Page 97 – Show-Me Institute

Enthusiastic School Choice Supporters Pack Herzog Foundation Education Rally

Posted on December 30, 2022January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Now that we’re between holidays and recovering from our family get-togethers, I wanted to share with our readers video from the Herzog Foundation’s Education Freedom Rally that I attended and spoke at earlier this month. The rally was put on by the Foundation not only to showcase the importance of school choice broadly, but also to focus on the state’s MoScholars Program, for which Herzog has been a pioneering supporter and resource. My talk, which focuses on our long-standing support for informed school choice, begins at around the 18-minute mark.

Thanks to the Herzog Foundation for the invitation and their enormous contributions to school choice in the state.

Certificate of Need Repeal Must Become a Legislative Priority

Posted on December 29, 2022January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

As our readers are well aware, the last two years have been harrowing from the perspective of public health policy. The coronavirus pandemic immediately altered the way that government interacts with the public in unexpected and almost schizophrenic ways. On the one hand, the potential reach of government medical mandates and lockdowns has never been greater; on the other hand, market-oriented health care policies like licensing reform and scope of practice expansion have been more widely adopted than at any time in recent memory.

But while the jury is still out on whether society-wide lockdowns really work to stop pandemics, the jury is not out on the importance of supply-side health care reforms: supply-side health care reforms work, and they help patients.

Of course, we’ve made this point often, and one reform we have emphasized in particular is Certificate of Need (CON) repeal. In short, a CON law “gives government the power to manage competition in a given industry through the allowance, or disallowance, of new providers, facility expansions, or certain services as defined by the law.”

In Missouri, the health care facilities covered by the state’s CON law include nursing homes and hospitals, and competing hospitals and care centers are included in the process of deciding whether to allow new competitors into their health care markets. The economics here are simple: more competition means more choices, which puts downward pressure on prices. That’s good for customers and their pocketbooks, but naturally, incumbent hospitals and other care centers would rather have less competition.

But just because hospitals and other care centers might not want competition doesn’t mean the government should be empowered to prevent it. Imagine if grocery stores, or gas stations, or restaurants had a say in deciding whether consumers could have new options for groceries, gas and dining. It’d be bizarre, anti-market, and anti-consumer. Yet, this is how large swaths of Missouri’s health care market operate, and this system survives at least in part because most of the public doesn’t realize what’s happening.

Supply-side health care reforms like interstate license reciprocity have both immediate benefits for combatting a pandemic as well as long-term access benefits beyond the pandemic itself, and such a reform was very popular because the benefits were immediate and easily explainable. But it’s important for legislators to start considering long-term supply-side reforms, like CON repeal, that may have been a low priority during the pandemic because the benefits would be slower to materialize. Fortunately, several bills have been filed for 2023 that would repeal the state’s CON law; I hope they fare well in the coming year.

Something that sounds like “hospital construction reform” may be a low priority when people are being exposed to a lethal respiratory disease, but policymakers should prepare our health care system for the (hopefully) vast period of time between now and the next pandemic, when more typical health care needs will need to be met and the price for care will be an acute concern for payers. Competition in health care is a good thing for patients’ wallets, and Missouri should repeal its CON law to ensure the state’s health care market is as competitive as possible.

Open Enrollment for Increasingly Closed Doors

Posted on December 28, 2022January 13, 2026 by Avery Frank

With its recent vote to implement a four-day school week in 2023, the Independence School District joins 146 other Missouri districts serving 74,076 students that already operate under this system. The move means that over 26% of Missouri school districts will be on a four-day school-week schedule next fall. The decision in Independence will affect 13,765 students and could signify the expansion of the trend toward a shortened school week. Up to this point, districts taking this path have been primarily smaller and more rural (the largest: Warren County R-III, with 3,026 students).

Districts have implemented this new schedule to lure teachers to their schools during a supposed teacher shortage. However, Show-Me Institute Distinguished Fellow of Education Policy James Shuls has raised questions about how serious this shortage is (if it exists at all). But even if we were to grant that teacher shortages are a problem that districts need to address, the four-day school week will generate new problems, which could be amended by a complementary policy–open enrollment.

Forcing families to adapt to a four-day school week is a significant change that will be disruptive for many parents—particularly those with younger children—whose employers are more committed to the traditional five-day work week. For families of children using the free/reduced-price lunch program, there may be additional difficulties for finding care and proper nutrition on the extra day off. With that said, parents who work from home or otherwise have the flexibility to accommodate the shorter school week might find that the new policy is a good fit for them. Every family is unique—which is why the Missouri State School Board’s recent interest in the possibility of instituting open enrollment statewide holds so much promise.

