Failure Is Not an Option for Missouri School Districts-but Is That a Good Thing?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Imagine that you’re a professor at a large university and this spring you’re teaching one of the big freshman seminar courses – 518 students. Your dean comes to you and says, “Look, I know these freshmen come with all different skill levels, but I need their parents to keep paying tuition, so you need to find a way to make them all look like they succeeded in your class.”

Okay, I guess you would start by grading on a curve. Then, you would want to make sure that there is a lot of extra credit available. Finally, you would give credit for things like showing up, finishing, and being ready to take another class the next semester.

So, here’s what you might come up with for a grading scale:

  • Two tests worth 16 points each, with two ways to earn up to 12 extra credit points on each of them, and one test worth 8 points with up to 6 extra credit points.
  • Three homework assignments worth a total of 10 points, but with two ways to earn up to 7.5 points of extra credit.
  • Showing up at least 90 percent of the time gets you 10 points, but there’s up to 7.5 points of extra credit if you show up more than you did the last time.
  • Finishing gets you up to 30 points – almost as much as the tests! And, there’s up to 24 points of extra credit. Plus – and this is the kicker – you can finish in one semester, or take an extra month, an extra two months, or even finish in two semesters, whichever works out best for you.
  • Finally, proving (through a variety of ways) that you’re ready for the next class, is worth 30 points, with up to 22.5 points of extra credit.

Now, to get an A, a student needs to get at least 84 of the “real” 120 points—but since there are 90 extra credit points to work with, a student really just needs 84 points out of a possible 210 to get that A.

Great news! At the end of the semester, you give out 512 A’s (86 A+’s with perfect scores!), 5 B’s, and just one C. That ought to keep the parents happy. As far as they know, everyone learned an A’s worth of material.

This is effectively the grading scale that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses to hold schools and districts accountable. It’s called the APR, and its loaded with opportunities for extra credit. Let’s just look at academic achievement, the area we’d all probably agree is most important. Districts are evaluated out of a possible 40 points, divided among math, reading, and social studies. However, a district can get up to 30 extra points if students show growth or progress in these scores. That means to get a “perfect” score, a district only has to get 57 percent of the possible points available to it. That’s a heck of a curve.

There are four other areas in which schools earn points, and those areas are rife with the same problems.

So what does this mean, practically speaking? Using this scale, Kansas City got 82.9 percent of the 120 points, even though, on average, almost half of their students scored “Below Basic” across grades and subjects. The district clearly topped up its score with various extra credit opportunities. St. Louis Public Schools got 78.5 percent of its points, again with almost half of students scoring Below Basic. In the Ferguson-Florissant school district, just 3 percent of 8th-grade students scored Proficient or above in mathematics, and yet the district received 92.1 percent of its APR points.

Kids are more than the sum of their test scores, and accountability systems should consider more than rates of proficiency. But getting students proficient in grade-level subject matter should count for something. And a system that gives passing grades to 512 out of 518 school districts with academic achievement all over the map is not an accountability system at all. Its’ a way to make everyone feel good.

Let Georgia Keep Paying to Promote Missouri

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Last year I wrote about how Georgia taxpayers were effectively subsidizing Missouri by offering tax credits to produce Netflix’s show, Ozark. While the show is set in Missouri, much of the production of Ozark actually occurs in the Peach State, thanks to the generous tax incentives offered there.

Would it be nice to have the show produced here? Sure. Is it economical to subsidize such productions? No. As with many tax incentives, research demonstrating the waste associated with film tax credits is fairly clear, so if Georgia wants to underwrite dozens of hours of (dramatic) Missouri tourism videos for us, more power to them. It may already be having a positive impact in that regard.

Unfortunately, bad ideas in Missouri tend to die hard, and that has certainly been true of the state’s film tax credit program.

Missouri hasn’t offered perks for film studios in several years — and producers have taken note, shooting scenes set in Missouri in other, more generous states.

But, if it were up to Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, the state would reboot its modest incentive program, with the goal of drawing crews to Missouri to film shows such as Netflix’s “Ozark” and HBO’s “Sharp Objects.”

“I have seen the benefits of us being a film tax credits state,” Kehoe, a Republican, told reporters on Thursday.

“Lake Ozark, Branson area, would really like to work to try to attract some moviemaking,” Kehoe said. “I think we need a small amount.”

That this topic returns again and again to the political scene in Missouri is a testament to the voracious tax credit appetite of the entertainment industry, and I can understand why filmmakers like the set up (it’s basically free money) and why politicians like it (it’s publicity, albeit far from free).

