Expanding the VIP List for Charter School Eligibility

Posted on by Avery Frank

In Missouri, only a select few are eligible for the VIP status of charter school eligibility. The “bouncer” until recently only had two names on his clipboard: St. Louis City Public School District and Kansas City Public Schools. For a charter school to exist, it must have a sponsor. Sponsors must be one of the following: a public four-year university, a community college, a private university, a technical school, a local school board, or the Missouri Charter Public School Commission.

For accredited districts (districts that meet the academic standards set by the state), only the local school board can sponsor a charter school. This has served as a formidable roadblock to charter school formation, as no accredited district has sponsored a charter school. However, if a school district is unaccredited (districts that fail to meet the standards set by the state) for three consecutive years, or has been provisionally accredited for three consecutive years, any of the other entities mentioned in the above paragraph can sponsor a charter school. Recently, the Missouri Charter Public School Commission created a charter school called the Leadership School in the provisionally accredited Normandy Schools Collaborative.

While the Missouri Legislature is most likely not thinking of charter schools in terms of nightclubs, the prospect of charter school expansion is being discussed to make the list less exclusive. Senate Bill (SB) 304 would allow charter schools to be created in any municipality with a population of more than 30,000 or any school district located within a county with a charter form of government. If SB 304 passed, charter schools could be established in:

  • All currently eligible districts
  • School districts in the following counties: St. Louis, Jackson, St. Charles, Jefferson, and Clay (a sponsor from a state-approved entity would be required)
  • School districts in municipalities with more than 30,000 residents, which currently includes: Cape Girardeau, Jefferson City, Joplin, Springfield, and Columbia (a sponsor from a state-approved entity would be required)

SB 304 would be a solid first step to give parents outside of St. Louis and Kansas City more options. Columbia is a good example of a city whose residents could benefit greatly from this bill. In Columbia , English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics scores are below the state average—students in the district currently have 43.8% and 30.8% proficiency rates, respectively. Low-income students are particularly struggling, with rates of 24% and 13.1% in ELA and mathematics—around 7 points below the state average for low-income students. With these scores in mind, maybe a family in Columbia wants a charter school because it is unsatisfied with the instruction in the local district. Perhaps a low-income family could find a charter school that specializes in instruction for low-income students. Charter schools can provide these needed alternative options for Columbia families, and SB 304 would make it possible.

Charter schools of various types (classical, English as a second language, low-income, etc.) have opened in Kansas City and St. Louis. One school, University Academy, has been named a “Blue Ribbon School” (an honor bestowed by the U.S. Department of Education for schools that exemplify excellence). Families across the state want and need more options. Missouri is a diverse state, and families deserve a diverse array of options to cater to their children’s needs and hold education institutions accountable.

A New Economic Playbook with Allison Schrager

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Allison Schrager about inflation, the Federal Reserve’s next move in light of panic in the banking sector, how supply-side reforms can boost the economy, and more.

Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a City Journal contributing editor, where her research focuses on public finance, pensions, tax policy, labor markets, and monetary policy. She is also the author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel and co-founder of LifeCycle Finance Partners, LLC, a risk advisory firm.

Read Allison and Brian’s report: New Economic Challenges, New Supply-Side Playbook: How Congress Can Fight the Next Recession

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Short-Term Rentals, Long-Term Taxes

Posted on by David Stokes

Kansas City and Springfield both have hotel tax proposals on their April ballots. In neither case do they propose raising the hotel tax (dare to dream that this were the case for all tax increase votes). Instead, they are seeking to expand the imposition of hotel taxes to short-term rentals, such as Airbnb, Vrbo, and that neighbor lady down the street who rents spare rooms out to minor league hockey players like in Youngblood.

Expanding the tax base makes for good tax policy, and equalizing the tax difference between competitors is also good policy. There is no reason that a hotel should have its guests pay one tax rate while Vrbo guests pay a lower rate. The time period of any theoretical “infant industry” argument is long past. The short-term rental industry is a major part of tourism and hospitality, and it should be treated the same as standard hotels for sales tax purposes.

Of course, I would like to see an expansion of the hotel tax base combined with lowering the tax rate, but saving money for tourists probably isn’t the top priority for local officials. I’ll have to be content with the hope that increased revenue from expanding the hotel tax base will remove pressure to raise the hotel tax rates in the future.

Like marijuana taxes and use taxes, hotel tax expansion can offer a method for new municipal tax revenues in an economically sound fashion. However, cities should not just use these new revenue sources to simply get and spend more money. They can also be used to replace other, more economically harmful taxes. These include local earnings taxes, high commercial property taxes, the ridiculous “economic development” sales tax, and personal property taxes on business equipment. (I am well aware that hotel taxes are usually dedicated to tourism promotion and not as readily exchangeable as use or marijuana taxes, but that is a choice that cities make [and a defensible one], not some order delivered via lightning bolt by Zeus himself that the cities can’t change if they wanted to.)

That would be a trade-off that would truly benefit cities in Missouri.

Will Open Enrollment Create High School Sport Powerhouses?

Posted on by Avery Frank

The Missouri Legislature is currently debating several bills that would create open enrollment for Missouri students. Evaluating open enrollment’s effects on high school sports does matter, as families and student athletes across the state cherish athletics—I still fondly remember high school football games on Friday nights.

Opponents of open enrollment argue that the gap between wealthy and poor schools will grow because of sports—athletes will want to transfer to bigger, wealthier schools that offer better facilities and have more competitive teams. Here’s how a Missouri superintendent put it:

If this bill goes through, we expect to lose 100 or more students. Some will go play softball at Sullivan because they have a state-contending team, some to Union because they have a beautiful gymnasium, and some to Pacific because of their weight room facilities. Our football team was undefeated in . . . the regular season but we’ll lose kids because our facilities are not as nice and we can’t afford to fix that.

