Interestingly, the bottom ten spenders had a higher average academic letter grade than those in the top ten. However, many of the top spenders in the state are tiny rural districts with fewer than 50 students. That raised an important question: Would this pattern hold when comparing districts of a similar type?

Table 1 begins to answer that question by focusing specifically on suburban and city districts—schools that are far more comparable in size and structure, but still vary widely in student demographics. It should be noted that Table 1 includes non-current spending items like interest and capital outlay (such as constructing a new gym, renovations, etc.).

For reference, in the 2023-24 school year, the average expenditure per student was around $19,500. Of that, about $15,900 were current expenditures and $3,600 were non-current expenditures.

Source: MOSchoolRankings.org

Interestingly, the five highest-performing school districts in the state are split between the highest and lowest total spenders. Table 1 suggests that it is overly simplistic to assume that more money per student automatically leads to better academic outcomes.

Consider Valley Park and Park Hill as examples. Both spend relatively high amounts per student (including non-current expenditures) and serve comparatively lower shares of low-income students, yet neither achieves top-tier academic results. Meanwhile, several lower-spending districts of similar demographics earn strong academic grades.

This does not mean funding is irrelevant, but rather that the process of producing strong academic outcomes is complex and money isn’t everything.

The post The Wide Difference in Spending Per Student in Missouri’s Suburban Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These are all relevant questions, and at the Show-Me Institute, we’ve created a resource to answer such questions: MOSchoolRankings.org

As an example of what these data can be used for, Figure 1 shows how Missouri school districts are distributed across different levels of spending per student. It should be noted that these statistics include non-current spending items like interest and capital outlay (such as constructing a new gym, renovations, etc.).

For reference, in the 2023–24 school year, the average expenditure per student was around $19,500. Of that, about $15,900 were current expenditures and $3,600 were non-current expenditures.

Figure 1: Number of School Districts and Charter Schools Grouped By Average Expenditures Per Student, 2024–25

Source: MOSchoolRankings.org

Most Missouri school districts and charter schools spent between $13,000 and $22,000 per student in the 2024–25 school year, but there are numerous outliers in the data, as shown below.

Table 1: Public School Districts and Charter Schools with the Highest and Lowest Average Expenditures Per Student, 2024–25

Source: MOSchoolRankings.org

In Table 1, many of the highest-spending school districts in Missouri are rural, including several extremely small districts, such as Missouri City 56, which enrolls just 14 students. By contrast, many of the lowest-spending districts are also rural, though they tend to be larger and vary more in size.

Missouri’s mean total expenditure per student (weighting each district equally and including non-current expenditures) is $20,406, while the median is $18,934. Even so, there is a surprisingly wide spending range across the state, from roughly $12,000 per student to more than $60,000 per student.

These kinds of statistics are important when evaluating potential changes to the funding formula. To take one small example, Spickard R-II saw enrollment decline from 54 students in 2005–06 to 21 students in 2024–25: a 61% decrease. For state funding, Missouri’s hold-harmless policy guarantees that Spickard R-II receives no less than the state funding it received in 2005–06, even though the district has far fewer students. This likely contributes to why Spickard spent $41,224 per student in 2024–25.

Clear, accessible data are important. And of course, spending is only one aspect of this. MOSchoolRankings.org allows users to go further by comparing districts on academic performance, student demographics, growth, and much more.

The post Which School Districts Spent the Most Per Student? Which Spent the Least? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The 74’s Bright Spots project identifies public schools across the country that are beating the odds in reading. Specifically, “Bright Spot” schools have literacy rates that are significantly higher than what is predicted based on their student poverty rates. In other words, these schools are outperforming expectations in terms of teaching kids to read.

The project is impressive in both scope and purpose. Using data from 41,883 schools across 10,414 districts in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., it shines a light on excelling schools. Too often, education debates fixate on failure. Highlighting success—and learning from it—is just as important.

While there are surely all kinds of interesting tidbits in the data, in this post I want to focus on the disproportionate representation of charter schools among Bright Spots.

Charter schools make up seven percent of The 74’s national sample, but 11 percent of schools identified as Bright Spots. This means charter schools are overrepresented among Bright Spot schools by more than 50 percent. If performance were unrelated to charter status, we would expect charter schools to comprise seven percent of the Bright Spot list—not 11 percent.

