The Lifetime Pandemic Education Tax

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Dr. Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, has been studying the relationship between academic achievement and spending for decades. Recently, he has been putting numbers to the lost opportunities experienced by students who were in school when they all shut down in 2020. The consequences are real. His prediction is that this generation will lose around 6 percent in lifetime earnings. For Black children, it’s 8 percent.

This is essentially a lifetime tax that isn’t being addressed as the crisis that it is. Collectively, our nation could lose as much as $28 trillion because the workforce will simply have more people who know less. That’s more than 15 times the current estimate of the economic cost of the pandemic.

The future of Missouri’s workforce is certainly not promising. Our K-12 enrollment is declining. Four in ten of our 3rd graders, who were in kindergarten in 2020, do not have even a partial understanding of 3rd-grade reading material. And last year, 40 percent of our high school graduates were not college or career ready, as measured by state standards.

Test scores matter. Declining test scores matter. Watering down the tests, backing off the grading scale, and not holding students and families accountable for chronic absenteeism only add to the negative impact.

Dr. Hanushek’s policy recommendations may seem harsh, but they’re the kind of bold ideas we ought to consider. He suggests creating meaningful financial incentives for “good” teachers to teach more students and buying out the contracts of low-performing teachers. These are solutions that prioritize the children in the system over the adults. What are the chances that Missouri is willing to take that approach?

Riverview Gardens and Normandy Are Regaining Local Control

Posted on by Avery Frank

After a decade of state control, the Missouri Board of Education recently announced it will restore local control to two struggling districts, Riverview Gardens and Normandy Schools Collaborative. While the state intervention brought financial stability and higher graduation rates, it didn’t lead to academic improvement. In 2022, only 12% and 2% of Riverview Gardens students scored proficient or advanced in English/language arts and mathematics, respectively. Normandy students scored slightly higher at 12.4% and 8.4%, but these are still alarming numbers. The lack of progress that has existed for decades under both state and local bureaucracies highlights an important question: why don’t families have the opportunity to send their children to the school that will give them the best chance to succeed?

Around a decade ago, both these districts failed to meet state standards and received the status of “unaccredited.” Because these districts lost accreditation, students were allowed to transfer to an adjoining district—and Riverview Gardens and Normandy had to pay tuition to these nearby districts.

Over 2,000 students (a quarter of the two districts’ enrollment) immediately took the opportunity to transfer—with many enrolling in Kirkwood, Mehlville, Hazelwood, Ferguson-Florissant, and Francis Howell. No receiving district gained more than a five percent increase in its student body. This exodus of students was rooted in families’ desire to improve their children’s livelihood—a sentiment that still exists today. One mother described the ability to choose a different district as follows: “She is thriving and has found a place where she fits in. She feels safe in her school environment and as her mother, I don’t worry about her safety while she’s at school.”

Reverting back to the local control is probably not going to dramatically improve the situation in Riverview Gardens or Normandy; these districts have performed terribly both before and after state control.  Parents need to be able to hold these districts accountable. Parents demonstrated they wanted choice back when students transferred out of these failing districts, and they still want it now.

Some people worry what would happen to struggling districts if families had school choice. However, these districts would not simply collapse, as they are allowed to use enrollment from any of the past four years for funding. And school choice could have other benefits for these districts. A smaller student body could lead to more academic success, and the threat of closure could serve as a wake-up call to those who love these school districts.

How much better would it be for a district if students were enrolled because they actually wanted to be there? Perhaps having a student body who actually wants to be at their school would lower the soaring absentee rates we see in these two districts and throughout the state. While I cannot guarantee that parental accountability through choice will save these districts, saving particular school districts isn’t the goal of education policy. It’s giving every student in Missouri the best opportunity to succeed. And that means giving every student in Missouri the chance to pick a school that best fits their needs.

A New Way to Tax, Redevelopment Retry, and Close the Gap

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss Detroit’s land tax experiment, redevelopment subsides in North St. Louis, an important deadline for Missouri parents and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

In Search of Statutory Authority for Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards

Posted on by James V. Shuls

On Tuesday, the State Board of Education rejected DESE’s proposed social-emotional learning standards. It appears the decision was largely influenced by negative comments from the public comment period.

The state board made the right decision, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Don’t get me wrong— public feedback and buy-in, especially on issues such as this, is critical. But the board made the right decision because DESE did not have statutory authority to push these standards.

Back in September, I noted that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was pushing the social–emotional learning standards without statutory authority. At the time, DESE claimed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri provided the authority. In the lead up to this week’s state board meeting, DESE has changed its tune. Instead of citing the statute for the “Trauma-informed schools initiative,” it  cited Section 161.092. This section of the statutes is labeled, “Powers and duties of state board.” Despite the change, DESE still lacks statutory authority to impose the SEL standards.

