (given to prospective teachers in high-need subject areas and schools) to be repurposed to non-high-need students in their final semester. These unused funds should be returned to the treasury to fund other existing priorities instead of being used for a new project entirely.

Open Enrollment—For a Select Few

Finally, SB 68 allows open enrollment for students whose parents are a contractor or regular employee of that district. This is a good opportunity for these families. But what Missouri needs is a universal open enrollment policy, which would help families and students in a variety of different circumstances. Why are only these families benefitted?

SB 68 illustrates the risk of omnibus bills: bad policies are often included, good policies get diluted, and elected officials can claim they had to swallow the bad with the good.

Senate Bill 68: From Simple Cell Phone Ban to Education Omnibus, Part 1

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Missouri’s 2025 legislative session has been a popular one for the omnibus bill, as exemplified by the passage of House Bill 495 and Senate Bill (SB) 4. Now, after passing both the House and Senate, Senate Bill 68 could be the latest installment.

SB 68 was originally intended to prohibit students from using an “electronic personal communications device” during instructional time (the current version prohibits students from using these devices from the start of the school day to the end, barring emergencies and exceptions). It was a little over 3 pages long and received an endorsement from Governor Kehoe: “It’s simple—cell phones have no place in Missouri classrooms.”

Today, SB 68 is no longer simple, and it is not the same bill that the governor endorsed two months ago. After its trip through the House and subsequent conference committee, SB 68 has ballooned to 138 pages and now includes 30 policies.

SB 68 now includes sweeteners or concessions for certain members and interest groups.

Wasn’t the original SB 68, which focused solely on cell phones in schools, a good, straightforward bill with enough merit and momentum to pass on its own? I guess not, because as I will detail in the following post, it now includes several bad policies that taint the worthwhile cell ban.

Curious about what got added to SB 68? Click here to read Part 2.

 

Children Have a Right to a Safe Place to Learn

Posted on by Mike Ederer

The U.S. Department of Education recently reminded states that under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), students must be given the option to transfer if their school is deemed “persistently dangerous.” ESSA requires each state to define what constitutes a persistently dangerous school, collect relevant data, and implement policies that allow students in such schools to move to safer alternatives.

This reminder came because most states are effectively ignoring the requirement. In 2024 only 25 schools nationwide were identified as persistently dangerous—15 of them in Arkansas alone. Missouri, despite ranking 50th in a recent analysis of School Safety, has never identified a single such school.

Missouri does have a definition on the books. Part of the definition is that a school must have an “act of school violence,” “violent behavior,” or a gun-free-schools violation in three consecutive years.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of violence and violent behavior in Missouri schools. For instance, there were 128 weapons violations and 335 violent incidents reported in Missouri schools just last year. A school safety hotline reported that they received nearly 1,600 tips of safety threats, including physical assault, threats to kill, guns, and drugs.

Yet there’s a catch. For a school to be labeled persistently dangerous in Missouri, it must also have more than five expulsions in two of three consecutive years (or more than 10 if the school enrolls over 250 students). However, schools can control expulsions and DESE data indicate that there were no expulsions of any student in the entire state in 2021, 2023, and 2024. Just 10 occurred in 2022. Meanwhile, nearly 13,500 students received out-of-school suspensions lasting 10 or more days last year.

Does it seem reasonable that no student in the entire state was expelled last year?

It is a policy failure that no schools in Missouri are classified as persistently dangerous, despite clear indications to the contrary. By allowing schools to manipulate their data—and in particular, to avoid expulsions at all costs—we are allowing them to circumvent the law. And the law exists for a good reason: to give students trapped in unsafe environments a real chance at success.

Parents have the right to expect their children will come home safely from school each day.  For children assigned to local schools that are persistently dangerous, ESSA is supposed to provide the opportunity to change schools. Missouri’s failure to take the law seriously has permitted persistently dangerous schools to operate without taking on the formal designation, and is a disservice to the children and families who are trapped in these schools.

Springfield Takes Its Time Hiring a City Manager

Posted on by Mike Ederer

Springfield is undergoing a lengthy process to hire its new city manager. There is nothing wrong with that. This is one of the most important decisions the members of the council and the new mayor will make. The position has a very high salary of $350,000. That is higher than the Kansas City manager’s salary, and KC is a lot bigger than Springfield. Apparently, the city council offered such a high salary to attract lots of national candidates, and some of the councilmembers are disappointed that most of their candidates, including the main finalist, were still local. C’est la vie.