This adds to a large and growing body of evidence showing that charter schools produce stronger academic gains than traditional public schools, on average. This does not mean that every charter school is more effective than every traditional public school, nor does it mean that there aren’t high-performing traditional public schools (indeed, the Bright Spots project highlights many!). But it does mean that, more often than not, a school system with more charter schools will outperform a school system with fewer charter schools.

In Missouri, we’re missing the boat on charter schools. Our outdated charter laws result in them operating in just four jurisdictions in the state (Boone County, Kansas City, Normandy, and the City of St. Louis). This leaves most Missouri families without charter school options.

The fundamental reason is that outside of these four jurisdictions, a charter school can only open with the approval of the local school board. But because the local school board has a vested interest in maintaining resources for its own traditional public schools, this rule effectively serves as a ban on charter schools in most of our state.

If state policymakers are serious about improving student outcomes, they should modernize Missouri’s charter law. A simple solution is to allow the Missouri Charter Public School Commission to authorize charter schools statewide, rather than relying on local school boards to approve them. This would allow the charter sector to expand and result in more students attending high-quality public schools.

The post Charter Schools Are More Likely to Be Bright Spots appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

Steubenville must be rich, right? Nope. The poverty rate in Steubenville is among the highest in the state, which makes its literacy rate all the more impressive.

Steubenville then must have access to more funding than other districts? Wrong again. Steubenville’s per-pupil spending is below average in Ohio, and below the average in Missouri.

So how does Steubenville do it? It’s hard to be sure, but Aldeman’s article suggests an intuitive explanation: the district emphasizes literacy skills through and through. He gives several examples. Steubenville offers subsidized preschool where teachers emphasize speaking in complete sentences as language practice for later, when kids begin learning how to read. Every elementary teacher, even the physical education teacher, leads a reading class. And Steubenville kids practice reading constantly, either as part of the whole class or in small groups, and they work on their fluency skills by reading aloud to each other.

I’m not sure which aspects of Steubenville’s approach are most important, but what stands out to me is the district’s clear commitment to the purpose of teaching literacy. And sure enough, the results follow. This stands in stark contrast to what is happening in many schools today, where mission creep has led to a proliferation of objectives, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) de-emphasizing the core competencies our schools have historically emphasized, such as literacy, numeracy, science, and civics.

So, cheers to Steubenville. I hope districts elsewhere—including in Missouri—recognize its success and work to emulate Steubenville’s approach.

The post The Amazing Case of Steubenville, Ohio appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Early Literacy Reform Model Policy Packet includes:

• An infographic with key facts about Missouri’s reading crisis
• Frequently asked questions for policymakers
• Full model policy language for early literacy reforms
• A detailed policy brief with research and state comparisons
• Contact information for policy experts

Read the full Early Literacy Reform in Missouri Model Policy Packet here.

The post Missouri’s Reading Crisis: 42% of Fourth-Graders Can Barely Read appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of Missouri’s four largest cities—Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, and Columbia—Springfield will soon be the only one without charter schools. Charter schools are already thriving in Kansas City, and St. Louis and thanks to recent legislation Columbia will have its first charter schools up and running as early as 2026.

Springfield is missing out.

Charter schools are public schools that are exempt from some of the rules and regulations that apply to traditional public schools. In most Missouri counties, including Greene County, charter schools are not allowed to operate unless they are sponsored by the local school board—a requirement that effectively bans them. Senate Bill 727, signed into law in 2024, changed this requirement in Boone County, where Columbia is located. We need similar legislation in Greene County.

Why? There are several reasons—including that charter schools are popular with families—but the most important reason is that charter schools are more effective than traditional public schools. Academic studies consistently show students who attend charter schools outperform their peers in traditional public schools on state exams and are more likely to attend college. In some cases, the performance differences are substantial. A recent national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that charter schools deliver additional academic growth equivalent to 6 extra days of instruction in math each year, and 16 extra days in reading, compared to traditional public schools. This same study shows that Missouri has some of the most effective charter schools in the country.

Charter school impacts are largest in areas where the local neighborhood schools are underperforming. Does Springfield have any low-performing neighborhood schools? Unfortunately, it sure does. At Westport Elementary School in 2024, only 24 percent of 5th-graders scored proficient or higher on the state English Language Arts test, and in math the number was just 14 percent. At Parkview High School, only 16 percent of students who took the Algebra I end-of-course exam scored proficient or above.

