We’ve written a lot at the Show-Me Institute lately about A–F letter grades for public schools. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will soon begin assigning these grades to all schools and districts under an executive order from Governor Kehoe. Legislation to codify the order may follow, depending on how the 2026 session unfolds.

A central component of these letter grades is student growth. Growth measures how much students learn over the course of a year, based on state assessments. To estimate growth, the state uses a statistical model to generate a “predicted” level of progress for each student. Schools and districts are then evaluated based on how their students perform relative to those predictions. In simple terms, high-growth schools are those where students consistently outperform expectations. You can read more about the Missouri Growth Model here.

I’ve studied academic growth extensively and believe it is the most accurate indicator of school effectiveness we have. No other measure comes close.

New evidence in support of this view comes from a study by researchers at MIT. The study compares test-score growth to a popular alternative for evaluating school quality: schoolwide surveys. The authors assess how well growth-based and survey-based measures predict important student outcomes, including high school graduation, graduating with distinction, and college enrollment and persistence.

The MIT study was conducted in New York City, where the district administers surveys to students, families, teachers, and staff. The surveys are designed to capture school climate across several domains: rigorous instruction, teacher collaboration, supportive environments, and trust. School surveys are intuitively appealing, especially for those who are skeptical of standardized tests. But how do they stack up to growth when it comes to identifying schools that produce strong outcomes for students?

The answer: not very well. The surveys are a little better at predicting high school graduation, but much worse at predicting more meaningful and differentiated outcomes including graduating high school with an advanced diploma, enrolling in college, and persistence in college. The authors conclude: “From the point of view of parents seeking to boost their children’s odds of going to college, test information is most valuable.”

The research evidence on the value of student growth as an indicator of school quality is overwhelming. This is just the newest study to add to the list. School surveys are nice, but when it comes to identifying effective schools, objectively measured growth is far superior.

The post Test-Score Growth Is the Best Metric We Have for Understanding School Performance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the Missouri Legislature continues to debate A–F school report cards, the Show-Me Institute recently released our annual report card update on MOSchoolRankings.org.

Our rankings are built on a model that incorporates 10 academic indicators of student success. All data are sourced from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), and all English/language arts (ELA) and math scores are based on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). Each component is weighted equally, and a full explanation of the methodology is available online.

Table 1 shows all 24 public school districts and charter schools that received an “A” in the 2024–2025 school year.

Suburban and rural districts dominate the top rankings, with numerous districts from St. Louis County (Ladue, Brentwood, Clayton). Many of the rural school districts are exceptionally small: Skyline has 81 students and Thornfield has 48. The largest school district on the list is Nixa Public Schools (near Springfield) with 6,518 students.

The suburban districts have relatively low rates of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL)—a common proxy for school poverty rate. Fewer than 10 percent of Ladue and Clayton students were eligible for FRPL, with Brentwood at 18 percent, Nixa at 26 percent, Festus at 28 percent, and Ozark at 35 percent. However, some rural “A” districts have a sizeable number of lower-income students.

Mansfield R-IV, which had 60 percent of its 622 students qualify for FRPL, performed above average in almost every single category (except in ELA growth). Richwoods R-VII, a small rural district about an hour from St. Louis, had 100 percent of its 125 students qualify for FRPL and had particularly impressive scores in math. These examples demonstrate that low-income schools can achieve academic success.

There is a lot more to delve into for academic performance. Table 1 is just one snapshot of what is available on MOSchoolRankings.org. Accountability tools like these can help highlight success stories, identify areas for improvement, and provide a clearer picture of how schools across Missouri are performing.

The post Looking at Missouri’s “A” Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a much-needed improvement to school accountability in Missouri. Parents and community members will finally have access to clear information about how their local schools are performing.

Following the governor’s address, I wanted to re-up my post about school report cards from last May, which helps to explain why the letter-grade requirement is sorely needed and how it improves upon our current school report card system.

It is printed in full below.

———

Information Overload and Missouri School Report Cards

Have you ever started reading the warning label on an over-the-counter drug like aspirin or ibuprofen? Ever finished one? Probably not.

