An Update on MOSchoolRankings

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The Show-Me Institute has added 2021–22 academic data to the MOSchoolRankings.org website. Now, users can see three years of academic data and grades for every public school, district and public charter school in the state. But let’s take a minute to address a couple of issues and likely questions. The math is a bit complicated, but for those who are interested, here are the details on how we calculate expected scores for schools.

What has changed? For the most part, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) data have stayed consistent from year to year. The only difference is in the growth measurement. In the past, DESE changed the growth data to be centered on the number 50, and school (or district) performance was measured as national curve equivalents (NCES) above or below 50, plus an indication as to whether a school’s (or district’s) score was statistically significantly different than the state average of 50. In 2021–22, DESE changed the measurement so that it is centered on 0 and a school’s (or district’s) score is the number of standard deviations above or below 0, plus an indication as to whether the score is statistically significantly different than 0. To the user, however, the most important components are the sign (positive or negative) and the significance indicator (yes or no). These indicate whether the students in a school or district achieved more than average or less than average academic growth in one academic year.

The measures of expected rates in proficiency in English/language arts (ELA) and math are adjusted each year. This is done by taking rates of proficiency in all schools (or districts) for that subject and the percentage of low-income students in each school or district and calculating the relationship between the two using simple linear regression. The resulting intercept (where the resulting line crosses 0) is the rate of proficiency expected in a school with 0% low-income enrollment. The slope of the line indicates how much that expected rate of proficiency declines with each one percent increase in low-income enrollment. These two numbers (the intercept and the slope) were then used to predict rates of proficiency for each school (or district) based on its percentage of low-income students. The expected score is compared to the actual score to see if a school (or district) did better than expected or worse than expected. The slope and intercept are recalculated each year based on that year’s scores.

What hasn’t changed? When this project was launched, using 2018–19 data, we calculated grade intervals for 10 indicators and committed to using the same grade intervals every year. This would allow us to see if schools (or districts) are getting progressively better over time. So, for example, for a school to get an “A” in ELA proficiency, it had to have between 72 percent and 90 percent of its students score proficient or higher. To get an “F,” it had to have 0–18 percent proficient or higher. Even though there has been a global pandemic in the meantime, we have stuck with this commitment. And now we can see how the distribution of grades has changed over time.

Looking at the rates of proficiency for ELA at the school level (Figure 1), we can see that in 2018–19 grades were distributed in a fairly normal way, with slightly more D’s than B’s. In 2021–22, the number of B’s and C’s declined, while the number of D’s and F’s increased. Unfortunately, that trend continued in 2021–22, with the plurality of schools receiving D’s.

Figure 1

The same is not true for math, however (Figure 2). It appears that schools have recovered somewhat since the pandemic and the grade distribution looks more like it did three years ago.

Figure 2

There is much that can still be learned from the wealth of data that now exists on MOSchoolRankings. org. We welcome any user feedback or questions.

A “Scheme” Worth Looking Into

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

It’s no secret that Medicaid costs are through the roof. But what if I told you there’s a federal program that’s helping them stay that way? Fortunately, there’s a new effort to shine a light on hospitals abusing the Medicaid financing arrangement to help keep their prices sky high.

For years, I’ve written about Missouri’s reliance on Medicaid “provider taxes” and their role in paying for government-funded health care services. As costs have increased, states have become increasingly reliant on these extra taxes, because they help prop up Medicaid spending by essentially shifting some of the share paid with state tax dollars to the federal government. While this may sound appealing, Missouri’s expected spending on Medicaid has never been higher (nearly $17 billion this year). Provider taxes are a big reason for that, as they make up more than a quarter of all nonfederal Medicaid spending.

As the graphic below shows, provider taxes aren’t like normal taxes, because they essentially allow different health care providers to exploit the way Medicaid is financed and extract additional federal dollars to help keep their Medicaid rates higher. Beneficiaries of these taxes, (i.e. hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, and others) claim they’re one of the only taxes where everyone wins. Well, everyone except for federal taxpayers—which of course includes Missouri state taxpayers as well.

