The anti-school choice position is usually framed as a defense of public education. But at its core, what it really does is defend a particular way of assigning students to schools: where you live determines where your children go to school.

The strongest opponents of school choice oppose vouchers, charter schools, and interdistrict open enrollment. In effect, they argue it is best if families have only one option: the public school assigned to them by their residential address.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores a simple fact: many families already exercise school choice by choosing where to live. Parents routinely pay higher housing costs or relocate to neighborhoods with schools they prefer. When a school develops a poor reputation, a nearby charter school is not required to siphon off enrollment—families with the means to move often do exactly that.

School choice is alive and well in the U.S. education system; it simply operates through the housing market.

The real question, then, is not whether school choice should exist—it’s which families get to participate. Families with financial resources already buy access to different schools through the housing market. Families without resources are frozen out.

Policies such as charter schools, vouchers, and open enrollment do not create school choice. They expand school choice opportunities to families who cannot participate via the housing market. Seen this way, the anti-school choice position becomes much harder to defend. Opponents are not preserving a world without school choice—they are preserving a world in which meaningful school choice is available to some families, while remaining out of reach for others.

I’m not anti-public school. On the contrary, I want high-quality public schools to thrive. But I do not believe traditional public schools should be protected from competition by denying lower-income families the choices that wealthier families already enjoy.

The post The Faulty Logic of the Anti-School Choice Position appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Cory Koedel, director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri education policy following the 2026 legislative session. They discuss the governor’s A to F letter grade executive order, why literacy legislation failed to pass, leadership turmoil at DESE, Show-Me’s latest Report on the effects of open enrollment, the case for expanding charter schools in Missouri, and more.

The post Missouri’s Stalled Education Reforms with Cory Koedel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the effects of open enrollment on charter schools (also public schools) are discussed less frequently. While there are a number of potential effects, one is the expansion of a charter school’s “reach” or “market.” With open enrollment, charter schools would not only be able to serve more Missourians, but they could also become more innovative.

Charter schools are essentially limited to St. Louis City, Kansas City 33, Columbia, and any district that has been provisionally accredited for three consecutive years or is unaccredited. The reason they are limited to these districts is that in all other scenarios, the local school district has to approve a charter school to operate, which in Missouri has been a nonstarter.

At the time of this writing, there are 17 charter schools in the City of St Louis, 20 charters in Kansas City 33, and 1 in Normandy Schools Collaborative (through the accreditation mechanism).

Not only are charters limited in where they can operate, but they are further limited in the student base they can pull from. Unless a student’s family pays tuition to transfer in, each charter school is limited to students within its district’s boundaries. Not every state is like this.

Arizona has bolstered its charter schools by creating a robust open enrollment program. In Arizona, charter schools are not bound to a district-wide market.

This has permitted schools such as Arizona Autism Charter Schools (AACS) to thrive and serve a wide range of families in the state. If AACS were limited just to students in one district, it may not have been able to open or stay open due to a lack of demand. But open enrollment has enabled AACS to provide a specialized curriculum for parents commuting as far as 50 miles for their children’s education.

There are so many families with so many different needs, and open enrollment would allow for Missouri’s current and future charter schools to have a greater impact and greater opportunity to innovate.

The post Open Enrollment Would Improve Missouri’s Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Universal Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to break down Governor Mike Kehoe’s State of the State address, including what we know so far about his plan to eliminate Missouri’s income tax, proposals to modernize Missouri’s tax system, and the need to rein in state spending. They also discuss open enrollment legislation, the new Missouri Advanced Nuclear Task Force and AI strategy executive order, the push to privatize downtown St. Louis convention center operations, what the Dome’s history says about stadium subsidies, Kansas City’s stadium debate, what they are watching in Jefferson City, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post 2026 Missouri State of the State | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The school choice landscape in Missouri is improving, but most students are still limited to narrow district offerings.

The Solution

Fully commit to a modern school-choice landscape by requiring all school districts to participate in statewide interdistrict open enrollment, increase funding for the MOScholars program, and remove barriers to charter schools in any school district where demand exists.

Key Facts

• Because Missouri does not offer interdistrict school choice, students here are required to attend a school assigned to them based on their address, even if that school chronically underperforms academically or is persistently dangerous.
• As it is currently funded, the MOScholars program can provide scholarships for only about 20,000 of Missouri’s 880,000 public school students.
• Students have access to charter schools in just three of Missouri’s more than 500 school districts.

Interdistrict Choice

Under Kansas’s new interdistrict open enrollment law, every K-12 student can attend any public school in the state, regardless of where they live, as long as there are available seats in the desired school. School districts must participate in the program, and the Kansas Department of Education audits each district’s capacity annually to ensure compliance. Missouri students are largely denied this level of educational choice. In most cases, they are required to attend the school assigned to them based on their home address. In 2024, the Reason Foundation graded all states’ public school transfer and open enrollment laws, and Missouri received an “F.” There are many reasons why a family might want an alternative to their assigned school. The school could be too big or too small, a child may face bullying, or the school might not be able to meet the terms of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Another issue that has come into focus of late is school safety—new federal guidance emphasizes that students who attend persistently dangerous schools must be provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public school.