Open enrollment would enable parents in Independence and the surrounding districts to decide for themselves which schedule works best for their families. If the four-day school week would create serious problems for a family in the Independence district, the chance to move their children to a nearby district that has classes five days a week could be a lifesaver. Conversely, there are probably families in the area surrounding Independence that would benefit from the four-day schedule if they were allowed to switch districts. With open enrollment, districts can offer options while decision-making power remains with the parents.

In any case, the welfare of the children should be the paramount concern of all involved, and the effect of a 4-day school week on learning remains a subject of controversy. Paul Thompson at Oregon State University recently published a study evaluating the impact of four-day school weeks. He noted the numerous benefits that accompany attending school in-person, including face-to-face interaction with both teachers and peers along with opportunities for structured group activities. On one hand, four-day school weeks reduce these benefits and increase weekend learning loss; some students may be more vulnerable to these effects than others. On the other hand, an additional day off provides extra downtime for students and teachers and increased opportunities for students to spend time outside school with their peers. Acknowledging both the positives and negatives, Thompson finds that if schools maintain the same number of hours of instruction they had in a five-day week, these negative effects (reduction in test scores) are mostly negated (but still exist). However, if instructional time is not maintained, the negative effects are strongly pronounced.

Just like individual families, individual students will handle a four-day school week in different ways; it will be a better fit for some than for others. The trick is matching each family and student with the right schedule, and that’s a job best left to parents. If the trend toward a shorter school week has staying power, we’ll learn more about its long-term effects in the years to come. In the meantime, open enrollment has the potential to maximize its benefits and minimize its shortcomings.

Does the Independence School District Have a Teacher Shortage Problem? 2022 Data Update

Posted on December 27, 2022January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

In a previous post, I presented 2018 and 2020 application and vacancy data from the Independence School District. The data were obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and contain information regarding the number of job openings, applications, and positions left unfilled. In that post, I stated that the data we received were from 2018 to 2021. That was incorrect. The data also contained information for 2022. Unfortunately, we inadvertently dropped those data when we merged the dataset with district demographic data that did not contain 2022.

As I previously discussed, the Independence School District cited teacher shortages as a reason for moving to a four-day school week. My goal in the presentation of application and vacancy data is to give the public a better sense of what Independence means when they say “shortage.”

The 2022 data reveals a clear drop-off in the number of applications for job openings.

In 2018, the district had 2,485 applications for 162 job openings (15.3 applications per vacancy).

In 2020, the district had 1,878 applications for 138 job openings (13.6 applications per vacancy).

In 2022, the number of applications clearly dropped. The district received 967 applications for 161 jobs (6 applications per vacancy).

Per DESE guidelines, the district reports the level of shortage on a 1 to 5 scale, where 4 and 5 indicate shortages. Despite having fewer applications, the district reported fewer areas of shortages (7 certification areas rated 4 or 5, compared to 10 in 2018 and 2020). Just one certification area, industrial technology, was rated as a level 5. The district had 3 applications for 2 job openings, but only 1 application was from an appropriately certified individual.

Despite the decline in applications, the district had zero vacancies left vacant in 2022.

I should note, the district did see an increase in the number of positions filled with individuals who were not appropriately certified. In both 2018 and 2020, the district filled two positions with such teachers. In 2022, the district filled 12 positions with teachers without the appropriate certification.

We should note that “not appropriately certified” is a broad category. It includes, for instance, hiring an individual who is certified to teach high-school math to teach middle-school math where they are not certified. A certified teacher could simply take and pass a certification area test in another area to obtain this additional certification. “Not appropriately certified” may also include individuals who do not have an education degree, but are working toward certification. We do not know the full credentials of the individuals hired by Independence.

The Independence School District is clearly experiencing a decline in the number of applications received. Nevertheless, according to DESE’s definition of a shortage, “fewer applicants than positions available,” the Independence School District did not have one shortage area in 2022.

There are a couple more numbers that readers should consider when considering the severity of the supposed shortage in Independence. From 2018 to 2021, district enrollment declined by 576 students. Yet, the number of full-time equivalent teachers increased by 22.

I repeat the questions asked in my first post. Based on these numbers, what do you think? Does the Independence School District have a teacher shortage? And is that shortage severe enough to justify a move to a four-day school week?

Sunshine Law Applies to Government Journalists, Too

Posted on December 23, 2022January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, is a national group that broadly speaking defends the speech rights of faculty and students in the education setting. In general I’m quite supportive of that mission, but recently FIRE’s agenda has come into conflict with another policy priority, government transparency. FIRE has been surprisingly critical of outgoing Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who has been seeking emails sent to and from journalism professors at the University of Missouri, a public institution subject to the Sunshine Law. It’s an open-and-shut case of government transparency, but FIRE appears to be putting the interests of government employees over those of the public.