Drug warning labels are classic examples of information overload—so packed with details that they become practically useless. Unfortunately, the school report cards produced by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) suffer from the same problem.

In theory, these report cards should help parents and community members quickly understand how their local schools are performing. When well-designed, they can promote transparency and inform decision-making. But if a school report card is not organized and does not emphasize the most important information, it functions like a drug warning label. It can include a lot of detail but be of little practical value.

If you’re curious to see this for yourself, here is a link to the school report cards made available by DESE. Choose a district, then a school, and you can scroll through a vast amount of information. However, after you’ve taken the time to look through it all, you may realize you haven’t learned very much. DESE’s report cards may be comprehensive, but they fail to deliver what busy families need most: clear, accessible information about school quality.

Now, contrast the Missouri report cards with this report card for Briarmeadow Charter School in Houston, produced by the Texas Education Agency. At the very top, letter grades in four categories are displayed prominently:

• Overall Rating: A

• Student Achievement: A

• School Progress: A
• Closing the Gap: A

With just a glance, you know where this school stands.

Texas is not alone in this approach. States such as Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana also use summary performance indicators on their school report cards to give the public a clear picture of school quality. Unlike Missouri, these states are courageous enough to rate schools based on performance, and most importantly, publicly identify schools that are failing to educate their students.

It’s no coincidence that students in states with strong transparency and accountability policies, including clear and informative school report cards, consistently outperform Missouri students academically. These policies are key drivers of school improvement, and without them Missouri is only likely to fall further behind. School report cards that are informative about actual school performance are a simple way to get our state moving in the right direction.

The post Meaningful School Report Cards are on the Way appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri parents don’t have access to accurate and easy-to-understand information about the quality of their children’s schools.

The Solution

Mandate the creation of transparent online school report cards (with an easy-to-interpret rating system, such as letter grades) that clearly communicate measures of school quality to parents and community members.

Key Facts

• The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires every state to publish report cards on schools and districts. High-quality school report cards help parents make informed choices and help states prioritize schools for academic improvement interventions.

• The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has no rating system for schools or districts, and the information it shares is not provided in a way that is useful to parents or policymakers.

Parents Are Being Kept in the Dark

When done well, school report cards are a powerful tool for communicating school performance to parents. According to a 2019 Phi Delta Kappa survey, 66% of parents who are aware of school report cards read them, and of those, 82% find them useful.

Federal law requires the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to produce report cards for every school and district in the state. While DESE has technically met this requirement, the current report cards are not useful. They provide a lot of data, but they do not label the data clearly or give context in which to understand the data.

What Missouri needs are clear, parent-friendly report cards that provide straightforward ratings across key performance indicators. These should include student proficiency and growth in English/language arts and math, with results disaggregated by student subgroup. This is not uncharted territory. Much is known about what makes a school report card useful, relevant, and easy to understand, and many other states already produce high-quality school report cards. Missouri doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. We simply need to follow the example set by states that have done this well. It is no coincidence that states with clear and transparent school report cards tend to significantly outperform Missouri on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

In 2021, the Show-Me Institute created its own website, MOSchoolRankings.org, with letter grades for all schools and districts in the state. Ideally, the legislature would require DESE to create something similar.

Policy Recommendation

• Mandate the design and creation of a transparent online school report card system that clearly communicates measures of school quality to parents and community members, including an easy-to-interpret rating system such as letter grades, for every school and district. The report cards should be mobile- and print-friendly.

The post School Report Cards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

The Solution

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

Key Facts

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

Interdistrict Choice

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

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

Expanding the MOScholars Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program

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

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

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

Charter School Expansion

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

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

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

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

Policy Recommendations

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

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

One that I found to be particularly interesting is this:

“The State Board of Education supports efforts that provide the best free and appropriate public education for all students.”

Huh. I have long supported giving parents and students access to multiple education options so that they can find the one that best suits their needs. Is the state board agreeing? This would require swapping their support for the best education for all students to the best education for each student. Or is the board saying that it supports efforts for others (the state board) to determine what is best for all students? That doesn’t make sense. Children are unique. They’re not widgets. Why is this statement even one of the 17 priorities?