Missouri students should be permitted to cross district lines to access any public school, and Missouri school districts should be required both to allow students to transfer out and to receive students from other districts when they have space. Information on available capacity should be posted on school and district web pages and monitored by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Expanding the MOScholars Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program

MOScholars, Missouri’s private school choice program, provides scholarships for students with disabilities and for low- and middle-income families to attend private schools. These scholarships are distributed through education assistance organizations (EAOs), which receive funding from two sources: (1) $50 million in public funding appropriated during the 2025 legislative session, and (2) private donations, for which donors receive full state tax credits subject to certain limitations. The total value of tax credits is capped at $75 million annually.

The 2025 appropriation of public funding for MOScholars was a step in the right direction, but there is more to be done. If all available tax credits are used, the combined public and private funding would total $125 million— enough to provide scholarships for approximately 20,000 Missouri students. While this is great news for the students who receive funding, it accounts for only a small share of Missouri’s nearly 880,000 public school students.

Voter and parent support for school choice programs is widespread. In a survey of parents taken in June 2021, approximately 75% of parents responded that they somewhat or strongly support ESA programs like MOScholars. If the legislature is serious about supporting this program, it should continue to expand funding to reach more students.

Charter School Expansion

Flexibility, freedom from bureaucracy, and the opportunity to innovate make charter schools a valuable addition to any school district—including those in remote, rural areas. Research shows that on average, charter schools outperform traditional public schools in raising academic achievement and some charter schools deliver results that are substantially better.

In nearly every state, charter schools are available to families in every type of community. In 2022–23, there were 984 rural charter schools enrolling 394,400 public school students nationwide, including 119 schools in communities designated by the Census Bureau as “remote rural.” However, of the 43 states with charter schools, Missouri is the only one with none located in rural areas.

As of 2025, charter schools are currently available to Missouri families in just three out of more than 500 school districts (Kansas City, the City of St. Louis, and Normandy). The reason is simple: In Missouri, charter schools in accredited districts can only open with the approval of the local school board. This is effectively a ban on opening charter schools in most locales. Legislation passed in 2024 allows charter schools to open in Boone County without the sponsorship of a local school board. No charter schools are operating in Boone County yet—it takes a while to open a new school—but they should be soon.

This legislation is a step in the right direction, but the real solution is to eliminate the requirement for local board sponsorship and let the market decide where charters belong. Every Missouri family should have access to this form of school choice.

Policy Recommendations

• Allow students to choose schools outside their residentially zoned districts in order to access broader education options.
• Continue to increase public funding for the MOScholars ESA program.
• Remove restrictions on where charters can open and who must sponsor them.

The post Statewide School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

MOScholars is Missouri’s education savings account (ESA) program. It provides scholarships to eligible families to use on a variety of educational expenses: tuition, tutoring, lessons, and more. The decision by Hallsville and Atlanta to join the program is noteworthy because MOScholars is viewed primarily as a vehicle for private school tuition. Their participation is a reminder that these scholarships can also enable nonresident students to attend public schools outside of their assigned districts.

The move is significant for two reasons. First, it signals a willingness among public schools to compete for students within a choice-driven landscape. Contrary to the notion that public schools wilt under competition, districts like Hallsville and Atlanta are demonstrating initiative. As Patrick Wolf, Distinguished Professor of Education Policy at the University of Arkansas, explains, “this idea that public schools are a fragile ecosystem, and they can only serve students if they have no competition . . . that claim has been completely debunked.”

Second, the move effectively serves as a workaround to Missouri’s lack of statewide interdistrict open enrollment. Students in Missouri typically cannot attend a public school outside their residential district. By participating in MOScholars, Hallsville and Atlanta are using the program to facilitate student transfers across district lines, with the scholarship serving as the funding mechanism rather than state formula dollars.

Given the limited size and scope of the MOScholars program as currently funded, it is unlikely that there will be significant enrollment shifts in these districts due to their participation. Still, their decision points to underlying demand for more school choice and is another step toward a more flexible and responsive public education system in Missouri.

The post Two Missouri Public School Districts Opt into MOScholars appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For the past several years, the Missouri Legislature has considered letting parents choose a public school in another public school district than the one in which they live—also known as open enrollment. It seems that DESE and the BOE are preparing for the moment that the legislature takes another crack at this idea. And by preemptively adding the word “voluntary,”, they have signaled that they prefer a weak and less effective version of this policy.

Currently, there are sixteen states, including our neighbors Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, that require all public school districts to accept transfer students, provided that there is an open seat available. According to the Reason Foundation, students using open enrollment accounted for about 7 percent of publicly funded students in those states. In other words, open enrollment doesn’t have a massive impact on the system, but it can be a game changer for the students who use it.

