Page 81 – Show-Me Institute

One Way to Actually Do Something about Kansas City Property Taxes

Posted on December 14, 2023January 13, 2026 by David Stokes

Between now and the start of the legislative session, all of my blog entries, social media posts, radio interviews, holiday conversations with family and friends, and random encounters at the mall with total strangers will be dedicated to focusing on ways we can improve municipal policies in Missouri.

I am going to take these one at a time because, frankly, this stuff is so hot I doubt you all can take any more than that. Let’s start with one of the most pressing issues where the voters are actually in charge.

As a relic of Kansas City’s famous school desegregation case, Kansas City 33 School District’s (KCSD) tax rate is managed by the constitution, not statute. Under the Missouri Constitution, article 10, section 11(g), KCSD is exempt from property tax rollbacks when assessments increase, leading to dramatic tax hikes on Kansas City residents in recent years. Trust me when I say that the KCSD has reveled in this fact and ostentatiously kept rates high despite enormous assessment increases during the past three (at least) reassessment cycles.

Here is the exact language:

Operating levy for Kansas City school district may be set by school board. — The school board of any school district whose operating levy for school purposes for the 1995 tax year was established pursuant to a federal court order may establish the operating levy for school purposes for the district at a rate that is lower than the court-ordered rate for the 1995 tax year. The rate so established may be changed from year to year by the school board of the district. Approval by a majority of the voters of the district voting thereon shall be required for any operating levy for school purposes equal to or greater than the rate established by court order for the 1995 tax year. The authority granted in this section shall apply to any successor school district or successor school districts of such school district.

Voters need to repeal this section entirely. That means we need a ballot measure approved either by initiative petition or by the legislature allowing us to vote on a repeal. By repealing this constitutional provision, KCSD’s tax rate would be governed by the same rules as all other taxing jurisdictions in Missouri. That’s all. As assessments increase, rates would roll back at least in part to offset the tax hikes. Voters in the district could, of course, raise the rate if they chose to.

We should care about property tax rates for everyone, not just wealthy suburbanites. The residents of KCSD don’t deserve these constant tax increases. This provision may have been useful a while ago when the desegregation case was ending, but it is no longer needed.

Growing, Growing, Gone

Posted on December 13, 2023January 13, 2026 by Elias Tsapelas

It’s nothing new that Missouri’s state government has a spending problem, but as we head into 2024, there’s fear that this may finally be the year that our elected officials’ penchant for spending breaks the bank.

For years now, I have written about how Missouri’s spending habits will eventually prove unsustainable. As a quick reminder, Missouri has set a new record for the largest budget in state history in each of the past thirteen years. Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023 alone, the state’s total budget nearly doubled, and spending of state income and sales tax dollars grew by more than 42%. In other words, this isn’t a trend that can be explained away as solely a federally fueled phenomenon.

Of course, it is true that over the past few years Missouri has received an enormous influx of federal funds as part of the response to COVID-19 and the large infrastructure bill. But as it always does, the federal government will soon begin winding down its state aid, leaving Missouri’s lawmakers with the difficult task of deciding how to fill the holes that their federal counterparts left behind.

As I explained in my report last year, Saving Federalism¸ government spending typically only grows, and lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are a major reason why this is the case. The most common way the feds have kept perpetually growing spending has been through increased financial support during times of emergency.

During the 2008 recession, and again in recent years, the federal government has offered states generous funding to keep their budgets afloat and help them avoid the need for any service cuts. But at the same time, federal officials create or expand government programs that they have no intention of funding at the same level going forward, knowing full well how difficult it will be for states to pick up more of the bill or scale back the program once the emergency is over. This is exactly what Missouri’s government will begin experiencing in 2024.

As next year’s budget requests for the state’s executive departments show, state taxpayers will need to chip in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to continue funding the services expanded by the federal government’s initiatives. Two of the most expensive examples include further extending Medicaid coverage to individuals who likely don’t qualify for the program, and continuing rate increases with state taxpayer dollars for federally subsidized child care that go beyond what the federal government will cover. To be clear, these are dollars that would otherwise be used to fund Missouri’s—not Washington, D.C.’s—spending priorities.