The Show-Me Institute publishes a legislative Blueprint each year that lays out our priorities for improving the state of Missouri and the lives of those who live here. In many cases, these priorities have model legislation, policy briefs, and even infographics explaining the specifics.

To the extent that DESE and the state board of education have legislative priorities, they should be precise and supported by facts. They should complement the department’s strategic plan and budget. Our test scores are dismal. We’re handing high school diplomas to students who can’t read or do math. Let’s dispense with the throwaway lines.

The post Let’s Expect Better appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

There are two aspects of the event that I really like. First, it recognized high-performing schools. Too often in education we choose not to differentiate school performance—we don’t punish poor performers, and we don’t reward excellence. I like that the event promoted the positive impacts of schools that generate high achievement growth. I was also pleased to see coverage of the recognition some schools received in the local media and in school newsletters and announcements (e.g., see here and here).

Second, I like that the event was centered on test-score growth, which is a far better measure of the impacts of schools than test-score levels or proficiency rates. Growth captures how much students learn during the year, not just where they start. This means schools in low-income communities are not penalized for low starting points as long as their students make good progress. This important design feature of growth is illustrated in this report from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Not surprisingly, the high-growth schools recognized at the event included many in high-poverty areas.

We need more events like this. When schools perform well, we need to recognize them, thank them, and remind them they are on the right path. This validation matters, especially for schools that show high growth despite low overall achievement levels due to external factors. Without acknowledgment, educators in these schools might not realize the positive impacts they’re making.

I hope the PRiME event becomes a mainstay and is the beginning of a more concerted effort in Missouri to reward academic excellence. If we want our schools to thrive, we need to show them that their success matters.

(Disclosure: As a researcher, one of my main areas of work is on growth modeling and value-added modeling in education. I am part of the team of researchers who estimate the growth model for DESE.)

The post PRiME Summit Celebrates Schools with Impressive Test Score Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Drug warning labels are classic examples of information overload—so packed with details that they become practically useless. Unfortunately, the school report cards produced by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) suffer from the same problem.

In theory, these report cards should help parents and community members quickly understand how their local schools are performing. When well-designed, they can promote transparency and inform decision-making. But if a school report card is not organized and does not emphasize the most important information, it functions like a drug warning label. It can include a lot of detail but be of little practical value.

If you’re curious to see this for yourself, here is a link to the school report cards made available by DESE. Choose a district, then a school, and you can scroll through a vast amount of information. However, after you’ve taken the time to look through it all, you may realize you haven’t learned very much. DESE’s report cards may be comprehensive, but they fail to deliver what busy families need most: clear, accessible information about school quality.

Now, contrast the Missouri report cards with this report card for Briarmeadow Charter School in Houston, produced by the Texas Education Agency. At the very top, letter grades in four categories are displayed prominently:

• Overall Rating: A
• Student Achievement: A
• School Progress: A
• Closing the Gap: A

With just a glance, you know where this school stands.

Texas is not alone in this approach. States like Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana also use summary performance indicators on their school report cards to give the public a clear picture of school quality. Unlike Missouri, these states are courageous enough to rate schools based on performance, and most importantly, publicly identify schools that are failing to educate their students.

It’s no coincidence that students in states with strong transparency and accountability policies, including clear and informative school report cards, consistently outperform Missouri students academically. These policies are key drivers of school improvement, and without them Missouri is only likely to fall further behind. School report cards that are informative about actual school performance are a simple way to get our state moving in the right direction.

The post Information Overload and Missouri School Report Cards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week we found out that it is neglecting to carry out one of the boards’ nine “major duties,” which is accrediting local school districts. The 98 percent of school districts that were fully accredited a decade ago can count on that being unchanged for at least another couple of years.

In addition, as of this writing, DESE is no longer complying with the federal requirement that state education agencies publish state, district, and school report cards detailing student performance. DESE had a school report card web page until recently, when it disappeared with no indication of whether the report cards are being updated or ever coming back.

Both of these issues bring into question whether Missouri should be receiving over $1.6 billion in education funding from the federal government since it does not “meaningfully differentiate between schools and districts” or publish the required report cards. The board and DESE are shirking their responsibilities and yet they want $10 billion from taxpayers for the FY 2026 budget. Missourians should be highly disappointed, to say the least, in their state education leaders.

