Release Those Records, Kansas City!

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

According to documents received from Clay County through an open records request, the Royals suspended negotiations regarding a new stadium on January 16 to “work through a competing opportunity in Jackson County.”

Two Clay County Commissioners, Jason Withington and Scott Wagner, as well as Jackson County Executive Frank White, stated publicly that Kansas City—which sits in Jackson County—made a significant offer over and above the Jackson County sales tax that changed the course of those negotiations.

What was that offer?

We don’t know. Similar open records requests to Kansas City were denied citing ongoing negotiations. Clay County leaders initially denied requests as well. However, the Clay County Commission was made aware of the records request and the dubious claims made to keep those records closed. On February 22, the commission agreed to release the documents.

The Kansas City Council should follow suit. As I wrote to all the members of the Council on April 15:

The City denied my records request (R012348-030124) relying on an understanding of Missouri statutes that allows for sealed bids to be closed. But the negotiations with the Royals were not the result of any bid responding to a city-issued RFP or RFQ. They were more likely similar to any negotiations for incentives that go through the EDC—which are all public documents. Even if they were sealed initially, the vote itself is a clear sign that those negotiations are ended. The documents are public.

Please exercise your legislative authority by directing the city to release these term sheets, any related documents and their various iterations over time. The April 2 campaign was dogged by a lack of transparency—the measure’s defeat is a clear signal that Kansas Citians should know more, not less, about these negotiations.

I’ve received no responses to that email. There is no indication that the city is in any ongoing negotiations. And even if it were, there is no reason to keep the prior negotiations secret.

When Do Summer Breaks Start for School Districts Across Missouri?

Posted on by Avery Frank

Many families may be beginning to wonder if their children’s school gets out earlier or later than everyone else’s. With summer break on the horizon (some schools are actually already on break), let’s look at summer breaks for Missouri public school districts by the numbers.

*Statistics are based on a self-compiled compilation of calendars. If snows/sick days have shifted the last day of school, they are not accounted for.

**Kairos Academies, Clarksburg C-2, Clarkton C-4, Crocker R-II, Eldon R-I, La Salle Charter School, Mark Twain R-VIII, New York R-IV, Premier Charter School, The Biome, Thornfield R-I, and Union Star R-II are not accounted for.

Skyline R-II was the first district to start summer break, on May 1. Hazelwood and Ferguson-Florissant will be among the final districts to go on break on May 31.

Based on the projected last day of class, if you are a St. Louis kid, you are probably getting out later than everyone else. Of the 15 traditional school districts (non-charters using a five-day school week) that end classes May 28 or later, 11 of them are in the St. Louis area. These St. Louis–area schools are Ferguson-Florissant, Hazelwood, Clayton, Ft. Zumwalt, Parkway, Wentzville, Ladue, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, University City, Mehlville, and Riverview Gardens.

How long do most summer breaks last in Missouri?

*Based on the projected number of days, we rounded the district to the nearest week. For example, a district with an 81-day summer would be coded as “12 weeks.”

**In this estimation we assume districts have the same first day of school as 2023-2024, and then subtracted that number by two. In 2020, Missouri mandated that Missouri public schools’ first day of school cannot be before a certain date. In 2023-2024, it was August 21st. For 2024-2025, it will be August 19th, two days earlier.

As the above figure displays, the average summer break is a little over three months for Missouri students. The shortest summer break is roughly 10 weeks, while the longest is around four months at 16 weeks. The rural districts (enrollment in parentheses) of Fairview R-XI (493), Glenwood R-VIII (218), Howell Valley R-I (209), Junction Hill C-12 (193), and Richards R-V (343) all have nearly four-month summer vacations—with May 2 as their last day of class, and August 21 as their first day of class in 2023–2024.

Interestingly, the districts that have the shortest summer breaks all tend to be St. Louis–area districts, with Ferguson-Florissant and Hazelwood having the shortest breaks. Along with these two, Clayton, Ft. Zumwalt, Parkway C-2, Wentzville, Ladue, University City, Mehlville, Riverview Gardens, Affton, Bayless, Brentwood, Francis Howell, Orchard Farm, Rockwood, and Valley Park all have estimated summer breaks under 90 days.

How do these statistics differ amongst various types of schools?

The above figures are known as a box and whisker plot. The vertical line (whiskers) represents the full range, while the box represents the middle 50 percent of responses. Any statistical outliers are noted as dots, the horizontal line is the median, and the “x” is the mean.

As shown, rural schools on average have much longer summer breaks than their suburban and city counterparts. Additionally, most of the longest breaks in the state are rural—of the 50 longest summer breaks in the state, 47 of them are rural districts. While this may be reflective of the bygone days when most rural children worked on farms, Institute analysts have conducted research that found rural high school students may have fewer opportunities and lower rate of college readiness than their suburban counterparts.

Another important takeaway from these figures is the difference in break length between charters and traditional schools. Charter schools have an average (mean) summer break of 84 days, versus 92 for four-day school week districts and 94 days for traditional five-day school week districts. In Missouri, charter schools serve high proportions of disadvantaged students and shorter breaks may be a good use of charter school flexibility.