A push by the attorney general’s office for the emails of professors and staff at the University of Missouri has academic freedom advocates concerned the office is being weaponized to stifle free speech and deter researchers’ work.

In June, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office sent two records requests to the university….

“When I see these requests, it really makes me worried about how this kind of request for faculty information can be used to burden faculty or hassle them where they’re engaging in research or scholarship that state actors might disagree with,” said Anne Marie Tamburro, program officer for student press and campus rights advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE.

Your mileage will vary on the utility of the Attorney General’s undertaking. Indeed, the vast majority of the public has little interest in the behind-the-scenes decision-making of Mizzou journalism professors. But that has zero bearing on the facts of this case, namely that (1) the people of Missouri fund their public universities through their tax dollars; (2) the people have the right to be informed about the activities of their public employees insofar as they relate to their public functions; and (3) the Attorney General has the same right to use the Sunshine Law as anyone else, and a greater responsibility to do so where he deems the public interest requires it.

Academic freedom is an important principle, but all it means is that professors at public universities should have the discretion to research and discuss their ideas within the limits of the policies set by those constituted in authority over them. It doesn’t mean that they are exempt from the rules of transparency that apply to all those who work for the taxpayer. If their work would be “deterred” (to use FIRE’s word) unless they can conduct it in secret, maybe it’s work that shouldn’t be done, at least on the public’s dime.

FIRE should be considering the full public policy picture here rather than acting as an apologist for secrecy against the clear interests of transparency under an otherwise unambiguous law.

Curbing Forced EV Expansion

Posted on December 22, 2022January 13, 2026 by Avery Frank

Back in October, the Biden administration rolled out the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (NEVI), an enormous initiative to dramatically expand the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in each state.

In response, I weighed in on the details of this policy. In particular, I noted the lack of trust in free-market innovation, even though the EV industry was kickstarted and fueled by market forces and ingenuity.

The Missouri legislature appears to be fearful of NEVI opening a Pandora’s Box of EV expansion mandates and is considering ways to curtail it in the upcoming session. House Bill (HB) 184 was recently pre-filed and would create protections for small-business owners subject to onerous local government mandates like the NEVI Deployment Plan. Under this bill, any political subdivision that adopts a rule requiring the installation of charging stations at any non-fueling business would be required to pay all costs associated with the installation, maintenance, and operation.

While I appreciate this pre-filed bill defending the rights of some small business owners, why are fueling-businesses excluded from its protection? If a fueling business does not have charging stations, that probably signals it does not have market demand for that service. Only 1% of cars on the road are electric, and in many rural counties you could probably count the number of EV’s in the community on one hand. When it makes economic sense for fueling businesses to install charging stations, they will, and they shouldn’t be forced to do so prematurely.

Unfortunately, a law protecting against overreaching EV mandates only treats a symptom of the disease—the mandates shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The EV market has been rapidly innovating through fierce competition and expanding due to increased consumer interest. As it grows, restaurants, hotels, fueling-stations, landlords, and other businesses will face economic decisions about whether to add charging stations to their premises to attract consumers. A barbershop with limited parking may not want to build an EV station, but for a landlord, an EV station could be beneficial for luring tenants. Why is the government getting involved when market forces are driving progress on their own? By the time government-mandated projects like NEVI are actually completed, who’s to say that those charging stations will even be up to date?

These inefficient mandates are unlikely even to significantly increase the convenience and allure of EVs. In a study published by Plug-in America, only 9% of all EV owners said charging stations being too far apart was a major difficulty, and 7% said that there were not enough charging stations at each location. In addition, 60% of EV owners charge their vehicle at home daily. What problem is the government trying to solve if current EV owners are comfortable with the availability of chargers and most of them charge their cars at home?

Hopefully, protections can be put in place for business owners when inefficient EV expansion projects are implemented, but I hope HB 184 will not even need to be invoked.

A Reminder: Missouri Still Needs Transparency in Education

Posted on December 21, 2022January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

With the new state legislative session on the horizon, it’s clear that there are a lot of policy priorities competing for legislator attention right out of the gate. As I told our friend Vic Porcelli earlier this month, a wide array of tax issues appear to be in the queue for at least some attention, including debates around the corporate income tax and personal property tax. But as was the case in the 2022 legislative session and as I shared with Vic, education is emerging as one of the most prominent priorities of policymakers, with school choice’s policy sidecar—education transparency—positioned to make a splash.