The post Where Did the Report Cards Go? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, what happened last year and what does it mean? It’s hard to say. DESE’s press release states: “The data shows that Missouri schools are meeting the more rigorous requirements and higher expectations set forth in MSIP 6 . . .” This is according to the new commissioner who took over the department last summer. And then in a bulleted list, there’s this: “The APR will not be used for classifying LEAs this year.” (LEA stands for local education agency.) In other words, for the tenth year in a row, the accountability system will not be used for district accreditation. Why not? DESE doesn’t say. Also, when DESE plans to update district accreditation, which won’t be for another two years, it is going to use a three-year rolling average of the APR scores instead of a single year. Why?

What is clear is that the state board of education and the new commissioner are punting when it comes to accountability for school performance. Parents who want to know how their children’s district is doing—both in real terms and compared to other districts in the state—have to rely on sites like MoSchoolRankings. That’s information DESE ought to provide. The state leaders of public education in Missouri either have no confidence in their measurement system or they have no confidence in their schools.

The post Will the New Commissioner of Education Bring More Accountability to Missouri School Districts? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recently, the Reason Foundation released a report on K-12 resources and outcomes. Not to minimize the comprehensiveness of this report, but it aligns nicely with what my fingers would describe about public education in Missouri over the last fifteen years. So let’s take a look at data from the U.S. Department of Education and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and see where we are.

Public school enrollment in Missouri is down.

Why? Nationally, birth rates have been going down since the Great Recession. In addition, Missouri has done little to make itself attractive to families with school-aged children. In several of our neighboring states families can pick any public or private school for their children. Meanwhile, more than 95% of Missouri families can still only choose between their assigned public school and virtual learning.

The number of teachers is up.

Why? This one is hard to figure out. There is little evidence that reducing classroom size improves achievement, but it continues to be a popular approach for Missouri districts.

Spending on public education is up.

Why? Spending on public education rarely goes down. Much of education spending is driven by the graph above and teacher contracts can be hard to terminate. In fact, due in part to the fact that district budgets are largely fixed, the DESE 2024 budget requests that the state raise the amount appropriated per student because enrollment is down.

Achievement has been declining.

Why? My speculation is that Missouri districts face no competition and are not held accountable. States like Florida with robust choice programs and letter grades for schools and districts have leapfrogged over Missouri in national rankings. Even as test scores decline, nearly every district in the state (514 out of 520) is considered “fully accredited” by DESE and the state Board of Education.

So, to recap—enrollment down, teachers up, spending way up, and achievement slowly tanking. Next year, Missouri will have a new governor and a new commissioner of education. Let’s keep this context in mind as we hold them accountable for changing the outcomes.

The post Missouri Public Education in Four Graphs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

The post Well, that Was Fast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state board made the right decision, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Don’t get me wrong— public feedback and buy-in, especially on issues such as this, is critical. But the board made the right decision because DESE did not have statutory authority to push these standards.

Back in September, I noted that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was pushing the social–emotional learning standards without statutory authority. At the time, DESE claimed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri provided the authority. In the lead up to this week’s state board meeting, DESE has changed its tune. Instead of citing the statute for the “Trauma-informed schools initiative,” it  cited Section 161.092. This section of the statutes is labeled, “Powers and duties of state board.” Despite the change, DESE still lacks statutory authority to impose the SEL standards.

Section 161.092 essentially tells the state board what it must do. It must “adopt rules governing its own proceedings,” for example. The state board must also “make an annual report.” Nowhere in the section does it mention “standards,” “social–emotional,” or anything vaguely resembling the work that DESE has been pushing.

Once again, I have posted the full statute below for you to examine. It seems DESE is grasping at straws for authority, but coming up empty.

