-An assessment of the 2025 legislative session
-The trend of unfairly blaming landlords for a variety of ills
-The extremely poor performance of Missouri’s schools
-A new law that will restrict cell phone usage in Missouri schools
-The disappointing lack of progress on budget and spending reform
-How perceptions about crime hurt Missouri cities

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s June 2025 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

-The Israel/Palestine conflict
-Lunacy in Missouri local government
-Missouri education performance continues to decline
-An update on the (potential) new Royals stadium
-The problem with the Hancock Amendment

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s December 2023 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This report describes the current Missouri workforce, projects the condition of that workforce in 2040 barring a course correction, and examines potential policy fixes that could get the state’s workforce back on track. Click here to read the full report.

The post The Future of Missouri’s Workforce appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s troubling enough that only about one third of the Missouri students who took the state assessment last year scored at grade level in math. But for certain categories—Black students and students with disabilities—roughly ninety percent did not hit that benchmark last year. When 75 percent of students in multiple subgroups are below grade level, it’s time for immediate and intensive interventions.

Parents are well aware of what’s going on and many are upset that their children are losing ground. A recent survey found that over half of parents think tutoring would be very helpful for their children this year. Nearly two thirds of parents of students with disabilities would like tutoring for their children. Parents who can afford it are seeking tutors and paying out of pocket for them. But what about the 80 percent of low-income students who are falling behind?

Tennessee just pledged $200 million of its federal stimulus funds to launch a three-year tutoring project called the Tennessee Accelerating Literacy and Learning Corp (TN ALL Corps). High-dosage/low-ratio tutoring has “consistently proven to accelerate achievement as quickly as possible” says Tennessee’s education commissioner. In fact, a study from Brown University found that regular, frequent tutoring sessions can increase learning by up to 10 months.

DESE also has nearly $200 million in funding from the American Rescue Plan, plus millions from earlier rounds of stimulus. So far, Missouri has pledged stimulus funds to teacher recruitment and retention, to the Missouri Leadership Development System for principals, to improving the longitudinal data system, and to teacher professional development. While these may be great ideas in the long run, they don’t address the immediate crisis. Missouri’s needs big, bold ideas from its leaders and it needs them now.

The post The House Is on Fire appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mr. Pratt is plainly wrong on both counts.

As the Kansas City Public School District has admitted and as we’ve demonstrated repeatedly over the last few months, critical race theory (CRT) and its associated concepts are appearing in curricula and teacher trainings across the state. The Columbia Public School District can misrepresent what it is teaching all it wants. The Springfield and St. Louis Public School Districts can hide what they’re teaching all they want. But we know these materials are showing up in classrooms across the state—in both big districts and small districts—and in diversity, equity and inclusion training materials with many teachers.

It is bizarre that a Missouri State diversity official would assert that CRT is “not being taught in the public schools, it’s not even being trained in the public schools.” Like I would for anyone interested in exploring CRT issues, I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Pratt so he can see the sorts of materials we’re finding. It may not be helpful to the audience he told otherwise, but finding out the facts late is better than never.

The post Yes, Mr. Pratt, Critical Race Theory is Being Taught and Trained in Missouri K-12 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. Michael Q. McShane is the director of national research at EdChoice and Senior Fellow of Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Podcast: The 2021 School Year So Far with Michael Q. McShane appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the latest from Susan Pendergrass

Parents are angry and confused right now. Many are receiving mixed messages from school districts. Critical information arrives late in the process and changes frequently. It’s up to school districts and the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education to fix this. But that doesn’t seem likely to happen before school starts this fall—and parents need help right now. So we’ve created a resource page designed to help parents figure out what their options are and what sort of questions they ought to be asking. Of course, this is only a small subset of what is out there, but we hope you find the below information useful. Please feel free to share this with anyone you think might benefit.

