Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Bloated Bureaucracy and Failing Kids The Case for School Choice with Christopher Talgo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Great. Mike McShane, EdChoice, always great to have you on the podcast. I read your Substack, Informed Choice. I know you do not write them all, but you write a lot of them, and I think they are super interesting. A month or so ago, there was a lot of “what’s out, what’s in,” closing down 2025 and starting 2026. I really liked your post about six words for 2026, but…

Mike McShane (00:03)
Always great to be with you. Thanks for having me. I tried to.

Susan Pendergrass (00:28)
I want to talk about that, but generally speaking, I have been having this feeling, and I think we have even talked about this on the podcast, that something has changed in K–12 education in the United States. Something seems different than it did. You track the number of kids in private school choice programs, which took forever to get to a million, and now it is like a million and a half, right? It just seems to have been growing so fast.

Mike McShane (00:52)
Yeah. I think there has definitely been a shift. I have noticed that, with the start of the year and legislative sessions starting across the country, I am talking to journalists and other folks, and it seems like the normal conversation I would have had in the past was, “Are we going to have these programs, is there going to be choice, or what?” Now it is, “What is the shape of it going to be?”

So much of choice now is being taken as a given. I think we are even seeing that within public school districts. Even in states that might not have private school choice or robust charter schools, they are at least saying, “Parents are going to need to have choice, and maybe we can keep the genie in the bottle by just having it within public school districts, or in between public school districts.” But the idea that we are going to go back to residentially assigned public schools…

Susan Pendergrass (01:41)
Like Kansas.

Mike McShane (01:50)
…with the odd aberration here and there, it just seems like that shift has happened. Now it is a question of what it is going to look like, and it is going to look different in different states. It is not a “whether,” it is a “how.”

Susan Pendergrass (02:03)
That’s right, because we have a whole bunch of second-generation choosers, right? We have parents of young kids whose parents chose it, so they are not, like you said, going to go backwards.

Another interesting outcome you have talked about over the years is that the Catholic school movement is growing again, right? Like in Florida, we are seeing a resurgence in Catholic schools, and in Iowa, because parents did not necessarily not want to send their kids to Catholic schools. Some got mad about the scandals…

Mike McShane (02:05)
Yeah, for sure. Iowa, Florida, and probably other places when data comes out, for sure.

Susan Pendergrass (02:32)
…or they did not want to pay tuition, and now they can. And certainly this survey you all have done for so long, on where parents would send their kids to school versus where they do send their kids to school, maybe we are going to see some sort of convergence where parents can actually send their kids to the school they want.

A couple of the words you said are going to be big in education in 2026, “participants,” is that right? Participants.

Mike McShane (02:34)
Yeah. Totally, absolutely. “Participants” is one of them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:02)
And “supply side.” What do you mean by “participants”?

Mike McShane (03:06)
“Participants” is, there is this big debate now, and in the piece I started with very general words that are part of the broader conversation, and then I got very narrow into school choice research words. “Participants” is kind of a school choice research word, but not entirely. I think it is going to be part of broader debates about choice in general.

There is a big question out there, who uses these programs? Who is going to participate? There are competing theories. Skeptics say it is going to be all rich kids, or kids who are already in private schools. Stronger advocates say it will be low-income kids, or kids desperate for more options.

The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, and it will probably be different in different places at different times. Some of the emerging research suggests that when universal private school choice programs first start, for reasons that are perfectly predictable, students who are already in private schools are the first movers.

Susan Pendergrass (04:01)
Sure.

Mike McShane (04:28)
That is probably because private schools find out about these programs and have an audience. They can say, “Hey, you all know how you are paying to go here? Now you do not have to do that anymore.” And then over time, the circle expands outward.

Susan Pendergrass (04:33)
They pass out a piece of paper in every backpack, yeah. “You should get this.”

Mike McShane (04:48)
More and more, those families have neighbors, cousins, and people they play YMCA basketball with. The word gets out over time. A lot of traditional channels for educating people do not work as well. It is not like everyone watches the nightly news or reads the local newspaper.

Susan Pendergrass (05:08)
“Put it on your website.” That’s a Missouri legislative mainstay, put it on your website.

Mike McShane (05:14)
So a lot of this comes out via word of mouth or discussions. You could look at the same state and see participation change over time.

Because these programs are rolling out in different states at different times, there is not going to be one national answer to who is participating. It could be the first year in Mississippi, but the second year in Alabama, and the makeup of students will be different. Because of the nationalized nature of coverage, people will keep pushing for “the one answer,” but there isn’t one. Though, to be fair, some people will say there is. I do not think that will be true.

Susan Pendergrass (06:07)
Yeah, I get a ton of questions around the rural issue. Either it is going to be the demise of our rural school system because we are all going to close, or rural families do not need it, which are opposites. It is opposites, right?

Mike McShane (06:09)
Yeah. It cannot be both. And yet a frequent criticism is that it will be both of them.

Susan Pendergrass (06:25)
But I get that a lot. “There are no private schools for them to go to,” and “it is going to cause rural schools to close.”

Certainly in Missouri, even our MOScholars program is quite small, and we do not really have charter schools outside of two districts, two very far away places. So I think for a lot of folks in Missouri, it is mysterious, who would do this, and why would anyone want it? And of course, “All the poor kids are going to go to the wealthy school districts.” Still a lot of talk about property taxes. It is almost like 2005 in Missouri, a lot of that going on.

But the reality is, in long-running programs, and now I am thinking open enrollment, anywhere you let parents pick, you get a lot of rural participation. They have the fewest choices, right? And you get a lot of urban participation, and some suburban participation. Like you said, I do not think you can…

Mike McShane (06:55)
Yeah, right.

Susan Pendergrass (07:20)
I have had so many parents over the years say, “We do not need that here because all our schools are good.” And I am like, I promise you there is a child who got on the bus with a stomach ache this morning because they did not want to go to school, for whatever reason. They think the teachers do not like them, or they are being bullied, whatever it is. I promise you there are families who would leave if they could easily do it.

Mike McShane (07:30)
Yeah, for sure. Totally.

One thing that is going to be interesting, as we watch this play out, with questions about who is participating and who is leaving public schools, is that there are broader trends of public school enrollment decreasing. You hear in some states, “My gosh, all these public schools are closing because of choice programs.” But the state next door that does not have a choice program, their public schools are closing too, because there are just fewer kids than there were before.

So that is another thing we have to disentangle, the broader population trends. I was just seeing something earlier about how congressional seats and electoral college seats are going to change because of population shifts.

Susan Pendergrass (08:17)
It’s huge.

Mike McShane (08:26)
You look at states like New York and California losing large numbers of people, Florida and Texas increasing numbers of people. These are people in general, because that is how it all happens. We have to start with that baseline and then layer these other things on top, because I feel like school choice is going to get blamed for this, even in places where it does not exist.

Susan Pendergrass (08:36)
Yeah. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked about this and shocked people. Every school district in St. Louis County, for example, has declining enrollment by large numbers. Clayton’s declining enrollment, Ladue declining enrollment, all declining enrollment. People are like, “Where are they going?” And I say, “They were not born.” They simply were not born.

We had our biggest kindergarten cohort in 2013. That moved through to senior year of high school like two years ago. It is just demographics. They just were not born.

Mike McShane (09:00)
Right? Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (09:20)
We have net out-migration of some groups of people, people with bachelor’s degrees, but for sure, it is demographics. These kids were not born.

There is going to be this push and pull between five-to-seventeen-year-olds and retirees, basically, because we are getting more old people and fewer young people. Do we build a school or a nursing home? I think it is going to be a thing.

And we still have school districts getting bonds, 30-year bonds, to build schools and buy buses. I do not know if that is the right answer. At least the charter school sector, and probably similarly the private school sector, figured out how to not be in the real estate business, how to lease a building, or do different types of arrangements. They are going to benefit from this, while the public school system is still building schools. The kids are not being born, but we will see how that plays out.

Another thing you mentioned, one of your words I have been thinking about a lot, two of them, is “transparency.” I have wondered, can I start calling accountability transparency? Because accountability is kind of negative, but transparency, of course.

And you talk about “rage bait.” Sorry, I am rolling these into one, but with early media stories around some of these private school choice programs, like Arizona, people really jumped on what parents were spending their money on. As though they cannot be trusted to spend this money, in the way the public school system can be trusted with billions, I mean trillions, of dollars. Parents cannot be trusted with this $8,000, they will simply…

Mike McShane (10:52)
Totally. This is the irony. The irony is kind of like the discussion earlier, how there are no places in rural America, and everyone will leave rural schools to go to these non-existent places. Both cannot be true at the same time.

We cannot say these programs are not transparent and then talk about all the individual purchases families are making. That has to be transparent for you to be able to make those arguments. It is kind of a shell game people are playing when they talk about transparency.

When you say, “Here are ways in which ESA programs are not transparent,” your research is a perfect example of the opposite. Transaction-level data, you have published papers that offer transaction-level data on every purchase in the ESA program.

Susan Pendergrass (11:59)
Trust me, there are hundreds of thousands of records.

Mike McShane (12:00)
Right, hundreds of thousands of records that are available for anybody to look at.

I think this is actually good. We need to have discussions about what should be included in these programs and what should not. It is an education savings account, not just a savings account, so we have to draw the borders around what is an educational purchase and what is not.

We live in a big, vibrant democracy, so we need to have these discussions. Should you be able to buy a trampoline, or a Lego set, or whatever? Let’s talk about it. That’s fine. Maybe we decide in some cases it is allowed, and in some cases it is not.

This is part of transparency and accountability. You are democratically accountable, we need to participate in this.

But I am still blown away by the number of people who claim these programs are not transparent, when what we know about what parents are doing is more granular and more detailed than any public school district, any charter school network, almost any institution you are going to see. You just do not get transaction-level data on anything.

We can debate whether those are good purchases or not good purchases, but to say they are not being transparent is wild to me.

Susan Pendergrass (13:09)
No, I mean, my kids all went to public school. They certainly went to amusement parks. They certainly watched a lot of movies. They would not want anyone scrutinizing every, you know, you have 30 teachers buying 30 whiteboards. Decisions were made that were not the best.

I did not see anything in the transaction-level data that made me think, “This is outrageous.” And who am I to say woodworking is not an okay thing for your child to learn? Swimming lessons, I had to swim. I do not know.

I do not want to get into that conversation because I assume the best intentions for parents. I cannot understand why a parent would invest the time and effort to get into these programs to simply buy themselves a trampoline, and not really care if their kids are reading or not. I do not understand that, but that is what…

Mike McShane (14:04)
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (14:15)
…they are throwing mud at the wall to try to discredit. Clearly, it is what parents want.

I am baffled that, when you look at politics in the United States right now, those on the left just refuse to accept this fact. It is a fact. Parents want to choose their school.

There are certainly Democrats for education reform, and plenty of people working hard from the left, but the general approach feels very last century. The teachers’ union saying, “Nobody wants this, we have to stop it at all costs. We have to put a halt to this and put more money into the public school your address sends you to. We need to fund those fully first before we can ever let kids out.” That is such a failed argument to me.

Mike McShane (15:18)
Look, this is why “accountability” and “transparency” are two of the words for 2026. Opponents to choice have figured out they cannot just go out hammer-and-tongs against it, or directly say, “We are against choice.” People do not learn lessons in politics, but they learn that one.

I was looking at the gubernatorial candidate just to Missouri’s north in Iowa. It was interesting. There was an interview with the Democratic candidate for governor, Rob Sand. He would not come out and condemn the ESA program outright. The interviewer perceptively drilled down and asked, “Are you saying you are not opposed to this program, you just want changes?” He never said yes to that. He has never said, “I am for this program.” If you read between the lines, he is saying, “I am not for this program, but I cannot come out and say it.”

His pivot was immediately, “I am just talking about accountability and transparency.” He wants private schools to follow every single one of the same rules that public schools do, and expects them to somehow do better.

Part of it is, these are folks working in red states who need to make arguments that appeal to conservatives. Accountability appeals to conservatives. Fiscal responsibility appeals to conservatives, not wanting to waste tax dollars. So it is smart strategy. People need to see what it is.

If this is a blue state, these exact same people are making arguments that appeal to progressives. But you are in a red state, so they are trying to make arguments that appeal to you. If you think about it for a little bit longer, what they are saying does not hold a lot of water.

Susan Pendergrass (17:41)
Yeah, and with this federal tax credit program, even though every state has to decide whether or not they are going to take the money, it is going to be a weird shifting of resources. If I live in a state that says, “We are not going to take the money,” that is fine. I can give my $1,700 to a scholarship group in any state. I will just send my $1,700 to another state.