Joe Biden, when he was Vice President, called provider taxes a “scam.” Essentially every audit, congressional report, or presidential administration that looks at these things concludes that they should be seriously scaled back or ended for good. And if that ever happens, Missouri is in serious trouble. Our state is one of the most heavily reliant on this financing gimmick in the country.

Now, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any major federal changes to provider taxes because that would require Congress to make a concerted effort at deficit reduction. But the Biden administration’s new effort to look a little more closely at how states are spending these extra federal dollars warrants greater attention. Since 2002, Missouri has allowed the state’s hospitals to essentially manage its provider tax revenues themselves, with little transparency regarding how or where those funds are being spent. It’s possible a little sunlight might help find some opportunities for savings, or at least give Missouri the kick it needs to start weaning itself off this unsustainable funding source.

If health care costs are going to continue their upward trajectory and Medicaid is going to remain the state’s largest budget item, efforts to rein in spending and root out waste will be necessary and should be encouraged. It’s long past time someone gave a closer look at the provider tax “scam.” I just hope Missouri is ready for what the increased scrutiny might expose.

Teachers Need Advancement Opportunities, Not Just Professional Development

Posted on by James V. Shuls

According to the Missouri Independent, a “Blue ribbon commission on teacher recruitment” told the “state board of education that educators need professional development opportunities.” That line caught my attention. As someone who has worked in and around the public education sector for nearly twenty years, I think we need to be clear about what we mean here. There is no lack of professional development for educators—what they really need are professional advancement opportunities.

Think of it this way. When someone enters the teaching field after graduating from college, they are called “teacher.” Over the next 30 years, they can get a master’s degree, a specialist degree, or even a doctoral degree. They may attend numerous professional development sessions every year. When they retire, they may still be called “teacher.”

There are no ranks. There are no promotions. There are no steps to career advancement. The only pay raises they will receive will be based on getting additional degrees and each year of experience.

Compare this to higher education. At the higher education level, you may enter as a teaching or research professor not on a tenure track or on a tenure track. Typically, a new professor is called an “assistant” professor. After a few years, the professor can be promoted to “associate” professor and eventually to “full” professor. There are also prized “endowed professor” positions. In short, there are tiers to the profession.

This is not to say higher education is the pinnacle of excellence that should be modeled in every circumstance. Rather, this simply demonstrates the key differences between K-12 teaching and most other fields. In most public school districts, there is no room for advancement within the teaching profession. The only way to advance is to leave the classroom by becoming a principal, superintendent, or something else.

We can imagine a system where teachers are recognized for their performance in the classroom and rewarded in title and in compensation. Teachers need a system that recognizes and rewards excellence—call it merit pay, if you will. They need the opportunity to grow, to excel, and to be rewarded. That is the type of advancement opportunity teachers need. With that said, we should be wary of attempts to create a centralized advancement system from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) or the legislature. The state should empower local communities and local school leaders to develop routes for advancement for their teachers. Centrally imposed systems often become bureaucratic hoops to jump through. Local school leaders may be more motivated to create meaningful advancement opportunities. But this sort of reform surrounding advancement is what we should be focusing on—not red herrings about professional development.

Should More Missouri Students Be Held Back?

Posted on by Avery Frank

Around the country, states are considering implementing policies that would hold back a larger number of 3rd graders who are struggling to read. Currently, 17 states require students who score below a minimum threshold on a standardized test to be retained in 3rd grade, where they will receive focused intervention. In light of Missouri 3rd graders’ recent disheartening Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores, should policymakers explore increasing 3rd-grade retention?

Mississippi (which typically holds back between 4–10 percent of third graders) is viewed as a successful model for this type of retention policy. Started in 2013, the Mississippi policy requires a sufficient score on the state English/language arts assessment or on either of the two retest opportunities (with certain exceptions made for English-language learning students and students with disabilities). This strategy is rooted in the idea that students need to receive a firm foundation in reading before advancing to higher grades. Mississippi has seen its efforts pay off—between 2013 and 2019, the state’s 4th-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) rose by 10 points, while the national average decreased by 1. Mississippi moved from rank 49th to 29th in 4th-grade reading over this time period.

