Improving Teacher Quality to Improve Reading Quality

Posted on by Scott Tanner

In my recent report, An Expedition to Improve Student Reading, I described Missouri’s falling reading scores and potential policy solutions. While there are many policies that could help, these ideas must be implemented and executed by teachers. I think my colleague, Michael Q. McShane, said it nicely:

If you want great schools, you have to have great teachers. Lots of other things are important. Strong school culture, appropriate instructional materials, good curriculum, robust relationships with parents, all necessary. But it is the person, the actual human being, that puts all of that into play that is most important.

Mimicking the Tennessee Teacher Evaluation Model

Missouri could better support teachers by providing meaningful guidance and feedback. One promising model comes from Tennessee.

Launched in 2012, the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) was designed to help educators improve. Teachers frequently express a desire to improve, but often lack resources or guidance on how to get better.

By using announced and unannounced in-class observations, academic growth data, and student performance data, TEAM calculates a teacher score (1–5 scale) that provides information to teachers and school leaders about teacher performance. The goal is not to punish teachers, but to coach them and help them improve. Observers identify one strength and one area for improvement in each lesson, keeping the process constructive, focused, and encouraging. The Tennessee Education Research Alliance at Vanderbilt University found that teachers in schools with stronger implementation of TEAM improved faster than those in schools with weaker implementation.

The evaluation promotes ongoing dialogue about what happens in the classroom and how it affects student performance, and provides a basis for professional advancement—e.g., high-performing teachers can be identified through TEAM for mentoring roles.

Initially, there was strong pushback against teacher evaluation in Tennessee, which is not surprising. At its launch, only 28 percent of teachers believed TEAM would improve student outcomes, and only 38 percent believed it would improve teacher performance. But those numbers changed quickly once teachers actually experienced TEAM, rising to 71 and 76 percent, respectively, by 2019.

Missouri should consider emulating Tennessee’s commitment to rigorous and constructive teacher evaluation. If we’re serious about improving school quality and student outcomes, we need to be serious about improving teacher quality.

Let’s Expect Better

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Following up on an earlier blog post, it should be noted that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) creates a list of legislative priorities each year just before the start of the legislative session. These priorities, presumably, signal what DESE is hoping lawmakers will focus on and what they want to avoid. Many of them start with “The State Board of Education supports continuing funding for . . .”

One that I found to be particularly interesting is this:

“The State Board of Education supports efforts that provide the best free and appropriate public education for all students.”

Huh. I have long supported giving parents and students access to multiple education options so that they can find the one that best suits their needs. Is the state board agreeing? This would require swapping their support for the best education for all students to the best education for each student. Or is the board saying that it supports efforts for others (the state board) to determine what is best for all students? That doesn’t make sense. Children are unique. They’re not widgets. Why is this statement even one of the 17 priorities?

The Show-Me Institute publishes a legislative Blueprint each year that lays out our priorities for improving the state of Missouri and the lives of those who live here. In many cases, these priorities have model legislation, policy briefs, and even infographics explaining the specifics.

To the extent that DESE and the state board of education have legislative priorities, they should be precise and supported by facts. They should complement the department’s strategic plan and budget. Our test scores are dismal. We’re handing high school diplomas to students who can’t read or do math. Let’s dispense with the throwaway lines.

What’s a City to Do?

Posted on by Scott Tanner

My colleagues and I at the Show-Me Institute have for years counseled local and state leaders against a whole host of ideas aimed at increasing their population or growing their economy. From stadium subsidies to convention centers, new taxing jurisdictions to entertainment districts, my colleague David Stokes and I can be counted on to sound like They Might Be Giants: “No!”

And we will admit, it can make us sound like hand-wringing naysayers, always seeing the glass as half empty. (In our defense, we have each spent two decades trying to successfully launch a combined six children into the world. Saying no is a big part of that. Honestly, we are both fun at parties.)

But isn’t securing population and economic growth a basic function of government?

No, it isn’t. A well-run government should not care about growing either its population or its economy.

According to the ideas of Charles Tiebout, cities (and other local governments) compete with each other for residents based on the services the governments offer and the taxes they impose. Cities that provide quality public services at reasonable tax rates will naturally grow, as more people choose to move into those communities. That increased demand will increase housing prices which, combined with zoning rules, generally prevents the city from growing more than its residents want to. Cities that provide poor services at high taxes will see population decline, for obvious reasons.

The forced need for growth—from a government point of view—only becomes necessary when the books are out of balance. Government leaders often push important financial obligations out into the future—hoping to pay tomorrow for what they purchase today. Those ballooning debts on the horizon make them susceptible to all the journeyman consultants and their economic impact chicanery that only makes the situation worse.