Some states, like Virginia, the governor, one of the last things he did when he left was opt in. Now the new governor is going to have to make this weird choice. Do I want to go against it? If you looked at any poll of parents, any poll, you would know they want to be able to choose where their kids go to school. Do you really want to be the person that withdraws?

Mike McShane (18:21)
Yeah, when she seems to be in a perfect position to just say, “Oh, the last guy did this on the way out, so I guess we are going to do it.” Once they do it for a year and everybody is fine with it, it is just, “Oh well, whatever.”

Susan Pendergrass (18:33)
I do not know. I did not do it.

I think it is going to be really interesting because, again, the way we started this, there is a groundswell. I do not think you are going to turn it back. If you stay on the side of saying it is better when kids can only go to their assigned public school, you are in quicksand. You are going to bury yourself.

Mike McShane (19:03)
Yeah. The only thing I would say, and it was another one of my six words, is “rage bait.” It is always lingering in the background for me. I am seeing it more and more, all day, every day, stuff that shows up in your feed deliberately to upset you, terrify you, whatever.

Rage bait is unpredictable. You never know what is going to catch fire and cause a big shift. There is obviously potential for rage bait content, as we mentioned, we have crossed one and a half million, hundreds of thousands of people in various states, with lots of flexibility in what they can buy. People making bad decisions, people stealing things, it is totally possible that happens. Something egregious could happen.

With a large enough population, even very improbable events can happen. One fear I do have is that something rage-bait-y happens and people lose their minds over it.

But this is the key, if one parent in Arizona does something crazy, that does not mean the other 1,499,999 parents around the country should not have the right or opportunity to do this. We have to be able to say, “This is rage bait, this is not actually what is happening.”

Susan Pendergrass (20:51)
Yeah, we have talked about this. Those of us who have pressed for school choice for so long have said, “We will do anything you want, take our arm. We will put all our data out there, we will be as transparent as possible.” And your colleague, Marty Lueken, had a Substack about this recently, like, “We will take half the money. We do not need all the money, half the money will be…”

Mike McShane (21:08)
For sure.

Susan Pendergrass (21:19)
…150 percent transparent. We will jump through all these hoops just to get this thing that everybody wants, and it is from that transparency that we are going to get those stories. We are going to pay for that.

Mike McShane (21:29)
Yeah. It is important for people to be more attuned to the rage bait they are getting. People ask, “Have you seen this thing that happened in this place?” And I am like, okay, yeah, even if it did, what do you extrapolate?

A teacher in Sacramento did something crazy. There are north of a hundred thousand schools across America. There are north of three million public school teachers. At any given moment, someone is doing something dumb. I do not know what to extrapolate from that. It could just be one crazy person.

This is not just education. Across public policy, you point to one person in the military doing something terrible to delegitimize the military in general. Do not fall for this.

To be fair, sometimes we in the school choice movement, or education reform, have done rage bait of our own. People have used social media to point out, “My gosh, look at this assignment that a second-grade teacher in Poughkeepsie did, this is why we need school choice.” People have done that.

The measure with which you measure will be measured back to you. If you live by the sword, die by the sword.

Susan Pendergrass (22:54)
John Oliver did a story on charter schools. Remember, it was the guy in Florida that was letting a charter school be a nightclub at night? There is no way that is representative of charter schools.

Mike McShane (22:58)
Yeah, I remember that.

Susan Pendergrass (23:10)
That was an example I found shocking, but it is not representative. And you are right, they will find those stories.

Mike McShane (23:13)
Yeah, totally. We should all use less rage bait. We should not use rage bait to say just because one teacher in one place did something dumb, that is an indictment of public education in general. Nor should we allow the same thing to be done in reverse, which is, because one family did something crazy, we should not have choice at all.

Susan Pendergrass (23:49)
That leads to another one of your words, “slop.” There is so much talk about AI in schools and what to do about it. Is one person going to figure this out for every school everywhere, or are we all going to figure it out individually?

Mike McShane (24:03)
Yeah, I played out the scenario I am worried about. I do not know if it will happen in 2026, but it might.

We have heard a lot about AI in schools, students cheating, which is real and worrisome. But the specific scenario I have not heard as many people talking about is the prevalence of AI video, and the ability to create videos of things that did not happen.

How many, if you have a student in a classroom, after taking a picture or a short, unrelated video of their teacher, they can put it through a series of prompts, “Hey, have this teacher do,” and then insert whatever horrible thing, say something horrible, do something horrible.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34)
Yeah.

Mike McShane (24:53)
And if you are not savvy, and I will be the first to say I think I am a savvy consumer of the internet, I have been fooled or very close to fooled. AI videos of animals doing things, dogs protecting people from bears, or that one recently that went around with a bald eagle that had ice on its beak that someone knocked off, whatever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:58)
It is like a parlor game, right? No dogs are going off diving boards, just to clarify. The rabbits on the trampoline, these are not happening. But you are right.

Mike McShane (25:20)
People who are not as savvy, the thing I spelled out was, someone does that, and then suddenly the next PTA meeting is flooded with people because this viral thing went around. The superintendent or principal has to say, “This did not happen, it is not real.”

If you do not have the media literacy, it is like one person’s word versus another. “We saw it happen, it is on video.” “No, it did not happen, it is AI.” How we adjudicate those things, and how it could be weaponized by teenagers, or by bad actors, all of that stuff will happen. Whenever a new model is released, everyone tries to break it immediately, they are much more creative than I ever was.

I am worried for teachers, worried for schools, worried for school board meetings. It could be anything. It could be taking video at a football game and saying something happened that did not. Even if it all works out eventually, the time and energy wasted dealing with it…

Now, again, I am hoping more and more schools, this could be a real kick in the rear end to get phones out of schools and say, “We are not going to have phones in schools, because people are going to be making AI videos of their teachers.” That is one of a thousand reasons we should not have phones in schools.

But it is not the only place kids are interacting with one another, or with teachers. So we have to be really skeptical when we see that video of that teacher, or that student, or that principal doing something. Take a deep breath and ask, “Is this video real? Does this pass the smell test? Does this sound like something a teacher would actually do?” I am increasingly worried about that. There are many other things people worry about that I do not really worry about, but AI video in the context of schools, bad news bears.

Susan Pendergrass (27:53)
Yeah, I think we are going to have to start adjusting our thinking to only believing things that happen in front of our face, things we can touch. The prevalence of, you know, Amazon ads now, they are… I mean, I went to get my haircut and somebody was holding up a picture, and she was like, “Okay, well, that is not a real person.” We are going to have to default to disbelief if it is on a phone or on a screen. If it is happening in front of you, you can touch it, you can believe it. But the rest of it, I think we are going to become extra skeptical, because I do not believe much stuff anymore.

Mike McShane (28:22)
Totally. Are schools going to need CCTV cameras everywhere? Are we going to be oddly surveilled in a lot of different ways, just for CYA? “If people are going to be making up fake videos, we need the real video of what is going on.” I do not know how that is going to go, but…

That was the “rage bait” one, my plea to people, please do not fall victim to rage bait. It is pinging parts of our brains that we should not. I get wrapped up in it too. “My God, I cannot believe that is happening.” Then you take 10 seconds and you are like, “Wait, why am I fired up about this road rage incident in South Carolina?” Someone cut somebody off on the highway. Who cares? I am not there. It is not my deal.

I think this “slop” stuff is also something we are going to have to be really cautious about and thoughtful about, because it could cause lots of problems.

Susan Pendergrass (29:35)
Yeah, but then people are like, “I am not going to allow AI, I am going to check it.” I think AI, we are going to have to accept, right? We have to live with it.

Mike McShane (29:41)
Yeah, we are going to have to realize this is just part of it. There will be so many great things that come out of it, the creativity it will unleash.

In our own Substack, a bunch of the graphics we do are AI generated. I could not, I laugh, I have young kids, they are better drawers, I am horrible at it, but I can do this stuff with a couple of prompts in ChatGPT. “Hey, make me…” and they can be funny. You can do someone in the style of a famous painter and suddenly it is a Renaissance painting of me.

That is incredible productivity. The fact that I do not have to have a graphic designer, I can basically do it myself and put out essentially a small newspaper with some contributors and a bit of AI. That is an insane productivity increase, and it is incredible, but we have to be cautious of the downsides.

Susan Pendergrass (30:48)
Finally, your last word, “supply side.” In Missouri, folks will say, “Well, we do not need private school choice in our rural areas, there are no private schools,” as though the supply of private schools is fixed. It is treated like a natural result of how much interest there is, the kind of people who live in the community, and what is there is there, without thinking that if parents suddenly had $7,000 or $8,000 to spend, maybe somebody would open a new school.

Or not even a new school. Maybe somebody would open a visual arts business, or a soccer academy, tutoring, dyslexia therapy, whatever it is they think parents want or need. You would be free to be an entrepreneur in that space. That piece is largely overlooked, because it is like, “We have this many private schools with this many seats, so we can only have this many scholarships.” It is like, no, that is not fixed. Do you think we are going to see a lot of changes in that area?

Mike McShane (32:00)
Yeah, because another dimension where people think things are fixed is not only the number and locations, but the shape of what schools look like. “We are not going to have a private school in this small area because we cannot have a brick-and-mortar building with 30 rooms and 250 kids.” That is not what we are talking about.

If you can get 10 kids together at $8,000 apiece…

Susan Pendergrass (32:26)
There are no buildings.

Mike McShane (32:36)
…you can do a lot of interesting stuff. Especially if you can get space donated, leverage resources in the community, maybe some online stuff, and a local teacher. You could put together a heck of an education on $80,000 or $100,000.

It is happening. What makes it challenging to talk about is that it is happening across different dimensions. At the same time we are talking about Catholic schools growing and starting new schools in a traditional sense, two blocks away in some rented bungalow people are creating a Montessori micro school.

Because these things get spoken about in national terms and in a thousand-word news story, we struggle to discuss multiple dimensions. Existing schools are growing, new schools are emerging, and those new schools are going to look different. Some will grow, some will shrink, all these things can be happening at once.

Our job as researchers and observers is to do a lot of descriptive work, describe what is happening. There has been a push in earlier generations of school choice research toward causal results, horse-race comparisons, “Are they better than public schools?” “Is this type of private school better than that type?” But the only reason we were able to do that in 1998 is because, for a hundred years before, people did descriptive work to know, how many schools, what are they doing? Then you can talk about who is doing better, because you have to decide what they are doing, where they are, who is attending, are there differences.

It is almost like we are starting over.

Susan Pendergrass (34:39)
Yeah.

Mike McShane (35:01)
…doing that basic descriptive work. What is actually happening? What are people doing?

Susan Pendergrass (35:08)
Yeah, I know somebody who started a school in a barn on their property, and the parents came and converted the empty barn to a school. I know somebody who started a mobile school, basically in a big van, so that the school came to their house one day a week. And I know someone who started one in a high-rise in Queens. It is only limited by people’s imagination, basically, right?

And a like-minded group of parents. There are more people homeschooling now than used to be, so you could do this individually, but there are many more opportunities to do it. Parents, what emerged from the pandemic, at least, is they want their kids home maybe two days or three days. That is popular, and people are finding that two days out of the house creates unique opportunities in that space.

I think it is limited by people’s imagination, and some curriculum standards, and perhaps some accountability. But if you can meet those, I think we are seeing this idea.

I am not trying to be anti-traditional public school, but I butted up against this when my kids were little. “We are the only ones who know how to do this, so you have to accept our way of doing it because it is tried and tested and comes out of our schools of education at the universities.” This is the one and only way you have to teach the number line in third grade. “This is how it has to be, we cannot vary it because we are the great equalizer of civic society in the United States.”

Your boss, Rob Enlow, really shut me down on this. It has not panned out. We only read and do math less well each year.

I cannot imagine that letting all these flowers bloom is going to have a worse result. If we fast forward 20 years and look at median earnings and educational attainment rates, and we let this thrive, I think the outcome would improve. I do not see how it goes down.

Mike McShane (37:23)
That is the thing. You mentioned the interesting times we are living in now. So many of the “parade of horribles” choice opponents talked about forever, polarization, balkanization, people retreating to silos, it is like, hey guys, that already happened without choice. You cannot blame choice, because choice did not exist yet for that to happen.

Lots of people pushing each other in the streets went to public schools. Statistically, these are public school graduates having large problems with one another.