Section 161.092 essentially tells the state board what it must do. It must “adopt rules governing its own proceedings,” for example. The state board must also “make an annual report.” Nowhere in the section does it mention “standards,” “social–emotional,” or anything vaguely resembling the work that DESE has been pushing.

Once again, I have posted the full statute below for you to examine. It seems DESE is grasping at straws for authority, but coming up empty.

 

 161.092.  Powers and duties of state board. — The state board of education shall:

(1)  Adopt rules governing its own proceedings and formulate policies for the guidance of the commissioner of education and the department of elementary and secondary education;

(2)  Carry out the educational policies of the state relating to public schools that are provided by law and supervise instruction in the public schools;

(3)  Direct the investment of all moneys received by the state to be applied to the capital of any permanent fund established for the support of public education within the jurisdiction of the department of elementary and secondary education and see that the funds are applied to the branches of educational interest of the state that by grant, gift, devise or law they were originally intended, and if necessary institute suit for and collect the funds and return them to their legitimate channels;

(4)  Cause to be assembled information which will reflect continuously the condition and management of the public schools of the state;

(5)  Require of county clerks or treasurers, boards of education or other school officers, recorders and treasurers of cities, towns and villages, copies of all records required to be made by them and all other information in relation to the funds and condition of schools and the management thereof that is deemed necessary;

(6)  Provide blanks suitable for use by officials in reporting the information required by the board;

(7)  When conditions demand, cause the laws relating to schools to be published in a separate volume, with pertinent notes and comments, for the guidance of those charged with the execution of the laws;

(8)  Grant, without fee except as provided in section 168.021, certificates of qualification and licenses to teach in any of the public schools of the state, establish requirements therefor, formulate regulations governing the issuance thereof, and cause the certificates to be revoked for the reasons and in the manner provided in section 168.071;

(9)  Classify the public schools of the state, subject to limitations provided by law and subdivision (14) of this section, establish requirements for the schools of each class, and formulate rules governing the inspection and accreditation of schools preparatory to classification, with such requirements taking effect not less than two years from the date of adoption of the proposed rule by the state board of education, provided that this condition shall not apply to any requirement for which a time line for adoption is mandated in either federal or state law.  Such rules shall include a process to allow any district that is accredited without provision that does not meet the state board’s promulgated criteria for a classification designation of accredited with distinction to propose alternative criteria to the state board to be classified as accredited with distinction;

(10)  Make an annual report on or before the first Wednesday after the first day of January to the general assembly or, when it is not in session, to the governor for publication and transmission to the general assembly.  The report shall be for the last preceding school year, and shall include:

(a)  A statement of the number of public schools in the state, the number of pupils attending the schools, their sex, and the branches taught;

(b)  A statement of the number of teachers employed, their sex, their professional training, and their average salary;

(c)  A statement of the receipts and disbursements of public school funds of every description, their sources, and the purposes for which they were disbursed;

(d)  Suggestions for the improvement of public schools; and

(e)  Any other information relative to the educational interests of the state that the law requires or the board deems important;

(11)  Make an annual report to the general assembly and the governor concerning coordination with other agencies and departments of government that support family literacy programs and other services which influence educational attainment of children of all ages;

(12)  Require from the chief officer of each division of the department of elementary and secondary education, on or before the thirty-first day of August of each year, reports containing information the board deems important and desires for publication;

(13)  Cause fifty copies of its annual report to be reserved for the use of each division of the state department of elementary and secondary education, and ten copies for preservation in the state library;

(14)  Promulgate rules under which the board shall classify the public schools of the state; provided that the appropriate scoring guides, instruments, and procedures used in determining the accreditation status of a district shall be subject to a public meeting upon notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each of the three most populous cities in the state and also a newspaper that is a certified minority business enterprise or woman-owned business enterprise in each of the two most populous cities in the state, and notice to each district board of education, each superintendent of a school district, and to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president pro tem of the senate, and the members of the joint committee on education, at least fourteen days in advance of the meeting, which shall be conducted by the department of elementary and secondary education not less than ninety days prior to their application in accreditation, with all comments received to be reported to the state board of education;

(15)  Have other powers and duties prescribed by law.

Looking For Bureaucratic Efficiencies in All the Wrong Places

Posted on by David Stokes

There is a famous joke about the State Department. Whenever a president asks the State Department for options on a diplomatic matter, the State Department always gives the same three options:

  • Nuclear War
  • Total Surrender
  • Recommended State Department policy

The understanding of the joke is that whatever policy or ideas elected officials want to enact, it is the government employees—the bureaucrats—who have to carry it out. Too often, the bureaucrats carry it out in a manner that benefits them, not the elected officials or the public. (I care more about the latter.)