In states such as Ohio, which have limited open enrollment to only those districts that voluntarily agree to accept students, high-income suburban districts have declined to participate. Thus, kids in Ohio’s largest urban districts, such as Akron or Cincinnati, don’t have any feasible open enrollment options. They would have to leapfrog over the suburban rings that surround their cities.

Missouri was called out last year in a national study for having district lines that mimic old residential red lines. That legacy could be ameliorated by making those lines more porous and less exclusionary. Regardless of the executive branch’s stated priorities, let’s not start the conversation on open enrollment with an eye toward a weak policy.

The post Voluntary Open Enrollment Means No Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass talks with Matthew Ladner, senior advisor for education policy implementation at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, about a recent Washington Post article blaming Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts for school closures in the Roosevelt Elementary School District. They unpack the real reasons behind declining enrollment, the role of open enrollment and charter schools, and why most Arizona students exercising school choice are still in public schools. The discussion covers how media narratives overlook parent-driven decisions, the political resistance to letting kids leave low-performing districts, and why open enrollment could be a game changer for states like Missouri. Ladner also shares his broader perspective on the post-COVID shift toward educational self-reliance and what it means for the future of public education.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Download

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thank you so much for joining me on the podcast this morning, Matt Ladner of the Heritage Foundation. You are no stranger to Arizona education or school choice, right? Nor am I. I feel like I could be wrong, but we met at the Goldwater Institute around the year 2002. Does that sound right? It’s been a minute and it was so—

Matthew Ladner (00:03)
That could be, yes, indeed.

Susan Pendergrass (00:28)
It was surprising to me to see in the Washington Post a week or so ago, basically a hit piece on Arizona education. Because oftentimes Arizona’s held up like Florida as one of the states that’s really making strides in both test scores overall, but in particular in Arizona, test scores and growth scores for low-income kids. They’ve really taken bold moves and made an actual difference in outcomes.

And yet we have this piece that says because Arizona is giving parents the option of a scholarship instead of an assigned public school, that is killing this poor Roosevelt Elementary School in Phoenix. I assume you saw the article.

Matthew Ladner (01:08)
I did indeed. Well, so I moved to Arizona in 2003. Of course, I was doing work here before I moved here. So we probably met the year before at the Goldwater Institute.

Susan Pendergrass (01:10)
What’s your take? What’s your hot take?

Matthew Ladner (01:24)
The first I heard of the Roosevelt Elementary School District was in 2005, when someone I worked with had a child who was attending a Roosevelt school and was brutally assaulted. By brutally assaulted, I mean rushed to the emergency room based on what happened to this child.

Susan Pendergrass (01:39)
My gosh.

Matthew Ladner (01:49)
Obviously, the school administration did not react well. In fact, they questioned whether the attack had been provoked—classic blame-the-victim. At that time, I put my coworker in touch with someone who did informally what we would today call navigation—helping people find schools.

Susan Pendergrass (01:59)
Thanks.

Matthew Ladner (02:13)
At that time, it was incredibly difficult to find a school for this woman’s children. The school year had already started. There were charter schools in South Phoenix, where the Roosevelt Elementary School District is located, but they had waitlists. We had scholarship tax credits, but the school year had already started, the money had already been committed, and there were waitlists.

We had open enrollment, but school districts were not interested in taking students from Roosevelt. In fact, I recall my coworker calling about an open enrollment transfer, and when she said her kids attended Roosevelt Elementary, they hung up the phone on her. It was visceral. She was almost as stuck as she would have been in 1993, the year before Arizona started any kind of school choice.

Fast-forward 20 years, no one in Arizona is stuck like that anymore. Every child has access to an ESA program. While only a minority actually use it, it’s available to everyone. That, I believe, motivates these drive-by shooting journalistic exercises, because very powerful vested interests don’t like people having the option of leaving.

If you read the Washington Post article, the unstated hypothesis is that the world would be a better place if people like my former coworker did not have the option of going somewhere else.

Susan Pendergrass (04:04)
That’s exactly right.

They chronicle the closing of an elementary school in that district. People are sad, heartbroken, and anxious. It’s a tragic story. But dwindling enrollment is less due to the ESA program and more due to the fact that in Arizona, you can pick any public school in the state.

In fact, they cite one group of low-income parents of color who started their own micro-school to avoid going to that school. Yet the counterfactual is: “If only they didn’t have the option of leaving, this school would stay open.” As if we should have kept kids trapped in a failing school. Hard to believe that’s the case in 2025.

Matthew Ladner (04:52)
Absolutely.

It’s offensive to argue the world would be better if people didn’t have the option of leaving a situation that wasn’t working for their child. The reality is, the largest form of school choice in Arizona remains district open enrollment.