Do longer summers hurt students? Summer learning loss is a well-documented phenomenon. However, there are debates about the actual extent of achievement loss. Regardless, it is interesting to see the variability across the state and to consider if there could be academic implications.

Live Events May 22: The Insider’s Hour with Show-Me Institute

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

The Missouri legislative session is over. What did the House and Senate accomplish? How did Missourians fare?

Get the scoop from the experts at the Show-Me Institute at our Insider’s Hour!

Join us at one of two open discussions with Brenda Talent, James Shuls, and Elias Tsapelas from the Show-Me Institute.

Two chances to get the scoop: 

Both Wednesday, May 22

Lunch Event

MAC West

1777 Des Peres Road

St. Louis, MO 63131

Doors open: 11:30 a.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 12-1:00 p.m.

Ticket Price: $15.00 (includes lunch and beverages)

Lunch Event Tickets Here

Evening Event

Cafe Napoli

7754 Forsyth Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63105

Doors open: 4:30 p.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 5-5:45 p.m.

Ticket Price: $15.00 (includes a beverage and light snacks)

Evening Event Tickets Here

What Does the Latest Inflation Data Mean for the Fed’s Next Move?

Posted on by Aaron Hedlund

On May 15, 2024, Show-Me Institute Chief Economist Aaron Hedlund joined Pete Mundo on KCMO to break down the latest inflation data and discuss what it means for the Federal Reserve’s next move on interest rates.

Photo credit:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/partial-view-federal-reserve-fed-headquarters-2258307915

Photo ID: 2258307915

Photo Contributor: christianthiel.net

Choice versus No School Choice

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Before Governor Parson signed Senate Bill (SB) 727 into law, opinion columns across Missouri were filled with statements of opposition. Among a laundry list of things in the bill is an expansion of the MOScholars program. MOScholars provides funding for students to attend non-public schools via donations from taxpayers. The donors in turn receive a credit toward their taxes. For the most part, SB 727 opposition focused on this part of the bill

David Rosman provided a typical example of this criticism in an editorial for the Columbia Missourian: “Conservative religious leaders and politicians see public education as inferior to private, charter and religious education, but there is no proof supporting that belief.” Rosman then goes on to support his claim by arguing that we do not have an effective way of comparing public and private schools academically, noting that public schools have to accept all students, and pointing out that public school students have won more Scripps National Spelling Bee titles.

It is not clear that Rosman’s examples actually support his claim, but the bigger problem is the claim itself. He says proponents of school choice support the cause because they think public schools are inferior, particularly in the area of academics. Yet academics is just one of the many reasons families support having school choice options.

While I’ve never met a parent who has chosen a charter school or a private school because they believe it will help their child win the Scripps spelling bee, I have met many parents who chose a charter or private school because their children felt bullied in their assigned public school or because they did not feel their children’s needs were being met. I have met parents who have chosen an arts school for their children and some who have chosen a STEM school. And, yes, I have met many parents, from nearly every faith tradition, who have chosen a religious school for their children.

When advocates argue for school choice, it is not because we think all private schools are inherently better than all public schools. Quite the contrary. There are many excellent public schools and many private schools where I would never send my own children. This is not a public versus non-public issue. It is a choice versus no-choice issue. It is a freedom versus control issue.

Proponents of school choice believe parents should be able to direct the upbringing of their children. They also believe that parents should be allowed to choose the type of school that best meets the needs of their children and aligns with the goals of their family.

In short, school choice supporters see assigning students to schools as inferior to a system that allows people to choose from a myriad of educational options.

Don’t Drop the Call for Telemedicine

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Is the dysfunction of Missouri’s legislature going to claim another victim? With just a few days left to go in this year’s legislative session, the odds of any bills that improve Missouri’s telemedicine laws making it across the finish line get smaller by the day.

Several months ago, I wrote about the positive developments in the world of telemedicine, and the laws Missouri needs to change to bring these benefits to state residents. I was optimistic because several bills expanding the role of telemedicine received hearings near the start of this year’s legislative session, and there was little to no opposition voiced against the changes. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to me, the telemedicine bills haven’t moved much since their public hearings.

What makes the lack of movement so surprising is that much of what the telemedicine bills do is restore benefits that Missourians enjoyed a few short years ago. As I’ve written before, during the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic, Missouri was one of the national leaders on telemedicine. Because various laws and regulations were waived for emergency response, it was much easier for patients to access their healthcare providers virtually. In response, patients and providers alike grew to value the service—until the emergency ended, and state lawmakers allowed the prior telemedicine restrictions to return.

Two of the telemedicine bills being considered this year seem like no brainers. One expands the definition of “telehealth” to include audio-only technologies. Not everyone has access to the devices or internet required to transmit video, and not every medical service requires a visual examination. Many in the mental health field would like the ability to treat patients over the phone, but state law needs to change for that to be possible.