Questions parents should be asking superintendents, school board members and legislators:

1. Can I have a portion of my child’s state funding to purchase in-person learning if my district isn’t offering it?
2. Will the district make teachers available for micro-schools for those who want and need them?
3. Could the district open some school buildings for students to do their virtual learning with an on-site teacher assisting?
4. What if I don’t have high-speed internet access? Hot spots were insufficient last spring.
5. I don’t like my school’s virtual education programming. Can I switch to MOCAP after the school year starts?
6. Why hasn’t the state waived the requirement for receiving district permission to enroll in MOCAP this year?
7. My child can’t attend school in person. Can I have state funds to enroll them in a high-quality virtual provider of my choice?
8. If I decide to have my child stay virtual, do I need to register as a homeschooler?

Options that may or may not be available for this school year:

Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP) – MOCAP has 11 providers of full-time virtual education that have been vetted and approved by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). A law passed in 2018 gives all Missouri students the right to request enrollment in any of the providers. Currently, districts are required to assess the request and determine if virtual education is a good fit for the student or not. Parents can appeal a denial of permission. Districts have an unlimited amount of time to respond to MOCAP enrollment requests.

UPDATE September 22, 2020 – 10 Day Deadline for MOCAP Review

Missouri Virtual Ed

Letter: Missouri online program virtual lifesaver for students

Missouri committee may propose changes to virtual education program

Missouri panel to request temporary removal of districts serving as MOCAP gatekeeper

Free virtual resources:

Khan Academy

NoRedInk

Virtual resources that cost money:

Virtual Stream tutors

Florida Virtual School

Micro-schools – A group of 10-15 multi-age students with one teacher. There are several national networks, but parents would have to work fast to create a micro-school at this point. Any that aren’t charter schools charge tuition.

What Is a Micro School? And Where Can You Find One? (edweek)

Acton Academies:

Acton Academy

Lighthouse International 

Prenda network:

Prenda

More on the Micro-school Movement (Forbes)

What are “micro-schools” and “pandemic pods”? (Today)

Why and How to Open a Microschool (gettingsmarter)

PODs – Groups of families that agree to have their children learn in-person together while limiting their access to anyone outside the group. These are being formed in Missouri, but with no public assistance.

Parents turn to “pods” as a schooling solution

YMCA of Metropolitan Columbus offering learning pods

College Station Taekwondo business offering learning pods

Kansas City YMCA

At least one parent has started a POD business

Watch: How to Start an Education Pod

“Little Pod Platoons” Are Education’s Answer to Lockdowns This Fall

“Pandemic Pods” Are Fundamentally Reshaping K-12 Education

Microschools on the rise in Arizona, with COVID providing added boost (AZ Mirror)

Parents Turn to “Pods” for School During Pandemic (WebMD)

Scholarships – Giving state money directly to parents to pay for tuition or tutoring. These are not available in Missouri, but could be. Each governor received flexible stimulus money under the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEERs) program. Governor Parson has received $54 million. So far, Governor Parson has allocated $24 million to higher education. The allocation of the remaining $30 million is unknown. Other governors have used portions of their GEERs funds to create scholarships for low-income students.

Oklahoma used GEER funding to create a scholarship that will help low-income families purchase curriculum content, tutoring services, and technology 

South Carolina used GEER funding to create SAFE Scholarships

Governors Direct Federal COVID-19 Aid to Private School Scholarships (EDweek)

The post Fall 2020 Educational Resources for Missouri Parents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The best way to address this concern would be via an emergency tax-credit scholarship program. This tax-credit scholarship program could function much like a regular tax-credit scholarship program. Individuals and businesses donate to a scholarship-granting organization (SGO), and the SGO distributes the money to students who qualify based on the program requirements (the attached infographic has more detail on how the funding works). An emergency tax-credit scholarship could be awarded in cases such as the current pandemic, or in other cases such as natural disasters or even when individual families go through crisis.

Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely this type of program will pass this year. This is an important lesson about being proactive. If Missouri already had a tax-credit scholarship program, it would have been much easier to get kids the help they needed in a crisis. Instead, schools and districts are left scrambling to try and make something work without the resources required.

Tax-credit scholarships would help give families the ability to purchase the materials students need to keep learning even if it’s not in a traditional brick and mortar school. Lack of access to the internet or a computer are real barriers to learning for many students, but tax-credit scholarships could help fill that gap. Missouri can better prepare for unforeseen circumstances if only we would get a little creative.