The City of St. Louis is experiencing a problem like that right now, with its efforts to combine its three 911 systems into one. Consolidating 911 centers should be one of the low-hanging fruits for service sharing among local governments. There are numerous examples of it benefitting communities in Missouri. Unfortunately, while many efforts have succeeded, a few have been stalled due to resistance from local bureaucrats.

The problems in St. Louis are all the more confusing because this effort is entirely within the same city government. In theory, it should be easier to implement service sharing in one government rather than sharing 911 services across different governments (which isn’t really that hard, either.) But, shockingly, the various city employee unions have thus far been able to stall the reform efforts. The mayor’s plans to consolidate and improve the 911 system have been blocked, thus far, by the unions representing the dispatchers who are currently within different departments. From the article:

One union represents police dispatchers, and another represents EMS and fire dispatchers. The unions have demanded bargaining over any dispatcher cross-training. Uncertainty about which union would represent a combined dispatcher position slowed attempts by Mayor Tishaura Jones and her former public safety director, Dan Isom, to allow dispatchers to handle all types of emergency calls.

The unions complained Jones and Isom’s plans for consolidation were made without consulting them and that the changes in job duties were clearly something that should be covered in contract negotiations. [emphasis mine]

Missouri attempted major public-sector union reforms a few years ago. While some reforms were passed into law, a lawsuit unfortunately led to the reforms being overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court.

St. Louis has public sector unions delaying improvements to a system that would improve the city’s currently terrible 911 system and spend tax dollars more efficiently. But hey, fiefdoms have to be protected, right?

FDR was right about public sector unions. They shouldn’t exist.

It Is Time to Restore Trust in Missouri’s Public Education System

Posted on by James V. Shuls

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

Trust is foundational to any healthy school learning community. This is because schooling is an inherently personal affair. It is the shaping of minds, the forming of character, and a form of job preparation. And at its heart, it is relational. This is why the results of the recent public comment session for Missouri’s proposed social-emotional learning (SEL) standards are so troubling. They make it clear that many Missourians have lost trust in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

The proposed SEL standards, which are divided into “Me,” “We,” and “Others” categories, attempt to get to the heart of student character and conduct. They include things like setting and achieving attainable goals, effective teamwork, and empathy for others. Generally, these are values that almost every parent wants for their children. Yet when DESE polled Missourians about the standards, the responses were deeply troubling.

When looking at the responses from parents and community members, little more than half (50.4%) were supportive of the “Me” standards. The other two standards areas failed to receive support from even half of those responding. In the “Others” category, which included “respect, kindness, and civility while treating others with dignity and respect,” just 46.2% of parents and community members expressed support for the standards.

Why would roughly half of Missourians not support standards that attempt to promote positive character traits? The only plausible answer is that many parents and community members simply don’t trust DESE.

Some may point to sensational social media posts or outlandish rhetoric as the culprit for the lack of trust. While it is true that issues may get blown out of proportion on these platforms, DESE and the State Board of Education bear much of the blame in this case. For too long, they have operated without any meaningful accountability. They have made promises and failed to deliver, have pushed policy proposals without the support of the people, and they have acted, at times, without statutory authority. Three examples, including the proposed SEL standards, make this clear.

Do you remember the “Top 10 by 2020” initiative? No? Well, that’s because DESE memory-holed that initiative. It was a lofty goal to move Missouri to the top of the national rankings. It was a colossal failure. Not only did we not move to the top, we moved down in most rankings. As we did, DESE acted as if the initiative had never existed.

Consider also the state’s adoption of Common Core State Standards. Without public support, DESE and the State Board jettisoned our standards and with them the state’s standardized exams. That shift launched Missouri schools into a tumultuous decade that has seen bitter fights over state academic standards and continuous changes to state testing regimes. In 2011, Missouri’s proficiency standards were rated the eighth most rigorous in the country by Education Next. By 2017, the same publication rated Missouri 48th in the country. In one of the few areas in which we actually were in the top 10, the rigor of our academic standards, DESE and the State Board of Education led us to the bottom of the barrel.

Recently DESE promoted social-emotional learning standards. As if their track record wasn’t bad enough, they did so without proper authority. When DESE began this process, they listed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri as justification for implementing the SEL standards. Then, after I noted this statute had nothing to do with SEL standards, DESE began listing new statutory authority on documents, specifically Section 161.092. This statute is about the “power and duties of the state board.” Once again, the statute has nothing to do with standards or social-emotional learning. In other words, they were grasping at straws to justify a proposal that they have no statutory authority to make or implement.