The conservative in me says things can always get worse. The fundamental progressive view is things can always get better, and the fundamental conservative view is things could always get worse. That strand in me says, yes, things could get worse. But across a lot of these dimensions, academic outcomes, civic outcomes, there is a lot of room for growth, and not nearly as much bottom end to fall out. So the risks associated with giving people more choices are not nearly as severe as proponents of the traditional public schooling system make it out to be.

Susan Pendergrass (38:58)
Yeah. Well, in Missouri, 40 percent of our fourth graders are below the basic level in reading, which means they cannot read at all. They cannot read. They are illiterate.

Would 40 percent of parents, if given the money to spend on their child’s education, have a nine-year-old and say, “Turns out they cannot read. I tried and tried, we just did not get there. They just cannot read.” I do not think so.

I know this is not the perfect solution, that accountability through parental choice is the answer. I am not saying that. But I do not think that if parents were truly put in charge, four out of 10 would just say, “Gosh darn it, this kid is never going to read, there is probably a lot of opportunity in the service industry.” I do not think so. I think that would be a much better check on the system.

Interesting stuff. Thanks so much for joining us. I really appreciate it, always.

Mike McShane (39:42)
Yep. Yeah. I agree with you. Agreed, 100 percent.

Susan Pendergrass (39:59)
So great to talk to you. What is your Substack called?

Mike McShane (40:02)
Informed Choice, so people can check that out. Informed Choice on Substack. Subscribe, it would be great.

Susan Pendergrass (40:05)
Yeah, it is really interesting. Great. Thanks so much.

Mike McShane (40:10)
Thanks for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Six Words Driving the Education Debate in 2026 With Mike McShane 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.

Learn more about the book here: www.cato.org/books/fighting-freedom-learn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with James Shuls, fellow at the Show-Me Institute and head of the Education Liberty Branch at Florida State University, and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute about their new book, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. They discuss how the fight for educational freedom long predates modern debates over public schooling, why early advocates viewed schooling as a family and community responsibility, and how today’s school choice expansion connects to America’s founding principles. The conversation covers the history of the common school movement, the roots of residential school assignment, and why educational freedom has always been central to the American story, and more.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction

02:33 The Genesis of ‘Fighting for the Freedom to Learn’
05:41 Historical Perspectives on School Choice
08:04 The Evolution of Common Schools and Their Impact
10:59 The Role of Religion in Early Education
14:01 The Shift Towards Standardization in Education
16:43 The Need for School Choice in Disadvantaged Areas
19:29 The Historical Context of Property Taxes and School Assignment
22:17 The Recent Surge in School Choice Movements

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Certainly looking forward to this conversation with two very, very smart people: Dr. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Dr. James Shuls of Florida State University. James, can you first tell us about this new center that you are in charge of at Florida State University? I think it’s innovative and really cool, and I’d like to hear a little bit more about it before we talk about your book.

James Shuls (00:21)
Absolutely. So I’m with the Institute for Governance and Civics, and it was created by the legislature a couple years ago. And while I would like to take credit and say I’m in charge of it, as you sort of said there, Susan, I’m not in charge of the Institute, but I’m one of the branch heads. So the IGC, as we call it, has four branches. We focus on economic liberty, constitutional liberty, conscience liberty, and education liberty. I’m the head of the education liberty branch.
And so part of what we’re doing is outreach to K–12 schools, helping to focus on civics instruction, improving knowledge and preparation for teachers as it relates to civics and governance and those sorts of things. At the same time, we’re writing about issues of educational liberty from a school choice perspective, which is exactly the topic we’re talking about today.

Susan Pendergrass (01:12)
Yeah, so you guys have a book that you just co-edited, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. How did you come up with this idea, and why did you decide to put this book together?

Neal McCluskey (01:27)
Sure, I’ll go with that. The idea behind the book stems from just about everything I ever do, which is I got angry about something, and I was like, well, somebody ought to do something about this. If you work in school choice advocacy for more than a day or so, you’ll quickly hear that school choice started by people trying to avoid desegregation in the South. And that’s always given as the origin. And even if somebody wants to say, well, you know, Milton Friedman wrote this essay in 1955—and he really wrote it before 1955—we know that that was really just taking advantage, at the very least, of this backlash against desegregation.
And it just drives me nuts. There is a very long, rich history of the idea and practice of school choice. So I thought, you know, somebody ought to do a book on that, and we can hit, sort of semi-chronologically, all the different eras in which this happened and the ebbs and flows. The Cato Institute and the Center for Educational Freedom, which I direct, also had something called the School Choice Timeline—this interactive online timeline that I put together also because I was angry. In particular, I wrote a chapter about the gap where not much was going on in school choice, and I wanted to explain the gap.
But we have lots of chapters—one on how progressives were really into school choice for a while, and how schooling worked before the common-schooling movement, and all sorts of stuff like that. The genesis was aggravation on my part, at least, about always hearing this narrative that school choice stems from efforts to avoid desegregation. And then I said, you know, James Shuls—there’s a guy who probably is angry a lot, too. Maybe he’d like to get in on this.

James Shuls (03:17)
Yeah, that’s right. Susan, I’ve been on the podcast before talking about some of my scholarship related to Virgil Blum. He was a real strong school choice advocate starting in the ’50s, did a ton of work, and gets absolutely no credit. I was angry that Friedman gets all the credit—he wrote this paper in 1955, yada, yada, yada—and then in the 1990s we get school choice programs. It’s like, well, a lot happened in that yada, yada, yada period that we’re not covering.
I had been writing about that when Neal came along with the idea to do the book. Part of what we’re doing as we frame this is saying: looking at school choice today through the current lens we have is the wrong way to do it. We think of school choice today as opting out of the public school system—but that only works to frame it that way if there is a public school system. Before common schools were around, people were still advocating for their kids, still trying to get schools created. So there was lots of stuff that wouldn’t fit the framework we have today.
What we’re saying in this book is these impulses for educational freedom have always existed, and we’re essentially tracing them from colonial times to today.

Neal McCluskey (04:36)
James’s stuff on Blum was also a major reason I thought, here’s a guy who could really contribute to this. I just stumbled on Blum in large part because of what James wrote. I was like, why do people not know about this guy?

Susan Pendergrass (04:41)
We did a whole podcast on it. I’ll tell you what makes me mad is that in the last month or two, tops, there have been articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post talking about low-income families—both in Florida and Arizona—generally Black and brown parents, who are participating in this right-wing conservative movement to kill the public school system because they think they deserve to be able to choose where their kid goes to school.
Even locally in political groups, people say, well, that’s a MAGA person, which means they support charter schools. When those two things get put into a sentence, it really makes my blood boil because I’ve been working in this space a long time. As we’re going to find out more, school choice is not a new thing at all. The latest iteration of it is not a MAGA thing or five years old or a COVID thing. Since at least 1990—at least 35 years—parents and activists like Howard Fuller were saying, hey, this isn’t right. We’re literally assigning kids to the worst schools and not letting them out. We ought to let them out.
Somehow this has become the Republican agenda to kill teacher unions and break up the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. That makes me mad. That’s why I’m really glad you guys put this book together. Let’s go back—not to the very beginning of the country—but pre–industrial revolution, pre–John Dewey, before standardized schools, attendance zones, and district lines. What did it look like, say 150 years ago? Did parents decide where their kids went to school, or did you have to go to a certain school because that was the one you helped pay to create? How did it work back in the day?

James Shuls (06:50)
I’ll jump in here because I’m awfully angry about this. Before common schools, there was a wide mixture of different types of schools. You had dame schools, private schools, public schools, and publicly funded private schools.
What you get in Charles Glenn’s chapter, “Emergence of the Common School Ideology,” is an understanding of the movement towards common schools. The impetus behind them was really to separate schooling from the family and the community and to use schools for social change. That’s the difference that comes in here—schooling would be used for social change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:29)
Mm-hmm.

James Shuls (07:35)
—to create and form Americans. Some people look at that and say it’s a good thing, but there are certainly negative side effects as well when you separate the impact of community and families. An interesting element that comes out in this book is that the common school ideology and the public school system that has come in its wake was created to form a certain kind of American citizen.
Then we get into Neal’s chapter, where Neal talks about the sort of gap where things aren’t happening. It’s because these systems were under attack. You see a reemergence in the 1950s—not just because of Brown and segregation—but because you start to have a return to some of these values and a return to trying to connect schooling and the family and the church.
When you look at school choice with this longer arc, rather than looking at the ’50s as your starting point, you see the various impulses that were leading pre–common schools, how common schools helped to squash some of those things, and how we’re starting to come back to a decentralized and pluralistic system.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50)
Certainly the common schools—also called public schools before 1900—were Protestant. They absolutely taught religion. They didn’t stop teaching religion until the Catholics started showing up. Then it was, yeah, maybe we get religion out of schools, right? Because we don’t want Catholicism in a public school. Public schools taught Protestantism; they just didn’t want to teach Catholicism. People think there’s always been separation—no religion in public schools—and that’s not true.

James Shuls (09:16)
That’s a key point in Matthew Lee’s chapter: Catholics turned to private schools. He would say it’s not necessarily school choice because the Catholics were saying you had to go to the Catholic schools—so no choice among Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic schools came up because the public schools were Protestant. Protestants went in—though not all in. There were some segments, which Neal could talk about, with the Lutherans.
By and large, Protestants supported the common school movement. Then there was a movement to secularize public schools. Again, that’s part of what happens in the 1950s with the return of Protestants starting to support school choice—because their capture of the public school system had been weakened and there were no longer Protestant schools.

Neal McCluskey (10:10)
Just as a pitch for the book: there’s so much good history in here that we won’t be able to talk about. You definitely want to get the book. It’s worth noting that for much of our early history—colonial period, early republican period, even into the common-schooling period—there wasn’t a separation people would recognize if you say, well, this is a public school and this is a private school. There were schools. There was education.
Government was sometimes involved in assisting private schools. Going back to British traditions, someone would provide—usually from the proceeds of owning land—funds to help maintain a school. In America, land was the one thing in superabundance, so that wasn’t as profitable. Governments would sometimes say, look, you’re running a school here; we’ll give you a little money to do it. There was often cooperation between government and schools.
The first voucher program that we’ve at least been able to catalog was in 1802 in Pennsylvania—specifically in Philadelphia. So this is not new. Go back more than two centuries and you had people like Paine and John Stuart Mill talking about helping people to consume education by funding parents so they can choose, not by funding schools.
Even as we have common schools, they were extremely localized. Think of the one-room schoolhouse—it was also the meeting house and often the church—serving pretty homogeneous communities. Even within what eventually became common schooling, there was a lot of differentiation where people could get the schooling they wanted. It’s only as progressives consolidate control that we move far away from that community-level, very small schooling.

Susan Pendergrass (12:13)
I thought it was so odd that Maine and Vermont have had town tuitioning of high schools for a couple hundred years. Where the town didn’t want to build a high school, they just paid tuition for their high school students to go to a different school the student picked. In some cases it’s a boarding school, even overseas. They were challenged in the Supreme Court within the last couple of years, even though those programs have existed for hundreds of years.
All of a sudden, people who don’t like the voucher idea went after Maine for town tuitioning, even though that program has been in place for so long.

James Shuls (12:53)
That radical right-wing bastion in Maine.

Susan Pendergrass (12:55)
—decided at a town meeting to do it. I think as you get into the earlier or middle part of the last century, you start building up this industrial education complex: we’re going to be the great equalizer; everyone’s going to have the same kind of school; 20 kids and a chalkboard and teacher; separate kids by age, not ability; common standards; and we’re going to be in charge of it.
Anyone who disagrees with what’s being taught there is seen as a radical who wants to break the system and doesn’t understand the importance of it. That’s what I feel has been happening lately, where any parent—my own experience: I homeschooled one of my kids and was considered a radical because why wouldn’t I accept that the public school to which he was assigned would be best for him? The idea that uniformity is what we need.
I still think there are a lot of people within the public education establishment who say uniformity is the key. We are clearly seeing a backlash, but the uniformity principle—maybe 75 years, maybe the 1950s—would you say?