The post How Can We Make Sure Missouri Students Can Still Learn? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Schools and districts are grappling with spring standardized testing. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance allowing states to request a waiver for submitting test results this year. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has already changed the Annual Performance Report metric to count attendance as only “reportable,” not “scorable.” There’s plenty more to figure out in this ongoing process.

One thing that gives me confidence is classic American ingenuity. No one saw this coming a year ago, but the ideas to make this new normal livable are rolling in. My colleague, Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, has compiled an excellent list of resources for parents with school-aged children at home for weeks. The College Board is figuring out how AP students can take their spring exams at home. Harvard Business Review has compiled tips for working parents dealing with school closures. Experts on education policy are offering their services pro bono to districts trying to craft a strategy. This is just a small sample of the efforts in the education sphere right now to find the best way to serve children in the midst of a pandemic.

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that we can continue to generate and use these great ideas going forward. There is now absolutely no reason for Missouri school boards to resist alternate learning environments. We can think hard about building standards and accountability systems that are flexible and focus on how much each student is learning, rather than giving points for average daily attendance. We can trust parents to be truly involved in their children’s education. We didn’t expect this pandemic and we don’t know what’s coming next. So let’s use this as an opportunity to build a smarter education system for Missouri students.

The post Is This the New Normal? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a little-noticed update to a report tallying the amount of forgone revenue due to the development subsidies, the city now says the value of those incentives was $29.6 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30….

The school district relies far more heavily on property taxes, collecting about 61 cents on each tax dollar paid. That means the district, which has little to no say over whether property taxes are abated on real estate projects, missed out on about $18 million in revenue last year.

The Kansas City Public School District (KCPS) has estimated that it loses about $26 million each year, but an exact number should be available once the city of Kansas City issues its own report based on the same updated national accounting standards. Meanwhile, KCPS is considering a general obligation bond or levy increase to make up for those lost funds.

Meanwhile, infighting among schools over money could harm students’ prospects. The St. Louis Public School District  is suing to get $42 million that officials believe was given erroneously to charter schools as part of the city’s desegregation plan. If the district is successful in their suit, many charter schools will be adversely affected, which could lead to less choice for St. Louis parents and fewer high quality schools for St. Louis children.

Bad economic development policies such a tax-increment financing (TIF) lead to underfunding of basic services such as education and public—which in turn leads to education infighting, more borrowing, or higher taxes for the rest of us. None of that is good.

The post Who Is to Blame for Underfunded Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A new essay by Gail Heyne Hafer and Rik Hafer explores questions like these by examining data across Missouri counties to track not only economic outcomes but also social behavior in order to see whether different levels of education produce different outcomes at the county level and to inform debate about how educational funding should be allocated across the state.

Click on the link below to read the entire essay.

The post Education, Income, and Social Behavior Across Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“The basic assumption of your draft regulations appears to be that top down, Washington driven standardization is best…. You are funding teaching interventions or changes to the learning environment that promise to make public education better, i.e. greater mastery of what it takes to become an effective citizen and a productive member of society. In the draft you have circulated, I sense a pervasive technocratic bias and an uncritical faith in the power of social science.”

Was it:

(A)   Then Kansas Senator (now Governor) Sam Brownback

(B)   Then Texas Governor Rick Perry

(C)   Then California Attorney General  (now Governor ) Jerry Brown

(D)   Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

If you guessed Sam Brownback, you would be wrong. It was actually Democrat Jerry Brown.  Yes, that Jerry Brown.

This quote resurfaced in an interesting piece by Matt Barnum of education website The 74 about California’s long-running opposition to federal education policy. Brown’s riposte was a harbinger of the showdown that California ultimately had with the Department of Education in 2013, when California suspended its standardized testing and school rating system. The feds said they couldn’t do it and threatened to withhold funding. Brown responded more like a Texan than a Californian and dared them to come and take it.  The feds backed down.

I think there are two interesting lessons to take away from this story (which is worth reading in full).

First, states can stand up to the federal government. It obviously helped California that it is the most populous state in the union and is one that will reliably deliver Democratic votes, but even with that said, it is clear that the federal government is loathe to pull funding that overwhelmingly benefits poor students and students with special needs. That is not to say that they wouldn’t, but states are probably in a stronger bargaining position than they realize.