 161.092.  Powers and duties of state board. — The state board of education shall:

(1)  Adopt rules governing its own proceedings and formulate policies for the guidance of the commissioner of education and the department of elementary and secondary education;

(2)  Carry out the educational policies of the state relating to public schools that are provided by law and supervise instruction in the public schools;

(3)  Direct the investment of all moneys received by the state to be applied to the capital of any permanent fund established for the support of public education within the jurisdiction of the department of elementary and secondary education and see that the funds are applied to the branches of educational interest of the state that by grant, gift, devise or law they were originally intended, and if necessary institute suit for and collect the funds and return them to their legitimate channels;

(4)  Cause to be assembled information which will reflect continuously the condition and management of the public schools of the state;

(5)  Require of county clerks or treasurers, boards of education or other school officers, recorders and treasurers of cities, towns and villages, copies of all records required to be made by them and all other information in relation to the funds and condition of schools and the management thereof that is deemed necessary;

(6)  Provide blanks suitable for use by officials in reporting the information required by the board;

(7)  When conditions demand, cause the laws relating to schools to be published in a separate volume, with pertinent notes and comments, for the guidance of those charged with the execution of the laws;

(8)  Grant, without fee except as provided in section 168.021, certificates of qualification and licenses to teach in any of the public schools of the state, establish requirements therefor, formulate regulations governing the issuance thereof, and cause the certificates to be revoked for the reasons and in the manner provided in section 168.071;

(9)  Classify the public schools of the state, subject to limitations provided by law and subdivision (14) of this section, establish requirements for the schools of each class, and formulate rules governing the inspection and accreditation of schools preparatory to classification, with such requirements taking effect not less than two years from the date of adoption of the proposed rule by the state board of education, provided that this condition shall not apply to any requirement for which a time line for adoption is mandated in either federal or state law.  Such rules shall include a process to allow any district that is accredited without provision that does not meet the state board’s promulgated criteria for a classification designation of accredited with distinction to propose alternative criteria to the state board to be classified as accredited with distinction;

(10)  Make an annual report on or before the first Wednesday after the first day of January to the general assembly or, when it is not in session, to the governor for publication and transmission to the general assembly.  The report shall be for the last preceding school year, and shall include:

(a)  A statement of the number of public schools in the state, the number of pupils attending the schools, their sex, and the branches taught;

(b)  A statement of the number of teachers employed, their sex, their professional training, and their average salary;

(c)  A statement of the receipts and disbursements of public school funds of every description, their sources, and the purposes for which they were disbursed;

(d)  Suggestions for the improvement of public schools; and

(e)  Any other information relative to the educational interests of the state that the law requires or the board deems important;

(11)  Make an annual report to the general assembly and the governor concerning coordination with other agencies and departments of government that support family literacy programs and other services which influence educational attainment of children of all ages;

(12)  Require from the chief officer of each division of the department of elementary and secondary education, on or before the thirty-first day of August of each year, reports containing information the board deems important and desires for publication;

(13)  Cause fifty copies of its annual report to be reserved for the use of each division of the state department of elementary and secondary education, and ten copies for preservation in the state library;

(14)  Promulgate rules under which the board shall classify the public schools of the state; provided that the appropriate scoring guides, instruments, and procedures used in determining the accreditation status of a district shall be subject to a public meeting upon notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each of the three most populous cities in the state and also a newspaper that is a certified minority business enterprise or woman-owned business enterprise in each of the two most populous cities in the state, and notice to each district board of education, each superintendent of a school district, and to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president pro tem of the senate, and the members of the joint committee on education, at least fourteen days in advance of the meeting, which shall be conducted by the department of elementary and secondary education not less than ninety days prior to their application in accreditation, with all comments received to be reported to the state board of education;

(15)  Have other powers and duties prescribed by law.

The post In Search of Statutory Authority for Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

DESE and the state board of education would have you believe that the pandemic has led Missouri families to simply keep their kids at home—just like the parents who are working remotely. That, they say, is the culprit. Incorrect. I have been making this point routinely over the past year. Missouri, as a state, has declining enrollment. Actually, K-12 enrollment is declining at the national level as well.

If you look at the following graph of the number of Missouri public school kindergartners each year, you can see that, after growing for a decade or so, enrollment peaked in 2013. Since then, pandemics notwithstanding, cohorts have been getting smaller and smaller. That peak is now in high school. Within a few years, the number of our high school graduates will begin a steady decline.