Making matters worse is that reports indicate that state tax collections are down compared to last year, meaning that Missourians can less afford this added expense than in years past. Going into the 2024 legislative session, it’s clear that reining in the budget should be one of our lawmaker’s top priorities. The first step should be rejecting funding for any effort to make temporary federal programs permanent.

School Choice is Good – Part 2

Posted on December 12, 2023January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

For the past several years, the Missouri Secretary of State has partnered with the Hunt Institute to host the Missouri Legislators Retreat. This is a bi-partisan event created to present various policy ideas and discussions. I was invited to take part in a panel discussion on school choice at this year’s retreat. In framing the discussion, we were provided with two questions to consider. Below is my prepared response to the second question. You can read my response to the first question here.

The impact and effectiveness of school choice programs and policies vary based on multiple factors. What does a theoretical “good version” of legislation related to school choice look like? Are there specific examples you can point to?

Well, if you listened to my opening remarks, it may not be hard to guess what I am going to suggest. Choice is good and we need more of it.

After more than two decades, we don’t have charter schools outside of St. Louis and Kansas City. Why is that? Because our current policy requires charters to seek school district approval if they want to open in a district that is fully accredited. This is like allowing Wal-Mart to decide whether a Dierbergs or a Schnucks can open in its town. When it comes to charter school policy, we must, first off, allow charters to open throughout the state under the sponsorship of a university or the State Charter Commission.

Second, we must allow charter schools to enroll students across district boundaries. The average school district in Missouri has something like 1,500 kids. Part of the challenge with opening a new charter school is attracting students—this is particularly challenging when you are limited to a pool of 1,500. Students should be allowed to move across district lines to attend a charter school.

In fact, all kids should be allowed to move across district lines to attend another public school. This is especially true if your local school district moves to a four-day school week. Did you know that roughly a third of all Missouri school districts are now four-day districts? We have some new research coming out at the Show-Me Institute that you might be interested in. We surveyed 1,200 Missouri parents. You know which group was the most opposed to the four-day school week? Parents who cannot provide reliable childcare for their children—the people who will be most impacted by these decisions. I suggest full open enrollment, but at the very least, moving to a four-day school week should be an automatic trigger for open enrollment.

Close to 70% of Republicans and Democrats alike supported the idea of giving parents the right to transfer to another school district if their school moves to a four-day week. More than 60% supported offering a private school voucher.

When it comes to private school choice, again, we need more of it. Our current tax credit education savings account (ESA) program should be expanded. Now, I’m in favor of the state funding these accounts and providing every family with access to at least the state adequacy amount. We can look to Arizona and Florida as models. But I understand expansion is often incremental and there are incremental changes we can make with our current program. Here, the state needs to do three things:

First, remove all geographic limitations. There is no reason a student should be denied access to a scholarship account because they live just over a county line.

Second, increase eligibility. The program should be as near to universal as possible. Every parent should have the ability to send their children to the school of their choice.

I suppose those first two are really the same thing—increase access.

Third, we should increase the average scholarship amount. Opponents of school choice are funny in this regard. They remind me of that old quote by Woody Allen, “The food is bad and the portions are small.” They say “vouchers are bad . . . and the voucher amounts are too small.” Well, I may not be able to change their opinion on vouchers, but we can work to increase the amount!

Currently, we peg the scholarship amount to the state adequacy target, which is approaching $7,000. Yet, in public schools we weight the funding formula. We provide additional funds for special needs students, students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. We even weight the formula for places with higher cost of living. The ESA program should be allowed to do the same thing. A student with special needs or a student from a poor family should be eligible for more funds in this program, just as they are in public schools.

The bottom line is this—we should continue to push for expansion of school choice programs until every child in this state has multiple educational options. No child should have to attend their local public school because they cannot access another school. They should attend their local public school only if it is the right choice for them.

Beyond Reagan and Thatcher: The Future of Supply Side Economics

Posted on December 11, 2023January 13, 2026 by Aaron Hedlund

On November 30, Show-Me Institute hosted a virtual town hall on the future of supply-side economics beyond the legacies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Patrick Minford and Aaron Hedlund shared their insights and perspectives on the past, present, and future of supply-side economics, and answered audience questions.

Listen to the Event as a Podcast

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

School Choice Is Good – Part 1

Posted on December 11, 2023January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

From each of your specific vantage points, what are the most important things for Missouri policymakers to consider when it comes to school choice?

