How Much Does My School District Spend?

Posted on by James V. Shuls

As a resident of the Wentzville School District, I recently received a copy of the district’s 2023–24 annual report. The well-designed, 16-page document highlights the district’s growing work-related pathways, new construction projects, expanded early childhood programs, and academic performance. The report also contains a two-page spread on the district’s finances and spending. The report declares the district’s property tax rate “remains the lowest it has been in more than 10 years.” It also explains where the district is spending money, with 84% of operating funds being spent on salaries and benefits.

There is one key piece of information left out of the report—how much the district actually spends. The report tells residents the district spends $1,718 less per pupil than the state average on operating expenses, but it does not tell us that amount.

While it is understandable for organizations to want to put their best foot forward, this lack of transparency is a real problem. Taxpayers should know how much their schools are spending. Unfortunately, districts and the state make this information hard to find.

That is why the Show-Me Institute created MOSchoolRankings. In addition to having detailed academic data, the site provides detailed financial records for every school district in the state. In 2023, Wentzville spent $15,759 per pupil in total expenditures. That means roughly $390,000 is being spent on a classroom of 25 students. Want to know exactly where those dollars are being spent? The website breaks these expenditures down by program, providing the most granular level of analysis in the state.

The annual reports sent by districts are not meant to be a detailed accounting of performance and spending. They are promotional materials designed to paint the district in a positive light. There is nothing wrong with that—organizations should share their successes. Taxpayers who want more information, however, should have access to it.

SLPS and MoSchoolRankings

Posted on by Avery Frank

With ongoing reports about St. Louis Public Schools’s (SLPS) finances, I was interested to learn that SLPS had created nine new administrator positions. Below are just a few examples:

  • “Deputy Superintendent”
    • Salary: $230,000
  • “Researcher of Best Practices to Advise”
    • Salary: $49,250 for work between November and February
  • “Lean Business Management Practices and Flow Analysis”
    • Salary: $49,000
  • “Cabinet Team Support”
    • Salary: $49,400
  • “Performance Management Oversight”
    • Salary: $69,430

These funds could have been used on a number of (I’d argue) more useful items, such as supplying instructional materials to students or hiring tutors. This raises larger questions: how are Missouri districts spending their money, and where can taxpayers find that out?

My colleagues, James Shuls and Susan Pendergrass, have both lamented the difficulty of using state resources to evaluate districts spending and performance. The weakness of Missouri’s Sunshine Law also allows districts to skirt citizens’ requests for information by charging exorbitant prices.

With this dearth of available information, it is difficult for people to know how money is being spent. To meet this need, the Show-Me Institute annually updates MoSchoolRankings.org, which provides an in-depth look at the educational performance and financials of school districts and charters.

Using MoSchoolRankings

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) posts each district’s Annual Secretary of the Board Report on its website. These financial reports are compiled and are the source for MoSchoolRankings.

Individuals can either search for districts or find them on an interactive map. The data include, but are not limited to, math proficiency, ACT scores, enrollment, revenues, locale, website, phone number, demographics, average teacher salary, expenditures per student, and a ranking system for all districts.

With multiple years available, individuals can use MoSchoolRankings as a springboard for further research. For example, consider the below table created from data on MoSchoolRankings.

St. Louis Public Schools 2021–2022 2022–2023
Care and Upkeep of Building Services $22.6 million $47 million
Board of Education Services $2.3 million $8.8 million

 

Noticing the large changes in spending in just one year, an individual could highlight these categories and look further into the exact spending (such as receipts for which goods and services were purchased).

The image below displays how the website looks in practice, using the North Kansas City 74 School District as an example.

MoSchoolRankings.org will remain essential for shedding light on our state’s student performance and district finances. However, Missouri still needs to improve the accuracy and accessibility of state reporting in order to allow parents to hold districts accountable. Increased transparency could help ensure that school districts prioritize spending on classroom instruction and student success.

Platte County Children’s Services Fund Tax

Posted on by David Stokes

A version of the following letter was published in the Kansas City Star.

On November 5, voters in Platte County will decide on a new “children’s services fund” tax. The proposed quarter-cent sales tax will fund mental health services for children. We all want to help kids, right? It may at first glance seem to be an easy choice, but Platte County citizens should think twice before supporting this new tax.