But why should taxpayers let our politicians play Louis B. Mayer to Hollywood types with their tax dollars? Rather than giving away tax money to out-of-towner production companies, elected leaders should be focused on reducing the taxes of the people already here in the state, who are far more likely to reinvest in it.

 

Private School Choice Students More Likely to Graduate College

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

Private school may be the most appealing education option for some families, but also the most unfeasible. In Florida, low-income students can access a private education through Florida’s tax-credit scholarship program, bridging the financial gap for families. A recent study from the Urban Institute found that students who enrolled in Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship program were more likely to enroll in and graduate from college, a notable accomplishment.

The Florida Tax-Credit (FTC) Scholarship program allows corporations to make donations to a scholarship funding organization, and then receive a credit toward their state taxes. Students must apply for the scholarship, and the organizations only distribute scholarships to applicants whose household incomes are no more than 185 percent above the federal poverty line. Students then use the scholarship to help pay for private school expenses. The FTC serves more than 100,000 students each year.

The Urban Institute study used data from the National Student Clearinghouse to track FTC students’ progress into college, comparing them to non-FTC public school students who share a similar background and test performance history. The study found that of the students who began FTC in elementary or middle school, 57 percent of FTC students enrolled in college compared to 51 percent of non-FTC students. Of the students who began FTC in high school, 64 percent of students enrolled in college compared to 54 percent of non-FTC students. FTC students were also 10 to 20 percent more likely to complete college and graduate with a bachelor’s degree. More impressive is that the longer students were enrolled in FTC, the larger the positive effects. This private school choice program is helping thousands of Florida students receive a quality education and has lasting benefits.

A private school tax-credit scholarship program is one aspect of a larger school choice agenda that is bringing about exciting results for Florida students. This success should encourage Missouri to implement a private-school choice option, and give our students a greater opportunity for success.

 

 

Do Fewer Remedial Course-takers Mean Better-prepared College Students?

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

It’s tempting to assume that when Missouri high schools hand out diplomas, graduates are ready for postsecondary education. But far too many students are unprepared, leaving colleges the responsibility of teaching students the prior knowledge required to succeed in their coursework.

Traditionally, unprepared students have taken remedial classes, in which students learn high school–level content and don’t earn credit, yet still pay tuition. The percentage of Missouri public high school graduates taking remedial courses at public universities has declined notably in recent years. In 2013, remedial course taking was at 35.6 percent when college and career readiness was at 37.2 percent; by 2017 remediation had tumbled nearly 13 points to 22.8 percent. At first glance, this is a noteworthy improvement—but what caused it?

Are students simply better prepared for college than students of a few years ago? It’s unlikely. DESE’s own numbers show 37.2 percent of graduates being college- or career-ready in 2013 compared to 42.5 percent in 2017. It’s progress, but probably not enough to account for a much larger decline in remedial course-taking.

A more likely explanation might be a shift in the methods used by Missouri’s Department of Higher Education (DHE) to help underprepared students. One of DHE’s objectives is to “eliminate remedial education in favor of co-requisite models and similar proven methods.” Remedial students are less likely to finish their degree within six years, setting them even further behind and potentially saddling them with student debt. Co-requisite programs help underprepared students by enrolling them in introductory, credit-bearing courses and providing support services. The support services normally include labs and tutoring to supplement the course material, but the specific services offered vary by university. Alternative forms of remediation are offered by 92 percent of public higher education institutions. The most common is co-requisite courses, but other alternative remediation offerings include modularized courses and fast-track options.

DHE only recently began collecting data on course completion rates of co-requisite students, who already show a higher college-level course passage rate than those taking traditional remedial courses. Students in co-requisite programs (page 14) were able to pass a college-level math course in their first academic year at a rate of 53.2 percent, compared to a 19.6 percent passing rate from other types of remediation. In English, 65.5 percent of co-requisite students passed a college-level English class, whereas only 35.7 percent of students enrolled in other types of remediation passed such a class within one academic year.

It’s possible that these numbers overstate the advantage of corequisite courses. For example, remedial classes set students back a semester while corequisite courses are taken concurrently with the credit-bearing class—which means that the rate of completing of a college-level class in the first academic year might not be a fair way to compare remedial and corequisite classes. And in any case, the real test of the corequisite course model will be how likely participants are to earn their college degrees, not just pass a single college-level class.