Neal McCluskey (14:15)
It depends. In the early republican period, people like Benjamin Rush said we need schooling for everybody to make them into good citizens—into “republican machines,” his term. Horace Mann certainly wants to standardize people. Not because of Catholics at the beginning—they hadn’t come in at great numbers—but because he saw people coming in from the countryside.
New England industrialized first—relatively poor farming area, but lots of rivers to run factories. These early factories with big water wheels. Mann saw parents coming from the countryside and thought they were all idiots. He thought we needed to take their kids away from them and standardize them. So we started it even at the very beginning.
It gets even more standardized as more immigrants arrive and people get scared of them. One overarching theme of the history of school choice: it’s about people who do not fit into whatever mold the elites decide. Catholics didn’t fit the Protestant mold. In my research, Germans were most disturbing for people because they spoke German—people said, they really need to speak English. We have a thread of fear of Germans going back to colonial Pennsylvania.
The chapter on African Americans is particularly powerful: it talks about a system that never wanted to incorporate them. They needed freedom to get the education people were denying them. That’s the big theme—people who don’t want to be standardized or who are refused help need school choice to get something out of education.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13)
I’ll only say that’s true today. It’s ironic that the kids with the least options—the most disadvantaged kids in the worst schools—are the ones people openly talk about denying options to. Even in Missouri, when public school choice is considered, some of the lowest-performing districts say, okay, but not us. We can’t let kids out of our district because we’re one of the worst in the state and everyone will leave and take money.
They want to draw a line and say, whatever unfortunate child got assigned to this school, we cannot let them leave. That’s flipped on its head. That child needs choices as much as every other kid. They say, no, we have to lock those kids in and strap them to the deck of a Titanic. Why do you think that is, James?

James Shuls (17:07)
I’d say Ron Matus’s chapter on the progressive movement toward school choice is terrific for the points you’re making. There was a tremendous progressive move for school choice in the ’70s and ’80s that culminated in the early voucher programs.
They were making exactly the cases you’re making: we should not assign students to failing schools; school choice was progressive in that it allowed disadvantaged students to opt out and get the type of school that would meet their needs, and to bring competition into the marketplace. The progressives were making the case for school choice exactly because the most disadvantaged students needed it the most.
That’s why the recent idea that school choice is a MAGA movement is off. The progressives got there first, as Ron and others explain.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
One last thing. I have a hard time articulating to folks who believe there’s an ironclad connection between property taxes and school assignment that goes back to the beginning of time and must continue until the end of time: if you pay property taxes here, your kid goes to school here; if you don’t, your child doesn’t get to go to school there. I don’t want any kids coming into my kid’s school if their parents didn’t pay property taxes.
I think that is particularly strong in Missouri. In St. Louis County we have dozens of school districts within one county. People feel very strongly—even supporters of school choice—about this property tax/school assignment idea. They can’t get past it. What would you say to that? You lived in St. Louis, James; what do you say?

James Shuls (19:13)
We didn’t write the book through this specific lens, but if you read closely you see this: the system evolved over time. You had a radically decentralized system. Horace Mann and the common school movement advocated for state structures and more organization. Over time it evolved to the system we have today.
From the founding, the idea of residential assignment where local property taxes only follow the kids—and the high level of state and federal regulation—was not anyone’s early vision. It’s not the system most people would advocate if they could design it from scratch. We get wedded to the structures we have.
What we have to do is step back and ask, is this the way it should be? I think the answer is no. We shouldn’t have systems that restrict resources to small local communities and assign students, because we get the problems we all see: high-poverty districts with struggling schools and students assigned to terrible schools with little opportunity for the types of coursework and experiences that lead to success. The system we have isn’t inherently good just because it’s the system we have.

Neal McCluskey (20:57)
We probably needed a chapter on the history of taxation to answer this directly. My suspicion is that for a lot of our history we didn’t have a lot of income tax or other taxes, and drawing on the English tradition, we probably funded things at the community level with property taxes—very local and democratically controlled.
It’s not until the industrial era, with consolidation, that communities stopped running their own schools. My guess is that’s the history of a lot of this property-tax and local-tax funding. But things have obviously changed.
My colleague Colleen Hroncich always points out: it might have made sense to have local public schools when nobody had a car and most people walked places. You couldn’t travel 10 or 20 miles every morning to drop your kid off. That doesn’t make sense now—we have modern transportation—so we don’t have to be shackled to the school a mile or two away.

Susan Pendergrass (22:04)
See you next time. I also think that starting in the 1950s—partly because of Brown v. Board—states and then the federal government started tinkering with the distribution of tax dollars to districts to give more money to poorer districts and less to wealthier districts. That’s been going on with funding formulas. I’m not sure any of them have had an impact on poor kids or reducing achievement gaps, but they thought that moving levers at the state and federal level would get a different outcome.
In my opinion, wealthier districts with higher property tax bases and more local funding aren’t really impacted by those. Now they say, you can move kids around—but not from us—because we’re not part of that system where you move money around. We’re happy with what we’ve got. If you can afford to live here, fine; but they want to be left out of it.

James Shuls (23:10)
Sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to weigh in on that last point, because—reason to listen to the podcast and get the book—this is not in the book, but Virgil Blum had some correspondence with Milton Friedman back in the ’50s and ’60s. They weren’t closely associated; they were operating in different circles. But Blum sent Friedman something he had written and asked for feedback. Friedman responded.
One thing he said was, when it comes to the voucher idea, he thought it should start at the higher education level, not K–12. Then he said it should be at the level where the taxation or the money is supplied. So in K–12, that probably means vouchers should come from the local community, not from the state or the federal government.
So to your point: we had a system that relied more on local tax dollars, and Friedman was saying the vouchers should be local. But we’ve shifted over time to a system that provides a lot more money from the state and federal government than it used to. If you look across the country, every school choice program is a state system—very rarely do you have a district creating a voucher system. It almost always comes at the state level. Even Friedman was wrong from time to time.

Susan Pendergrass (24:44)
On that note, I know you have a chapter on this, but what about this explosion of school choice? Now it feels unstoppable. We have more than a dozen states with universal-ish programs. At least five states have truly universal school choice systems. Why now? Why has it picked up steam so fast after barely making progress through the ’90s and early 2000s?

Neal McCluskey (25:17)
Jason Bedrick has a particular take on it—which I think is probably right—but I think it has deeper roots. Generally, the idea is people are unhappy and increasingly unhappy with how they’re being served by public schools.
My theory—and I think a lot of people hold this—is that COVID made people realize that in a public school system, if a powerful minority or majority wants X and you want Y, someone loses. Many parents who wanted in-person school—generally well-heeled and used to getting what they want—suddenly couldn’t get it. They realized the system didn’t work for them even if they liked it in theory.
Anecdotally, in rich places like Montclair, New Jersey, people were at each other’s throats because many wanted mutually exclusive things. Then you had ideological battles over vaccination and mask requirements. Many say that virtual school let parents see what their kids were learning, and they didn’t like it—books like Gender Queer, how African American history is taught, etc. We haven’t shown concretely that anger was because of peeking into the classroom via Zoom, but it certainly coincided. People were angry.
Jason argues that, yes, people were unhappy, but it wasn’t really COVID; it was the strategy of reaching out to red-state parents in environments where you could get school choice, saying: public schools are teaching stuff you don’t like; you don’t want your kids trapped in that. All the big school-choice gains were in red states—the red-state strategy worked. Now the future is moving into purple and blue states. I think that’s right too, but the underlying driver is people realizing one system can’t fit everyone.

James Shuls (28:32)
I’ll weigh in here too. Friedman made the free-market case for school choice in the ’50s, and that case continued to today—choice, competition, rising tides lift boats. You also had the progressive case in the ’70s and ’80s—students shouldn’t be trapped in failing schools; create programs to help the most disadvantaged. Those arguments kept creating small, targeted programs, but not a wider audience.
A third element—cultural, right-leaning values—added a new coalition. It layered on top of the free-market and progressive cases. I wouldn’t say the movement is completely going to the right; it’s making arguments that appeal to those individuals.
If you go to a rural Missouri voter and say “choice and competition,” with one local public high school and one elementary school, that doesn’t land. If you say the most disadvantaged students in St. Louis and Kansas City need choice, the rural voter may not care. But if you weigh in on some conservative values, you reach a new audience. Maybe that’s part of what’s happened.

Susan Pendergrass (30:24)
Just a bigger tent. It’s clear we’ve only scratched the surface of your book—this is only a 30-minute podcast and there’s so much more in there. A lot of it is so intriguing—going back to the history of this country and realizing the system we have now is relatively new compared to the various systems we’ve had.
Parents don’t really care what the name is on the outside of the school. They care about how their kids come home at the end of the day—how much they appear to be learning. They want them challenged; they want them safe. That’s universal. Whatever system gets them there, they don’t care what it’s called or what it looks like. If they thought they’d get it out of a uniform system and now they don’t…
There’s so much in this book. You picked a lot of great authors—12 leading education scholars. When will folks be able to buy this book and read it themselves, and where?

Neal McCluskey (31:37)
It comes out November 11th. I think it’s available online—online bookstores everywhere—as well as the Cato website, Cato.org.

Susan Pendergrass (31:43)
And can folks reach out to you guys if they have any comments or questions?

Neal McCluskey (31:53)
As long as it’s nice stuff, they can reach out to me.

Susan Pendergrass (31:55)
I can’t promise them.

James Shuls (31:55)
The nice stuff can reach out to me; the negative comments go to Neal.

Susan Pendergrass (32:00)
Well, it’s great. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It’s a fantastic book, and I highly recommend folks get it and read it themselves.

James Shuls (32:09)
Thank you.

Neal McCluskey (32:09)
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Long Fight for Educational Freedom with Neal McCluskey and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Robert C. Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, about the expansion of school choice and the organization’s work advancing parental freedom in education. They discuss Milton Friedman’s original vision, how states like Florida, Arizona, and Indiana have moved toward universal choice, Missouri’s legal fight over its scholarship program, and how parental demand is reshaping education markets, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Ed Choice and Leadership
01:00 Milton Friedman’s Legacy in Education
02:26 The State of School Choice in America
04:57 Challenges in Missouri’s Education System
07:38 The Importance of Universal School Choice
09:39 The Role of Leadership in Education Reform
11:49 Parental Advocacy and the Future of School Choice
14:15 Market Demand and Private School Growth
16:59 The Evolution of Educational Options
19:49 Redefining Quality in Education
22:18 Civic Values and Shared Experiences in Education
26:05 The Debate on Public vs. Private Education
29:47 Legal Challenges and Advocacy for School Choice

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
So I am actually very excited that you have joined our podcast, Robert Enlow. You are CEO or executive director of EdChoice—which one? President and CEO. How long have you been president and CEO of that organization?

Robert Enlow (00:08)
I’m president and CEO of EdChoice.

Well, that’s a great question, Susan. And thanks for having me, and thanks to Show-Me for all they do. I believe I’ve been president and CEO since 2009, but I joined the organization in 1996. We opened our doors on September 23, 1996, and I was the first guy walking in the door.

Susan Pendergrass (00:31)
And it was originally called the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation.

Robert Enlow (00:34)
Correct, the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, obviously established after Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose. During the last decade of their lives, I got to know them—particularly in the last five years of his life. As a young kid coming from England who had these wild-eyed liberal ideas in some ways, it took me a little while for him and Rose to get to understand me and warm up to me, but they did, and it was an amazing experience getting to watch them work.

Susan Pendergrass (00:40)
And you knew them both. What do you think he would think of what’s going on right now in K–12 education?

Robert Enlow (01:04)
You know, I will tell you what he would say to me every single time we passed a bill in another state. He would say, “Robert, we’re on the right track, but you’ve got a lot more to do.” I think he would be happy that we got to universality of people. I think he would be really pleased with the fact that we’re now at a universe of eligibility. I think he’d be less pleased that we’re still controlling the marketplace and controlling the spigot of funds. So I think he would be saying we’re not getting to a true universal marketplace unless you think about supply and information and funding just as much as you think of everyone choosing. Like in a state like Texas, everyone’s excited—oh my God, everyone gets to choose. Well, not really. It’s a billion-dollar appropriation. That means only maybe 90,000 kids get to choose out of 6 million. So when you think about who can really choose, we’ve got to think about the money. And the same thing is true in Missouri with its $50 million—$75 million tax rate and $50 million appropriation still limits the number of fan futures. Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (02:02)
Like nobody. Tiny, tiny. But we do have an Arizona and a Florida now. I think, you know, I remember a very long time ago working with you on an Arizona voucher that got vetoed by the governor, but now Arizona is essentially universal school choice, and Florida. What I’m seeing most recently that I really love is with their universal school choice and more than half of parents choosing something, the public schools are getting in the game. The public schools are like, okay, spend your scholarship dollars with us, because we’ve been at this a long time. And they’re not seeing it as this us versus them. It’s like, we are all working together to educate our kids. And maybe, you know, we all have a place in this.

