Beware the Budget Mirage

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

When it comes to Missouri’s budget, what you see is not always what you get. Recently, as Missouri’s House of Representatives finished passing its version of the FY 2026 budget, lawmakers congratulated themselves for the efficiencies they found that resulted in a budget that totaled less than $48 billion. While $48 billion is still a ton of money (it’s still almost double the state’s FY 2019 budget), what the House passed was significantly smaller than Governor Kehoe’s recommended budget for next year, and was even smaller than Missouri’s current FY 2025 spending plan. But before anyone gets carried away celebrating the legislature’s cost-cutting efforts, it’s important to make sure the alleged savings are more than just a mirage.

Missouri taxpayers don’t have to look too far to find an example of the last time so-called budgetary savings were illusory—we can look at this year’s budget. When the FY 2025 budget was passed last May, our state’s elected officials celebrated their “conservative” budget. They said it was the first budget in a decade that was smaller than the previous year’s, which I noted at the time didn’t amount to much. It was true that the budget they initially passed did call for less spending than years prior, but in the months since, we’ve discovered that claims of budget cutting didn’t hold up.

When the budget passed last May, I explained that the totals were likely misleading, and the general assembly’s recent approval of a supplemental funding bill all but confirms it. To finish out the year, Missouri’s government needs nearly $2 billion extra dollars, with almost $400 million of that total coming from general revenue (state income and sales tax dollars).

As the above table shows, once you take into account all the funds that are truly needed for the year, this year’s budget exceeds last year’s by more than $700 million. What’s worse is that the general revenue portion is similarly higher than last year. This is problematic because not only is Missouri on track to spend more than the state projects to bring in (which was the case even before this extra spending was added), revenue collections are now behind where they were one year ago.

In other words, Missouri is in worse fiscal shape today than it was last year, and despite efforts to make it seem as though spending was being reined in, we’re once again on a path to spend more this year than ever before. As Missouri’s Senate begins its work on the state’s FY 2026 budget, it should be clear that taking real steps to rightsize state government is essential. Taxpayers should keep a close eye on the budget negotiations in the coming weeks. Legislators may try to sell Missourians on a bill of goods again.

Don’t Throw It Out—Fix It

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Missouri currently has a very weak system of accountability for public school districts. Every spring, students take assessments under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), and these test results feed into an accountability system known as the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP). And by “feed into” I mean that test scores are less than half of what districts are held accountable for. Based on MSIP results, districts are designated as fully accredited, partially accredited, or not accredited. It’s not actually much of a system, though, since all but six of our 520 districts are fully accredited.

The Missouri Senate debated this week whether we should just throw out the MSIP part. Students would still take the MAP tests, but only to meet federal requirements and get federal dollars. Supporters claim that outcomes will dramatically improve because every teacher, freed from the pressure of MAP scores, will thrive and innovate. Of course, that’s not true across the board. We have quite a few districts that need more oversight, not less.

Rather than take an accountability system with almost no teeth and toss it aside, we should be working on building a better one. It is still true that you can’t fix what you don’t measure. We need test scores to tell us if students can read and do math. We need to know how well schools are serving their students. Publicly funded systems should be held accountable to taxpayers.

We are on version six of MSIP. The state board of education recently determined that the results of MSIP 6 are not reliable enough to use without a rolling three-year average. If it is a broken accountability system—which it seems to be—let’s fix it.

Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

As part of the dramatic cuts at the U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration’s DOGE program, the entire staff of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was cut to just one person. NAEP had a budget of $190 billion to administer an assessment in reading and math to a representative sample of 4th and 8th graders in every state every other year. The test questions change, but the testing standards and measures do not. This means that NAEP is the only uniform way to measure public education in each state and over time.

I’m often asked if school choice is an effective policy. In other words—do states that let parents easily choose from a number of publicly funded options for their children do better than those that don’t? We need NAEP to know the answer. Also, folks want to know if Missouri is improving or getting worse when it comes to educating our students. Well, the state has changed its own test several times in the last decade, so the only way we can know is to look at NAEP scores.

It’s difficult to achieve accountability in a vacuum. Gutting something in the name of cutting costs can be costly in itself. Missourians should hope that NAEP, federal education data collection, and the federal role in researching what works in education get rebuilt quickly and thoughtfully.

Charter Schools Are Highly Effective in Missouri

Posted on by Scott Tanner

In 2023, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University released its third National Charter School Study. It compares the effectiveness of charter schools to traditional public schools in 29 states, plus Washington D.C, and New York City. The study shows that Missouri’s charter schools are among the most effective in the nation.

The report focuses mostly on documenting charter school performance overall across the 29 states and two cities. Some of the more notable findings from the full sample include:

  • On average, charter schools are producing more test-score growth than traditional public schools. The CREDO research team estimates that the extra growth is equivalent to six additional days of instruction annually in math, and 16 extra days of instruction in reading.
  • The performance of charter schools is improving over time. The CREDO researchers track improvement by comparing their findings in the 2023 report to findings from their older, similar reports from 2009 and 2013.
  • High-poverty students benefit from attending a charter school more than their low-poverty peers.
  • Though charter schools outperform traditional public schools overall, virtual charter schools perform worse than other charter schools, and worse than traditional public schools.