Thank you Dr. Siddiqi for the question and thank you to the Hunt Institute, the secretary of state’s office and the planning committee for putting on this important event. It is an honor to be with you today talking about a topic that I am very passionate about–school choice.

The question asks about the most important things for you to consider when it comes to school choice. And I think there is nothing more important than this—choice is good. It is inherently good.

Now let me make sure you don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying private schools are inherently good and public schools are bad. I am a product of Missouri public schools. I went to K-12 in the Meramec Valley School District. I then took my bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Missouri Southern and Missouri State, both in elementary education. It was during this time, while I was teaching first grade in the Republic School District, that I became a supporter of school choice.

Yet, when I looked around at my students, at my colleagues, and at my community I was met with the unmistakable realization that the local public school is not right for everyone. It does not and cannot meet the needs of every student and the desires of every family.

Republic, coincidentally, will be playing for its first state football championship on Friday. Go Tigers. Now, I was a soccer player, but even I can see the beauty of a town rallying around a football team. Public schools are, in many cases, the lifeblood of a community and they provide a valuable service. We can’t dismiss that.

So let me come back to what I started with—school choice is good. I do not mean that it is good because it will lead to better academic outcomes, although I think it will, and I think there is evidence for that. Rather, I mean that educational freedom—the ability to choose your children’s school is a good thing in and of itself.

We have grown accustomed to talking about education policies as utilitarian tools to something else. The science of reading is good because it leads to better reading acquisition. Trades programs are good because they prepare students for meaningful trades in the workplace. This policy or that policy is good because it will lead to increased test scores.

If we did look at school choice this way, we might say:

School choice is good, because, on average, there are small academic benefits for participants.

School choice is good, because 26 of 29 studies showed that these policies led to positive competitive effects for those not participating in the program.

School choice is good because parents love these programs.

All of that is true, but it is the wrong way to look at school choice. We might say school choice is good AND it does those things.

School choice is about empowering parents to make the best decisions for their children. It is about equipping individuals with their constitutional rights and with freedom of conscience to direct the upbringing of their kids. This isn’t a left issue or a right issue—it is a human issue. School choice is about freedom.

Now look, we don’t say “Free speech is good because it will lead to . . .” or “The ability to vote is good because it will lead to . . .” We say “free speech is good, therefore people should have it.” “The ability to vote is good, therefore citizens should have it.”

Educational freedom is good; therefore, people should have it.

Choice allows every parent to decide what is best for their kids and their family.

Brenda Talent: How to Move Missouri Forward in 2024

Posted on December 7, 2023January 13, 2026 by Brenda Talent

On December 7, 2023, Brenda Talent joined Mike Ferguson in the Morning on NewsTalkSTL to discuss the 2024 Blueprint: Moving Missouri Forward.

Download the 2024 Blueprint here.

The 2024 Blueprint: Moving Missouri Forward explores 16 policy areas in which common-sense reform could immediately and positively impact everyday life for Missourians. Issues covered range from education and health care to unemployment insurance and budget reform. Each article identifies a problem that affects the citizens of our state, provides background information and analysis, proposes one or more solutions, and then boils the solutions down into actionable recommendations. We believe that the proposals our policy team has assembled can put Missouri on the path to a healthier economy, a better public education system, and a more vibrant and flourishing civil society.

Watch: A Blueprint for Missouri in 2024

Posted on December 6, 2023January 13, 2026 by Show-Me Institute Staff

Download the 2024 Blueprint for Missouri here

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023, the Show-Me Institute hosted a Virtual Town Hall outlining the 2024 Blueprint for Missouri. Watch a recording of the event here.

Listen to the event as a podcast:

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Well, that Was Fast

Posted on December 6, 2023January 13, 2026 by Susan Pendergrass

Recently, the commissioner of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) announced that she would be departing her post next summer. For context, DESE is an organization with a $10 billion annual budget and 1,500 employees. It is currently facing the rough waters of declining test scores and declining enrollment, both of which began long before the global pandemic. However, since the pandemic, the crisis of chronic absenteeism and a looming “fiscal cliff” (due to expiring federal stimulus cash flows) have been added to the list of DESE’s challenges.