Now imagine your child is zoned for one of these schools and unless you move—perhaps not in your budget—this is where he or she will be required to attend. Charter schools give families in this situation new hope. Many charter operators intentionally open schools in neighborhoods where the traditional public schools are the worst—their mission is to provide educational opportunities in these communities that are not otherwise available. In many cities, the top charter schools have long waitlists.

If we want more Springfield children to have access to highly effective schools, permitting charter schools to operate in Greene County is one of the simplest ways to do it.

How can we make this happen? Following Boone County’s playbook, we need a champion for charter schools in the state legislature who will prioritize this issue in the upcoming legislative session. For Boone County, that champion was Caleb Rowden, a longtime charter advocate. Education legislation in Jefferson City is increasingly “omnibus” style, which means multiple different education policies are bundled into one bill. Rowden made sure that permitting charter schools to operate in Boone County, without the requirement that they be sponsored by the local school board, was part of the 2024 omnibus bill.

Will someone step up in a similar manner for Greene County? I sure hope so.

Charter schools are public schools, their students are public school students, and their teachers are public school teachers. They cannot charge tuition, they’re secular, and they’re open to all students (they must admit students by lottery if the number of applicants is greater than the number of available spots). We know charter schools work and that they’re popular with families.

Every year that passes without charter schools operating in Greene County is a missed opportunity for Springfield’s children.

The post Springfield Needs Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Paying teachers to get master’s degrees that do not make them more effective is inefficient. Most obviously, it misdirects school district resources—why privilege teachers who get a credential that does not make them better at their jobs when we could use metrics tied to actual performance, or just pay all teachers more? The master’s pay premium also incentivizes teachers to invest tuition money, time, and energy in degrees with no measurable value. And the artificial demand fueled by these policies encourages universities to expand the degree programs themselves. All around, it is a tremendous waste of resources.

A new report released by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) describes the current national policy landscape with respect to the master’s degree premium. The report identifies Missouri as one of just 15 states that require districts to pay a master’s degree premium. In fact, we just re-upped the policy in 2024 with Senate Bill 727, which raised minimum teacher pay and maintained a new, higher minimum pay standard for teachers with master’s degrees (and at least 10 years of experience).

The NCTQ report also looked at salary schedules in 140 large districts in the United States, including three in Missouri: Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis. All three have large pay premiums for teachers with master’s degrees, especially highly experienced teachers. For example, with 20 or more years of experience the premium exceeds $10,000 annually in all three districts, and it gets as high as $18,600 in Kansas City.

This is a steep price to pay for a credential that has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no connection to classroom effectiveness. It’s time to end this practice.

The post We Shouldn’t Pay Teachers for Master’s Degrees appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The slow road to recovery is illustrated in the recently released preliminary results of the 2025 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The most recent data indicate modest improvements in mathematics, and average scores in at least some grades that are finally eclipsing pre-pandemic levels. However, the state’s stagnant reading scores continue to be a source of concern, as reading scores remain below their pre-pandemic levels in all tested grades.

Figure 1 summarizes MAP trends in the Show-Me State, including preliminary scores from the 2024–2025 school year:

Figure 1: Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) English/Language Arts Mean Scale Scores by Grade Level, 2018–2025

Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

In Figure 1, the mean scale scores represent the student body’s performance as a whole. There are several important takeaways from this figure:

• Across all grades, Missouri’s reading scores have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels.
• Except for scores in the 3rd and 5th grades, reading scores are lower now than they were in 2020–21, when the pandemic was still strongly affecting in-person schooling.

Clearly, there is still work to be done.

Potential Solutions

This post is not meant to be doom and gloom—there is hope. States such as Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee have shown that student literacy can improve substantially with the right reforms.

These states have adopted early literacy policies that are effective, though sometimes unpopular: mandatory third-grade retention, eliminating three-cueing for teaching reading, and ensuring teacher preparation programs teach evidence-based reading practices.

Other states have proved that early literacy reforms can work. The 2026 legislative session is an opportunity to take meaningful steps toward improving educational outcomes in Missouri by taking reading reform more seriously.