The primary candidate under consideration now, David Cameron, the current city manager in nearby Republic, is controversial, so I read, because he is a “disrupter.” That’s great if you are leading a start-up in Silicon Valley. Is it great for a midwestern city? You tell me. According to the story in the News-Leader:

David has probably stepped on a few toes along the way, it would be impossible, unrealistic to think that you would be able to make everybody happy in the process of doing your job,” [Springfield Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Bob Helm] said. “His leadership style is bold. He operates with confidence. He’s become a great problem-solver and has also been very responsive to those who approach him along the way.

If his disruptive leadership style is used to push the city employees in Republic, to work harder, then that sounds great to me. If is it used to think “bold” and offer lots of tax incentives, then count me out. Here is a story about how Republic gave a big tax break to Amazon to open a distribution center there and how the city manager got a pay raise because of it. (The story is also noteworthy as it does a good job of looking at all sides of the issue instead of just repeating press releases from the government about how great tax incentives are.)

Too often, “visionary” or “bold” local leadership just leads to local delusions about how great a city can be instead of just trying to provide the necessary services to its residents.

In fairness to Republic, the city, overall, doesn’t appear to offer that many tax incentives, so legitimate criticism of the Amazon deal needs to acknowledge that. In Springfield, they are taking their time to decide on the city manager position, and getting that decision right is worth the wait.

For much more on the evidence about the plusses and minuses of professional city management, check out my first free-market municipality guide, which goes into that debate in detail.

“May Malaise” and the Value of Testing in Schools

Posted on by Mike Ederer

It’s that time of year again. As students finish testing, school begins to shift. More time is spent on parties, watching movies, and projects that fall below grade level. I call it the “May Malaise.”

I don’t object to a little downtime as the school year winds down—most parents probably feel the same. But I do mind that the slowdown seems to begin earlier and earlier in the year, stretching into a multi-week period in May when little meaningful academic work takes place. What’s more, students don’t always enjoy it either. Speaking from my own experience, my kids are not exactly clamoring for more assignments, but their disengagement is obvious.

This end-of-year drift is especially frustrating after months of being told how critical school attendance is. If every day in school matters, why is so much time wasted at the end of the year?

In the grand scheme of things, the May Malaise may seem like a minor annoyance. But it also informs a deeper question: What would schools look like without testing? While I don’t believe they would devolve into nonstop parties and movies, this period offers a glimpse into what the school system would look like with less focus on academics and less accountability. It suggests the motivation to improve student achievement isn’t as deeply embedded in the system as we might hope. And to me, it highlights the value of testing.

I know some people see standardized tests as the enemy of good teaching. They argue that tests constrain teachers, forcing them to “teach to the test” instead of inspiring creativity and deeper learning. But I see it differently. I believe testing is one of the most powerful tools we have to keep schools focused on what matters most: teaching core academic skills. I fear that if we stop testing, what little urgency we have for improving academic achievement will be lost.

Even if you think that tests are too distracting for teachers, or too stressful for students (some stress is good for them, I assure you!), just remember May Malaise. It could be worse.

Information Overload and Missouri School Report Cards

Posted on by Mike Ederer

Have you ever started reading the warning label on an over-the-counter drug like aspirin or ibuprofen? Ever finished one? Probably not.

Drug warning labels are classic examples of information overload—so packed with details that they become practically useless. Unfortunately, the school report cards produced by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) suffer from the same problem.

In theory, these report cards should help parents and community members quickly understand how their local schools are performing. When well-designed, they can promote transparency and inform decision-making. But if a school report card is not organized and does not emphasize the most important information, it functions like a drug warning label. It can include a lot of detail but be of little practical value.

If you’re curious to see this for yourself, here is a link to the school report cards made available by DESE. Choose a district, then a school, and you can scroll through a vast amount of information. However, after you’ve taken the time to look through it all, you may realize you haven’t learned very much. DESE’s report cards may be comprehensive, but they fail to deliver what busy families need most: clear, accessible information about school quality.

Now, contrast the Missouri report cards with this report card for Briarmeadow Charter School in Houston, produced by the Texas Education Agency. At the very top, letter grades in four categories are displayed prominently:

  • Overall Rating: A
  • Student Achievement: A
  • School Progress: A
  • Closing the Gap: A

With just a glance, you know where this school stands.

Texas is not alone in this approach. States like Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana also use summary performance indicators on their school report cards to give the public a clear picture of school quality. Unlike Missouri, these states are courageous enough to rate schools based on performance, and most importantly, publicly identify schools that are failing to educate their students.

It’s no coincidence that students in states with strong transparency and accountability policies, including clear and informative school report cards, consistently outperform Missouri students academically. These policies are key drivers of school improvement, and without them Missouri is only likely to fall further behind. School report cards that are informative about actual school performance are a simple way to get our state moving in the right direction.

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