Instead, cities should understand their role is to play host to economic activity, not engage in it themselves. The folks who referee the kids’ soccer games at which I spent many Saturday mornings are not players in the game. Nobody asks them to make calls in a way that helps a particular team or drives up the combined score. Quite the opposite—we are alarmed by the idea that a referee may act on a team preference.

To turn planning and spending over to local elected leaders risks overreach and overspending. Overreach because elected leaders want to be seen as bold visionaries dreaming of “what could be” in order to capture the imagination of voters. Overspending because, well, concern about risk is greatly reduced when the consequences of failure are so widely and thinly spread.

As Heywood Sanders, a professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said at the Kansas City Library in 2015:

Don’t do what everybody else is doing. Okay? Period. There is an old saying that goes along those lines, “don’t think if you’re doing exactly the same thing that everyone else is doing except not quite as big or good or well, that it’s going to be any different.”

Private actors understand this. Why would they invest in a new convention center for Jefferson City or Springfield if they are just going to be the latest in a long line of cities to do so?  How does that make sense or play to either city’s strengths? It doesn’t—so they turn to elected leaders, who are swayed by the possibilities and unencumbered by the risk of investing their own money. Who cares if it works tomorrow—it feels good today!

If a city is to grow, the best our elected leaders can do is to make sure all the obstacles are removed and the rules are clear and evenly enforced. Everything else, including growth and winners and losers, needs to be determined by the players on the field.

MOScholars Scholarships Are in High Demand

Posted on by Scott Tanner

The Missouri Legislature approved $50 million in public funding for the MOScholars program during the 2025 legislative session, and the Missouri Treasurer’s Office recently announced that more than half of the funding—about $26 million—has already been distributed. The rapid distribution of funds reflects high demand for the scholarships provided by MOScholars.

Why the high demand? In short, parents have diverse goals and students have diverse needs—it should be no surprise that the locally zoned public school isn’t the best fit for every student. MOScholars permits families to seek alternatives that better align with their children’s individual needs and family values.

Predictably, the MOScholars expansion has faced resistance, most notably from teachers’ unions. The largest teachers’ union in Missouri—the approximately 45,000-member Missouri National Education Association (MNEA)—attempted to delay the allocation of the funds in June. The attempt was unsuccessful, but the organization remains undeterred: A representative of the MNEA, attorney Loretta Haggard, acknowledged that while efforts to block the spending this year are effectively over, they will try again next year.

The union’s legal arguments against MOScholars are procedural, but the deeper concern is that MOScholars will divert revenue from public schools. Specifically, the fear is that enrollment-driven state funding for MOScholars students will not go to public schools. However, local funding will still be available, and of course, the public schools will no longer bear the cost of educating students who use MOScholars to exercise choice.

The outcome of this legal battle could set an important precedent for Missouri’s school choice landscape. Even with the $50 million MOScholars appropriation, the choice environment in Missouri is more restrictive than in many other states. Take Texas as an example—it passed legislation this year providing $1 billion in public funds for its own version of MOScholars.

Despite the MNEA’s predictable efforts to undo recent progress, our lawmakers should continue to push for school choice for more Missouri families.

Missouri Children Deserve Better

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Imagine you’re the parent of a twelve year old who just started sixth grade at Oakland Middle School in Columbia, Missouri. This school has been identified as being one of the lowest-performing schools in the state. Last year, it made the (hard to find) list of schools targeted by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) for additional support because its performance fell below the threshold of the bottom five percent of schools in the state for three categories of students–Black, economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities. Additionally, in 2024 at Oakland Middle School there were eight disciplinary events involving a weapon. Sixteen students received out-of-school suspensions in one year.

Perhaps you, as a parent, would be anxious about sending your young child to this building every day. Technically, you have the legal right to at least move them to a safer school. Under the Unsafe School Choice Option in the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, students in persistently dangerous schools can transfer out just for that reason. Unfortunately, DESE has not designated Oakland Middle School—or any other school in the state—as persistently dangerous. If fact, no schools in Missouri have met that definition in the 23 years that the law has been in place.

Many states acknowledge that students shouldn’t be forced to attend a school that the state categorizes as extremely low performing. Students are given an automatic out. Missouri used to have a transfer program for students in low-performing districts—meaning districts that were unaccredited—but we magically no longer have any unaccredited districts.

DESE knows where the dangerous and low-performing schools are. The students, and their parents, undoubtedly know if they’re attending one of these schools. And I would imagine that the teachers are fully aware as well. So why do we insist on locking kids into them? Just three miles from Oakland is Jefferson Middle School, which has double the test scores and no reported weapons violations.