The post Missouri’s Stagnant Reading Scores appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I was interested, but skeptical. After all, many universities seem to be highly rated somewhere. Is State Tech really that good? In a 2024 article, I worked with two University of Missouri graduate students, Maxx Cook and Michael Reda, to find out. We examined State Tech’s impact on student graduation and earnings.

It quickly became apparent that State Tech students had better outcomes in the data, which is consistent with what they report on their website. However, we weren’t sure whether this was because of State Tech’s superior educational programming, or just because it attracts stronger students in the first place.

We used two strategies to sort this out. First, we used detailed data from the Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development to compare students who attended State Tech with students who had similar pre-college qualifications but attended other two-year colleges in Missouri. Second, we used econometric tools to isolate a group of students who attended State Tech only because it happened to be near where they lived, rather than for other reasons. We then compared these students to otherwise similar students who happened to live farther away. This strategy helps remove a lot of potential confounding factors that might make State Tech look better than it really is.

Our findings confirm that State Tech is the real deal. It increases associate degree attainment by more than 20 percentage points compared to other two-year colleges in Missouri, and State Tech students graduate faster. It also increases earnings (measured six years after initial enrollment) by over $11,000 annually. Importantly, State Tech students outperform both non-technical and technical students elsewhere in Missouri.

We should celebrate the presence of such an excellent institution in our great state. We should also try to learn from State Tech to replicate its success. If this were any other industry, competitors would be flocking to Linn to figure out the secret sauce. But based on my years of experience studying education, I doubt this is happening. Why not? Because there is no competitive incentive to do so. In business, an exceptional company forces rivals to adapt or close. In public education—K–12 or higher ed—the risk of closure due to poor performance is almost nonexistent.

This means Missouri’s other public two-year colleges have little reason to put in the work required to emulate State Tech. It’s a missed opportunity, but we can still appreciate State Tech’s success and be proud to call it our own.

The post Let’s Celebrate (and learn from) State Tech, One of the Best Technical Colleges in the Country appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yet these schools and districts rarely face meaningful consequences and there is virtually no threat that they will close, which raises an interesting question: How often should schools close? Frequent closures would clearly be disruptive, but too few could also be a problem. In a healthy education ecosystem, schools that consistently underperform should be replaced with better alternatives. That’s what would happen if the public school system operated like a market.

However, public schools rarely close. And when they do, it’s usually due to declining enrollment or budget cuts, not poor performance. As a result, even schools that fail year after year remain open and funded.

All of this points to a perverse indicator of the effectiveness of expanded school choice: more school closures. This may seem counterintuitive, but if charter and private schools close at higher rates than traditional public schools, it suggests they operate in a system where failure has consequences. That’s a good thing. Replacing inferior providers with stronger providers, through competition, helps make markets more efficient.

Given this background, I enjoyed reading this recent study by Doug Harris and Valentina Martinez-Pabon. It puts hard numbers on school closures nationally. The authors estimate that just 0.9 percent of traditional public schools in the United States closed annually between 2014 and 2018. In contrast, closure rates were 2.9 percent for private schools and 5.1 percent for charter schools—roughly three and six times higher, respectively. The higher closure rates are a sign of a healthier market.

It may feel like a foregone conclusion that failing public schools will always persist, but it doesn’t need to be. Infusing more competition into our education system will push all schools to perform better. And for low-performing schools that cannot figure out how to improve, it will force them to close, making way for new, higher-quality providers. These changes would benefit all children, but especially those who are currently trapped in persistently ineffective schools.

The post How Often Should Schools Close? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Dr. Jim Wyckoff, professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Education Policy Ph.D. program, about the long-term decline in student academic achievement. They discuss how national test scores, especially for the lowest-performing students, began falling well before the pandemic, why the usual explanations like COVID or Common Core miss the bigger picture, and what states can do to reverse the trend, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Spotify

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding Declining Academic Achievement
02:47 Historical Context of Academic Performance
05:43 The Impact of Policy Changes
08:31 Exploring Causes of Decline
11:14 Success Stories and Lessons Learned
13:51 The Role of State Legislation
16:49 Future Directions and Solutions