Second, the issue itself matters. California picked a smart issue on which to go toe to toe with the Department of Education. Had the feds been opposing standardized tests and the states supporting them, the calculus would probably be much different. A hardline stance might not work with an issue with more divided opinion or one where the federal government has the majority opinion on its side.

I don’t know if what California is doing is right or wrong. I’m by no means a technocrat, but I think they probably swung too far in the opposite direction on testing and school accountability. That said, part of respecting local control of education is realizing that not everyone is going to make the decisions that you would have made had you been part of the process. Agree or not, we can learn from California about what states can do when they feel they have been pushed too far, and we can recognize the need for states to have a game plan in place in case they are asked (or ordered) to do things expressly against the will of their citizens.

The post They Fought the Feds, and the Feds Lost! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, this might strike you as odd when you hear over and over that charter schools are destroying public education.  Kansas City and St. Louis each have more than one-third of their students enrolled in charter schools, and yet, the traditional public school districts seem to be getting better.  How can this be?

It’s possible that either by stirring competition, more efficiently sorting students into options that serve them, or relieving pressure from school districts, charter schools are helping once struggling districts turn a corner.  Whatever the reason, it is hard to look at these numbers and see charter schools harming either district.

I should also point out that both districts started in very bad places.  In 2011, Kansas City had a graduation rate of 50 percent and St. Louis was at 54 percent.  Even with their gains, the Kansas City School District sits at only 67 percent and St. Louis at 68 percent. This puts them on par with cities like Newark, New Jersey (68 percent) and Compton, California (65 percent). They perform worse in absolute terms than neighboring cities like Little Rock (75 percent) and even Chicago (70 percent).  Inauspicious company. Clearly, there is still a long, long way to go.

Around the rest of the state, there was both good news and bad news.

The overall graduation rate in Missouri is up, from 81% in 2011 to 85.7% in 2013. That gain represents the 6^th best growth rate in the country over that time period. At the same time, though, Hispanic students in the class of 2013 graduated at a rate of 81 percent, low-income students graduated at a rate of 78 percent, and African-American students graduated at a rate of only 72 percent.

The report also broke out the performance of districts with at least 15,000 students:

• Around Kansas City, North Kansas City saw a graduation rate of 91 percent and Lee’s Summit clocked in at 94 percent.
• In greater St. Louis, Hazelwood saw an 86 percent graduation rate, Ft. Zumwalt 89 percent, Francis Howell 92 percent, Parkway 93 percent, and Rockwood 94 percent.
• Columbia had a graduation rate of 86 percent and Springfield had one of 87 percent.

All in all, a very interesting report that should inform conversations about education around the state.

The post If charter schools are ruining education in Missouri, more please! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

 A significant number” of districts have agreed to reduce the tuition costs for transfer students to about $7,250, said Don Senti, executive director of EducationPlus, an organization of area school districts that has coordinated the transfer process for the past two years. That is the same amount most districts charge St. Louis Public Schools for transfer students under the voluntary desegregation program. In the past, tuition rates have ranged from $20,768 in Clayton to a low of $7,927 in Mehlville.

I am very pleased that the school districts have decided to take this step. Actually, I’ve been saying this action was possible all along. Back in January 2014 I wrote:

 Many have lamented that the inter-district transfer law, which allows students to transfer from unaccredited public school districts to nearby accredited districts, may bankrupt failing districts. Normandy and Riverview Gardens, the two unaccredited districts currently allowing students to transfer, are already seeing financial hardship, and reports indicate that Normandy could be bankrupt by the end of the school year. This has occurred because the districts are paying tuition rates that are often in excess of what the districts spend on their own students. This has led some to clamor for a set tuition rate. In a recent position paper by the Cooperating School Districts of Greater St. Louis, area school superintendents stated, “If transfers are made between school districts then a regional tuition rate should be determined.” The interesting thing is that nothing is stopping area school districts from charging a lower tuition rate now. Each district, with a vote of its school board, could decide to set a lower, consistent tuition rate. To date, none of them have. Instead, school leaders are asking for more state government action. This is the very problem that plagues our society in so many regards; instead of taking initiative and fixing a problem ourselves, we allow or we seek greater government involvement. The next time you hear a school leader complain about the transfer situation and how it may bankrupt unaccredited schools, ask him or her what his or her district is doing to help. Are these leaders taking action locally, or are they requesting a solution from Jefferson City?