The kinds of education transparency that the legislature will grapple with are likely threefold.

Transparency in spending: Previous Show-Me Checkbook projects have mainly looked at how local governments spend money, but districts and schools also should be transparent and accountable for how they spend taxpayer money. Especially in an environment where teacher pay is a hot topic, seeing exactly where tax money is going today will be illuminating about where tax money should be going tomorrow. My colleague, our director of education Susan Pendergrass, will have much more on this soon.
Transparency in curriculum: It is no secret that we sent thousands of Sunshine Law requests to schools and districts around the state over the last couple years asking what they’re teaching kids and telling teachers about a host of hot-button education topics, the responses to which (when there have been responses) have been mostly incomplete. At this point, I believe the state needs to mandate transparency of these institutions. Taxpayers can debate whether it’s appropriate to teach critical race theory in the classroom or to instruct teachers that Christians oppress all other religions, but that debate can only happen if taxpayers are aware of the content.
Transparency in performance: When true school choice is widely available in the state, parents will have some decisions to make about where to send their kids. How good each educational option is will play a major role in those decisions. Unfortunately, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has done an abysmal job ensuring parents have tools to easily distinguish between failing and succeeding schools and districts. The law must change to make that information more widely available and to ensure failure is administratively corrected, not administratively protected. Susan’s MoSchoolRankings.org is a valuable bridge of information as we wait for the state to take action.

These reform ideas are showing up individually in a lot of pieces of education legislation, but the legislation they’re most often appearing in are “parents’ bill of rights” proposals. We’ve talked about those kinds of laws in the past, and whether legislators pass all these reforms at once with a parents’ bill of rights or separately, these reforms would be a significant advance in parent-empowering policy. Parents need school choice, and better still, they need informed school choice.

Taxpayers Getting Burned

Posted on December 20, 2022January 13, 2026 by David Stokes

As I have discussed many times before, some of the worst public policy ideas in Missouri have come from the various firefighter’s unions. Whether it was the tax grab in the Robertson Fire District (dominated by union interests) or the truly terrible idea to close the municipal fire departments in Mid-St. Louis County in favor of one giant (and union dominated) fire district, there are plenty of bad policies. But the continuing effort to replace the new fireman’s pension system in the City of St. Louis by reverting to the old system may be the worst.

This isn’t that complicated. The new St. Louis city fireman’s pension board was created because the old one was dominated by union interests who made it incredibly generous for firemen and civilian employees of the department. One of those civilian employees received a half-million-dollar (!!!) cash payout upon her retirement, on top of her generous pension. As this recent Post-Dispatch story explains, the union trustees on the new board have implemented draconian changes to the pension funds, things such as cancelling the annual pension board training trip to Key West. Cue the outrage; from the Post story:

Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said going to an industry conference in South Florida looked less like education than vacation. And he told Kenny Mitchell, a firefighter trustee who wanted to go, just that.

Meeting minutes relay what happened next: “Trustee Mitchell responded to Trustee Payne with a profane remark.”

I’ve been to Key West many times. It is uniquely wonderful for many things. Pension board training is not one of them.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen just passed, once again, a bill to return the pension plan to the control of the fireman’s union instead of the new city board that runs it for the benefit of both firemen and taxpayers. That means having a pension system that pays fireman what they deserve, but also considers the interests of the taxpayers at the same time. It doesn’t mean pension training trip to Key West, nor does it mean half-million-dollar cash payouts on top of the pensions. What does St. Louis City’s budget director think it means?

The [proposed] move will consolidate pension oversight under a firefighter-run board that spent double what a city-run panel paid for administration last year. And Budget Director Paul Payne says it would be a first step toward taking the pension system back to where it was a decade ago, when years of rubber-stamping benefit increases led to a budget crisis and forced painful cuts.

“Their history,” Payne said of the firefighters, “is not one of saving money.”

Mayor Jones has vetoed the legislation, just as Mayor Krewson vetoed it previously, and as Mayor Slay would likely recommend after having spent considerable time, effort, and political capital during his term making these necessary reforms in the first place. Good for Mayor Jones. Pension funds should be run for the benefit of those government employees promised good benefits in accordance with the overall fiscal health of the city and its taxpayers, not just one of them.

Podcast: What to Expect from the 2023 Legislative Session

Posted on December 20, 2022January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

James Shuls, David Stokes and Patrick Ishmael join Zach Lawhorn to discuss which pre filed bills they are tracking before the start of the 2023 legislative session, another school district’s decision to move to a four day school week, and the massive TIF approved in Chesterfield.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Stitcher

Listen on SoundCloud