Robert Enlow (02:30)
That’s right. So people ask me all the time, Susan, they’re like, well, when will you work with the opponents of school choice, or when will you work with public schools? I’m like, we’ll work with public schools when there truly is a level playing field for all families to be able to choose. Now we actually see there are three aspects to that that we care about, right? All families can choose, right? They can choose all the options, and they can choose with all available dollars. We see five states that have that criteria now: Florida, Arizona, West Virginia, and now New Hampshire. Arkansas—Arkansas. So Arkansas, yeah, Arkansas, Arizona, the A’s; W’s—West Virginia; Florida; and New Hampshire. And what’s really interesting about that, if you look over time—we do this thing called the EdChoice Share, which is what we really care about: how many people are choosing all the options that they want. Florida and Arizona are the top two. And it’s really amazing to see what’s happened in Florida.

Susan Pendergrass (03:16)
Arkansas.

Robert Enlow (03:39)
—people, of families going to traditional assigned public schools. Now, even in that, they are choosing by buying a house, right? So that’s gone from 86.2% in 2001–2002 to now, today, just 51.8%. About half. Isn’t that crazy?

Susan Pendergrass (03:46)
Sure, sure, sure. About half. And I will tell you from my experience in Missouri, that sort of reality—where almost every kid just goes to their assigned public school, whatever’s on the utility bill, that’s where you go to school and you have no other options—is still assumed to be almost universal. In fact, it is in Missouri, because we only have charter schools as punishment. We have that tiny little scholarship program. You can go to a full-time virtual, which isn’t for everyone. So essentially, you see the address on the utility bill is where you go to school. And I just think that it’s been really hard to sort of break through that mindset and let folks know, like in Florida, only half of parents are doing that. And probably, like you said, a sizable percentage of that half decided where to live based on what school their kids would go to. So they are, in a sense, exercising some choice. And I just wonder, when you have two states in the same nation that are so completely divergent, where does that lead us to? So Missouri’s kind of surrounded.

Robert Enlow (04:57)
Well, it’s—yeah, so Missouri is surrounded, and where it leads you to is a couple of things. It leads you to a metric of in-migration. In Indiana, one of the things I get asked a lot is, you know, what’s the success metric for your state? And I say the number of people migrating to our state because they have educational options. Right. So we are a state of educational options on your border, almost, and everyone can choose. Right. And it’s a big deal, and it’s why we’ve had more and more families. You’re ranked in our study 28th out of 51. And you really have not seen a change. Well, I mean, you still have 80.3% in traditional schools, but what you’ve done is you’ve allowed magnet schools to grow and you’ve had some charter school—your charter school growth has been—let’s take a look. You’ve actually had a decent—

Susan Pendergrass (05:32)
That seems high, to be honest. Yeah, but I can tell you our charter schools are punishments. They’re only in Kansas City and St. Louis, only in non-accredited districts. So right now there might be a charter school in the works in a fully accredited district—in Columbia 93—and people in Columbia 93 are freaking out about a charter school opening. This is how sort of, like, behind the curve we are. They’re freaking out that a charter school might open, and they’re arguing we don’t need it. And I will say—I want to get to the lawsuit against our scholarship program. We have a very strong, what I sort of call the—

Robert Enlow (05:52)
Yeah, that’s great.

Susan Pendergrass (06:16)
—educational establishment in Jefferson City. That is the teacher union leadership, the Association of School Boards, and the Association of Superintendents. Because we have 520 districts, there’s a lot of superintendents and a lot of school boards, and they will show up to a hearing to make sure that parents don’t get to choose where their kids go to school.

Robert Enlow (06:35)
Yeah, so this is one of the reasons why, in 2016, when the Milton Friedman Foundation changed its name to EdChoice, we focused on universality. Because I think we realized that the fights for school choice—where they’re fighting to make sure that children can escape from bad schools—is the wrong message. The message is that all families need to have some freedom to choose what works best for them. And that should be across all income levels. Why are we okay with giving billionaires access to gated, segregated public schools, but freak out when we give them the options to choose private schools? Moreover, you can’t continue to ask Republican legislators to vote for something that they’re going to get killed for in their district. Right. And so one of the key points of universality has been being able to say, we need you to support choice so that constituents of yours can get an opportunity. So in your state, one of the challenges has been: how do we get eligibility to where it’s supposed to be universal? And you’ve done your—yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (07:38)
Funding, funding. I mean, we had tiny funding up until this $50 million. The only scholarship dollars we had were fundraised from individual and corporate donors. So getting that money together has been a real challenge, and I think we got to $15 to $20 million finally. And ironically—I don’t know, you may not know this because it’s very in the weeds—but when that ESA program, when that scholarship program passed, we agreed—the legislature agreed—that any district that lost a student to the scholarship program could continue to count them for five years. So this year they’re asking for $30 million to cover the kids who took the scholarship. Thirty million dollars is going to go to public schools for the kids who took the scholarships, but they don’t want the scholarship program to get $50 million. And I just think the irony kills me.

Robert Enlow (08:25)
Well, hold on—just, I think—so this hold-harmless thing, let me just ask a question. I think Show-Me then should put in a bill like this: if they want to be held harmless when a student leaves, then anytime a child moves from one public school to another public school, they should hold that other public school to account. Public schools are getting—they’re the ones where families are moving the most, right? So aren’t other public schools in Missouri taking more money from other public schools than any kind of choice or charter program?

Susan Pendergrass (08:42)
That’s right. Yeah, and God forbid that we’re sending kids to Indiana for your in-migration, right? Like, when kids leave, somehow we should—and we do have these crazy hold-harmless policies that you guys have analyzed—but I feel like it’s starting to feel like we have sort of two different worlds. If you raise your kids in Florida or Arizona or Arkansas, when they get to be four or five years old, then good news: you get to sit down and look at your options and look at your kid and look at where you work, what might fit your schedule, and you can pick from a number of things. If you live in Missouri, you cannot. And I just think that’s gonna start to diverge.

Robert Enlow (09:25)
So here’s what I’m going to say about that. I agree with you. And there is a divergence happening, particularly in the states in America that have broad choices—and I don’t just mean private school; I mean charter and all of that. But once you get a taste of choice—we have really believed this over time—once you start to get a taste of choice, and if you make it broad enough and open enough, parents begin to start utilizing that option; they learn over time. And so it didn’t happen overnight that Florida went from 90% to 51%. It happened over 20 years as choice grew and became more eligible. So, you know, key point is you in Missouri now have a program. It now has some public funds attached to it. And the goal is to get that utilized as much and as broadly as possible in every district. I say this all the time: one of the reasons why Indiana’s Choice Program is so defensible is—we love our charter schools—but charter schools, I think, are in 30 districts and 30 legislative districts. Private schools are in every single legislative district in the state, and all of them take choice dollars. And so you have a built-in constituency of support. We now have 110,000 families using choice out of our million kids. And so it’s amazing, the growth. It didn’t start off that way. It started off with 3,500. Right. And so you see the growth of choice over time. And as long as your legislatures are willing to move forward, then you’re going to continue to see that change. And no amount of union hacking and no amount of school board association—because they’re ultimately disconnected with what the parents want. And that’s particularly true after COVID, because there’s a ton of micro schools and a ton of—Milton Friedman used to say, you know you’re ready for a free market when there’s the presence of an underground market. And there’s a huge underground market for education happening all over Missouri right now in the form of micro schools and pods. Parents are wanting to move. And as the legislature starts giving them access to public funds, you’ll see growth over time.

Susan Pendergrass (11:22)
And we’ve got some parent advocacy groups that have appeared on the scene, like Activate Missouri. And I know, like in Florida, there were some very loud parent groups that influenced elections because they wanted school choice. And I do believe that parents are going to be the ones that sort of drive the change in Missouri. But you guys in Indiana also had very strong leadership. You had Governor Mitch Daniels—like, you had very strong leadership. We’ve had a bit of a vacuum in that regard in Missouri. Our new governor supports the idea of school choice. I’m not sure that he’s willing to put his political capital on the line for it in the way that you guys—

Robert Enlow (11:57)
Yeah, so there’s a lot of feeling out there now—oh my God, if I get a governor, it’ll be a savior, right? And look, governors are super important and they are critical for getting it over the line. Mitch Daniels was critical to take this movement in the country to the next step. Prior to Mitch Daniels, we’d sort of seen the failure of a voucher program in Florida—Jeb Bush’s voucher program—and so we’d gone to this tax-credit scholarship model, right? And Mitch said, no, we’re going to do something big, statewide and large. And when he did that, he sort of opened the floodgates for a bunch of states. So that was really important. Governor Pence was supportive. But the governors after that haven’t been, like, massively out in front driving stuff. They’ve not not signed it when it comes to their table, but they haven’t been out there leading the way. Having a Speaker of the House like Representative Todd Huston—by the way, it’s amazing. So having leadership roles is critically important. I can’t say enough for someone like Speaker Huston. So, you know, it’s important to have a governor, but it’s super important to have leadership in the House and Senate.

Susan Pendergrass (13:05)
Yeah, you must, because I know you have the third-grade non-retention for kids who are behind in reading. I know that you guys are out in front on the—really the first really meaty—federal waiver request that the Secretary of Education has been asking for states to send in their waiver requests. And Indiana’s is certainly the most robust. You’re going back to letter grades for your schools. I mean, you’re not just doing choice. You guys are seemingly moving on a lot of fronts in education in a way that will make it very attractive to families. And I try to make this point all the time in Missouri: families are gonna leave and businesses are gonna leave because we have all of these second-generation choosers, right? So kids who chose their school are having kids, and they expect to choose their school.

Robert Enlow (13:47)
Look, the idea of customer choice is embedded into anyone who’s under 30, right? And so when they begin to realize that’s going to be true in education, they’re going to be like, why am I getting this one-size-fits-all system that doesn’t actually fit either my values or my safety or what I think of academic quality—or what if I want something more hybrid? I mean, the reality is that families under 30 now—they’re not having kids; we have a baby bust here—but those under 30 are definitely saying, “I want more choice and customization.”

Susan Pendergrass (14:15)
Yeah, and as you know, you have multiple kids, I have multiple kids—they’re not even all the same. So what works for one might not work for all of them within a family. Now, another argument that we get in Missouri, in terms of the need for private school choice, is we don’t have enough—you know, we don’t have very many private schools, and most rural districts don’t have any. And we are seeing some research emerge that the private school market responds in these scholarship programs, right?

Robert Enlow (14:38)
I love hearing this, Susan, and I’m sorry if I am frustrated by that question. I don’t think you ever, ever ask—no one in the world ever asked—and I know this is not comparing education with this product—but no one in the world ever asked Lay’s Potato Chips how many bags of Fritos they need. They figure that out based on customer and market demand. This idea that somehow private schools don’t exist—of course they exist to market demand.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45)
Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah.

Robert Enlow (15:06)
When it comes and when it’s free and when it’s open. Let me give you an example. In Indiana, when we first started our program in 2010, it was like, “There’s not enough private school spaces. There’s not enough private school spaces.” Okay, so we did a survey of all the private schools. We got all the private schools to get together on how many spaces they had. They had 22,000 available spaces. We went through district and grade. Great. And then when we expanded it in 2013, the governor says, “We need to know how many spaces there are going to be.” All right, we’ll do another survey—since no one believes that markets respond, right? Well, we did a whole other survey. How many spaces do you think there were? Twenty-two thousand. Exactly. My point is—like 20 or 22,000, right? This concept of “Oh, we don’t know if there’s enough supply.” Look, markets will respond so long as markets are free to respond. So one of the biggest challenges right now going forward is—look, try to—

Susan Pendergrass (15:41)
I don’t—

Robert Enlow (16:01)
School choice—or private school choice, or educational choice—can do one of three things: fill seats in existing schools, build new seats in existing schools, or build new schools, right? Now, the way we’ve run private schooling in America is we’re only doing one and two. We’re filling seats in existing. And just remember, private schools in the last 25 years lost 10% market share total, right? So there’s a ton of spaces. There’s a ton of spaces in private schools all over America, right? So if you think you lost 10% of—

Susan Pendergrass (16:20)
That’s right. Closed. A lot of schools closed. Ahem.

Robert Enlow (16:30)
—five million, right? Or whatever the number is. You have plenty of spaces out there in private currently. Now we need to grow those spaces and grow the different types of models. That’s going to require legislators to be a bit more willing to take some risk around the types of schools that they allow to be, quote-unquote, “accredited,” right? So you need to allow micro schools. You need to allow new entrants into the marketplace. And the more you do that, the faster it will grow. But there are slots out there. And what we’re really finding from the emerging research is that private schools are growing faster in rural areas—like in Florida—and they’re actually growing. I mean, Susan, you did this research for us about Florida and Arizona, so why don’t you tell us how fast they’re growing?