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast, Professor Wyckoff of the University of Virginia. So you have a recent paper that really caught my eye. I’m puzzling over declining academic achievement in this country. And it’s something that I’ve been thinking about a lot. And sort of as a companion issue, I work in Missouri and I’ve been talking for a long time that Missouri enrollment’s been declining and folks are like, well, yeah, the pandemic—the pandemic, kids left public schools, but they’ll probably come back. And I’m like, no, no, we had our largest kindergarten class in 2013. Any data forecaster, demographer would see this coming. This is not a pandemic problem. And I think it exacerbated it, but I think this has happened with basic student test scores in this country, where people are like, well, the pandemic caused it, and we’re gonna come back out of this.
You have a paper that’s out recently on the fact that maybe the pandemic didn’t cause it and it predated it. So I’d love it if you could just tell me a little bit about what you found looking back and why, in my opinion, it’s a bigger problem than many folks are thinking it is.

Jim Wyckoff (01:03)
Sure. So I’ve been following sort of NAEP trends, as a lot of people do, because NAEP is an incredibly reliable source of information about academic achievement at certainly the national and the state levels, and to some extent at certain large districts, the TUDA districts. And so I’ve been noticing this trend for several years now where NAEP scores have been declining—predating the pandemic by a number of years. And these declines have gotten large by almost any metric we might use to measure student achievement.
A lot of people saw the very large declines that occurred during the pandemic. And again, there was lots of discussion in both achievement and political terms about what this meant and how we were going to attribute these losses.
Last fall, I started to get more serious about wanting to understand these trends. Quite honestly, it came from a place of having some ideas, but really wanting to figure it out. The title of the article is “puzzling” because I spent a lot of time trying to better understand these trends—how large are they, when did they begin—and asking questions to help make sense of what’s going on.
One of the more surprising conclusions was that the losses that had been occurring prior to the pandemic were about half as large as the total loss that occurred by 2024. And that surprised me a little.

Susan Pendergrass (02:55)
Yeah, so we were on a bit of an upward trajectory during the era that a lot of people didn’t like, but No Child Left Behind caused a lot of anguish. I remember my oldest was in third grade the first year of No Child Left Behind testing in Virginia—SOLs—and it caused a lot of problems. But it did have results, right? No Child Left Behind, this high-accountability, high-stakes testing that people don’t like, actually improved test scores, right?

Jim Wyckoff (03:28)
Yeah, I think there are, as you suggested, large increases in NAEP scores from the early 1990s to around 2009. These increases were large by almost anyone’s standards—over 50 percent of a standard deviation, which translates to nearly two years of learning. So these were consistent, large increases.
Around 2009, the scores leveled off and then began to decline. During that 1990 to 2009 period, a number of policies played a role. NCLB began in 2002 and ran its course until around 2013 before ESSA replaced it in 2015. The best evidence we have suggests that math scores improved as a result of NCLB. Not by as much as the broader achievement gains, but still meaningful increases.

Susan Pendergrass (04:50)
Yeah. And I think it should be pointed out that in the ’90s, governors all met—actually at the University of Virginia—and there was a broader push around academic achievement. For our listeners, Missouri tracks exactly with the national results. We peaked in 2009 and have been steadily declining ever since.
Last year in Missouri and nationally, four out of ten fourth graders were essentially not literate. They didn’t reach the “basic” level in reading. We don’t know where they are between zero and basic, but they didn’t register on the scale—they’re essentially illiterate. And that, to me, is a crisis. I don’t hear it being talked about like a crisis the way it was in the ’90s after a number of major government studies. But that’s where we are. We’re back to square one, essentially—long-term NAEP trends put us back to the 1970s.

Jim Wyckoff (05:51)
Yeah, certainly for the lowest-performing kids, the decline has wiped out gains made since 1990. As you’re suggesting, these results have important implications.
Since NCLB and other developments in the 2000s, I think there’s been less emphasis on academic achievement. Other issues have come forward. People have denigrated test scores to the point where we’ve missed opportunities to understand what’s going on.
And NAEP is a low-stakes, low-accountability test—nothing really rides on it. That’s why we believe it’s a strong signal of what kids are actually learning. And what they’re learning has declined significantly, as you’re pointing out.

Susan Pendergrass (06:52)
Let’s talk about your speculation as to what’s causing this. I’ve heard a lot about smartphones in classrooms, and states are starting to get active on that. You suggest it might be part of the problem. How so?