There are also drawbacks to this policy. For students who are trying hard and get left behind, this can be a very tough social situation. Having friends go on to the next grade means the student left behind has less interaction with friends—different classes, different sports teams, different lunch schedules, and more. This can be demoralizing for a student. In Mississippi, students can be held back for up to two years before automatically advancing to the next grade. Kids being potentially two years older than their peers can create awkward social situations and increase bullying. You could be driving a car in 8th grade, be an 18-year-old sophomore, or be a 20-year-old senior. One concern is that being 18 as a junior or sophomore may increase drop-out rates. However, Mississippi actually reached an all-time high in its high school graduation rate in 2022—rising from 74.5 percent in 2014 to 88.9 percent.

Can families bear these unconventional social situations in order for their children to succeed in school? Mississippi has seen drastic improvement in both scores and graduation rates since implementing its reading policy. Missouri’s 3rd-grade scores—and frankly all of our state’s test scores— indicate drastic action is needed. Implementing a reading policy such as Mississippi’s may be a good place to start.

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Pay for Your Own Stadium

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Yesterday I wrote about an interview I did with KMBC 9 on the Royals’ latest announcement that they had new renderings and “economic impact” details for their new proposed stadium. What makes the subject especially contentious among civic leaders is that the Royals are debating between two sites in the region—one in downtown Kansas City in Jackson County, and one in the inner-ring suburb of North Kansas City in Clay County. The Royals didn’t announce any news on that decision this week, which will likely be made at the end of September when the season ends.

That said, I should make and reiterate a few points about the Royals’ stadium issue, now that it’s back in the news.

There is a bit of deja vu here, of course; about this time in 2022, I was talking about a potential move for the Chiefs, whose lease at the Truman Sports Complex ends when the Royals does. But the takeaway now with the Royals is the same as it was with the Chiefs—sports teams should pay for their playthings themselves. The Royals may be the kings of Kauffman, but when it comes to sovereign action in the real world, public officials should reject spending tax dollars on anything but legitimate responsibilities of government. Subsidizing sports teams isn’t one of those responsibilities.

Show-Me Talks Royals Stadium Move on KMBC

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

This week, the Kansas City Royals unveiled their latest renderings for two potential new stadia sites—one in Kansas City proper, and one in North Kansas City, which is a different municipality. They also unveiled some new figures for what the team believes will be the “economic impact” of both the construction and operation of the ballpark, wherever it might be. As our readers might have already guessed, the magnitude of that number starts with a “B,” as in billions. The team is essentially promising taxpayers that “all of your wildest dreams will come true.”

I had the opportunity to sit down with Jackson Kurtz at KMBC Channel 9 in Kansas City after the Royals finished their press conference and give him my views on the situation. I’ll have more to say on the Royals tomorrow, but in the meantime, here’s the story we were a part of that ran earlier this week.

Problems with Paperwork

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

If they knew they didn’t have to, would anyone do paperwork?

Over the past few months, I’ve talked a lot about Missouri resuming its Medicaid eligibility redetermination process. In short, during a three-year pause on eligibility checks, Missouri experienced enormous Medicaid enrollment and cost growth. Today, more than 20% of all enrollees are likely ineligible for the program, either because they make too much money, have coverage from their employer, or have moved out of state. This means that Missouri is wasting upwards of $120 million each month footing the bill for health coverage for people who aren’t qualified to receive it.

Missouri’s Medicaid agency is now two months into processing redeterminations and enrollment has finally started dropping, albeit slowly. Recent reports from both national and local news outlets are attributing the enrollment decline to “paperwork issues.” In my opinion, this characterization is incredibly misleading.

States classify anyone who fails to respond to a renewal application as being removed from the program for “procedure reasons.” This is being referred to as “paperwork issues” by some. This is in contrast to the other classification of individuals removed from the program—those who were “determined ineligible.” The problem is that if the state never hears back from an enrollee after repeated attempts to confirm their eligibility, they can only be removed from the program for “procedure reasons” because there wasn’t enough information to determine their eligibility one way or another. Calling all failures to respond to the state Medicaid eligibility checks “paperwork issues” misses a key point.