Eighteen months ago school leaders scoffed at my idea. They wanted a legislative fix. They wanted to stop the transfer program. What changed? Now, area school leaders are acting to stop a legislative fix. The current bill sitting before the governor would improve Missouri’s charter public school law and allow for broader establishment of virtual schools. Eighteen months ago, the education establishment rejected the idea of lowering tuition because they wanted the legislature to maintain the status quo. Today, the education establishment welcomes the idea of lowering the tuition because they want to avoid the legislative fix and maintain the status quo.

The post Maintaining the Education Status Quo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Monday, I’ll be participating in a panel discussion on the Future of Education in Kansas City. This event is co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Show-Me Institute. Check out the details below and then come check out the event on Monday night.

Should your ZIP code determine your educational choices? Do charter schools improve academic outcomes? What do local public schools need to succeed? Should tax credit scholarships be used to help students attend private schools? Should residents in struggling public schools get to transfer to neighboring districts?

These topics and more will be explored as our panelists debate the future of education in and around Kansas City, Mo.

The panel will feature the following influencers in the local education landscape:

• James Shuls, Ph.D., distinguished fellow, Show-Me Institute, and Assistant Professor at University of Missouri–St. Louis
• Dr. Amy Hartsfield, member-at-large, School Board, Kansas City Public Schools
• Andrea Flinders, president, Kansas City Federation of Teachers, Local 691
• Douglas Thaman, Ed.D., executive director, Missouri Charter Public School Association
• John Murphy, public policy committee chair of the Missouri Catholic Conference

Admission is FREE, but please register so we can ensure there is enough seating. The event is scheduled from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Feb. 23, 2015, at the Kansas City Club, 918 Baltimore Ave., Kansas City, MO 64105.

The post The Future of Education in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted a series of welfare programs called the War on Poverty. One of these programs was Head Start, a program aimed at preparing low-income children for kindergarten.

Also under the umbrella of the War on Poverty, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965. The purpose of ESEA was to start funding schools with federal money, but it forbade a national curriculum.

Under President Jimmy Carter’s administration, the Department of Education was founded in 1979. Just a few years later, in 1983, the American public was shocked by the findings of A Nation at Risk, a report issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education during President Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

President George H. W. Bush and President Bill Clinton left their mark on standards-based education in the 1990s with America 2000 (Bush) and Goals 2000 (Clinton).

In 2001, President George W. Bush reauthorized the ESEA under a new name, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and in 2011, the U.S. Department of Education began awarding states with flexibility waivers from NCLB if they did things like adopt Common Core or evaluate teachers based on student achievement.

In just 50 years, federal oversight in education has grown and evolved. On the anniversary of one of LBJ’s key initiatives, some are calling for even more government intervention to fix the inequalities that still plague the United States today.

But federal intervention will not solve Missouri’s education problems—just look at the results. Few would argue the education system in America is in good shape, or that every child is receiving a quality education. So why institute more government intervention?

If the past 50 years has taught us anything, it’s that Missouri needs to enter a new era of education reform, one in which choice and competition are embraced.

The post Education: A Brief History Of Federal Overreach appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Most recently, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education posted a video using this tactic – “What Would You Say to a Critic of Higher Standards?” In the video, a few of Missouri’s teachers of the year answer the question. How can someone argue with them? How can you argue against higher standards?

There is just one problem, I don’t know of anyone who argues against the Common Core State Standards because they are too rigorous. In fact, most arguments against the standards call into question the quality of the standards. Take, for instance, Sandy Stotsky. She was a member of the Common Core validation team and refused to sign off on the standards.

“Everyone was willing to believe that the Common Core standards are ‘rigorous,’ ‘competitive,’ ‘internationally benchmarked,’ and ‘research-based.’ They are not,” Stotsky said.