On the last point, the CREDO dataset covers the years 2014 to 2019, so these virtual charter schools were virtual before it became (unfortunately) fashionable. The finding that virtual charter schools are ineffective tracks with evidence from the pandemic era showing that schools that spent more time in virtual learning had especially poor performance. The CREDO report makes it clear that charter schools are not special in this regard.

In terms of Missouri-specific findings, the report shows:

  • Charter schools nationally are doing well, but Missouri charter schools are doing even better. Our charter schools are among the most effective in the country in terms of improving academic achievement relative to their traditional public-school alternatives. For example, in reading, Missouri’s charter schools are the fifth-most effective among the 29 states covered by the report.
  • Mirroring the national trend, the effectiveness of Missouri charter schools is improving over time.

This is just a quick summary of a very dense and thorough report, so I encourage interested readers to take a closer look themselves. The CREDO report provides compelling evidence of the value of charter schools in Missouri. I hope our legislators enact policies that make it easier for charter operators to improve outcomes for Missouri children.

Jackson County Property Tax Assessment Update

Posted on by Scott Tanner

As part of the ongoing saga of the 2023 Jackson County reassessment debacle, the Missouri State Tax Commission (STC) ordered Jackson County to lower all residential assessed valuations with an increase of fifteen percent or more to fifteen percent, which is the legal cutoff for additional inspection requirements by counties. Jackson County had completely failed to comply with the basic laws and rules for notifying property owners of their rights and deadlines as part of the reassessment process. It is not that the assessment increases are too high (although some no doubt are), but that the entire process violated the rights of the property owners who saw larger increases.

Many homeowners in Jackson County had seen their reassessments increase by more than fifteen percent, so this order by the STC was no small thing. Because of the major impacts on tax revenues for various local governments, the county sued the STC to stop the order. The judge ruled the other day, and the county lost.

The county will likely appeal this ruling, but the facts are pretty clear here. The Jackson County Assessor’s Office did not adhere to the requirements of the process, and property owners were harmed by it. I don’t see any way the appeals court changes this ruling (I am not a lawyer), unless the judges decide that the harm to the taxing districts overrides the rights of the property owners.

I have been writing about the history and issues of property reassessments in Jackson County for a long time. One hundred and thirteen counties can get their reassessments done correctly, and one can’t, so the problem is more with the management in Jackson County itself than with the reassessment process overall. Better management of the Jackson County Assessor’s Office is the first needed change. Beyond that, some policy changes are needed for Jackson County, including:

Jackson County may have been underassessed overall, but that doesn’t excuse the county from complying with the reassessment process laws. If the county appeals, I hope it loses again, and quickly.

Tariffs, Trade, and Economic Risk with Dominic Pino

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass and Dominic Pino, the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute, discuss the current state of U.S. tariffs and trade policy, tariffs as a hidden form of taxation, common misconceptions about trade deficits, provide historical context for America’s protectionist tendencies, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Download a Transcript of this Episode

Timestamps:

00:00 Understanding Tariffs and Economic Perspectives
02:51 The Impact of Trade Deficits
06:05 The Role of Government in Trade Policies
08:59 The Consequences of Protectionism
12:02 Future Economic Predictions
15:05 Historical Context of Tariffs
18:03 The Confusion Surrounding Current Policies

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Platte County Commission Decision Not to Levy Taxes Upheld in Court

Posted on by Scott Tanner

My colleague David Stokes has written a good deal about an effort in Platte County to institute a sales tax to fund a children’s health fund. You can read those pieces here, here, and here. David argues that other similar funds in Missouri have had unsavory outcomes and the idea of politicizing charity itself is something we ought to avoid.

The measure passed, but the Platte County Commission voted unanimously not to implement the tax. The governing Missouri statute seems pretty clear, stating, “The governing body of a city not within a county, or any county of this state may, after voter approval under this section, levy a sales tax . . .” The commissioners argued the law gives them the discretion to levy the tax after a vote of the people (“may”) rather than require it (“shall”).

KCPBS’s “Week in Review” discussed the matter on February 28, and I pointed out that the commission’s position seemed strong. KCUR’s Brian Ellison argued the case was not as clear cut as I suggested.

Yet the day after a hearing on March 31, a circuit judge in Platte County agreed with the commission, issuing a decision immediately. The ruling concludes, “The plain language of §67.1775 gives the Commission discretion to levy or not levy the tax after voter approval.” Clear cut indeed.

Lastly, let me highlight one of the prescient arguments David put forward in September:

The two charitable agencies that gathered these petition signatures and are supporting this tax do great work for kids. Those two agencies, Synergy Services and Beacon Mental Health, are also going to benefit from this tax, and will almost certainly seek grants from it. (Both agencies have received funding from the Jackson or Clay county children’s services funds.) There is nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend that these charities have no self-interest in this process.