But giving corequisites the benefit of the doubt—and giving colleges and universities due credit for finding a better way to help underprepared students—shouldn’t mean overlooking the fact that Missouri still has a public school system from which fewer than half of graduates emerge unprepared for college or a career. Rather than leaving it to colleges to finish their students’ high school education, shouldn’t Missouri public schools take a hard look at why so many kids are graduating high school without the necessary skills to succeed in adult life?

The Child Poverty Rate in Mississippi County Is How High?

Posted on by Emily Stahly

In December of last year, the U.S. Census Bureau released its most recent American Community Survey data, including five-year estimates of county-level poverty rates from 2013–2017, and some areas of Missouri appear to be struggling. While poverty in the southeast corner of Missouri—the bootheel—has been high for some time now, Mississippi County’s child poverty rate—the percentage of children whose family’s income is below the federal poverty line—was estimated at over 50 percent during the five-year period.

About 1,500 children and 3,800 people total live in poverty in Mississippi County, and it has Missouri’s highest overall poverty rate at 31.7 percent. In other words, one of every two kids and one of every three people in this county are living below the federal poverty line, which was $24,600 in annual income for a family of four in 2017.

Even if you take into account the large (±9.1 percentage points) margin of error for Mississippi County’s child poverty rate, in the best-case scenario it would have a child poverty rate of 41.8 percent—which would still be the second highest child poverty rate in the state. If you want to see the latest data on the rest of the state, check out these interactive maps.

While the state’s overall poverty rate is decreasing, pockets of poverty like Mississippi County should not be ignored. In a pair of forthcoming essays, I explore the consequences for the rest of the state of having such areas of poverty. For now, Missourians should at least be aware that some parts of the state are faring much worse than others.

 

Here Are the Latest Census Data on Poverty in Missouri

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Between 2016 and 2017, the poverty rate in Missouri decreased from 14.0 percent to 13.4 percent and the child poverty rate also dropped from 19.2 percent to 18.6 percent according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1-year estimates. The Bureau recently released its 2013–2017 5-year estimate, which provides more accurate estimates of smaller geographic areas like counties.

So how are Missouri’s counties faring? Below are four interactive maps that provide some information about the disparities between counties in Missouri with regard to the poverty rate and the child poverty rate. For reference, the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2017 was $24,600 and the child poverty rate is the percentage of children under the age of 18 whose family’s income falls below the federal poverty line. 

Here is the poverty rate for each county according to the 2013–2017 5-year estimate:

And here is the child (under age 18) poverty rate for each county according to the 2013–2017 5-year estimate:

 

The next maps show the percentage-point change from the 2008–2012 5-year estimate to the 2013–2017 5-year estimate. It should be noted that even with this data set, there are fairly large margins of error; still, these numbers give us an idea of the direction in which a particular county is headed.

This is the percentage-point change in the overall poverty rate between the 2008–2012 and 2013–2017 5-year estimates:

 

And here is the percentage-point change in the child poverty rate:

 

Poverty is decreasing in Missouri overall, but it appears that some parts of the state are faring better than others. 

Kansas City and St. Louis Battling National Trends

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

From costly bad bets subsidizing the development of Kansas City’s Power & Light District to promoting the St. Louis Ballpark Village at the expense of businesses already in the area, city leaders are eager to combat urban flight to the suburbs.

But urban decline isn’t unique to Missouri. People all over the United States are voting for suburbs and exurbs with their feet. Giving tax dollars to a few more bars and restaurants won’t change that.

In their paper, “Beyond Gentrification,” researchers Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox lay out the case that:

The spurt of urban core growth that occurred immediately after the housing bust was short lived. The preponderance of metropolitan growth has returned to the suburbs and exurbs, as had been the case at least since the late 1940s.

Kotkin and Cox make their case with census data: Suburbs are growing much faster than urban areas. Claims by urbanists such as Richard Florida that “creative class” millennials would come to cities and stay were wrong, as Florida himself admits. Unfortunately, cities like Kansas City and St. Louis spent billions of dollars exacerbating the problems of gentrification through subsidies, and continue to do so, chasing a myth.

Population increase breakdown

If city leaders only understood that they are swimming against a nationwide current, they might be a bit more circumspect in their distribution of taxpayer dollars. But whether it’s misplaced faith in the promises of urban developers or the allure of campaign contributions from those same companies, something is compelling policymakers to invest taxpayer dollars in projects that benefit the developers at the expense of the communities where they are undertaken. Meanwhile, organizations such as the Downtown Council in Kansas City vacuum up tax dollars and spit out absurd population growth claims.