Someone who knows they no longer qualify for coverage is incredibly unlikely to go through the effort of filling out and returning the Medicaid renewal application. For years, individuals on essentially every welfare program (including Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [food stamps], and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have been required to inform the state when something changes that would make them ineligible for services, but they rarely do. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 5 million Medicaid enrollees nationally are currently enrolled in private health coverage, meaning states are losing billions providing coverage to individuals for whom it’s completely unnecessary.

Most Medicaid rules are biased toward recipients maintaining continuous coverage, which may sometimes be a good thing, but for many people, Medicaid is a resource they only need temporarily. No one is saying that eligible Medicaid enrollees should be removed from the program, but even if that does happen, they’re still effectively covered because the federal government will cover up to three prior months of health costs once they’re determined to be eligible again.

Removing Medicaid recipients who don’t provide evidence of eligibility is a necessary act of fiscal prudence—an act of prudence that, prior to three years ago, was standard, federally mandated operating procedure.

There’s no getting around the fact that more state tax dollars being spent on ineligible Medicaid enrollees means less money for other state spending priorities, such as education and infrastructure. If Missouri’s elected officials ever want a chance at reining in Medicaid’s runaway spending, scrutinizing the program’s rolls must remain part of the equation, and occasional drops in enrollment must be normalized as simply par for the course.

A State at Risk: Education in Missouri

Posted on by Avery Frank

In 1983, the Reagan administration released the results of a nationwide evaluation of America’s education system in a report titled A Nation at Risk. The findings were frightening—so much so, the report stated, that “if an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” A “rising tide of mediocrity” was declared a threat to America’s future.

It’s been 40 years since the report was issued and, in the following decades, Missouri’s education system has struggled to keep its head above that rising tide.

It’s time for our leaders to act.

Missouri Students Are Sadly Still Struggling

Posted on by Avery Frank

Recently, DESE released the preliminary results of the 2023 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), and the results were bad enough to upset the Missouri Board of Education. One member stated, “These numbers are not impressive. They are kind of depressing because nothing changed.” I share these same feelings; it is sad to see over half of our students fail to adequately grasp foundational concepts.

Missouri, along with many other states, is struggling to bounce back to pre-pandemic achievement levels. In Missouri, scores have mostly recovered in math, but our English/language arts (ELA) scores have declined.

Here is a brief overview of the preliminary 2023 MAP results.

Mathematics took a bigger initial dive but has largely bounced back to its pre-pandemic levels. All cohorts of students (3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, etc.,) have gradually recovered in mathematics and had a higher average score in 2023 than they did in 2021. On the other hand, only Missouri 5th graders had a higher average score for ELA in 2023 than they did in 2021. Interestingly, ELA scores are actually decreasing rather than recovering (hopefully the new LETRS program can help).

Particularly concerning are 3rd-grade and middle-school ELA levels, both of which are still much lower than pre-pandemic levels. For 3rd graders, scores slumped in 2021. Even as kids returned to school full time, scores have not increased—but have remained completely stagnant. Missouri’s 6th graders have actually had their scores decrease steadily for four straight years, with scores decreasing even before the pandemic. Compared with other grade cohorts, Missouri 6th graders have the biggest loss between pre- and post-pandemic scores. Additionally, our state’s 7th graders have had their scores drop lower every year since 2021 (8th graders dropped in 2022 and remained steady in 2023). Our middle schoolers are not rebounding from the pandemic, they are actually struggling even more in ELA.

We need drastic actions to address this education emergency. Missouri’s Commissioner of Education claimed that the teacher shortage is impacting student learning as positions are filled with substitutes or left vacant entirely. I agree that there is a teacher shortage in Missouri, but it’s concentrated in specific schools and subject areas. We need major change. Allowing school districts to offer bonuses or higher salaries to recruit and retain high need positions could help fill these roles and make the education system more responsive to the market.

These scores are concerning, but I am hopeful that these “deflating” results might motivate our legislators and districts to bring more freedom and innovation to education in our state.

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