Back in 2017, a study of Phoenix-area school districts found that the number of open enrollment kids—within and between districts—was about twice the number of charter school students. And Arizona has the nation’s largest charter sector.

Susan Pendergrass (05:42)
About how many kids are in charter schools?

Matthew Ladner (05:44)
Today it’s around 21% of public school enrollment. Back in 2017 it was about 16%.

Open enrollment is the King Kong of school choice. If Arizona has a school choice justice league, Superman is district open enrollment. Then come charter schools, and trailing far behind are private choice programs.

I do understand people don’t like school closures. Even schools that are underperforming and half-empty have emotional attachment. When you move to close them, people say, “My grandfather graduated from that school—how dare you close it!”

Susan Pendergrass (06:33)
No, yes.

Matthew Ladner (06:55)
State data shows Roosevelt has 6,500 kids who live in the district and attend its schools. But 5,700 kids live in Roosevelt and attend a charter. Another 2,700 attend a different district. About 800 use an ESA.

A final report showed only 129 ESA students previously attended a Roosevelt school. If you’re running a 6,500-student district, you don’t close five schools over 129 students. The Post article was misguided and misleading. Roosevelt’s enrollment has been declining since about 2006. There’s also the baby bust since 2007, which Arizona has worse than most states.

Susan Pendergrass (09:11)
Right. And in addition to bad reporting, the article says this ESA program “offers a window into the GOP vision for K–12 education.” In other words, nothing to do with what parents want. It’s supposedly a GOP political strategy to kill public schools.

That’s damaging because a lot of people don’t read past the headline. In Missouri, we don’t even have open enrollment. Some of our lowest-performing districts demand to be carved out from letting kids leave because they believe they’ll all leave and the district will collapse.

For example, in Ferguson, only 3% of 8th graders are proficient in math. Yet they don’t want kids to leave, even though they’re arguably not even fulfilling the constitutional duty to provide a free and fair public education.

Matthew Ladner (11:02)
Yeah, it’s bad all around. The Fordham Institute’s open enrollment map of Ohio shows every urban district is surrounded by districts that don’t participate. Arizona is the opposite. Almost all districts do open enrollment, including Scottsdale Unified—where about 25% of kids come from outside the district.

They do that because 9,000 kids who live in Scottsdale attend elsewhere. Financial incentives pushed even wealthy districts to open up.

Susan Pendergrass (13:10)
Right.

Matthew Ladner (13:23)
The Post piece framed this as a GOP vision, but really it’s about giving families dignity and autonomy. The underlying hypothesis was that low-income Hispanic and African American parents in Roosevelt are doing something wrong by making the best choices for their kids. That’s offensive, and bad reporting on top of it.

Susan Pendergrass (14:14)
Right. In Missouri, we rank all schools. When we launched that website, protesters said it was racist because many low-performing schools enrolled Black and brown kids. But those kids are already stuck in F schools. Shouldn’t we let them out?

Instead, the approach is: “Let’s not tell them it’s an F school, and if they find out, let’s not let them out.” That’s insulting to parents.

Meanwhile, in St. Louis, schools are losing kids but the district passed a moratorium on new charters because they know a new charter would fill up immediately.

Matthew Ladner (15:42)
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (15:43)
What’s your global view? In Missouri, we’re fighting lawsuits against our scholarship program. Do you see this as a last gasp, or what?

Matthew Ladner (16:03)
Not a last gasp. The struggle will continue past our lifetimes. But we are making progress.

The reason you see lawsuits and agenda-driven journalism is that there was an awakening during COVID. People realized the district system isn’t run for parents—it’s captured by unions and contractors. Schools are not about your kids. They’re about employees and contracts.

Now we’re seeing a self-reliance movement in education—school choice, homeschooling, co-ops. It’s growing. And frankly, Randy Weingarten’s actions during COVID made her the poster child for this failure.

Susan Pendergrass (18:18)
In terms of keeping schools closed and how she reacted?

Matthew Ladner (18:21)
Exactly. If you didn’t realize during COVID that the system wasn’t about you, someone needs to draw you a picture.

Susan Pendergrass (18:33)
The protests with coffins in the street, saying we were sending teachers to their deaths—they overplayed it a bit.

Matthew Ladner (18:37)
Yeah. And now we’re in a different environment. Young parents I talk to say there’s no way they’re sending kids to district schools.

That’s not to say everyone in districts is bad. There are good teachers trapped in a bad system. But the exciting part is teachers leaving to start their own schools. In Florida, there’s nothing stopping them, and it’s beautiful to see.

Susan Pendergrass (19:46)
Yes. In Missouri, we’ve cut off the teacher-as-entrepreneur option. It’s too bad. Every summer, parents reach out to me desperate to transfer kids to other districts, but we have nothing for them—except paying very high tuition.

It reminds me of your coworker stuck in Roosevelt. People say, “Just move.” But not everyone can move, nor should they have to.