Politicizing charity is a dangerous road to go down. So is creating another, obscure taxing district with little oversight. The established children’s services fund in Lafayette County provides a useful case study for those problems. The fund had operated for years with almost no oversight. Those operating it routinely engaged in improper activities, including funding charities that were affiliated with board members and funding a private business that wasn’t a nonprofit. After a whistleblower called attention to these problems, the state auditor investigated and referred the fund to authorities.

If voters pass this tax and create this fund, will some kids benefit? Of course. But entangling philanthropy with politics, creating a new taxing agency with limited oversight, and making charities dependent on government are not the best ways to go about helping kids in Platte County.

Free Market Policies for Better Local Government with David Stokes

Posted on by David Stokes

In this episode, James V. Shuls speaks with David Stokes, Director of Municipal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, about his recent report, A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities. They discuss the benefits of applying free-market principles to local governance.

Read the full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

One Way Missouri Could Keep Its Energy Grid Reliable

Posted on by Avery Frank

In my previous post, I discussed how the shuttering of coal energy in Missouri could create problems with energy prices and reliability. In this post, I will discuss a potential solution to the reliability problem.

What does a reliable electric grid even mean?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines grid reliability as:

“The provision of an adequate, secure, and stable flow of electricity as consumers may need it. In other words, when you flip the light switch, the lights turn on. The grid remains functional even during unanticipated but common system disturbances.”

Essentially, there needs to be a sufficient and secure amount of dispatchable power plants supplying electricity to consumers. Dispatchability is an energy source’s ability to be “dispatched” to the grid’s consumers whenever they need it. Intermittent energy sources, like wind and solar, are not dispatchable, as they are not continuously available for consumers when they need it.

Missouri’s retiring coal plants are consistent and dispatchable, and to maintain grid reliability, they should simply be replaced with similar plants—such as nuclear or natural gas.

But what about battery storage for intermittent sources?

The presence of energy storage does not make wind and solar any less intermittent. They are still intermittent, but it’s possible battery storage could help alleviate this problem.

Globally, battery storage is rapidly rising, and costs are decreasing. These trends should bolster the effectiveness of renewables—but the sheer amount of energy the United States uses is daunting. The Mackinac Center notes that the United States is set to add 191.6 gigawatt hours of battery backup systems between 2022 and 2026. This is a ton of storage. However, in 2021, the United States used 4,116,000 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2021 alone. Per calculations from the energy analysis group Doomberg, that nets out to 24 additional minutes of battery backup storage added over that five-year period.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency noted the difficulty of providing the materials for a mass battery and renewable expansion at scale. Compared to total mineral demand in 2020, it projects a need for six times as many total minerals for a “net-zero by 2050” scenario.

What’s a policy that could help boost grid reliability?

Last session, House Bill (HB) 1753 passed through the Missouri House but failed to make it to the floor in the Senate. This bill outlined that, prior to the closure of an existing power plant, there must be:

  • A new “replacement” power plant secured and placed on the electric grid (which can be in another state) with an equal or greater amount of “reliable electric generation”
  • “Adequate” transmission lines in place and ready to operate immediately or shortly after a plant is taken offline (depending on the interconnectedness of the plant being shut down).

The retirements of functioning power plants should not be done in haste. HB 1753 would have helped pump the brakes on an energy transition that seems to be barreling out of control. Even if you believe that renewables should be the primary energy source, there should be a highly dispatchable and reliable source backing them up.

Commissioner Mark Christie of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) noted:

I think the United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. . . .The core of the problem is actually very simple. We are retiring dispatchable generating resources at a pace and in an amount that is far too fast and far too great, and it is threatening our ability to keep the lights on. The problem is not the addition of wind and solar and other renewable resources. The problem is the subtraction of dispatchable resources such as coal and gas. . . . A nameplate megawatt of wind or solar is simply not equal in terms of capacity value to a nameplate megawatt of coal or gas or nuclear.

Renewable construction is good—it can bring development and diversity to the generation portfolio—but dispatchability needs to be emphasized, and an intermittent source should not be our backbone. We do not need to make the transition away from coal more convoluted than it is. HB 1753 would have protected energy reliability for Missourians. This policy should be given stronger consideration in the 2025 legislative session.

