Missouri Legislature Invests $50 Million in Families’ Futures Through MOScholars Program

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In a landmark victory for school choice and family empowerment, the Missouri Legislature has approved $50 million in public funding for the MOScholars program, delivering life-changing educational opportunities to thousands of additional Missouri families. This investment is not just about dollars; it’s about ensuring every child has access to a learning environment where they can thrive.

To date, the MOScholars program has been funded through private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, incentivized by tax credits. This infusion of public funding could triple the program’s reach. This is a pivotal step in putting parents back in the driver’s seat of their children’s education. Whether a student is better served by a private school, homeschooling, or specialized support services, MOScholars provides the flexibility to make those choices possible. While $50 million may be a baby step compared to Texas’s recent $1 billion committed to its scholarship program, it signals a commitment by the governor and the legislature to trust parents.

Critics may argue that public dollars should only go to traditional public schools, but the reality is that today’s students need a variety of options. This investment is not about dismantling public education; it’s about complementing it with solutions that work for every student. Parents know their children best. The MOScholars program respects that truth by offering real choices rather than a one-size-fits-all system. It ensures that fewer families are stuck in our lowest-performing schools. Missouri has joined a growing national movement—now seventeen states—that recognizes the importance of flexibility, innovation, and family empowerment in education.

On Transit, Maybe We Can Learn Something from Washington

Posted on by Scott Tanner

President Ronald Reagan once quipped that the scariest sentence is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” That sentiment aside, there may be something Kansas City and St. Louis can learn from Washington, D.C., as of late.

The capital city is making a strategic shift in its public transit approach by significantly expanding its bus services. This decision underscores the cost effectiveness and flexibility of bus transit compared to rail projects.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) plans to enhance its Metrobus network, recognizing that buses can be deployed more rapidly and at a lower cost than rail systems. The goal of this expansion is to improve service coverage and frequency, making public transit more accessible and efficient for residents.

Kansas City and St. Louis have been caught up lately in schemes to expand fixed-rail transit, which comes with higher costs and longer implementation timelines. By observing Washington’s emphasis on bus transit, these cities can explore opportunities to optimize their public transportation systems through cost-effective and adaptable bus services.

As urban areas attempt to efficiently deliver basic services such as transit, adopting flexible and fiscally responsible solutions like buses can help cities better meet the needs of their communities—something Show-Me Institute writers have been proposing for over a decade.

Shutting Down Dissent in Sedalia

Posted on by Scott Tanner

There have been numerous public concerns about government actions in Sedalia for the past year or so. I wrote about one of them—a large downtown tax subsidy expansion—here. There have been other major items of concern, including Sedalia’s government becoming extremely aggressive in issuing property citations and taking people’s property from them after they couldn’t pay the fines and make the repairs.

This has, not surprisingly, led to a lot of citizen concern and pushback. In response to this, city government has gone in exactly the wrong direction and scaled back public comments at its council meetings. This is not how local government is supposed to operate.

I worked at the St. Louis County Council from 2001 through 2006. Most of the time, very few people showed up to give public comment. There were exceptions. Over the past few decades, several things have happened to change how local governments in Missouri (and probably everywhere) handle public comments in meetings. First, security concerns have increased for obvious reasons. Second, adding video and streaming to local meetings has encouraged some people to attend and play to the crowd while speaking. Finally, COVID really brought local government front and center to a lot of people (and not in a good way).

So some local governments have changed speaking policies after some public comment sessions got out of hand, like this one. Sedalia, however, has in my opinion gone too far (and I say that as someone who speaks before a lot of local councils).

Sedalia has limited all public comments to items on the agenda unless you have requested permission 48 hours beforehand to speak about something else. I don’t oppose a similar version of this idea, which St. Louis County and a few others have implemented, which is to place public comment on agenda items early in the meeting (where it should be, before officials vote on the issue) and save non-agenda items for the end (where officials can leave if they have to as their voting is over). I also don’t disagree with time limits on comments, though those limits should be flexible based on the number of speakers. (Sedalia’s three-minute time limit is not flexible.)

Being forced by Sedalia city government to beg permission to speak on other items of concern 48 hours ahead of time is deeply troubling. Here is a recent video of people being aggressively gaveled down at the end of a meeting for simply wanting to make public comment. (I know at least one of these people stated they requested permission more than 48 hours ahead of time, but apparently that request was “lost.”)

Local governments have a right to impose some limits on public comments at their meetings to manage an orderly process. Sedalia is going too far, however. Requiring 48-hour notice and pre-approval for speakers who simply want to address city issues that might not be on that night’s agenda is not good local government practice. Sedalia should change its rules.