If you’re thinking that all anxious parents should just move—please don’t. Every child, regardless of their address, deserves to attend a safe school that can effectively teach children. And if more state support and more money were the answer, these schools wouldn’t exist. We’ve been doing both for decades.

DESE should enforce the Unsafe School Choice Option law with integrity. The state board of education should, with DESE, create an open and transparent system that identifies low-performing schools and they should not force children to attend them. The state legislature should allow students in Missouri to choose a public school that fits their needs. It would be so easy to make education better for so many children in Missouri—we just need policymakers to do their part.

Illinois Explores Free-Market Energy Policy

Posted on by Scott Tanner

I recently wrote about how one of our neighbors, Kansas, is making moves to bring nuclear energy to the state. Now, another neighbor, Illinois, is considering legislation that would allow consumer-regulated electricity (CRE).

Consumer Regulated Electricity and Today’s Economy

CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to generate, store, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity to new, large customers. They would not be permitted to serve the general public and would still be subject to federal regulations and other rules such as permitting and workplace safety. If a CRE utility (CREU) chooses to interconnect with the regulated grid, it would then cease to be a CREU.

While this might sound like a lot of red tape, it still cuts down on the mountain of regulations and permissions for utilities on the regulated grid that serves the general public. CRE enables innovative, profit-driven entrepreneurs to serve energy-hungry clients building things like data centers.

For example, CRE could allow a new aluminum smelting facility that needs a consistent, high-power energy supply to partner with a CREU specializing in small-modular reactors (SMR). Such a partnership would give the aluminum facility a reliable power source tailored to its needs, with a payment structure negotiated privately between both parties. The aluminum facility could even use industrial heat from the SMR for its own high-intensity manufacturing processes.

Another benefit of CRE is increased flexibility. The energy sector is rapidly changing. Forecasting future demand is difficult even under stable conditions, but today’s landscape makes accurate prediction even more challenging.

Consider artificial intelligence. Many projections warn of an immense spike in electricity demand from data centers needed to power artificial intelligence, while others suggest innovation could make these systems far more efficient. Either way, relying on regulators alone to anticipate these trends and build capacity accordingly is risky for ratepayers who need electricity but also end up paying for new construction.

Free-market mechanisms like CRE would distribute that risk. If demand rises sharply, CRE utilities could more quickly deploy new generation to meet some of it, easing pressure on the regulated grid and diminishing rate hikes. If demand falls short, the CREUs and their customers would be responsible for the financial cost of overbuilding, not captive ratepayers.

Illinois’s willingness to explore CRE shows a growing recognition that the traditional utility model may not be the best way handle modern energy challenges. Allowing CRE in Missouri could attract investment, foster innovation, and relieve stress on the regulated grid and ratepayers. This is a policy Missouri should consider.

Data Centers, Subsidies, and Electricity in Platte County and across Missouri

Posted on by Mike Ederer

Artificial intelligence and data centers have been the subject of extensive discussion in recent months. Do we need a massive buildout of computing power to win an AI arms race with China? Will we have enough electricity? And what will happen to utility rates? Should we hand out subsidies to attract data centers, or avoid data centers like the plague?

The data center discussion is highly nuanced, marked by an interesting mix of not-in-my-backyardism and yes-in-my-backyardism.

This debate has touched down in Platte County in the Kansas City area, where “Project Kestrel” would grant substantial property and sales tax subsidies to support the development of a new, $100 billion data center campus. But is this the right move for Platte County, or for Missouri?

Missouri is in need of investment, and artificial intelligence and associated data centers already play a significant role in our economy.

However, economic development subsidies enrich individual developers at the expense of taxpayers, schools, and other public services. Using tax subsidies to lure data centers, filmmakers, sports teams, and others into Missouri shrinks the tax base of the region without leading to meaningful economic growth. Opportunity costs are largely ignored, with estimates for economic “boosts” not taking into account what the millions given away in subsidies could have achieved if invested in infrastructure, public safety, education, or tax rebates for Missourians.

Looking at electricity, data centers are enormous consumers that are prompting the buildout of new generation facilities. On a regulated grid, such as Evergy’s in the Kansas City area, building new generation and associated transmission is one of the most expensive processes for average ratepayers, because monopoly utilities are allowed to recoup the cost of their capital investments and typically earn a government-approved profit.

Now, it is true that average Missourians use artificial intelligence, indirectly driving the increased demand for data centers. It is also true that we currently cannot predict with certainty the amount of electricity artificial intelligence and data centers will ultimately require.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5 percent to 8 percent of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in energy usage for AI queries in a single year.

Some legislation has been passed in an attempt to shield average Missourians from bearing “unjust or unreasonable” costs of powering new data centers. However, this does not mean that none of the burden of new power-plant construction will fall on average ratepayers. Furthermore, if utilities overbuild generation capacity based on overly aggressive demand projections, average ratepayers could find themselves footing the bill for underused assets.