Yes, some students will likely transfer to schools with more successful sports programs to improve their athletic careers. However, this already happens. There are plenty of stories of the families of elite athletes moving to a new district, paying for a private school, or receiving a scholarship from a private school. SB5 and HB253, two bills that would create open enrollment, include provisions that restrict transfer students from playing the sport they played at their previous school for 365 days from the date of transfer.

Transfers can also go the opposite way—kids at bigger schools can transfer to smaller schools. Students can transfer to a different school to get playing time, showcase their skills,  play in a system that caters to their strengths, or play for a different coach. For some, winning is not as important as getting to consistently play in front of your friends and family. Sometimes, a player just needs a new environment to enjoy a sport or unlock their full potential.

Iowa has had open enrollment for the past 30 years. A recent Columbia Missourian story quoted Margaret Buckton, professional advocate for Rural School Advocates of Iowa, on the state’s experience with sports and open enrollment:

Buckton said some rural schools would call open enrollment “the savior of their budget” because it has allowed them to afford programs they could not have otherwise. Buckton said many students prefer rural districts because they have smaller class sizes and sports programs, which gives a student a better chance of standing out on a team.

Both common sense and Iowa’s experience tell us that worrying about athletes transferring isn’t a good reason to oppose open enrollment.

To the Beach!

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

It’s mid-March in Missouri and we all know what that means—spring break! The legislature adjourned on Thursday and won’t be back for a week and a half. The good news is that the House got caught up on its homework before everyone left. The House debated and, ultimately, passed a bill (House Bill 253) that will create more education options for Missouri families.

HB 253 is one of the open enrollment bills filed this session and it allows Missouri families to choose a public school other than the one assigned to them based on their address. They can choose a school within their home district or in a different district, provided that the school has an open seat for them. While this bill has many shortcomings, it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, unlike the open enrollment laws in 23 other states, HB 253 lets districts opt out of accepting nonresident students. And while many districts may decide to opt out initially, I’m hopeful that as Missourians get used to trusting parents, most districts will see the benefit of working to attract students. Given that every public school district in St. Louis has experienced declining enrollment in the last few years, those that sit this out will do so at their folly.

The bill was amended so that districts can limit the number of transfers out to three percent of the prior year’s enrollment. This is a nice financial guardrail, districts can use the highest of the last four year’s enrollment for state funding anyway. This gives them several years before they feel any financial pain from exiting students.

Minnesota has had a mandatory open enrollment law since 1989. Remember 1989? George H.W. Bush was sworn in as president and Rain Man won best picture. This is not a new idea. The scary and paradoxical scenario laid out by opponents of the bill that our beloved rural high schools that are the hearts of their communities will also experience heavy student losses hasn’t happened in Minnesota or Wisconsin or Ohio or any other state that has had open enrollment for decades.

When the tanned and rested legislature returns it will be up to the Senate to make open enrollment a reality for Missouri families. I look forward to seeing it happen.

Reinventing Public Education with Paul Hill

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Dr. Paul Hill about his career in education reform, the current state of school choice, and more.

Paul T. Hill is the founder of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and Emeritus Professor at the University of Washington Bothell. His current work focuses on re-missioning states and school districts to promote school performance; school choice and innovation; finance and productivity; and improving rural schools.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The results of the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) 6 have just been released, and they landed with a shrug. MSIP 6 is the accountability system adopted by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the state board of education to rate school districts (and to a much lesser extent schools) and to signal which are performing well and which are not. This author has routinely criticized MSIP 6 and its predecessor, MSIP 5, because they’re complicated and they’re only loosely related to academic performance.

Under MSIP 5, the average district received 96 percent of total possible MSIP points. MSIP 6, to be fair, has a more reasonable distribution. About one fifth of districts did not get the necessary 70 percent of their possible points, making them technically eligible for non-accreditation. Not to worry though – these scores won’t be used to actually rate districts for another year.

Another good aspect of MSIP 6 is that student academic growth actually counts. Under prior MSIPs, it only served as extra credit. Tracking academic growth is critical for students who come to school far behind their peers. It measures if and how quickly they are catching up to grade level. So, while we only have growth scores for students in grades 3–8 and the reporting is a little difficult to understand, at least it counts.

Now for the bad. Academic measures—both for percentages of students scoring on grade level in reading, math, science, and social studies and for student academic growth in reading and math—still only count for less than half of the points. Districts (unfortunately) still have a variety of ways to achieve the maximum points possible, with the highest score being 180. Academic testing is worth a maximum of 48 points for getting students to grade level and 36 points for growth. But having a school improvement plan is worth 30 points and giving a school culture and climate survey is worth 4. How many districts got all 34 of those points? All of them. Graduation rates—which can be gamed—are worth 20 points. How many districts got all 20 points? The answer is 422 out 553.

And, finally, the ugly. The ugly is the MSIP 6 APR report. The APR report assigns districts a number that represents the percentage of possible points earned. The total possible points varies from 152 to 180. How does this help sort out what a district is getting right or wrong? Why does the title have two acronyms? Why can’t districts simply be given letter grades, which all of us understand? Why don’t we have ratings for schools, as well as districts? While we’re trying to figure out what the scores mean, why don’t we ask our leaders for something we can all understand?

Six Ways to Better Understand the DESE Budget

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

How is public education financed in Missouri? How much of a district revenues are generated locally, and how much money is contributed by the the state and federal government? What impact did the COVID stimulus funds have on education financing?

These questions and others are addressed in my latest report, which also presents a program-by-program account of how education dollars are spent in the state. To read the full report, click here.

To supplement the full report, below are six infographics designed to illustrate how billions of dollars flow into public education each year in Missouri, and how they flow out. Where does it come from, and where does it go?

 

 

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