Susan Pendergrass (17:07)
Right. Well, they’re growing in Arizona. What I will say that comes out of that research is parents don’t really care what the label is on the bill. They are calling a lot of things “schools” now, right, that you might not have called schools before. And you guys survey parents—you do your monthly surveys. Schooling in America—what’s it called? What’s your monthly survey? Yeah. You’ve been doing it since COVID.

Robert Enlow (17:27)
It’s called Morning Consult—sorry, Schooling in America polling.

Susan Pendergrass (17:32)
And what I think is one of the most interesting findings is that consistently, now that COVID’s way in the rearview, parents want their kids to go to school two or three days a week. More parents want their kids home a couple days and in school a couple days than want five days in school or five days at home. People sort of want this—they like this sort of flexibility thing. And what I think we’re seeing is a growth in, like you said, micro schools, hybrid schools, homeschool co-ops where I am homeschooling a couple days, then a couple days my child is going somewhere to be part of group activities. And parents are doing online coding schools, and that’s a school to them, right? It’s an online situation where their kids are learning to code, and they’re calling it a school. So, yeah, the definition of what is a private school—the fact that it’s not a nonprofit provider, that it’s a private provider and they’re providing all sorts of different things—is really getting blurry. I think that that is a definite finding. And where that’s allowed to thrive, like Arizona, where you have this massive ESA program, and Florida—that’s where you’re seeing parents are only limited by what they can think up, right?

Robert Enlow (18:39)
So how much growth was there in Arizona and Florida? You saw it. Tell me how much there was.

Susan Pendergrass (18:44)
In the number of private schools? Well, I will say this: private school data is messy. And in most states, it looks like they’re declining. Florida and Arizona are two of the states where you can say for sure—outside the error ranges—they have more private schools now than they did 10 years ago. And that is the exception to the rest of the country. You can say for sure California and New York have fewer private schools than they did 10 years ago.

Robert Enlow (18:45)
Yeah. I love you, Reese Richard.

Susan Pendergrass (19:08)
And the nation as a whole has fewer private schools. But in Florida and Arizona, you’re seeing the opposite direction—and Ohio. So the market is responding, but it might not be, you know, a full-on brick-and-mortar cafeteria-gym-library private school. It might be something that doesn’t look exactly like that. And to a parent, it’s a school. And that’s what I think we’re seeing. And I know that in Florida, parents are combining scholarship programs to have their child see a paraprofessional and get some specialized equipment if they have a disability, and be part of a group activity. And I think that is one of the most exciting things that’s happening—these really interesting, expansive, curated experiences that parents are putting together.

Robert Enlow (19:49)
Yeah, you saw in one year a growth of 150—think—private schools or private options in Arizona in just one year. So it’s not like the market won’t respond.

Susan Pendergrass (19:56)
Yeah. And more of them are accessing online schools than they used to. Right—Stanford has a school, BYU has a school. If you can access these online schools, they don’t have to be in-state. That’s because the parents are deciding where the money goes. But in Missouri, Missouri has accredited Missouri virtual schools, and that’s where you have to enroll your child. But when you let the parents and word of mouth—say, you know, “Hey, I’ve got a great foreign language school”—word of mouth works. Then I think you definitely see a massive expansion of what parents are accessing through these programs. And I can only imagine, based on Milton Friedman’s—what, 1955? 57? 55—premise on this, that achievement should go up. I mean, I know that this isn’t the thing that we are focused on, but it should.

Robert Enlow (20:36)
Yep, 1955.

Susan Pendergrass (20:46)
I’ve always said, like, if 25% of Missouri eighth graders are proficient in math, I don’t think 75% of Missouri parents, if they were given control over it, would just accept the fact that their kid didn’t learn math.

Robert Enlow (20:56)
So one of the challenges I think we have with that is: what do we determine to be quality, and how do we measure that, right? I’m one of the few that think that the standards movements of the 1980s did more harm to K–12 education than good.

Susan Pendergrass (21:02)
Yeah, that’s a big question. Tell me why.

Robert Enlow (21:14)
Because I think the standardization to such a point—which then meant you had to have state tests aligned to that standardization, which then meant you had to create very rigid scope and sequencing for teachers—it really did, in a way, de-professionalize the teaching industry and make it a widget industry. And so, as a result, I think we’ve lost this ability to educate, and we’ve created this desire to—

Susan Pendergrass (21:17)
—teach to it.

Robert Enlow (21:43)
—to inculcate in terms of how to get them to do a test. I’m not a big fan of state tests. I think they get gamed all the time and changed all the time. I’m not a huge fan of state standards. I think you can have standards, but align them to something else. We had the Iowa Test of Basic Skills growing up, and that was a fine test, and we could do the same. So we, for example, are believers in testing choice and think we should allow families to do that. So when you look at quality—

Susan Pendergrass (22:10)
You mean pick a test—allow them to pick a test? And how would you hold any schools accountable, or would you? Would you do the Ashley Berner or the British approach? What would you do?

Robert Enlow (22:13)
Yeah, they should all be taking tests if they want. I think—no, look, first of all, I think parents hold schools accountable. We’re learning that from Arizona, right? By the time they close a charter school in Arizona, there’s like 12 parents in it, right? So, I mean, parents know quality. But you’ve got to remember, parents are choosing for different reasons. I think about this all the time. I had a son who had special needs, and I didn’t want to send him to the local public school because it was going to be bad for him, in my opinion. He wasn’t going to be served. So I went and did a whole bunch of searching around, and I picked a school that was 15th on the I-STEP for third-grade results—that was Indiana—versus the other school that was seventh, right? Why did I do that? Well, I did it because I thought he’d have a safer environment, he’d have a more moral environment—an environment with my values—and it was cheap enough for me, and it was good enough. So, parents make decisions based on a whole host of factors, and I think it’s silly for us to think that they don’t. The other thing is: what do we mean by quality is a big deal. I am not a fan of saying quality is only a test score. I think quality is much more than that. I don’t know about your kids, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
That’s a great question. But do test scores matter?

Robert Enlow (23:43)
I’m not sure I’d say—they matter insofar as you inform parents how kids are doing relative to others. I think it’s important that families know that. I’m a big fan of the one thing I do like about the British system—just ranking all the schools. That’s what they do: they take a test and everyone gets put on a league table. I love that concept. Everyone gets on a league table, and you can say, “Oh, you’re going to a school that’s 100 out of 200. Well, you’re mid-table. Why aren’t you going to a school that’s 85 or 60,” or something like that? So I think it’s really important to just put it on a table, because I think keeping up with the Joneses is actually a valuable part of society. But think about—

Susan Pendergrass (24:01)
We do that at the Show-Me Institute. For Missouri schools, we do rank all the schools. But one more question—just to push back on that a little bit, but not exactly that. One thing that we’re seeing, or that I’ve seen in these scholarship programs, is that kids are potentially—we’re growing the number of kids who are not having shared experiences with their peers. And by that, I mean probably going to have a lot fewer kids playing the trumpet or playing the cello.

Robert Enlow (24:10)
No.

Susan Pendergrass (24:28)
Because when you go to middle school and you say, “I’m going to take band,” and then they’re like, “Let’s pick an instrument,” right? That is kind of hokey, but that was what a lot of us did. And now you have parents who are simply having their child go to guitar lessons or piano lessons because that’s what their kid wants to play. And you’re not going to have kids hauling their flute home on the bus. And that’s kind of a shared experience. Also, things like the weird PE classes I had to take, like square dancing or, I don’t know, bowling. You know, we’re going to lose some of that from a civic point of view. We’re going to lose lots of the shared experience, and kids are going to have these algorithm-driven or curated experiences. What do you think?

Robert Enlow (25:06)
Okay, comrade. Let me just say, okay, comrade. I can’t believe I just heard an apologist for school buses, right? I mean, everyone get on a bus with a snotty—listen, common cultural experiences happen by common cultural things, not by being in the same place at the same time. This idea that schools are the locus of all of our common cultural experiences is part of the problem we have in education. So in Arizona—

Susan Pendergrass (25:08)
Come on, come on, what do you think? You have to ride the school bus?

Robert Enlow (25:35)
Yeah. Yes, yes. There are tons and tons of common cultural experiences right now. The fastest-growing type of tutor is music and physical instruction, right? Are they not taking classes together? Are they not working together with other kids? They’re just not working with other kids in a common—in a socialist—environment of a school bus or in a school, right? This idea that acculturation and socialization happen only inside of a K–12 school building strikes me as very socialistic.

Susan Pendergrass (26:05)
I hear it. I hear it a lot from the—air quotes—other side. I hear that they are the great equalizing institution: traditional K–12 public schools.

Robert Enlow (26:13)
Okay, if that were the case—if that were the case—why is the data extremely clear in voucher programs and choice programs that the civic values of kids in choice programs who attend private schools are far greater than the civic values and virtues of those who attend traditional public schools? I say this all the time: if you go to the GLSEN survey—the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network survey of kids and their issues in dealing with being gay—Which school system is the worst on gay kids? They get dead. Based on the data that they bring out, public schools have significantly higher rates of abuse of gay kids. Right? How tolerant is that? Now, what ends up happening is they hear about it more in religious schools—they hear about being gay—but they’re not bullied. So you actually ask yourself this question: Do you want your gay kid bullied, or do you want them to hear about it more?

Susan Pendergrass (26:42)
I’m guessing you’re going to say traditional public schools.

Robert Enlow (27:06)
These are legitimate questions to ask. And by the way, we’re not doing well with this at all in any school system. But this idea of civic virtue coming from a homogenized institution strikes me as naive at best—particularly since, if you think those schools don’t teach values, you’re wrong. They absolutely teach values. And then they teach values based on their school assignment, which is based on where they live. And if you don’t think neighborhoods produce value and values, then you’re wrong. Anyone who knows me knows that I rail against suburbia all the time—it’s just part of who I am. Gated, segregated communities really bother me. It bothers me. These ideas of living in enclaves piss me off, because I don’t think that’s what America is supposed to be about. But that ends up what’s happening in schooling, right? And what private schooling and choice does is it breaks that apart. How are you getting more civic tolerance—how are you getting more integration—in private schooling than you are in public schools? Whenever I hear, “Public schools are the center and locus of our community shared experience,” I actually cringe and start worrying about what they’re teaching.

Susan Pendergrass (28:13)
Yeah, I also saw a comment the other day on a Signal chat I’m on that charter schools are part of the right-wing conservative agenda to kill public education, which just makes me crazy, because charter schools by and large serve poor kids of color, and there’s nothing to do with the—there’s no right-wing conservative agenda there. And I know a lot of parents who would very much disagree with that. But that is the perception that’s out there—that you guys, with your school choice and your vouchers—and I know that you guys did a whole market test on the word “voucher,” which I think is brilliant, because no matter what the program is, folks on the left call it a voucher scheme. There’s a “scheme,” and that it’s killing public education, and then we won’t have a civic-minded, you know, equal electorate, basically.

Robert Enlow (28:39)
Yep. Can we start to redefine—and I have to redefine—look, I am a huge believer in public education. I want an educated public. I want kids to be educated. I want those—because I think society is benefited. That is a very different thing from running a system of common schools that was built off the backs of a potentially bigoted idea in the 1840s, right? I think there’s a different conversation. I think government-run, district-run schools, while a reality, are different than public education. Kids are educated to the public interest if they go to a school or learning environment where they get educated. And so that’s why Milton Friedman’s original idea—separate the public financing of education from the government running a school.

Susan Pendergrass (29:47)
Well, it’s a brilliant idea, and I appreciate you coming to argue with me about it. That’s great. I could go on, but I’m going to let it go at that. I appreciate that you guys—I didn’t really get into it—but that you’re an intervenor in the Missouri case. Clearly you believe that more Missouri families should have access to this. The parents who are the defendants basically have a sibling that they would like to join the program that one of their kids is in. And I suspect that—

Robert Enlow (29:51)
I love arguing with you. You’re one of my dearest, oldest friends. There’s very few people like you, right?

Susan Pendergrass (30:17)
I think we’re going to be successful. We had one successful ruling so far where the program gets to continue.

Robert Enlow (30:22)
Yeah, we’re the intervenors. Choice Legal Advocates is the intervenor in Missouri National Education Association et al. versus State of Missouri. So we are intervening on behalf of parents. Currently, the district court denied a temporary injunction, so they allowed the program to continue. We’re excited by that. We’re strongly positive that we think it’s a good sign for us and that we should end up on the right side of this. You know, I’m just shocked that the unions continue to be on the wrong side of parents all the time.