Retail Competition in the Energy Market

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Missouri took a step toward reshaping part of its electricity market with the passage of House Bill 417 out of the House General Laws Committee. This legislation would introduce retail competition in Missouri’s electricity generation sector, shifting away from the current monopoly-based model. In the other chamber, a similar bill (Senate Bill 487) also had a public hearing.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

Medicaid’s Check-Up: Part 5

Posted on by Scott Tanner

At this point in my Medicaid blog series, it should be abundantly clear that the program is in dire need of reform. But as I mentioned in previous posts, Medicaid is financed as a partnership between states and the federal government. This means that Missouri can only reform its Medicaid program as much as the federal government will allow. Fortunately, recent discussions at the federal level have stirred optimism that opportunities for states to enact reform could be on the way.

Congress is expected to debate a budget reconciliation package later this spring that primarily extends tax cuts passed in 2018 but also may include some federal Medicaid spending reforms. Here are a few ideas that have been discussed (keep in mind this is a non-exhaustive list, and all details are subject to change):

  • Reduce “enhanced” federal match: As I explained in earlier parts of this series, the federal government is currently paying 90% of all Medicaid costs for able-bodied adults in the expansion population but only 65% for everyone else (aged, blind, disabled, etc.). Congress is considering reducing its expansion share to something closer to what is paid for the traditional population.
  • Rein in financing gimmicks: In recent years, states have ramped up their use of Medicaid financing gimmicks to help pay for rising healthcare costs. Missouri is more reliant on provider taxes than almost any other state in the country. Congress is considering changing this arrangement to reduce the amount of money states can earn with these gimmicks.
  • Work requirements: Show-Me Institute researchers have been writing about the potential of implementing Medicaid work requirements for more than a decade. But the federal government has rarely allowed them, and after a few court cases several years ago, it was determined that congressional action was needed for them to move forward. While it’s unclear who would be included in the requirements, how exactly they’d work, or whether they would be possible in Missouri, it’s certainly worth watching what Congress decides to do on this topic.

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll be keeping a close eye on whether Congress follows through with any of these reforms. It’s never too early to begin thinking about, if enacted, what they could mean for Missouri. There’s no doubt that the federal government reducing its spending on Medicaid could have an enormous impact on our state’s budget. But as with most things, the devil will be in the details. It will be particularly interesting to see if the federal government affords states any additional flexibility to deal with potential Medicaid changes.

In the next post of this series, I’ll discuss some of the steps Missouri’s lawmakers can take today to reform Medicaid and prepare for any opportunities in the future that could help get the state’s program back on a sustainable fiscal track.

Phones Down: The Negative Effects of the Internet on Student Learning

Posted on by Scott Tanner

In the early days of the internet, it was widely seen as a gateway to opportunity. Many believed that the wealth of information available at the click of a button would enhance student learning. However, reality has not lived up to those expectations. A growing body of evidence shows that as students become more connected to the internet, they learn less, especially when their connectivity is facilitated through smartphones.

A recent study by Ronak Jain and Samuel Stemper offers compelling new evidence on this issue. Drawing on data from over 2.5 million student test scores across 82 countries, the researchers examine how the rollout of 3G internet affected educational outcomes. Because 3G technology was introduced unevenly across regions, it created a natural experiment; it was available to some students before others based on where they lived. This variation allows Jain and Stemper to isolate the causal impact of 3G technology on student performance.

Importantly, the rollout of 3G was not just about internet access—it was also about mobile internet access. It facilitated the rise of smartphones and data-intensive social media and gaming applications. Correspondingly, Jain and Stemper show that the spread of 3G internet increased student access to smartphones, in addition to overall internet use.

The research shows exposure to 3G networks caused significantly lower test scores in math, reading, and science. Students also reported greater difficulty making friends and a weaker sense of belonging. For many parents and educators, these results likely confirm what they already know, or at least strongly suspect: smartphones and the constant connectivity they allow are taking a toll on both the academic performance and well-being of our children.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to address this problem. One straightforward policy with growing support is to ban smartphones in schools. Several states have already passed statewide bans, but even in the absence of a statewide ban in Missouri, local officials in school districts can enact bans on their own. Available research suggests the stricter the phone policy, the better.