Ameren to Shut Down Rush Island

Posted on by Avery Frank

The coal-powered Rush Island Energy Center in Jefferson County will be shut down on October 15. The 1,178-megawatt energy center has been operating since 1976 and can power nearly one million homes. Rush Island was originally slated to operate through at least 2039, but the plant was found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act by a federal court more than a decade ago. Ameren was given the choice of installing pollution control mechanisms (scrubbers) or shutting the plant down, and decided to close Rush Island.

Rush Island is not the first coal plant to be shuttered, and it will not be the last. At the end of 2022, the 827-megawatt Meramec Power Plant was shut down, and according to Ameren, it plans to phase coal out completely by 2045.

Below is a summary of Ameren’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan:

Note: “Other Zero Carbon” is expected to include a combination of renewables, energy storage, nuclear energy, and new technologies.

The continued shuttering of reliable coal plants presents concerns for energy reliability and affordability.

Is there reason to be concerned with affordability?

North Carolina is another state on the path of shutting down all coal plants and inserting renewables largely in their place. In response to these state plans, the John Locke Foundation and Center of the American Experiment released an in-depth analysis of the state’s proposed paths forward. The analysis finds that North Carolina’s proposed plan would cost more than a more nuclear-focused one. This is largely attributed to the “build and rebuild” treadmill that wind and solar assets need due to their short lifespan (roughly 20 years), whereas nuclear plans have a lifespan of 80 years (and maybe more).

Utilities, like Ameren, are allowed to charge enough for electricity to cover the cost of providing the service to everyone in their territory, plus a government-approved profit, often set at 5–-10 percent, on their capital investments. As long as the expenses are approved by the regulator in their state, utilities make a profit on every dollar they spend on new builds such as wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, or even renovating corporate offices. The more money utilities spend, the more money they make.

A Missouri-specific study of Ameren’s energy plans could be beneficial to future policy research. Nevertheless, there is some reason to be skeptical of the affordability of such a massive energy transition and continued research will be needed as technology changes.

What concerns are there with reliability?

Some sources of energy are more reliable than others, and there are numerous ways to measure this: accredited capacity, unforced capacity (UCAP), or capacity value. All three measure the general reliability value to the grid. The figure below displays capacity values for the two main regional energy organizations in Missouri—Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

Solar and wind, which are projected to replace much of the energy that retiring coal plants have produced, are intermittent and do not provide consistent streams of electricity, nor are they available at all times of day (although battery storage is improving). As shown in the table above, MISO rates the reliability of solar and wind far lower than coal and other replacement options. Relying so heavily on them may be dangerous.

There is also the task of building out a vast amount of advanced transmission infrastructure. The New York Times reports: “Already, a lack of transmission capacity means that thousands of proposed wind and solar projects are facing multiyear delays and rising costs to connect to the grid.” We should not bank on the ability to break this trend.

Will Ameren be able to replace 66% of its current generation while also meeting the needs of rapidly rising electricity demand? There is reason for concern. In my next post, I will discuss one policy that could help maintain and strengthen the reliability of our grid.

*Note: This post was updated on October 23 to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Rush Island’s closure.

The ESA Experience with Jenny Clark

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jenny Clark, Founder & CEO of Love Your School, about the experience of navigating Arizona’s Education Savings Account (ESA) Program from a parent’s perspective.

Jenny shares her personal journey as a mother of five in Arizona and how her family has utilized a variety of schooling options to fit each child’s unique needs. She explains the flexibility ESA programs offer, the challenges parents face in accessing and managing the funds, how it empowers families to take control of their children’s education, the growing popularity of school choice in Arizona, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Be Skeptical of Claims St. Louis is Running A Surplus

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

KMOV ran a piece the other day reporting that the St. Louis comptroller claims the city has a $42.2 million surplus.

I’m skeptical, and you should be too.

This is a claim that cities and states like because it makes their leaders look financially responsible. But it’s often just a result of bookkeeping sleight of hand. Governor Mike Parson made the same claim in January, and it wasn’t true then, either.