Matthew Ladner (20:49)
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (21:09)
When I see a major outlet still saying in 2025 that ESAs are killing public education, when it’s really poor parents finding alternatives, that’s sad.

Matthew Ladner (21:28)
Exactly. It’s not up to me or lawmakers to decide where kids go. Families should decide, and that’s as it should be.

Susan Pendergrass (21:55)
Thank you so much for joining us. We have to keep this in front of people, and I appreciate you coming on.

Matthew Ladner (22:05)
Thank you, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post What the Media Gets Wrong About School Choice with Matthew Ladner appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Noah Devine, executive director of the Missouri Charter Public Schools Association, about how charter schools in St. Louis are responding after the recent tornado damaged multiple campuses. They discuss the need for flexibility for displaced families, how charter schools are working to reopen quickly, and the broader importance of school choice, especially in times of crisis. Noah also explains why Missouri’s lack of open enrollment makes recovery harder, and shares resources for families navigating this difficult time.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript: Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine

Download a copy of the transcript here

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Today I’m going to be talking to Noah Devine of Missouri Charter Public School Association. You basically represent, to a certain extent, the charter schools across Kansas City and St. Louis. To a certain extent, your organization helps them navigate policy processes, funding processes, and things like that in Missouri. So thanks for joining us.

Noah Devine (00:19)
Thanks for having me on, and yeah, you’re exactly right. We are a membership-based, dues-based organization that supports, represents, and advocates for public charter schools here in the state of Missouri.

Susan Pendergrass (00:30)
Well, like the Show-Me Institute, a few weeks ago, many schools in the St. Louis area were affected by a tornado. We lost the top floor of our building when it came through. I know that I’ve been reading that St. Louis Public Schools have about six buildings that are affected by the tornado. How many charter schools were affected?

Noah Devine (00:50)
Yeah, it was obviously really terrible what happened in St. Louis with that tornado. In total, seven charter school buildings were directly impacted. None of them will be compromised from opening this fall, so that’s a very good thing. Two of them were not able to open the week that it happened or the week immediately after. One of them has an annex that was very badly damaged, and so they’re going to have to rework how they meet the needs of their students. The building impact is very significant. What worries me the most is that they’re doing everything they can to meet the needs of their families and students who were directly impacted. Over the summer and into the fall, I think we’re going to see how things ultimately shake out. I’m quite worried that we’re going to have a large increase in students and families experiencing homelessness, and meeting those families’ needs will be really important.

Susan Pendergrass (01:41)
Why do you imagine that St. Louis Public Schools say six of their buildings can’t be used, but charter schools are going to find a way to use theirs? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Noah Devine (01:53)
Yeah, I honestly don’t know. Some of it could always be just good old-fashioned dumb luck, the location of buildings. I think that’s probably most likely. I do think the buildings that were more directly impacted and were charter schools were in better condition. I don’t know the condition of some of the SLPS buildings, but I think charter schools were able to mitigate things a little more readily.

Susan Pendergrass (02:30)
This is what I was thinking, because we had to scramble to find a place to work. Some of us are in temporary office space. Some people are working from home, and it really does affect people. I assume there are many students whose own homes were affected. It’s summer now, but we’re trying to figure out what to do in the fall. St. Louis Public Schools has said that the kids in these six schools are all being reassigned to new schools.

Wouldn’t it make sense, given that this is an emergency—an act of God type of situation—that families could be given flexibility over where their kids go? If they’re displaced, they might want their kids to stay with the same teacher and group of friends, or they might want to go somewhere closer to where they are displaced or where their job is. It seems to me this is the time for flexibility. What do you think?

Noah Devine (03:27)
Could not agree more. Setting aside the natural disaster of a tornado, we fundamentally believe, as all of our schools do, that the decision of where to send your kid—whether it be homeschool, private school, charter public school, district school, magnet school, whatever—is the decision of a family. In a time like this, we need to enact provisions, not dissimilar from what we did during COVID, to make sure families have what they need.

If a family in North St. Louis lost everything, let’s not upset the apple cart. If they want to stay at that school, we have to make sure they can get there. McKinney-Vento is the federal classification for students who are homeless. If you lost your home and are temporarily living with someone else, you meet that designation and can stay at your school. We’re working with charter schools and DESE to ensure that’s clearly communicated. But that designation comes with a cost, usually transportation.

We need help to meet that need. Big picture, we should always be trying to meet the needs of families with choice in mind. During emergencies, it’s even more necessary to push through red tape and ensure we aren’t telling families that, on top of everything else, they now have to move schools.

Susan Pendergrass (05:36)
Do you know if the governor has indicated he’s open to an emergency executive order to ensure St. Louis families have maximum flexibility?