Susan Pendergrass (30:49)
They sure do. All right. Well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate you taking the time to join us on the podcast.

Robert Enlow (30:54)
Thanks for having me, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post From Milton Friedman to Modern School Choice with Robert Enlow 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 Shaka Mitchell, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, about how a new federal scholarship tax credit, created through the One Big Beautiful Bill, could transform K–12 education across the country. They discuss what this means for Missouri families, the legal threats facing the MOScholars program, how education policy is shifting nationally, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Evolution of School Choice in Missouri
02:59 Charter Schools and Teacher Innovation
05:40 The Impact of Lawsuits on Educational Freedom
08:35 Federal Tax Credit Programs and Their Implications
11:19 The Future of School Choice and Parental Empowerment

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much for joining us on the Show-Me Institute podcast, Shaka Mitchell of AFC. But I think you wear a lot of hats. We’ll just do that hat for now. There have been a lot of changes in the last few years—certainly since the pandemic—regarding how kids end up at the school they attend, especially with parents now getting more opportunities to choose instead of just being assigned. I know you’ve been on the front lines of this, especially through your work with charter schools.

In Missouri, we’re sort of creeping into it. We have a scholarship program now that’s growing, and finally, like in so many other states, the legislature has decided to put some public funding toward it. And now it’s tied up with a lawsuit. Are you following what’s going on with Missouri’s scholarship program?

Shaka Mitchell (00:45):
Yeah, thanks Susan. Thanks for having me on. I sure am following it. I’ve been encouraged in recent years by the steps Missouri has taken to expand school choice. As you know, there had been a charter school law for years, but it was really limited—to Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s a lot of students, but still many others couldn’t access those schools.

Then you had the MOScholars program, which I bet we’ll talk about. On the one hand, there are some encouraging developments coming out of Missouri. And then, per usual, there are lawsuits. Because, in the words of the famous 20th-century philosopher Taylor Swift, haters gonna hate.

Susan Pendergrass (01:30):
That’s right.

Let’s go back to this charter school thing for a minute. Now, for the first time, a charter school can open anywhere in the state—but only if the school board is the sponsor. That happens all over the country, but in Missouri, no school board would even consider authorizing a charter school. Not running them, just authorizing them.

Now there’s one other county where they can open without the board as the sponsor. But there is such strong resistance to the idea of charter schools. Do you find that surprising in 2025?

Shaka Mitchell (02:06):
Yes and no. I’ve worked in charter schools and with several charter networks. I have lots of friends still working in that space. At the American Federation for Children, we’re school-type agnostic. We support parents’ ability to choose.

In some ways, it’s not surprising that school districts—which have in many places become jobs programs for adults—don’t want to disrupt the status quo. Budgets continue to increase, while enrollments decrease. So they’ve got fewer students per classroom, but more money per pupil.

They’ve got it pretty good in terms of job security. But I think what you’re getting at is important: there are great educators who want to do right by kids. And many of them are trapped within that system.

We’re seeing some start their own schools or move to other states or online programs. There’s a lot of innovation happening. But unfortunately, you mostly see the negative reaction from public school districts when it comes to innovation and choice.

Susan Pendergrass (03:42):
Yes, and what’s so tragic in Missouri is that we’ve shut the door on teachers as entrepreneurs. We have plenty of entrepreneurial teachers. Some of the strongest charter school networks were started by teachers who said, “I have a great idea, and I need to do this outside the regulations and bureaucracy.” Cutting off the teacher-as-entrepreneur option is tragic.

Shaka Mitchell (04:10):
Yeah, super tragic. One of my colleagues, Dr. Patrick Graff at AFC, has done work on teacher spending accounts—similar to ESAs.

It’s a great idea. Teachers often say their classrooms are under-resourced. Every parent knows it’s almost back-to-school season—we’re about to get a list of supplies.

Every time I get that list, I think, “Why haven’t we budgeted for enough glue or crayons?” Patrick’s idea is that teachers should have accounts to buy what they need. Surprise: teachers love it, and legislators do too.

But when you say, “Cool, it works for teachers—now let’s do it for parents,” suddenly it’s hair-on-fire. The education establishment just says no. It’s unfair.

Susan Pendergrass (05:19):
Yeah. Public funding for MOScholars in Missouri currently serves mostly low-income students and students with disabilities in Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s where the program started. It’s expanded a bit—but only through tax-credit fundraising, and the organizations have to ask for donations.

Now the lawsuit is basically saying those kids have to go back to their old schools. That we can’t publicly fund private schools for students. It’s saying, “You have to go back to the school that didn’t work for you.”

I know the teachers’ unions brought the lawsuit, and they often take on the PR risk of being on the wrong side of things—like trying to take scholarships away from kids. I don’t see how they can sit well with that.

Shaka Mitchell (06:20):
Yeah. I had the great fortune of meeting a parent in Missouri, Becky Ucello. Her daughter was able to attend a private school through the program. Becky is a public school teacher.

So the idea that private choice programs are anti–public school is a myth. Of course she wants the best for her students—and her own daughter, who has exceptional needs. The district school wasn’t working. Who among us wouldn’t want the best for our child?

The unions get this wrong every time. And they usually get defeated in court. I expect the same in Missouri. There’s strong federal and state case law supporting the idea that parents can choose and that funds given out in a non-discriminatory way can be used at religious schools—because the parent is making the choice, not the government.

Susan Pendergrass (07:47):
In addition to the lawsuit, there’s a potential initiative petition in Missouri to amend the constitution to say you can’t spend public funds at private institutions for students.

But we already have several higher ed programs that work like Pell Grants—you can take them to public or private colleges. We have Bright Flight. This petition might even cut off those programs, too.

And even when open enrollment comes up, it’s often the lowest-performing districts that say, “We can’t be part of it—we can’t let our kids leave.”

Shaka Mitchell (08:41):
It’s totally short-sighted. Nearly every district already outsources some of their special needs education to private providers. That petition could cut off even that.

It’s absurd. Districts don’t make their own computers, books, or desks. They purchase from private companies all the time. The idea that public education is this sacred, fully public institution is a fiction.

Susan Pendergrass (09:33):
Cisco trucks are in every school. Pearson brings the textbooks. Public education is filled with private corporations. And we’ve made so much progress nationally.

I’d love for you to explain the potential for federal scholarship expansion through tax credits. What is that new program, and how will it work?

Shaka Mitchell (10:09):
Sure. The federal scholarship tax credit passed as part of the One Big Bill earlier this year. It’s the first-ever federal K-12 tax credit program.

First, it’s a tax program—not from the Department of Education. So it’s not adding to federal bloat or undermining local control.

Any federal taxpayer can direct up to $1,700 of their tax liability to a scholarship granting organization—like the ones already in Missouri. So instead of sending it to the IRS, I could say, “Let’s send this to a scholarship org in Kansas City.”

Then, the organization can award scholarships to families, most of whom will qualify based on income. The families can use them for a range of educational expenses—just like ESAs. It’s really exciting.

Susan Pendergrass (12:09):
I’ve heard opponents call it a federal voucher—but it’s not a voucher, right?

Shaka Mitchell (12:18):
Correct. Think of it like when your tax return asks if you want to give a dollar to the presidential campaign. But now it’s $1,700 to a scholarship org.

In Missouri, we have Catholic, Hebrew, and non-sectarian scholarship organizations. You can choose which one to support.

Susan Pendergrass (12:59):
Do you know the total amount of available tax credits?

Shaka Mitchell (13:06):
It’s unlimited, within that $1,700 per-taxpayer cap. Initially, there were discussions of state-by-state limits, but now the limit is per individual—not by state.

Susan Pendergrass (13:34):
So governors have to opt in, right?

Shaka Mitchell (14:10):
Yes. Governors or other state officials need to opt in. That may look different state to state. Some legislatures, like North Carolina’s, have already voted to participate.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Where does Missouri stand?

Shaka Mitchell (14:59):
Probably not much discussion yet. It doesn’t go into effect until 2027, so there’s time. But Missouri is in a good spot—you’ve already got scholarship organizations and experience with tax credit programs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:20):
What about blue states like Oregon or California?

Shaka Mitchell (15:27):
Great question. All eyes are on states like California, Pennsylvania, New York. There are a lot of taxpayers there.

Imagine millions of California taxpayers sending $1,700 each to scholarships in Missouri. It would be crazy for a governor to allow that much money to leave their state. But we’ll see.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13):
What do you think those states will do?

Shaka Mitchell (16:25):
Hard to say, but some Democratic governors have said they’re researching it. It’s not really a partisan issue—it’s just the tax code. And everyone pays taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (16:55):
It’s an interesting political move—making school choice national.

Shaka Mitchell (16:59):
Exactly. And because it’s tax-based, it reaches everyone—Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Are states really going to let billions in scholarships go to other states? I doubt it.

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
It’ll be interesting to see how private school supply responds. Like in Arizona, where more parents have access, vendors have stepped in with customized, creative options. This could fuel huge innovation. The fact that it’s unlimited in size is surprising.

Shaka Mitchell (18:43):
Yes. These federal scholarships could stack on top of state programs.

Say your state gives $6,000, but tuition is $9,000. The federal credit could close that gap. That’s a big deal.

Susan Pendergrass (19:38):
Will there be a lawsuit?

Shaka Mitchell (19:39):
There probably will be. Lawsuits are easy to file. But this program is part of the tax code—it’s hard to challenge. It’s not clear who would even have standing.

If unions want to burn money on a lawsuit, I say go ahead.

Susan Pendergrass (20:27):
I think what works against them is how happy families are with these scholarships. Satisfaction is high.

Shaka Mitchell (20:53):
Yes. Since 2019, we’ve seen an explosion of education freedom.

And there’s now long-term data—like from Ohio—showing EdChoice students, especially Black and brown students, have higher college attainment. That kind of data is compelling.

Susan Pendergrass (21:59):
And the ROI is incredible. You keep one kid out of prison or help one finish college—you’ve already saved more than the scholarship cost.

These families take $6,000 when the public system spends $18,000. They make it work. I’ve never seen anything in traditional public education with this much impact.

Shaka Mitchell (23:10):
It reminds me of the early 2000s with the excitement around No Child Left Behind.

But this is even more grassroots. Parents are organizing—helping each other on Facebook, answering questions, forming communities. That’s powerful. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Right. I don’t think we’ll go from more choice to less. And I know people who considered moving to Missouri until they realized they couldn’t pick their child’s school.

Kids from these programs are having their own kids now. It’s not going backward.

Shaka Mitchell (24:40):
Exactly.

There was a great article today in the New York Times saying, “The monopoly is dead.” I mean—from the New York Times!

Susan Pendergrass (25:21):
That’s what these lawsuits feel like: a desperate last gasp.

Never underestimate parents. They’ll show up. Thank you so much for joining us today. That was fascinating. I know you’ll be following the lawsuit.

Shaka Mitchell (25:59):
Happy to do it. Thanks for having me, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (26:01):
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The One Big Education Opportunity with Shaka Mitchell 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.

Several years ago, Kansas City decided to make its public transit free for all. After all, the purpose of local government is to just give things away for free, isn’t it? For several years, the pandemic-related free federal money train has allowed this “free transit” plan to continue, but that train is coming to a stop. Now, Kansas City leadership has some decisions to make. The transit authority has considered ending the “free” part of the ride before, and now it is time to do away with it once and for all.

Nobody is suggesting funding the entire transit system with fares. Subsidizing transit is an accepted part of urban economics, but that doesn’t mean you should make it free. “Subsidized” transit means you help low-income workers, encourage alternate transportation to large events, and help offset traffic problems. “Free” means you get homeless people sleeping on the bus and cuts to bus lines because you don’t have enough funding. “Free” results in fewer people using transit because the bad aspects of “free” are what matter most to people. Here is what happened in Tucson, Arizona when it moved to “free” transit several years ago:

“We have become a mobile refuge from the elements, frequented by drug users, the mentally ill and violent offenders that have made Sun Tran unsafe to ride,” the local Teamsters union warned in a letter to the city.

As one very sensible Kansas City bus rider put it at a transit meeting on November 13: “she doesn’t mind paying a fare as long as it’s affordable and bus lines don’t get cut.”

Fares are an important part of funding for a decent transit system. Perhaps more importantly, they also help keep the elements out of the system that make other people not want to use it. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority should reinstate fares immediately.

The post It’s Time to End Free Transit in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The ESA Experience with Jenny Clark appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The single program started in Wisconsin in 1996 has grown to 75 school choice programs in 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And in just the last few years, 10 states have implemented universal school choice programs in which all or nearly all children in the state are eligible. These states are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama and Louisiana will be joining the list next year.