Kotkin and Cox point out what any close observer of Missouri’s urban politics already knows:

It seems clear that gentrification has not benefited the poor and may well have harmed them by spiking housing prices and, perhaps less obviously, restructuring urban economies in ways that hurt blue collar workers. Reporters and politicians might swoon over the latest “hip” urban manifestation, but the poverty rate is still two-thirds higher in urban cores than in the suburbs.

Beyond Gentrification then focuses on three cities—Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles—to flesh out what is happening in cities across the country. These things are happening in Kansas City and St. Louis, too. And no convention hotel, trolley, or new stadium will turn this around. We know, because other cities are pinning their hopes to developments like these, and it isn’t working. It won’t work for us, either.

City leaders across Missouri need to understand their cities’ competitive advantages and promote them. (The Show-Me Institute has already catalogued some for both Kansas City and St. Louis.) They need to deliver on infrastructure, public safety, and basic services efficiently and effectively. And they need to resist diverting tax dollars in pursuit of urban development that often does more harm than good to the surrounding communities.

 

Missouri’s Starting Teacher Salary Is Higher Than Previously Reported

Posted on by James V. Shuls

“Missouri ranks 49th nationally in average starting teacher salary at $31,842.”

This quote comes from an ABC 17 news report, but it is simply not true. They attribute that statistic to “A recent report by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.” Over the past few weeks similar stories have spread like wildfire across Missouri media outlets. The Kansas City Star calls this “pathetic.” The Herald-Whig draws on this statistic to claim that Missouri’s school funding is “inadequate.”

There’s just one problem—the statistic is completely wrong.

Although the $31,842 figure is attributed to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), DESE officials did not calculate the figure. In his report to the State Board of Education, Paul Katnik, assistant commissioner at DESE, cites this figure from Niche.com. But, of course, Niche.com didn’t calculate the figure. It cites a report from the National Education Association. We don’t know how the NEA calculated the figure.

What is shocking is that people who should recognize how wrong the number is have not done so. Rather, they are perpetuating this lie. For instance, Todd Fuller, the director of communications for the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) is quoted by KOMU as saying, “I don’t think it’s surprising that we’re ranked where we are…For starting teacher salary to be that near the bottom, it’s discouraging.” The MSTA’s own research contradicts this low salary number!

MSTA collected the starting salary schedule of every school district in the state. It then calculated the average starting salary for each school district. In 2018-19, the starting minimum salary was $34,290. It hasn’t been as low as the DESE reported figure in over five years.

What’s more, the MSTA figure is undoubtedly a lower bound. The MSTA calculations weight each district evenly. Smaller school districts tend to have lower teacher salaries, but they hire fewer teachers. So, we can conclude the average is most likely higher than $34,290. (It’s worth noting that all of these salary figures do not include benefits like health or retirement. This means the economic benefit is quite a bit higher than the salary would indicate.)

So, what is the real starting teacher salary? Using DESE data containing teacher salaries for all Missouri teachers in 2017, I attempt to answer that question. First, I limit the data to those who are reported as first-year teachers in Missouri public schools with no experience in another state. Then, I remove any teacher who is not listed as full-time or is not making $25,000, the required minimum for a full-time teacher.

When I do this, the average starting teacher salary in Missouri is over $37,000. It is slightly higher when we consider the extra pay teachers get for engaging in additional duties, such as tutoring.

Should we really quibble about a few thousand dollars? Absolutely! We should demand accurate information from our policymakers, especially when those statistics are being used to drive policy discussions. We have already seen calls to raise the state minimum starting teacher salary. Interestingly, only three school districts start teachers out at the minimum, according to the MSTA report.

In 2017, just 39 teachers earned a salary of $25,000 and less than two percent of the total teacher workforce earned less than $30,000. Moreover, many of these “teachers” are not what we would consider regular classroom teachers. Of the teachers earning less than $30,000, at least 16 of them are classified as “in school suspension” teachers. Another 58 are listed as “Advisory/Homeroom.”

If you raised all these teachers up to $30,000, it would increase average pay in the state by about $30 a year in average salary. Importantly, it would place an inordinate financial burden on small, rural school districts. The end result of this blunt policy change would likely be teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, more four day school weeks, or the cutting of extra programs in these districts.

The debate about teacher pay is important, but this is the wrong way to go about it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If we are going to have important policy discussions, we should have that discussion honestly and with the correct facts.

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