Missouri kindergarten enrollment: 2002–2022

If we take the position that this is a temporary problem and we manipulate the formula to make sure that overall funding stays the same (DESE actually asked for a $100M increase), we will be misappropriating taxpayer dollars. We need to fund the schools and students we have, not the schools and students we used to have.

The post Stop Blaming Homeschoolers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A couple of weeks ago CNBC released its annual list of the Top States for Business 2023. Missouri was an unimpressive 32nd out of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Wondering what pulled us down? Well, this year CNBC decided that workforce quality would get the most weight of the 10 components of the index. And in that category, Missouri ranked 49th. We must not stack up too well against other states when it comes to the percentage of workers with college degrees or even industry credentials. Apparently, we also don’t compete well on the outmigration of educated workers, or on worker training programs, or on worker productivity.

So, imagine my surprise when the governor had a press conference just days later to announce a long list of Missouri’s “top” rankings. On some list we rank first in on-the-job-training. That would be for the number of participants, not quality or outcome, but still. There’s a list out there where we’re ranked second for apprenticeships and one where we are fourth for small-business jobs. The list of rankings is described as “incredible statistics that prove why Missouri is the Show-Me state.” Incredible indeed. Sadly, the governor’s list doesn’t include any source information, so we can’t tell who is saying all these complimentary things about our state.

As someone who follows the Missouri K-12 education system pretty closely, I’m not that surprised by the CNBC ranking. Education in the state is in a downward spiral. Last year, 70 percent of our fourth-graders scored below grade level on a nationally administered test. These children are moving on to the reading-to-learn years, and they haven’t learned to read. Middle school isn’t any more promising. Less than one-quarter of our eighth-graders can do math at grade level, according to the latest (2022) national assessments, and just 28 percent have grade-level reading skills.

When students start high school without having mastered the skills they need to succeed, the effects are predictable. Last year, just 60 percent of our 2022 high school graduates met the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE’s) criteria for being college or career ready. It’s hard not to feel sorry for the 40 percent who walked across the stage and were handed a diploma even though they were unprepared for the next stage of their lives. Since we’re looking at rankings, did you know that last year Missouri ranked 43rd for the percentage of high school students who took a college-level Advanced Placement (AP) test in high school? We’re not talking about passing an AP exam; only one in five high school students even took one. Also, less than 8 percent of graduating high school students completed the Career and Technical Ed (CTE) certificate program.

What are the consequences of the poor job we’re doing of preparing our students for life after high school? According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the percentage of Missourians with bachelor’s or master’s degrees has been declining in recent years. Not by much —just from 31.9 percent for bachelor’s to 31.7—but is that the direction we want it going? There’s a similar trend line for graduate degrees, which had been increasing every year until a couple of years ago, when they began to decline.

We seem to have a workforce problem, and it appears to be getting worse. Our K-12 enrollment has been declining since before the pandemic and will continue to decline based on the size of recent kindergarten classes. And within those smaller groups of students, the percentage of kids who are at grade level is declining. Smaller percentages of smaller high school graduating classes will be ready for the next stage in their lives. We need leaders who are ready to confront those facts and do something about them. The future of the state depends on it.

These leading indicators may signal what’s next for our work force, but it’s not too late to turn things around. States all around Missouri are letting parents pick where their children attend school—public or private—and having state education money follow them. Families in these states can tailor the education of each of their children, even when those needs differ within the same family. Neighboring states are implementing aggressive early literacy programs, with Mississippi being a standout, and rethinking high schools. Innovation and true accountability are happening . . . elsewhere. Meanwhile, Missourians are being handed a cherry-picked list of statistics that we’re supposed to get excited about.

The post Cherry-picked Data Can’t Hide the Truth about Missouri’s Workforce appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Total expenditures include everything it costs to run a school district, from books and salaries to buildings and debt. It is exactly what it sounds like—total expenditures. Try to find this figure for the state on DESE’s website; I doubt you’ll have much luck.