Yet, there is risk in veering too far in the other direction as well: An underbuild of new generation would likely lead to Missouri missing out on significant investment.

To navigate this dilemma, policymakers in Missouri should think outside of the box. Instead of solely considering solutions inside the regulated, ratepayer-supported grid, Missouri should follow New Hampshire’s example and consider consumer regulated electricity (CRE). The idea is simple: huge customers like data centers are driving up electricity demand and putting strain on the grid and ratepayers. CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to build and operate generation and transmission facilities whose output would be sold exclusively to these new customers. This approach would help shield Missouri ratepayers from both the rate hikes that would otherwise come with new plant construction and the risk of overbuild. CRE would also provide developers with speed, flexibility, and certainty—attractive qualities that are often lost to red tape and lengthy regulatory approval processes.

Adopting CRE could help ease tensions in Platte County and across the state. Of course, the pressure to offer tax subsidies would remain, but this problem is not exclusive to data center development. Corporate handouts are not the way to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to lure businesses with subsidies, Missouri should have a free market–oriented economic and regulatory environment; for example, one that is conducive to polices like CRE.

Missouri Earns a “B” in New Fiscal Report—but Don’t Pop the Champagne Yet

Posted on by Scott Tanner

For the first time in recent memory, Missouri earned a “B” on Truth in Accounting’s (TIA) annual fiscal report. That puts us in the top half of the nation—24th out of 50—and marks a modest but notable shift from prior years, when the state hovered in “C” territory. But don’t confuse that for a clean bill of financial health.

TIA uses full accrual accounting, which tracks not just current bills but also long-term promises such as pensions and retiree healthcare. Unlike state budget reports that can hide liabilities, TIA’s numbers tell the fuller (and often less flattering) story.

This year, Missouri reported a Taxpayer Surplus™ of $200 per taxpayer, meaning the state had enough money on hand to pay all its current bills with a small cushion left over. By TIA’s definition, that just clears the bar for a “B” grade, which applies to states with a surplus between $1 and $9,999 per taxpayer.

The grade reflects a genuine, if modest, improvement. In 2023, Missouri’s shortfall stood at $700 per taxpayer. That was enough to earn a “C” and a middling 25th-place finish nationally. In years prior, the story was worse: in 2020, the state’s Taxpayer Burden™ was $4,400.

So what’s behind the jump from “C” to “B”? Mostly, factors outside the state’s control. According to TIA’s report (page 83): “Missouri may lose $6.5 billion in federal funding (16 percent of expenses) if allocations return to 2019 levels, adjusted only for inflation.” That funding came largely through pandemic-era support, and it helped cover immediate costs. But it isn’t permanent.

Meanwhile, strong stock market returns—especially in 2022—helped reduce Missouri’s reported pension liabilities. Yet these gains are fragile. They can quickly disappear in volatile markets, as TIA’s report explains, and they don’t fix structural imbalances in how pension systems are funded.

Those structural issues remain. As Sheila Weinberg, founder and CEO of TIA, put it in a recent correspondence: “even with a 26% investment return in 2022 and an additional $1.1 billion contribution in 2023 . . . the state’s contributions and investment income are not enough to keep pace with the interest and new benefits accruing on the pension debt.”

That’s a concern taxpayers should take seriously. Missouri’s pension systems, especially the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS), have long carried unfunded obligations. The surplus reported today is in part a reflection of how those liabilities are calculated—not a signal that they’ve been resolved.

That brings us back to the bigger issue: standards. Missouri, like nearly every other state, follows Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules, which permit states to understate liabilities and delay recognizing certain costs. TIA recommends moving instead to the standards used by publicly traded companies: full accrual accounting and ERISA (Employee Retirement Income and Security Act)-like funding requirements for pensions.

Judi Willard, TIA’s communications director, summarized the case for changing standards plainly: “[these reforms] will create long-term stability for the states, create transparency in government spending and protect the taxpayers from unscrupulous elected officials who would rather spend now and pay later, which sadly the current accounting standards allow.”

There’s merit to that argument. Missouri’s improved ranking may be encouraging, but it is not a sign that long-term fiscal problems have been solved. The gains are largely circumstantial. Without broader reform in how the state budgets and reports its obligations, today’s surplus could just as easily become tomorrow’s deficit.

So yes—credit where it’s due. Missouri’s “B” grade reflects careful budgeting, a resilient economy, and a short-term boost from federal aid. But structural pension pressures remain. Federal dollars are fading. And the state’s accounting standards still obscure the true cost of government.

A budget that only looks balanced on paper won’t protect taxpayers in the long run.

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