The Final Weeks of the 2025 Session

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss: the final stretch of Missouri’s legislative session, including debates over education funding, Medicaid spending, and the state’s overall budget growth. They discuss proposed education reforms, reading instruction standards, and open enrollment. The conversation also covers late-session legislative dealmaking, concerns over tax credit expansions, the pause of St. Louis’s transit project, new land bank plans in St. Louis County, and developments in telemedicine and electricity market reforms.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Budget Week: The Countdown Begins
02:57 Legislative Priorities: Education and Medicaid
06:00 Senate Bill 10: A Mixed Bag of Economic Development
09:03 House Bill 660: Local Tax Reforms
11:49 Education Legislation: Open Enrollment and Safety Measures
15:11 Land Banks: A Controversial Expansion
17:58 Telemedicine and Energy Policy: Future Prospects
20:49 Final Thoughts: Legislative Outlook and Community Impact

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

New State Board of Education Has a Long To-Do List

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of this commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Governor Kehoe has appointed four new members to the Missouri State Board of Education, including two who will, if confirmed, replace the president and vice-president. Given that the current president, Charlie Shields, has held the position for a decade and his term expired five years ago, I would say it’s about time. Hopefully these new members will bring new energy and fortitude as they tackle a challenging to-do list.

First, there is the glaring issue of (a lack of) accountability. Currently, Missouri school districts are held accountable through the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) 6. According to the standards set by this plan, like those in versions 1 through 5 before it, all but six of Missouri’s 520 school districts receive the state’s seal of approval, also known as full accreditation. It defies logic that a district like St. Louis Public Schools, with its numerous academic and financial problems, could be fully accredited. Part of the reason is that when the board switched from using MSIP 5 to MSIP 6 in 2024, it determined that the MSIP 6 results for a single school year were not reliable enough to justify changing any district’s accreditation status. Rather, the board decided to use a three-year rolling average to make that determination, meaning that accreditation decisions will need to wait until 2027. The new Board needs to recognize this for the nonsense that it is, and it needs to create a meaningful accountability system.

Second, the new Board should get fully behind the governor’s effort to revise the Foundation Formula, which distributes most state education dollars to districts. The existing formula is over 20 years old, and at least one-third of our districts don’t even use it. Instead, those districts are “held harmless” and given the amount they received in 2005, regardless of any changes in enrollment or property values. The board, as stewards of billions of dollars in public funding, should insist on a new formula that is highly targeted to student need, is transparent, and allows funding to follow a student to the school of their choice. Ironically, the same MSIP 6 that can’t be trusted to measure student achievement has been deemed perfectly reliable when the board requests that the legislature raise the formula’s base funding amount per student. Which is it?

Third, the Board’s job is to hold schools and districts accountable for their performance, not to hide or apologize for failure. Currently, students who have mastered grade-level content and are ready for the next grade are classified as “Proficient.” In other words, they’re where they should be. But a bill currently under consideration in the Missouri Legislature would add a classification called “Grade Level.” If you didn’t know better, you might think that meant something very similar to “proficient,” but it would actually describe students who may be on grade level. What purpose could this new classification have, other than to provide false reassurance to parents whose children are falling behind? The Board should resist any attempts to water down results.

Finally, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has a website that is notoriously difficult to use. One of DESE’s main jobs is to disseminate information and data on our 2,500 schools and the 850,000 students who attend them. If Missouri were to allow students to choose a public school other than their assigned one, DESE would need a functioning website to track those students. If the Foundation Formula is revised, taxpayers deserve to be able to easily track public funds as they follow students. The Board should prioritize the building of a user-friendly and comprehensive website with easy-to-find, accessible, and transparent data.

Last year, four in ten Missouri 4th-graders tested in English/Language Arts couldn’t read. This fall they will move to middle school, and one can only imagine the difficulty they’ll be having when they can’t read their textbooks. DESE used to publish the percentage of high school graduates who were deemed either college- or career-ready by DESE standards. The percentage for the last year I could find (2017) was 42 percent. My own calculations from last year put the number at around 62 percent. When fewer than half of our young students can read on grade level and only about half of our graduating seniors are prepared for what’s next, we are in an educational crisis.

Being appointed to the State Board of Education is an honor, but it comes with responsibilities. We want board members to know the truth about how Missouri schools and students are faring, and we want them to tell us the truth about it. We want them to have a plan to fix what’s broken. That may include a performance audit of DESE to make sure the agency is functioning at the highest possible level. It may include working to expand rather than restrict parents’ choices for the education of their children. It also should include requesting the appropriate amount of state funds for their budget, rather than reflexively asking for more money each year. Time will tell which direction this new board takes, but one thing is crystal clear: It can’t be business as usual.

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