DESE and the newspaper reporters regularly cite Missouri’s or an individual school district’s current expenditures per pupil. Current expenditures are operating expenses that do not include costs for facilities or debt. DESE readily displays these figures on its website and they are the figures you will see repeated in the media. (While you won’t find the total expenditure per pupil figure on DESE’s website, you can calculate  it yourself using DESE data—for 2022 it was $18,683.)

There are good reasons to report current expenditures. For starters, they tell you how much it costs to run the day-to-day business of educating kids in a school district. Moreover, they are more or less consistent over time. Total expenditures may fluctuate when a school district makes a big debt payment or decides to build a new building. Nevertheless, this does not make the total expenditure figure pointless.

Current and total expenditures are each relevant, but they answer different questions. Think of it like this. Can you tell the difference between these two questions:

-How much are your housing costs?

-How much does it cost to run your house?

The first question asks how much you are paying for your mortgage or rent and all of your utilities and incidental costs. The second drops the cost of the housing payment. If I want to know how efficient your home is, I might ask that second question. If you are on a budget and I’m trying to help you make sound financial decisions, I’m going to ask the first question.

In the public discussion about school spending, we are only told by DESE, public school officials, and the media about operating expenditures. Taxpayers care about this, but they want to know where all their dollars are going.

It is time to drop the Bruno Principle. It is time to tell Missourians exactly how much their school districts spend (in total) per pupil.

In the interest of promoting transparency, the Show-Me Institute has created a useful data tool: moschoolrankings.org. The site allows you to compare school districts academically. You can also toggle to look at school district finances. Here, you can see how each school district spends your taxpayer dollars.

The post The “Bruno Principle” of School Finance—Don’t Talk About Total Expenditures appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To name just a few:

I’ll add another criticism here. The structure of DESE is such that the buck never seems to stop anywhere. The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the state board of education. The state board of education members serve staggered terms, so that a single governor may hold little sway over the board. As such, the governor, the board, and the commissioner escape being held accountable in any meaningful way.

Yet, it is one thing to criticize DESE for failing to perform the duties it should be performing. It is another thing entirely to suggest DESE should not exist at all.

There seems to be a growing chorus of voices on social media calling for the abolition of DESE. It is hard to tell if there is really a movement here or simply the continuous ramblings of a few active Twitter users. Nevertheless, it is a question that deserves consideration—should DESE exist?

Conservatives have long argued that the federal department of education should be abolished. The argument for this is easy to follow—there is no provision for education in the constitution. Thus, it is a state issue.

What is the argument at the state level? It must be that education is a local issue and not a state issue. Here is where the DESE destroyers are wrong. The Missouri Constitution makes it clear that the responsibility to provide an education lies with the state:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law. (IX Section 1(a))

Moreover, the constitution requires the state to spend 25 percent of general revenue on public education.

With clear constitutional authority and a sizeable budget dedicated to education, the state has need of an agency whose purpose is to distribute funds and assess the diffusion of knowledge. The state has need of an agency such as DESE.

While DESE could do so many things better than it does, there clearly is a role for DESE. Therefore, we should (1) do a better job of defining the proper role and responsibilities of DESE, (2) do a better job of holding DESE accountable for meeting those obligations, and (3) find ways to improve the overall structure of DESE so we can actually tell where the buck stops.

I welcome conversations that focus on these things.

The post Does Missouri Need DESE? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of course, public education has a lot of moving parts and they all cost money. But it’s public money—our money. That’s why the Show-Me Institute decided to build a website that would allow anyone to see how every dollar was spent in 2021 in each of the 551 public school districts and charter school local education agencies in the state. MOSchoolRankings.org, which already has two years of school and district report cards with letter grades, now also shows where every dollar came from and how it was spent. These data were already available on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) website as Annual Secretary to the Board (ASBR) reports. We simply put them into a single data file and built a portal to make it easy for users to dig into the numbers.

Did we include spending on land, buildings, or other capital? Those are in the ASBR, so, yes. Did we include principal and interest payments on debt? Yes, we did. Did we include district revenue from athletic event admissions and bookstore sales? We did. Did we include revenue that one school district pays to another school district? We did. Did we include revenue that parents pay as tuition to send their children to a school outside their district? We did. Did we include revenue from bond sales that are issued to build things? We did. If the district reported it to the state as a source of revenue or as an expense, we included it.