The second bill makes it easier to establish the physician–patient relationship virtually. Currently, there are concerns about doctors prescribing medications to patients who they’ve never seen in person. Clarifying the process that needs to be followed for safely prescribing medicine remotely seems like it would benefit both patients and providers.

Many Missourians are still struggling with healthcare access, due in large part to a shortage of providers, and telemedicine is one of the best ways to expand the available pool of providers. There are many providers already calling on our general assembly to allow them to see more Missouri patients. There’s still enough time for our lawmakers to act and finally answer the call for improving telemedicine access.

No Way to Budget

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Do Missouri’s elected officials think the phrase “better late than ever” applies to passing the budget? Last week, our general assembly cut things incredibly close by approving next year’s spending plan just a few short hours before the constitutional deadline.

For months, I’ve been expressing concerns about this budget. After years of record-breaking spending growth, the well of exorbitant federal funds will soon be drying up, and state tax revenues are expected to decline or remain stagnant. Not to be deterred, in January, Governor Parson laid out his plan that recommended more of the same, including spending more than the state expects to bring in. Over the next few months, the House of Representatives worked to pare that plan back, ultimately finding some (but not enough) savings.

Over the past month, the Senate had been working on its version of the budget, but to no avail. Due to an apparent combination of time constraints and chamber dysfunction, the spending plan didn’t see the Senate floor until the day before Missouri’s constitution requires it be passed. The result of this delay was a budget that almost no one had seen in advance, yet still had to be approved by both legislative chambers over a matter of hours. All this had to happen without anyone making any changes.

The problems with this process should be obvious. Instead of each chamber having its own version of the budget to compare against the governor’s, and a conference committee process to reconcile differences, the compromises were made outside of the public eye. Instead of taxpayers being able to see how each chamber prioritizes spending, the lack of conference meant that there was no avenue for input from citizens on the final product. And instead of lawmakers having several days, if not weeks, to examine the proposed budget and suggest amendments, they were stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it offer.

Unsurprisingly, the approved budget looks like it leaves much to be desired. As Missouri’s legislators are fond of saying, passing the budget is the general assembly’s sole constitutional responsibility. Given the gravity of the assignment, it’s incredibly disheartening that the process played out the way it did. Over the next few weeks, I’ll continue unpacking the spending decisions of our elected officials. At this point, what’s clear is that Missouri desperately needs more budget transparency, and what happened this year should never be allowed to happen again.

The Final Week of the Session

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss:

– The state budget

– The final week of the legislative session

– The latest plan in the City of St. Louis to deal with the prevalence of temporary tags, and more

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand

Posted on by Avery Frank

When the legislature finally passed an education reform bill, I was hopeful this would mean we would see movement on other important bills as well. However, as we approach the final weeks of the legislative session, it seems that some bills may be sputtering out. Among them are bills that would strengthen Missouri’s energy sector—in particular, House Bills (HB) 1435 & 1804.

Missouri cannot keep putting off energy reform until the next year—change is happening now, and energy demand is growing.

For the first two decades of the 2000s, electricity consumption remained flat without significant growth, as increased demand was offset by increased energy efficiency. However, in recent years energy demand has been on the rise again.

Forbes, the Department of Energy, and The New York Times all note the same driving forces for this increasing demand—data center growth (accelerated by the growth of AI) and a boom in electrical manufacturing (batteries, computer chips, etc.). What is one thing data centers and factories have in common? They both require power 24 hours a day—something non-dispatchable resources like solar cannot effectively provide alone. (Small modular nuclear reactors are great at providing continuous power . . . just saying.)

Some prominent organizations, such as Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company, have forecasted that U.S. data center energy usage will double by 2030. To put it into perspective, Goldman forecasts that data centers’ share of total U.S. power demand will rise from its current 3% level to 8% by 2030. This is an enormous amount of electricity—equivalent to the power needed for over 40 million U.S. homes.

Ameren is planning to shut down all coal plants by 2045. To replace coal plants’ production and meet new demand, our state will need to build reliable, powerful, and clean power plants.

Nuclear power can check all of these boxes, but we need regulatory reform to allow nuclear to flourish in Missouri. To replace and meet new energy demand, our state should strongly consider nuclear energy.

The primary policy that has impeded our nuclear industry for decades is the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. This statute prevents utilities from raising rates in order to help pay for construction-works-in-progress, making it much more difficult to develop nuclear projects. CWIP has proven fatal for Missouri’s nuclear industry, as nuclear projects are both extremely capital intensive and subject to extensive holdups in the regulatory process.

Nuclear plants do not arise out of thin air, and they will not be built in Missouri if there are too many regulatory barriers. Eliminating the longstanding CWIP statute by passing HB 1435 and HB 1804 would provide a backstop for the large upfront costs of small modular reactor construction so that utilities can work with both domestic and international nuclear developers to revive our state’s nuclear industry.

In the remaining weeks of the session, the legislature cannot forget about the need for modernization in the energy sector. Electricity demand is on the rise, and Missouri should prepare to meet this demand.

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