Noah Devine (05:47)
I don’t want to speak for the governor’s office or DESE. But I’ve been extremely impressed with how they’ve moved to get direct support to families in St. Louis. During special session a couple of weeks ago, a huge pot of money was allocated to meet those needs. I’m confident they’ll do everything they can within the law. That said, Missouri does not have open enrollment, which limits flexibility. It’s come close many times, but hasn’t passed.

Susan Pendergrass (06:56)
In times of crisis, like pandemics or tornadoes, the need for flexibility becomes very apparent. You and I followed legislation last year that would have allowed students from outside the city to enroll in a charter school. It made so much sense and still couldn’t get across the finish line.

Noah Devine (07:47)
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (07:48)
Families often face personal emergencies too. A child being bullied, a move to live with grandparents—these are real. Charter school leaders want to keep kids where they belong. We just haven’t found the right words to convince enough people.

Noah Devine (08:21)
I couldn’t agree more. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the families impacted. But this is when policy limitations become very real. Missouri is surrounded by states that allow more enrollment flexibility. We shouldn’t lock families into bad situations, whether the crisis is natural or personal. We need to continue pushing for change.

Susan Pendergrass (10:04)
In Kansas City, many top-notch charter schools have strong reputations. If families live on the Kansas side, they can cross the river and choose from any school. Kansas has one of the strongest open enrollment laws in the country. Missouri should follow that example. Not every school is right for every child. And families shouldn’t have to move to find a better fit.

Noah Devine (11:04)
Exactly. I read an article recently about this. People often assume open enrollment would destroy public education. It won’t. Families pick different colleges for their kids based on interests and needs. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to K-12?

Susan Pendergrass (11:58)
Pell Grants follow students to the college of their choice. It works. But in K-12, it’s somehow controversial. I was asked yesterday on the radio about some charter schools closing in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Noah Devine (12:26)
Great question. First, we can’t underestimate the impact of school closures on families. It’s very real and unfortunate. But charter schools are designed to be more accountable. If families leave or the school isn’t performing, it should close. That’s how accountability works.

We are in a period of declining enrollment nationwide. All public schools will have to make tough choices. The charter system allows closures based on whether families want to go there and whether the school is serving them well. That’s how it should work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:30)
Mm-hmm.

Noah Devine (14:45)
When you lead a charter school, you have to earn it. Every student is there by choice. That makes charter schools unique. Missouri ranks among the top five states in charter school performance, according to CREDO at Stanford. We should take that seriously.

Susan Pendergrass (15:36)
This reminds me of the Unsafe School Choice Option under federal law. If a school is deemed persistently dangerous, students have the right to transfer. Missouri has never labeled a school that way, even though the data suggests otherwise. But charter schools already give families that power. If parents feel unsafe, they can simply pull their child out.

Noah Devine (16:37)
Exactly.

Susan Pendergrass (16:50)
That’s how it should be in all public schools. If parents in St. Louis want to know what resources are available for displaced children or schools, where should they go?

Noah Devine (17:26)
Start with our website, mocharterschools.org. We have a resource page for families affected by the tornado. Also, we work with Show Me Mo Schools, which runs a common application system. Their site is schoolappstl.org. And finally, DESE’s website has guidance and updates, though it could use improvement.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
Good luck with that. Thanks again, Noah.

Noah Devine (18:20)
Thanks, and take care.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The goal of open enrollment is simple; give families the ability to choose a public school, regardless of where they live. But for the past few years, the Missouri Legislature has considered, and the governor has voiced support for, a limited system in which only students in certain districts would have this option. This creates a patchwork of access. Families in one district may enjoy a range of transfer options, while a family just a few miles away may have none because neighboring districts refuse to participate. True educational freedom requires that all districts be required to take transfer applications, subject to capacity.

Open enrollment that is voluntary for districts is designed to protect school systems, not students. High-performing or in-demand districts can refuse to accept transfer students in order to limit competition and maintain the status quo. Universal open enrollment instead puts the interests of students and families first. It ensures that every Missouri child—regardless of their zip code—has a real chance to attend a school that better fits their educational needs.

Missouri needs a universal open enrollment system that is clear and easy for families to understand. Parents should know they have the right to apply to any public school with available space, and districts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who gets access. This type of system has worked in states such as Florida and Wisconsin, where universal open enrollment has provided thousands of students with better options and driven improvement in both receiving and sending districts. Our neighbors, Nebraska and Kansas, have recently launched some of the strongest universal open enrollment programs in the United States.

Voluntary open enrollment systems create confusion, inconsistency, and frustration. Families must navigate district-by-district rules, and many discover they cannot transfer simply because another district chooses to “opt out.” In 2026, Missouri lawmakers have the opportunity to enact a universal open enrollment policy that truly empowers parents instead of protecting districts. Shouldn’t open enrollment be designed for all Missouri families and not just some?

The post Why Missouri Needs Universal Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Below, I will highlight problematic additions to the bill.