If we look to the last page of the October 28 Missouri Ethics Commission filing from the committee supporting the sales tax in Platte County, we can see that three charities contributed $13,000 to the YES campaign. David was correct—this effort incentivized Beacon Mental Health and other non-profits (Synergy Services seemingly did not donate to this campaign) to steer some of their valuable dollars to a political campaign, something we see too much of already. We should not be encouraging more of this.

The commissioners were right to oppose the sales tax. Platte Countians, regardless of how they voted on this matter, should be grateful for the commission’s willingness to make a stand against higher taxes and politicizing charities.

Attitudes on Open Enrollment in Missouri

Posted on by Avery Frank

Missouri families are still waiting for access to open enrollment. The Missouri House recently passed House Bill (HB) 711, but like years prior, open enrollment has not yet hit the floor in the Senate. Despite open enrollment stalling out in the legislature, the data indicate that Missourians want to see progress on this issue.

In February 2025, Saint Louis University (SLU) released an update on likely Missouri voters’ views on education policy, including open enrollment (the polling was conducted in 2024). The results showed broad support for open enrollment, including bipartisan approval and a preference for a universal model. SLU surveyed 900 likely Missouri voters and used both demographic and voting history data in an attempt to create a representative Missouri sample. One of the more interesting findings was the bipartisan agreement on open enrollment. Recent votes on open enrollment in the legislature have been split along party lines.

Figure 1 displays the general support for open enrollment among likely Missouri voters. Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the majority of likely Missouri voters prefer that an open enrollment policy be universal (meaning districts must accept students if they have seats) and let students transfer out. This suggests that a universal policy is not an “extreme” position, but one that is well aligned with public opinion. It is worth wondering whether carveouts and “compromises” that would restrict open enrollment reflect the priorities of students and families or those of other education stakeholders.

Figure 1: General Measure of Support for Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “Do you support or oppose the following policies . . . allow students to enroll in public schools outside of the school district where they live?”

Figure 2: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring Out with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may limit the number of students who transfer out of their district.”

Figure 3: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring in with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may opt out of having students transfer into their district.”

Universal Open Enrollment for Missouri Families

Different versions of open enrollment bills have circulated around Jefferson City, with the House passing a voluntary version (HB 711) and the Senate weighing a universal version (Senate Bill (SB) 215). A good open enrollment policy is a universal policy, and SB 215 would provide students with greater access to public schools that serve them best. Open enrollment is a pro-student, pro-family, and pro-public school policy. The research supports it, the public supports it, and Missouri students would benefit from a robust open enrollment environment.

Want to Learn More?

Susan Pendergrass and I address the most common objections to open enrollment in our recent paper, Open Enrollment: Erasing Seven Myths in Missouri. Read the full report here.

Crystal City to Vote on the Four-Day School Week

Posted on by Scott Tanner

On Tuesday, Crystal City voters will decide whether to retain their district’s four-day school week (4dsw) or return to a five-day school week (5dsw). Although the district has followed a 4dsw for several years, a new requirement under Senate Bill 727 mandates a public vote to adopt or retain a 4dsw for districts in communities that are sufficiently large, which includes Crystal City (the new law requires a vote in districts that are fully or partially located in charter counties or cities with more than 30,000 inhabitants).

Crystal City is among the first districts to hold such a vote. It will be fascinating to observe the outcome, which may serve as an indicator of how other districts will vote on this issue. It also raises the question of what options will be available to families who disagree with the vote.

Expanding School Choice Would Strengthen Missouri’s Educational Environment

Last year, my colleague James Shuls reported on results from a survey of Missouri parents on the 4dsw and school choice. In one key finding, 69% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “If a school district moves from a 5dsw to a 4dsw, parents should be given the option to transfer their children to another school district.” This sentiment was consistent across party lines, with 67% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats in favor. Open enrollment would provide options for families who want something different than what the district decides.

While it is certainly worth mentioning that the 4dsw negatively affects academic performance in mathematics and English/language arts (ELA) on average, this may not be true for everyone, and some students may benefit. For example, supporters of the 4dsw often discuss how a 4dsw can reduce missed days for doctor’s appointments, allow for help on family farms, and lower “burnout” among both students and teachers. But many students need more consistent interaction with academic materials, and the 4dsw is not a good fit for some families’ schedules. The same survey also found that 84% of parents who “are not able to provide childcare on the fifth day” prefer a 5dsw.

Closing Considerations

The number of 4dsw districts grew this past year from 173 to 187 Missouri districts (based on my own compilation of school calendars). This means that about 36% of all Missouri districts use the 4dsw, including nearly half of rural districts.

For districts considering the switch, the research shows that it has several downsides, and on average, it reduces student learning. This suggests proceeding with caution. For parents who disagree with the results of a 4dsw vote, expanding school choice is an appropriate policy response.

Want to read more? Check out these publications:

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