The accounting trick consists of merely looking at the cash you have on hand and not considering your long term-debts. Truth in Accounting (TIA), the indefatigable men and women who pore through annual reports, issued its State of the Cities report in February 2024. St. Louis ranked 64th in financial health out of the top 75 cities examined. The authors wrote:

St. Louis’ financial condition appeared to improve due in part to increased tax collections and federal COVID relief funds. Despite the good news, it still had a Taxpayer Burden™ of $11,100, earning it a “D” grade from Truth in Accounting. But the improvement is deceiving, because the city used outdated pension data.

On pages 150 and 151 of the report, available online here, TIA lists St. Louis’s assets and liabilities. The report must use 2022 data because St. Louis is not a stickler about releasing its financial data in a timely manner. Despite being in the red, St. Louis’s cash-basis accounting allows it to consider the money it has on hand without considering its long-term debts. It’s akin to getting a cash advance on your credit card and pretending you’re richer as a result.

If the comptroller wants to make such claims, she should release a complete and to-date copy of the city’s books. Until then, I am going to assume that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The good news is that we here at the Show-Me Institute, and the fine folks at Truth In Accounting, are dedicated to making sure people understand the truth about city and state finances.

Court Fee Increase Would Negatively Impact St. Louis County

Posted on by David Stokes

A version of the following commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Among the many things that Missourians will vote on in November is Amendment 6, which if passed would reinstitute a fee on court filings in Missouri to fund a larger pension for sheriffs and prosecutors in Missouri. (The fee was previously $3 before it was overturned by Missouri courts.) There are many troubling aspects of Amendment 6 that I hope Missourians consider before they vote, because the proposed amendment would have effects that go beyond the understandable desire to support law enforcement.

Locally, this amendment is especially bad public policy for St. Louis County residents. St. Louis County has by far the largest number of court filings due to its status as the largest county by population in Missouri and the presence of CT Corporation Systems in Clayton, which is the largest registered agent company in Missouri. What’s more, the St. Louis County sheriff is not a law enforcement agent and is therefore the only sheriff in Missouri who does not participate in the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System in the first place. So, to be clear, St. Louis County residents would pay the largest amount of fees into the fund—probably several hundred thousand dollars a year—while at the same time receiving the least benefit of any county. Coincidence? Perhaps. Fair? Definitely not.

Every person in St. Louis County who seeks redress in court, who files for a domestic order of protection, who has to pay a traffic fine, or is in court for any other reason, would have to pay this reinstituted fee to increase the pensions of primarily rural sheriffs and prosecutors. (The St. Louis County prosecutor might be included in this plan, so that’s one person in a million, for a position that is already well-compensated with a generous pension.)

The ballot language for Amendment 6, as is so often the case, is highly misleading. A typical voter will read the language proposing to “levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys . . .” and understand that to include the many dedicated deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors around the state. It doesn’t. This new fee will only benefit the elected sheriff and prosecutor in each county (and not even the sheriff in St. Louis County). That’s two people per county. Deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors have their pensions funded separately and are not affected by this proposal.

As if the misleading language and targeting of one county wasn’t enough to object to, the fact is that funding pensions by court fees is a bad policy. That is why previous attempts to fund a sheriff’s pension in this manner were thrown out as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Imposing court fees that make it harder to seek justice in court, or harder to pay fines ordered by court—especially when those fees financially benefit the law enforcement officials who impose some of them—creates a perverse incentive. Funding for the salaries and benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should come from general local taxation, and there should be no financial incentive for increased fines, arrests, and so on. But instead of trying change their proposals to address these constitutional objections by judges and others, supporters of Amendment 6 are attempting to do an end-run around the law by changing the constitution. Supporting law enforcement by going around the law is an ironic way to accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, any increase in the retirement benefits of elected sheriffs and prosecutors should be accomplished by an expansion of defined-contribution plans available to them rather than an increase in their defined-benefit pensions. Expanding the opportunities for these well-compensated elected officials to participate in 457 retirement plans [which are like 401(k) accounts but for public employees] or similar alternatives is a better way to allow them to save for retirement without further burdening taxpayers.

Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors deserve our support, but Amendment 6 is not the way to show it. There are several good reasons for all Missourians to reconsider their typical support for law enforcement in this case, and for the people of St. Louis County, this choice should be easier than rooting against Stan Kroenke’s Rams in the Super Bowl.

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