Jim Wyckoff (07:07)
Yeah, not just me—others have made this connection. Smartphones and social media really took off around 2009. Their use became much more widespread between 2009 and 2020. If you look at the data, smartphone and social media saturation grew rapidly in that period.
There’s evidence suggesting kids have become less engaged in school. That’s led to regulations about phone use in classrooms. But the problem extends beyond school—kids are less engaged with schoolwork outside the classroom too.
It’s hard to definitively link smartphone use to declining achievement, but there’s reason to believe it’s a contributing factor. Still, I don’t think any one issue—phones, NCLB, whatever—can account for the full decline. It’s likely a combination of multiple factors that vary by place and time.
And I think we’re not good at nuance in education. But we need a comprehensive, systematic approach to address this. There’s no single fix.

Susan Pendergrass (09:08)
We have some states—people are calling them “Southern miracles”—like Mississippi and Louisiana, that are doing much better in reading. But it’s not nationwide. We have broad declines, and then these little pockets of success. What does that mean going forward?

Jim Wyckoff (09:27)
I’m not sure we’ll ever come up with a good causal understanding of what caused these declines nationally. But I do think places like Mississippi give us reason for optimism.
In 2013, Mississippi got serious about the science of reading and implemented it rigorously, with supports to help teachers. If you look at their data, they improved reading scores during a period when national scores were declining. In math, they at least held steady.
Now, their scores haven’t continued rising as they did before 2009, but they’ve fared better than most. So while the science of reading isn’t a silver bullet, it’s part of the solution.
States have a real opportunity here. That includes focusing on accountability, proven policies like science of reading, and funding.
Many states cut education funding after the 2008 recession and didn’t return to pre-recession levels, inflation-adjusted, until recently. Teacher salaries fell and in some places still haven’t recovered.
Teacher quality, especially in low-performing schools, matters a lot. And demographics play a role too—we don’t measure poverty depth well, and English language learners are increasing in number.
We need state- and district-level analysis to understand what’s going on and invest in the things that work.

Susan Pendergrass (13:22)
My biggest concern is the fourth-grade scores. These kids are probably in sixth grade now, and one day they’ll go to high school unable to read their textbooks.
We’re creating an underclass that’s not going to catch up. While overall test scores are down, the steepest declines are among the lowest 10 percent of performers. I don’t know how we catch those kids up.
We’re seeing a smaller student population and a higher percentage of students who can’t read or do math. What kind of workforce will we have in ten years?
We’re dabbling in the science of reading, but accountability has dropped. Do you think Common Core contributed to this decline—or at least gave accountability a bad name?

Jim Wyckoff (14:35)
Yeah. Common Core got incredibly politicized—as a sort of top-down mandate—when in fact it came from organizations like the National Governors Association that were pushing for rigorous curriculum.
The underlying concept was good. Many states still use Common Core-style standards, even if they don’t call it that anymore.

Susan Pendergrass (15:05)
Missouri is one.

Jim Wyckoff (15:05)
Exactly. And the evidence linking Common Core to achievement declines is very thin. I don’t think it played a significant role. But like you said, these issues often get politicized and take on a life of their own.

Susan Pendergrass (15:32)
Your paper has great graphs showing projections of where we should be if we stayed on the pre-2009 trajectory. Have you done projections from 2009 forward? Because it doesn’t look good to me.

Jim Wyckoff (15:53)
If we continue the trajectory we’ve been on since 2009—or 2013—about half the decline we saw between 2019 and 2024 could’ve been predicted even without the pandemic.
So the pandemic worsened the problem, but it didn’t cause it. I see no reason to believe the decline would’ve stopped.
Unless we make serious changes, the downward trend is likely to continue. Especially for the lowest-performing group, there’s little evidence of any turnaround.
Among students at the median or higher levels, there is some evidence of recovery in math. But reading remains a problem across the board.

Susan Pendergrass (17:17)
So what should we do? I work at the state level a lot—what should state legislatures or education agencies do?