Phonics and Three-Cueing

The finally agreed bill now includes language to make phonics instruction (recognizing written words by connecting letters to their corresponding sounds) the primary instructional strategy for teaching word reading in early literacy. It also restricts the use of the three-cueing system (encouraging students to guess what an unfamiliar word is based on meaning, structure, or visual cues instead of sounding out the word entirely). The original amendment would have prohibited the use of three-cueing for teaching word reading, but the final version only prohibits “instruction in word reading relying primarily on the three-cueing system.” This change leaves the door open for its use and weakens the policy’s impact. I will write more about this in a future post.

New “Grade-Level” Category for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)

The new version of SB 68 also includes the addition of a fifth performance category (called “grade level”) for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The MAP currently has four measures: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. “Proficient” is defined as mastery over all appropriate subject matter and introductory knowledge for the next grade. This sounds like an appropriate benchmark to set.

The new “grade-level” category essentially means partial mastery—a student “may be ready, with appropriate reinforcement” for the next grade. For parents, telling them their children are at “grade-level” makes it sound as if they are where they ought to be academically. But that is not what it means. Why is Missouri adding a new standard that is confusing at best and will make it harder to interpret scores? Do we really want to water down our standards when so many are at basic or below in the state?

Repurposing Scholarship Funds

Another provision allows unused funds for the Teacher Retention and Recruitment Scholarship (given to prospective teachers in high-need subject areas and schools) to be repurposed to non-high-need students in their final semester. These unused funds should be returned to the treasury to fund other existing priorities instead of being used for a new project entirely.

Open Enrollment—For a Select Few

Finally, SB 68 allows open enrollment for students whose parents are a contractor or regular employee of that district. This is a good opportunity for these families. But what Missouri needs is a universal open enrollment policy, which would help families and students in a variety of different circumstances. Why are only these families benefitted?

SB 68 illustrates the risk of omnibus bills: bad policies are often included, good policies get diluted, and elected officials can claim they had to swallow the bad with the good.

The post Senate Bill 68: Another Education Omnibus, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Final Weeks of the 2025 Session appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of this commentary appeared in The Heartlander

Tradeoffs and give-and-take are at the heart of politics. We’re told that the politicians who are willing to compromise are the ones who “get things done.” But not every tradeoff is worth it. Case in point: In the Missouri legislature, passage of a relatively weak open-enrollment measure has been discussed as a “both/and” that could be tied to passage of another bill that strips the State Board of Education (BOE) of its authority to accredit (or refuse to accredit) Missouri’s public schools. If that’s the offer, it deserves a hard no from legislators.

I don’t often find myself defending the BOE, and for good reason. It is fair to wonder what a school district has to do in this state to lose accreditation. Out of 517 districts, 511 (98.8 percent) are fully accredited, six are provisionally accredited, and none are unaccredited. The Ferguson-Florissant school district is fully accredited despite the fact that only 20 percent of its students are proficient in English language arts, and just 16 percent are proficient in math. Hazelwood, another fully accredited district, shows similarly troubling numbers: 25 percent proficiency in English and 15 percent in math. The Clarkton C-4 district in Missouri’s Bootheel is fully accredited even though 85 percent of students scored below grade level in English/language arts or math last year. Sadly, these are just three examples among many.

The question is: if the BOE isn’t holding schools accountable, what should be done about it? According to the proponents of Senate Bill 360, the solution is to strip the BOE of the power it seems so reluctant to use. The bill would prohibit the BOE from using academic performance to classify schools for accreditation purposes. Districts would instead be allowed to hire outside accreditation agencies to evaluate them. It should be obvious that such agencies would have a strong incentive to tell the districts that hire them what they want to hear.

If the fates of these two bills are linked, what do Missourians get in exchange for essentially throwing in the towel on accountability for school districts? They get House Bill 711, which would allow for open enrollment . . . sort of. It would only let up to 5 percent of students transfer out of any district, and more importantly, it wouldn’t require districts to accept students who wanted to transfer in. Compared to what our neighbors in Kansas and Oklahoma have, this is entry-level open enrollment at best, and it isn’t worth letting the districts themselves decide whether or not they deserve to be accredited.

There is no law of nature stating that the BOE can’t hold districts accountable for student performance. The Missouri Legislature could also make the BOE do its job. In fact, we are about to have four new members of the 8-person BOE, and they are likely to bring fresh energy and commitment to accountability.

The research on high accountability and improved student outcomes is clear, so the rubber-stamping of school accreditation needs to stop. The state, which funds public education to the tune of $6.6 billion each year, has a responsibility to both students and taxpayers to make sure that money is being spent to prepare students for college or the workforce.

If a “compromise” is on offer here it is a troubling example of the misplaced priorities of Missouri’s educational establishment. Who are they protecting here—students trapped in failing schools, or school districts threatened by the prospect of being held responsible for their performance?