But according to DESE, it is not possible to question the quality of the standards. What’s more, apparently we are supposed to be in awe of the standards as well. In the video, Robert Becker, the 2010-11 Missouri Teacher of the Year, says, “If you actually sit down and read them, they’re beautiful. There’s no way you could object to them. You could do nothing but admire them.”

Really?

Let’s try it out. Here are a couple of standards:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.A.2 Express the length of an object as a whole number of length units, by laying multiple copies of a shorter object (the length unit) end to end; understand that the length measurement of an object is the number of same-size length units that span it with no gaps or overlaps.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.3.3 Ask and answer questions about information from a speaker, offering appropriate elaboration and detail.

Are they beautiful? Do you want to sit back and admire them?

We cannot have a serious discussion about the Common Core until proponents recognize that questions of their “rigor” and their “beauty” are debatable. Reputable scholars disagree on the matter. Instead of asking the loaded question, “Why don’t you like rigorous standards?” Common Core supporters should open up to real dialogue. They could start by asking, “Could the standards be improved?”

The post When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife? – Common Core Edition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Across the country, there is widespread disagreement among educators, politicians, and the general public about what constitutes a good curriculum. Even within districts, conflicting interest groups fight heated battles over curricular changes.

On April 26, a group of students took over a board meeting of the Tuscon Unified School District, protesting a proposal that would change the district’s Mexican American Studies program from a social studies credit to an elective. Student supporters of the program chained themselves to the board’s dais and could not be removed by security. Under a national curriculum, disputes such as this would have to be resolved at the federal level. Congress would determine what students should learn. Allowing Congress to serve as the custodian of truth in the teaching of history, social studies, and other subjects is asking for trouble.

In fact, our current system is already too centralized, with state legislators and boards of education committing new crimes against veracity every time curriculum design comes up for debate. Last spring, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education pushed through a new social studies curriculum. Among other changes, the new curriculum required a greater emphasis on the “conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” and excised the insufficiently religious Thomas Jefferson from a list of thinkers who inspired revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, replacing him with overtly Christian figures such as John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas. The left plays this game just as much as the right. California’s guidelines forbid textbooks to “cast adverse reflection on any gender, race, ethnicity, religion or cultural group.” That sounds well-meaning, but it has led to a whitewashed version of history for fear of offending any interest group.

We should return decisions about educational content to the local level. That would not make these arguments disappear, but it would give parents the greatest opportunity to find a curriculum that suits their educational preferences.

Furthermore, localized curricula would give teachers more flexibility in meeting students’ individual educational needs. When I pursued teacher certification, I encountered repeatedly in my coursework the idea that every student learns in different ways. Good teachers must vary the information they present and how they present it in order to appeal to the different aptitudes and interests of their students. A national curriculum may not completely strip teachers of the ability to tailor lessons for the particularities of their students, but every new mandate from on high removes a little more autonomy from the educators who know their students best.

Many American schools are in desperate need of reform, but more federal micromanagement is not the solution. We need more autonomy for schools to innovate and serve the individual needs and interests of their students, and greater choice for parents to hold those schools accountable. A national curriculum would take us in the opposite direction — toward heavily politicized subject matter and no alternatives for students whose needs are left out. Reforming education in this country is not one large problem — it’s millions of small ones, and a national curriculum would only make them harder to address.

John Payne is a research assistant with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy. He is a former high school social studies teacher, and an original signatory to “Closing the Door on Innovation,” a manifesto opposing a national education curriculum.

The post Don’t Nationalize Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While adopting the standards would be voluntary, the Obama administration has said that it intends to withhold millions of dollars in grants for low-income students in states that refuse to join the effort — regardless of the quality of their existing standards.

The administration also says states that embrace the standards will have a better chance of receiving potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in its “Race to the Top’’ competition, which rewards education innovation.

Missouri’s standards are generally not considered to be at the level of Massachusetts’, so Missouri could probably improve its standards somewhat by agreeing to the Common Core Standards. But why should Missouri — or any state — adopt the Common Core Standards when it could do better by emulating Massachusetts or California?

The post The Standards Dilemma appeared first on Show-Me Institute.