Jim Wyckoff (17:35)
This is a real opportunity for state leaders—governors and legislatures—to act.
We’re on the cusp of seeing real consequences in the workforce and higher ed outcomes. Governors could champion this issue. Academic achievement isn’t the only thing we care about in schools, but it’s a top priority.
We need to move past the cultural wars of the last decade. Most parents still care deeply about academic outcomes.
For kids from low-income families, education is their path to a better life—and we’re not serving them well right now.
This should be a bipartisan issue. Conservatives and progressives should be able to rally around this.
I know there are institutional barriers and some bureaucracies may not want the changes required, but I hope we see leadership from some states. And when we see success, others can follow.

Susan Pendergrass (19:52)
Yeah, and I really appreciate your scholarly approach to something I’ve been speculating about. This goes way back before the pandemic.
If we blame it on COVID, we’ll keep talking about “pandemic learning loss” when the issue runs much deeper.
We need to acknowledge the path we’ve been on and chart a better course. Where can people find your article or get in touch with you?

Jim Wyckoff (20:23)
The article is forthcoming in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. My email is mikeoff@virginia.edu.
I appreciate your interest in this topic and would love to see more people dig into it. What I’ve done is just the beginning.

Susan Pendergrass (20:48)
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve got to keep puzzling through these issues. Jim, thank you so much. Take care.

Jim Wyckoff (20:57)
Okay, thank you, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Understanding the Decline in Student Test Scores with Jim Wyckoff appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report focuses mostly on documenting charter school performance overall across the 29 states and two cities. Some of the more notable findings from the full sample include:

• On average, charter schools are producing more test-score growth than traditional public schools. The CREDO research team estimates that the extra growth is equivalent to six additional days of instruction annually in math, and 16 extra days of instruction in reading.
• The performance of charter schools is improving over time. The CREDO researchers track improvement by comparing their findings in the 2023 report to findings from their older, similar reports from 2009 and 2013.
• High-poverty students benefit from attending a charter school more than their low-poverty peers.
• Though charter schools outperform traditional public schools overall, virtual charter schools perform worse than other charter schools, and worse than traditional public schools.

On the last point, the CREDO dataset covers the years 2014 to 2019, so these virtual charter schools were virtual before it became (unfortunately) fashionable. The finding that virtual charter schools are ineffective tracks with evidence from the pandemic era showing that schools that spent more time in virtual learning had especially poor performance. The CREDO report makes it clear that charter schools are not special in this regard.

In terms of Missouri-specific findings, the report shows:

• Charter schools nationally are doing well, but Missouri charter schools are doing even better. Our charter schools are among the most effective in the country in terms of improving academic achievement relative to their traditional public-school alternatives. For example, in reading, Missouri’s charter schools are the fifth-most effective among the 29 states covered by the report.
• Mirroring the national trend, the effectiveness of Missouri charter schools is improving over time.

This is just a quick summary of a very dense and thorough report, so I encourage interested readers to take a closer look themselves. The CREDO report provides compelling evidence of the value of charter schools in Missouri. I hope our legislators enact policies that make it easier for charter operators to improve outcomes for Missouri children.

The post Charter Schools Are Highly Effective in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

See where your school ranks here.

The post New Data Update: See the Latest Missouri School Rankings and Spending Reports appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Timestamps:

The post Declining Enrollment, Rising Budgets with Ben Scafidi appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This may no longer be true. A new report from Heartland Forward, Heartland of Talent, highlights these cities as destinations for the creative class—individuals in knowledge, technology and artistic sectors. The findings are compelling:

• Kansas City boasts a 45.4% concentration of creative-class jobs, ranking 19th among large metropolitan areas. Notably, it stands 7th in growth, with an increase of nearly five percentage points between 2019 and 2023.
• St. Louis follows closely, with a 44.8% concentration, placing it 20th in the rankings.

Educational attainment further underscores this trend:

• Kansas City has seen its share of college graduates rise to 40.8%, a 3.1 percentage point increase since 2019, surpassing the national average.
• St. Louis experienced a 3.4 percentage point uptick, bringing its college graduate population to 39.1%.

I’ve been critical of proposals for attracting the “creative class” for years, especially when it requires certain types of economic development subsidies. While this report does refer to the value of amenities, something report author Richard Florida has done for years, it does so after crediting simple housing affordability.