The post A Bad Deal for Missouri’s Children appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. Cory Koedel, the Show-Me Institute’s new director of education policy, joins Susan Pendergrass to discuss the biggest challenges facing Missouri’s public education system. They cover declining student outcomes, the role of accountability and testing, and the promise of school choice. Koedel shares insights from his research on school funding models—highlighting Tennessee’s student-centered formula—and breaks down what Missouri can learn from states that are improving early literacy. They also examine controversial policies like early grade retention and open enrollment, and Koedel outlines his priorities for education research in Missouri.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction to Education Policy Challenges in Missouri
03:10 The Role of School Choice in Improving Outcomes
05:48 Funding Formulas and Their Implications
08:52 Early Literacy and Reading Instruction
12:05 Retention Policies and Their Effectiveness
15:04 Open Enrollment and Its Impact on Rural Schools
17:58 Future Directions for Education Policy in Missouri

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A New Voice for Accountability, and School Choice in Missouri with Cory Koedel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Pushing Back Against Policies that Dilute Standards

Currently, Missouri students are categorized into one of four performance levels based on their state standardized test scores. From lowest to highest, these are: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced.

HB 607 proposes the addition of a fifth performance category, called “grade level,” which would be above basic but below proficient.

• Proficient: Demonstrates mastery over all appropriate grade-level standards
• Grade level: Demonstrates mastery over appropriate grade-level subject matter
• Basic: Demonstrates partial mastery of essential knowledge and skills for the grade level

This definition of “grade-level” implies that it should not be expected for Missouri students to have mastery over all appropriate grade-level standards.

Rather than diluting standards, Missouri should implement policies that make meaningful use of state assessments. One such example is a third-grade retention policy. The transition from third to fourth grade is pivotal—students shift from learning to read to reading to learn. To combat the well-documented fourth-grade reading slump, states such as South Carolina and Mississippi adopted mandatory retention policies paired with targeted phonics-based interventions. The result has been very positive.

Open Enrollment—Better Choice, Better Accountability

Currently, where you can attend school is largely determined by where you live. This prevents many families from changing schools. Establishing a cross-district, universal open enrollment program would allow more families to vote with their feet. Markets excel at revealing best practices, and districts with best practices will likely attract more students and pressure other districts to change.

There is some potential to align open enrollment with Missouri’s accreditation process. In December 2024, it was announced that for the 10th year in a row, the state’s accountability system would not be used for district accreditation. Perhaps there is fear of a trigger in the policy that would allow students to transfer out of unaccredited school districts, especially because the unaccredited districts must pay the tuition for the transfers to receiving districts. If universal open enrollment were adopted, lawmakers could revisit the tuition rule for transfer students out of those districts and implement a meaningful accreditation system.

These strategies offer ways to maintain high standards for our schools and children. Better accountability systems in education are the key to learning which strategies are working and which are not. Encouraging transparency and openness will generate more competition and innovation in our schools, and should ultimately strengthen our education system.

The post Accountability in Missouri’s Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post What Missouri Can Learn from Arizona’s Education System with Sean McCarthy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 711 and Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In February 2025, Saint Louis University (SLU) released an update on likely Missouri voters’ views on education policy, including open enrollment (the polling was conducted in 2024). The results showed broad support for open enrollment, including bipartisan approval and a preference for a universal model. SLU surveyed 900 likely Missouri voters and used both demographic and voting history data in an attempt to create a representative Missouri sample. One of the more interesting findings was the bipartisan agreement on open enrollment. Recent votes on open enrollment in the legislature have been split along party lines.

Figure 1 displays the general support for open enrollment among likely Missouri voters. Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the majority of likely Missouri voters prefer that an open enrollment policy be universal (meaning districts must accept students if they have seats) and let students transfer out. This suggests that a universal policy is not an “extreme” position, but one that is well aligned with public opinion. It is worth wondering whether carveouts and “compromises” that would restrict open enrollment reflect the priorities of students and families or those of other education stakeholders.

Figure 1: General Measure of Support for Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “Do you support or oppose the following policies . . . allow students to enroll in public schools outside of the school district where they live?”

Figure 2: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring Out with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may limit the number of students who transfer out of their district.”

Figure 3: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring in with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may opt out of having students transfer into their district.”

Universal Open Enrollment for Missouri Families

Different versions of open enrollment bills have circulated around Jefferson City, with the House passing a voluntary version (HB 711) and the Senate weighing a universal version (Senate Bill (SB) 215). A good open enrollment policy is a universal policy, and SB 215 would provide students with greater access to public schools that serve them best. Open enrollment is a pro-student, pro-family, and pro-public school policy. The research supports it, the public supports it, and Missouri students would benefit from a robust open enrollment environment.

Want to Learn More?

Susan Pendergrass and I address the most common objections to open enrollment in our recent paper, Open Enrollment: Erasing Seven Myths in Missouri. Read the full report here.

The post Attitudes on Open Enrollment in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.