One would guess that the state board of education would spend the time between the commissioner’s retirement announcement and her June departure looking for a strong leader—ideally one with management skills honed in a similar-sized organization. This leader could bring a fresh perspective and take a hard look at what is going wrong and what is going right in Missouri public education. Perhaps this person would even question the board’s meaningless accreditation this week of all 523 school districts in the state, with the exception of six—even those with fewer than 1 in 10 students able to do grade-level reading or math. Finding this leader should entail a thorough search for and vetting of candidates.

Did the board do that? It did not. Without any public discussion that is readily available on the internet, it seemingly tapped a new commissioner with little to no search in behind-closed-doors meetings. The new commissioner is a former DESE assistant commissioner and a current state Senator. She served as superintendent of two rural districts in Missouri. Regardless of flaws in the search process, she deserves a chance to demonstrate if she can be the leader we need, or not.

The Missouri Board of Education had an opportunity to build public support for its commissioner choice. The board had an opportunity to signal that it would at least consider a potential change agent or someone from outside of the Missouri public education establishment. It could have avoided the questions regarding whether a sitting state Senator should vote on bills or budgets that impact her future role as leader of a department in the executive branch. Time, due diligence, and transparency could have worked in the board’s favor. Why were those elements ignored?

Looking at the Tape on the Clayton/Brentwood Football Merger

Posted on December 1, 2023January 13, 2026 by Avery Frank

The Missouri high-school football playoffs have me feeling sentimental about the “good ole days” of Friday night lights. While we never could get over the state semi-final hump, the memories and lessons from my time on the team will last a lifetime. With the state football championships taking place this weekend, I pray for high-quality games, protection from injuries, and that the remaining teams will be proud of all they have accomplished this year. These playoffs have been filled with many ups and downs for students across the state, but for one particular team (which was recently eliminated), the path to the playoffs itself was remarkable.

This year with declining enrollment, Brentwood did not have enough participation to field a football team on their own, meaning that would-be players and their supporters would miss out on a beloved experience. When I saw Brentwood and Clayton were going to merge their football teams, I was excited that these students would be able to play this great sport.

Missouri is seeing population and enrollment declines, which can mean fewer sports teams, fewer elective classes, and other missed opportunities. What Brentwood and Clayton did is admirable. Clayton did not have to share its resources, and Brentwood could have just told everyone there would be no football team this year. However, these two districts came together with the interests of the students in mind, and hopefully more useful collaborations like this will take root in our state.

Building on this example, here are some ways districts can share with each other:

Sharing facilities and/or fields
Sharing individual classes
- For example, a district with a physics department could offer spots for students who may not have that option in their home districts.
- Even further, if two districts are tight on resources, one could agree to hire a chemistry teacher, while another could hire a physics teacher—pooling and sharing resources to create a stronger science program for the region.
Merging sports teams/clubs like Clayton and Brentwood
- Sometimes a district’s constraints aren’t financial, but rather have to do with the actual number of students who want to participate in a team or activity.
- If a district does not have enough participation in a football team, robotics team, band, debate club, etc.; forming a shared program can provide an opportunity for students to make new friends and do something they love in their formative years.
Sharing students through open enrollment
- Perhaps a student wants to transfer to a smaller school to receive more one-on-one time with his teachers, or more playing time on the football field.
- Or perhaps a student wants to learn from a state-renowned coach, or he or she is drawn to more bustling school environments.

A happier student body can build a stronger community. All students deserve the chance to thrive, and parents should have the choice to send their children to the school which will best serve their needs.

The Clayton-Brentwood football team is inspiring. The team made a solid run into the playoffs, winning two games before falling to Lutheran North in the third round. Two programs that were struggling in different ways put their reservations aside and came together for the betterment of their students. Clayton coach Doug Verby put it like this, “We joked that as long as the adults don’t mess it up, the kids will do just fine. That’s pretty much the way it’s gone. The players just want to play football.”

As adults, we must always remember that education policy should revolve around the betterment of our students. A Clayton student summed up his new experience nicely, “We didn’t know each other, and we’d never played together before. It took a while, but we’ve formed a brotherhood and we’re starting to play like a real football team.”

Policies like open enrollment, sharing classes/programs, or merging teams are needed—especially in a time where enrollment and participation is shrinking, and families want more opportunities. There may even be times when districts should merge and share a superintendent. Let Clayton and Brentwood’s football team serve as an example of what putting students first can do in a community.

Listen to the Event as a Podcast

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.