I believe that the public sector should make it easy for citizens to see how their money is being spent. I don’t believe that the powers that be should tailor spending numbers to include some things and exclude others. So we’re providing everything, and users can decide what they consider to be relevant. Heck, we even made the entire data set of nearly 500 variables for each district available for download. And the DESE accounting manual can be accessed on the site.

Of course, when you look at the numbers for a district, you may have some questions. Those are questions that ought to be answered by superintendents, school boards and DESE.

The post Follow the Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past few years, Missourians have gotten a better understanding of the term “shortage.” Whether it was soup or toilet paper, we can all remember those empty shelves at the grocery store at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Maybe that’s why the term “teacher shortage” has many policymakers on edge these days. There’s just one problem: in education, the term “shortage” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Take the “shortage” of elementary school teachers in Missouri for example. In 2021, the Springfield School District wanted to hire 55 elementary school teachers. They received 2,155 applications from individuals with the appropriate certification. Yet, for one reason or another, they left six positions vacant. This is a teacher shortage.

The problem is the misleading way in which the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education presents the data. In the “Teacher Shortage Report for Missouri,” released in December 2022, DESE defines shortage areas as “those content areas within the state for which positions were filled with inappropriately certified teachers(s) or left vacant due to the absence of certified candidates.”

This is possibly the broadest definition of what it means to have a shortage. If a school district hires a private school teacher with 10 years of experience and a bachelor’s degree in elementary education? Shortage. They hire an individual with an MBA to teach high school business, but he does not have certification? Shortage. Let’s say they hire someone with a high school mathematics certification to teach elementary or middle school mathematics. Shortage. Keep in mind, the state has dozens of teacher certification areas, and being certified in one does not qualify you to teach another. With this broad definition, DESE suggests Missouri was short 532 elementary school teachers (Grades 1–6) in 2022, making this the highest shortage area.

Let’s put that into perspective using raw, unweighted data provided by request from DESE. In 2022, there were 2,015 job openings for elementary school teaching positions. Districts received over 21,000 applications, more than 18,000 of which had the appropriate certification. Of course, teachers may apply for more than one job.  In all, 32 elementary positions were left vacant. Thirteen of those vacancies were in the Riverview Gardens School District alone.

There is a teacher shortage—it’s just not as widespread as most believe. In total, across all certification areas, Missouri had 258 positions left vacant in 2022. These vacancies were spread across 74 of the state’s 550+ school districts, but nearly half of all vacancies were in just five school districts: Hickman Mills (17), Kansas City (17), St. Louis Special School District (19), Hazelwood (27), and Riverview Gardens (47).

Aside from the Special School District, which is a unique district that serves special-needs students in St. Louis County, the other four districts have a lot in common. They tend to serve students who come from low-income families who are black. For example, more than 97 percent of Riverview Gardens students are black.

The shortage narrative has been used to push for an increase to the starting teacher salary in Missouri. According to data obtained from the Missouri State Teachers Association, the average starting salary in these four districts is $40,075. That is well above the current state minimum of $25,000 and even above the proposed minimum of $38,000 that is currently before the Missouri legislature. Estimates suggest this increase would cost the state $21 million.

Such an increase could actually exacerbate the problems facing high-poverty, majority-minority school districts. If all the districts that currently pay less are forced to offer higher wages, Riverview Gardens, Hickman Mills, and other districts that struggle with teacher recruitment will lose the competitive advantage of higher salaries. Imagine: the state could spend $21 million and fail to even address the real shortage problem in Missouri’s most disadvantaged school districts.

Missouri’s teacher shortage is not equally felt throughout the state; it is most pronounced in high-poverty, majority-minority school districts. Accordingly, strategies to address the shortage should provide targeted support for the affected districts. This could include salary supplements for teachers in hard-to-staff schools, or it could mean intense marketing, recruitment, and human-resource support for these schools. An across-the-board increase in minimum teacher salary is not what Missouri needs, and it could very well do more harm than good.

The post What Does Missouri’s Teacher Shortage Really Look Like appeared first on Show-Me Institute.