If many Missourians do not trust DESE to teach their children about good character or social-emotional learning, maybe it’s because DESE has failed to lead responsibly for far too long.

The State Board of Education rejected the SEL standards at their last board meeting, citing the negative feedback. This was the right move, and it could be seen as a first step toward regaining the trust of Missouri parents and community members. At that same board meeting, Commissioner of Education Margie Van Deven stated that she will be stepping down at the end of the school year. This provides the State Board with a terrific opportunity to take the next step: finding a commissioner of education who is able to restore the public’s confidence in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The Future of Missouri’s Workforce with Susan Pendergrass

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Zach Lawhorn speaks to Susan Pendergrass, director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, about her new report The Future of Missouri’s Workforce.

Read the full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Application Deadline for Close the Gap Grant is Almost Here

Posted on by Avery Frank

The application deadline for Missouri’s Close the Gap Grant Program is quickly approaching. The law was passed back in 2022, but after finally solving some logistical hurdles, the program is up and running. Parents have until October 23 to apply for a one-time grant of up to $1,500 to spend on education expenses.

So, what exactly is the “Close the Gap Grant”?

Close the Gap is a one-time grant paid to families with students enrolled in Missouri public schools—those in private school or homeschool are not eligible to receive these funds. With these tax-exempt funds, parents can pay for:

  • Tutoring services
  • Academic/summer camps
  • Educational materials
  • Computer equipment
  • Internet connectivity
  • Learning-relating subscriptions
  • Software to support educational activities
  • Before- and after-school programs
  • Study skills services
  • Costs associated with college credit for AP, dual credit, dual enrollment, ITV (instructional television), and international baccalaureate
  • Art enrichment lessons (such as piano, singing, or dancing lessons)

Additionally, because this program was supposed to be up and running last year, parents can also request reimbursement for an allowable service or product they purchased since July 1, 2022.

After all the applications are received, grant awards will be divvied out to families below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. If there are surplus funds still available (which there could be from the $75 million budget), applicants above the stated poverty level will receive grant awards. Parents will be notified regarding the amount of their grant reward starting on November 1st. For the awardees, grant funds do not roll over and must be used by June 1, 2024. These funds are a one-time payment; these payments are not recurring and are only available for this year. Unless Missouri finds a way to carve out new funding to continue this program, there will be no grant in 2024–2025—this grant comes from emergency federal COVID relief funds in 2022.

Who is administering this program?

An organization called Odyssey will be administrating the program. The founder of Odyssey previously founded SchoolHouse, an at home micro-school company. Odyssey is a startup that manages education scholarship accounts (ESAs) and microgrant programs. Odyssey will handle basically everything required for the Close the Gap grants: all application management, marketing and outreach, marketplace creation, payments, and customer support.

Odyssey will have an online marketplace with listed vendors where individuals can see all allowable education services and products. Along with a marketplace, the Odyssey Parent Portal will also have a tab to upload receipts for reimbursement.

With the deadline quickly approaching, make sure to sign up and get your grant award now.

College Readiness Declines

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

ACT, the organization that administers one of the most widely used college entrance exams, just released the scores for last spring’s graduating class and the results are troubling. Scores are down nationally and in Missouri. As a reminder, this is the class of students who were freshmen when schools closed in 2020 and most likely spent at least part of their sophomore year trying to learn remotely. We now know that this was not successful for very many students and these data confirm that.

Nationally, the average composite ACT score fell from 19.8 in 2022 to 19.5 in 2023. Prior to 2022, scores hadn’t been below 20.0 in more than thirty years. In Missouri, scores fell from 20.3 to 19.8, the lowest average composite score for the state since 2000. Missouri’s average was near that point (19.86) in 2018 when the test was required for all students, whether they intended to go to college or not. That is no longer the case. Last year, 66 percent of graduating students took the exam.

So, what does this mean? As predicted, students who were at “important” points in their K-12 education are in real trouble. Nearly 40 percent of Missouri’s 3rd graders (kindergartners in Spring 2020) scored below Basic in reading last year, meaning they don’t even have a partial understanding of the subject. They missed a critical window to develop a skill that is fundamental to their future success in school.

The same can now be said of students who were starting high school. They are, as a group, less ready for postsecondary education. This has implications for their lives as well as the quality of the Missouri workforce. Our state leaders should be addressing this as the crisis that it is. It should be a policy priority. They should be talking about it routinely. Is that what you’re seeing or hearing?

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