When the one million private school choice students are added to the 3.7 million charter school students the result is that one in five children in the United States is receiving a publicly funded education outside of traditional public schools. What was once considered controversial has become mainstream.

The post A Milestone Reached appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Elsewhere, Tennessee has been lauded for completely overhauling its funding formula so that it is responsive, accountable, and student centered. Public funding is sent to where students attend school and not to where they attended school three years ago, as in Missouri. In the process of this redesign, Tennessee also raised teacher salaries and encouraged flexibility in teacher pay over the old step-and-ladder systems. Again, there’s nothing wrong with raising teacher salaries in the process of crafting good policy.

Currently, the Missouri Legislature is considering a bill that addresses a range of education issue, perhaps with the idea that if some groups like one part and others like another part, it may pass. That makes sense. The legislative sausage machine requires negotiation. But let’s look at this bill closely to see how much Missouri families might actually benefit.

The bill greatly expands eligibility for the existing MO Scholars education savings account (ESA) program. That could be a win for families. Almost every student in the state would qualify to receive a scholarship, because the income limit would be raised to four times the federal poverty line, or $120,000 for a family of four. The bill also eliminates the current geographic restriction on which students are eligible to receive scholarships—a much-needed change.

There’s just one problem with the ESA expansion proposed in this bill. Unlike Arkansas (or Iowa, Arizona, Utah, West Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida), Missouri isn’t willing to provide the scholarships. Sure, Missouri is willing raise the cap on the amount of money that the existing six approved scholarship organizations can fundraise in order to pass out scholarships. But that’s as far as the bill goes—no public funding at all.

There is a distinct possibility that, to get this passed, Senate Bill (SB) 727 (or actually its committee substitute) will be amended to provide state funds to raise minimum teacher pay in the state from $25,000 to $38,000 with a provision that school districts can request reimbursement for any mandatory salary increases from a new Teacher Salary Baseline Grant Fund.

A gap seems to exist between those who believe in school choice and those who support public education. I’m for both, but I’m just one voice. I think it’s fine to try to bridge that gap by offering concessions to both sides. But let’s make sure they carry equal weight. If one comes with public funding and the other comes with “good luck getting the money together,” then they’re not really equal. Maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

The post This Is a Compromise? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post School Choice is Good – Part 2   appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The nonprofit yes. every. kid. released a report that discusses how allowing non-residential students (those outside the district) access to individual classes and extracurriculars could effectively complement open enrollment. Whereas open enrollment focuses on full-time transfers, this complementary policy would allow students to remain in their school and enroll part-time in individual classes—maximizing flexibility. According to the report, eight states* allow students to enroll in classes outside of their current school.  In these states, students in a smaller rural district could enroll in physics, AP calculus, or even a music program in another district if their school does not have these classes or programs available. If open enrollment finally gets its long-needed day in Missouri, this policy could create additional opportunities for families across the state.

First, how could this benefit students?

Well, the answer is pretty obvious—more classes and more opportunities to help every kid in our state!

Second, why would a school with no physics program want its own students to participate?

The number one reason is that districts should care about their students. Competition can be cooperative, and districts should all be on the same team to best educate the students of Missouri. I chose physics as my example subject because there is a legitimate shortage of qualified physics teachers. These sending districts should want every student in their district to succeed, and many simply cannot provide classes in valuable subjects. Additionally, allowing your students to participate would lower their incentive to leave. If Johnny wants to study physics in college, but your district does not have it, he may be forced to leave your district by moving or enrolling in a private school.

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

The freeloading problem goes like this: “This policy would incentivize bad schools to not expand or offer new programs because they can simply mooch off our resources (and tax levies).” In Arizona, one of the states that employs this policy, part-time students (those which enroll in individual classes at different schools) are funded by the state at one fourth, one half, or three fourths of a full-time student—depending on how many classes they are taking. Therefore, state funding follows the student. Missouri does not have backpack funding like Arizona does (which we need), but a similar policy could be implemented to compensate receiving districts. Additionally, if you properly paired this policy with open enrollment, these classes could attract students. It would go both ways, as many students would stay in their home district and take individual courses elsewhere so they would not have to transfer away from their friends, sports teams, or other extracurriculars.

Receiving districts should care about all the students in our state trying to receive the best education they can. I can understand why one might take issue with another district benefitting from your district’s resources, but the most important thing is doing what works best for students. One may not think it is “fair,” but is it “fair” that a student cannot learn physics just because they live within arbitrary boundaries? Petty jealousies over dollars and cents should not stand in the way of opportunities for children across the state.

*Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin (all these states have open enrollment)

The post Sharing Classes for the Kids appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how Indiana and Ohio joined the school choice wave this year by dramatically expanding their existing programs. In Indiana, families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line (97 percent of families) are now eligible for the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program. The Ohio Legislature basically wiped out any income eligibility requirements for its EdChoice Scholarship, although the voucher amount tapers for families earning more than 450 percent of the federal poverty line. They also raised the voucher amount to over $6,100 for elementary and middle school students and over $8,400 for high school students.

Universal school choice—an idea proposed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Milton Friedman in 1955—is here. While Friedman clearly laid out the reasons why tax money should be used to pay for a system of schools, he questioned whether it is necessary for the government to run the schools. Rather, he suggested, couldn’t we funnel the money to parents and allow them to select a school from an education marketplace? We’ll soon be able to test his premise that a true marketplace will lead to higher outcomes at the system level. What we already know is that choice is what parents want. Generally, 65–85 percent of parents support school choice, depending on the type of program.

We’re not talking about Arizona or Florida here. We’re talking about our equally rural neighbors. Missouri is turning into an assigned-school-only island in a trust-parents-to-choose sea. The longer we hold out, the less attractive we will be to families with children.

The post Add the Buckeyes and the Hoosiers to the List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past two months, many states across the country—but not Missouri—have started deflating their bloated Medicaid rolls. (Reminder: enrollment got to be this high because prior to April of this year, the federal government barred states from checking eligibility or removing anyone from the program since March of 2020, as part of the response to COVID-19.)

Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that Missouri is waiting until July before removing any ineligible enrollees. If true, Missouri stands in stark contrast to states such as Florida or Arizona that started checking their Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility as soon as the federal prohibition was lifted. Recent articles suggest that Florida has already identified upwards of 250,000 ineligible enrollees, which translates to significant savings for taxpayers.

In theory, removing ineligible recipients from government-sponsored health coverage shouldn’t be a controversial topic. Prior to COVID-19, states were required by federal law to check whether their Medicaid enrollees were still eligible for the program at least once every year but could check as frequently as every six months.

Regular redeterminations (eligibility checks) are important because people’s circumstances change frequently, and they may not always go out of their way to inform the government of any changes. In Missouri, like many other states, the government pays health plans monthly to provide health coverage to Medicaid recipients, regardless of whether they receive any services. Given how expensive health coverage is, this means that there are likely billions of tax dollars being spent improperly on the program every single month.

With hundreds of thousands of eligibility checks needed, the potential for significant reductions in wasteful government spending is why states are rushing to clean their Medicaid rolls. It’s also why I suggested Missouri consider hiring outside help for processing redeterminations, given how difficult an administrative task it would be.

Though it’s just another thing to add to the list of this year’s legislative failures, it’s telling that our elected officials couldn’t even get out ahead of something as long choreographed as the resumption of Medicaid eligibility checks. If spending is all about priorities, it’s clear Missouri’s elected officials don’t consider reducing government waste to be one of them.

The post Missouri’s Refusal to Lead appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How would your family feel if your entire neighborhood had 5G internet access and you were still using dial-up? I’m guessing the kids might complain. After all, 5G is simply better, and sticking with an obsolete system seems like a stubborn refusal to change. That’s the situation Missouri families with school-aged children face. Just about all our neighbors wrapped up their legislative sessions by finally giving up address-based school assignments and letting parents choose where to send their children to school. We’re the last one in the neighborhood sticking with the outdated system.

• Early in their session, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed the Students First Act, which will allow families to receive up to $7,600 per year to use toward private-school tuition. The law is phased in, but by 2025, every family in the state will be able to use the program.
• Heading west, Nebraska’s Governor Jim Pillen signed the Opportunity Scholarships Act. Although similar to Missouri’s Empowerment Scholarships program, this bill commits twice as much money and the scholarships are available to children statewide, not just in the largest cities as in Missouri.
• Over in Kansas, a robust public school choice bill passed last year will go into effect in fall 2024. No longer will Kansas school districts be able to opt out of accepting transfer students from other districts. Previously, each district set their own policies regarding whether or not to accept students. As of this fall, Kansas families can apply to transfer to a school of their choice.
• Oklahoma took an innovative approach to school choice in its session. All families in the state can now take a dollar-for-dollar credit against their state tax bill for up to $7,500 in private-school tuition. Homeschoolers can receive up to $1,000 off their state tax bill. And the tax credit is refundable, meaning that the state will pay families back if the tax credit is more than they owed in state taxes.
• Arkansas passed one of the most significant education reform acts this year. The Arkansas LEARNS Act, signed by Governor Sanders, gives families the option of having 90 percent of their state education funding deposited into an Education Freedom Account for private-school tuition and other education expenses. By 2025–26, all Arkansas families will be able to participate.

So, there you have it. School choice is not just happening in the far-flung states of Florida, West Virginia, and Arizona.  It is literally all around us. Our neighbors have figured out what Missouri hasn’t. School assignment by address is antiquated, it isn’t what families want, and it doesn’t work.

Imagine a school district as an ice cream shop that can only stock one flavor. They’re required to do their best to satisfy every student, so if most families want vanilla, vanilla it is. If some kids show up wanting pistachio, those can be tossed in. A couple of kids want chocolate? Add a chocolate ribbon. But now some kids want bubble gum in their ice cream. Does it really make sense to insist on offering a single flavor that turns out to be vanilla-pistachio-chocolate-bubble gum? No one wants that. There is no single, secret flavor that’s everyone’s favorite.

What our neighbors seem to understand is that it is better for the kids who need pistachio ice cream to get the very best pistachio out there. Parents are in the best position to know. And they may have a pistachio kid and a bubble gum kid in the same family. Try to please everyone at once, and you end up satisfying no one.

Over half of the 50 states now have mandatory open enrollment programs that allow families to choose any public school in the state. The number of states that include private schools among the options offered is growing fast. Missouri has neither. We allow charters only as interventions in our worst performing districts, rather than opportunities for districts to expand their portfolios. We have a scholarship program that addresses the needs of children in larger communities, but not rural children. Our legislature did not have the courage or determination to overcome their differences this year to bring even voluntary open enrollment to Missouri families.

Change can’t have been easy for policymakers in neighboring states, either. But they did it. Maybe it was out of a sense of fairness to children stuck in poor-performing schools, or maybe it was because they wanted their states to be attractive to growing companies and young families. It sure would be nice if such considerations would motivate lawmakers here.

The post Missouri Becomes an Education Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Turning the School Choice Knob Up to 11 with Matthew Ladner appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How can we prevent this from happening? An analysis of these data yielded an interesting finding—a little competition might just do the trick. And how do we get that competition? We encourage charter schools to open in every type of district, even those with “good” schools that don’t “need” them.

Generally speaking, suburban school districts are believed to be the highest performing and the most protected from competition. When open enrollment was considered in Missouri, suburban districts balked. The fear was that students from low-performing urban districts would try to enroll in their schools while providing no local property tax dollars and depleting their test scores. This is not unique to Missouri. When open enrollment programs, in which students can choose any school in the state, are voluntary for districts, the higher-performing suburban districts often opt out.

But, according to this new analysis, when charter schools open in suburban districts those that have chosen to sit out open enrollment realize that they’re going to need to get in the game. Their students can already leave for a charter school so they might as well start competing with other districts in the area for open enrollment students. Of the six states analyzed, the one with the most competition—Arizona—also had the best growth performance. More importantly, the finding held for low-income students. Seventeen percent more suburban schools achieved more than one year of growth for their low-income students than achieved less than one year of growth. In Ohio, where there are no suburban charter schools and open enrollment is voluntary, the numbers were reversed. More suburban schools achieved less than one year of growth for low-income students than not.

Of course, Missouri has no suburban charter schools or voluntary open enrollment. We have suburban districts such as Columbia 93 that have become complacent and middling to low performing. We should be encouraging high-performing charter schools in these districts to push them out of their comfort zones.

The post It’s Time to Get Out of the Comfort Zone appeared first on Show-Me Institute.