It’s also important to note that references to Kansas City in this report encompass both the Missouri and Kansas portions of the metropolitan area. This distinction is crucial, as the economic vitality varies between the two. According to a 2020 report by the Show-Me Institute, the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan area outperforms the Missouri side in several key metrics featured in the Heartland study, including population growth, job creation, GDP, income levels, and educational attainment. If evaluated independently, the Missouri portion would likely rank lower nationally across these indicators.

Certainly, there is much to recommend Missouri’s two largest metro areas over places such as Washington, D.C. Affordability and the resultant higher quality of life are what brought me to Kansas City 20 years ago. Being a more attractive place to live and work, however, should not lull us into a false sense of security. It does not change the fact that Missouri is not performing well comparted to other states—there is much work ahead.

The post Some Good News for Kansas City and St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Governor Kehoe’s first budget does not include the $300 million requested for the formula (although it does include $200 million in other additional funding). So, let’s break down the requested increase to see if the governor is refusing to “fully fund the formula,” as accused. Perhaps instead the requested increase is not reasonable.

Technically, the SAT reflects the current expenditures per student in Missouri’s highest-performing districts, referred to in the law as Performance Districts. The thinking is that what these districts spent should be adequate. But what does it take to be a Performance District? The way the law has been interpreted is that Performance Districts are those that receive at least 90 percent of their possible points on their Annual Performance Report (APR) under Missouri’s accountability system.

The accountability system, also known as MSIP 6, gives districts points based on a rubric of items considered important by DESE and the state board of education—although some are only loosely related to performance. The FY 2026 DESE budget request relies on 2022 APR points to calculate the SAT. In 2022, districts could earn up to 52 APR points for attendance, having 8th graders fill out an Individual Career and Academic Plan, administering a Kindergarten Entry Assessment to incoming kindergartners, submitting their required financial reports on time, conducting a Climate and Culture Survey, and submitting a Continuous Improvement Plan. All 29 of the Performance Districts received 52 out of 52 points for these categories.

But let’s take a closer look. Eight of the districts only serve students in kindergarten through 8th grade—they don’t have high schools. These districts had only 114 possible APR points, and 52 of them had nothing to do with student performance.

In two of the Performance Districts, Leopold R-III and Ste. Genevieve, fewer than half of the students tested scored Proficient or higher in English/language arts. In another Performance District, Mansfield R-IV, just 52 percent of high school graduates met any benchmark for being considered college or career ready when they graduated. In Brunswick R-II just 28.6 percent of graduates received an advanced credential prior to graduating, compared to 100 percent of graduates in Jefferson C-123. Are we sure these are the best 29 districts out of more than 500?

Here’s the problem: weak accountability systems don’t hold districts accountable. In the case of Missouri, that consequence bleeds over to funding. More than half of the Performance Districts are very small, with fewer than 300 students in the entire district. Spending tends to be higher in these districts because there are few economies of scale. That higher spending leads to hundreds of more dollars for all 850,000 students in the state when it leads to a budget request to add $300 million in state spending.

So before calling foul on the governor’s budget, let’s make sure that the DESE budget request actually makes sense.

The post Performance Districts and Education Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to download the booklet.

Find every public school in Missouri ranked by performance at MoSchoolRankings.org 

The post Missouri Condition of Education: 2024 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about the Kansas City 33 School District’s recent proposal to issue $424 million in bonds for building improvements. Despite a significant decline in enrollment and a previous failed bond referendum, KCPS is asking taxpayers to fund this initiative through increased property taxes. They discuss whether new buildings can truly address the district’s deeper issues, such as poor academic performance and declining enrollment, if the funds could be better spent elsewhere, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post New Schools, Old Problems: The KCPS Bond Proposal with Patrick Tuohey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So it seems surprising that KCPS is asking taxpayers to approve spending $424 million to buy bonds to improve buildings in the district. These bonds require an increase in the property tax rate that would cost the owner of a $200,000 home an additional $231 in property taxes each year. That seems like a lot.

The last time KCPS tried to convince taxpayers to do this, the bond referendum failed because, according to the superintendent, “families weren’t inspired” by the plan. This time, the goal is to send any student who has to move or whose school is closed to a new or newer school. The claim is that this will make the students feel more important and more worthy.

KCPS is certainly struggling. Last year, despite spending over $22,000 per student, only 22 percent scored on grade level in reading and 21 percent did so in math. In other words, four out of five students are below grade level. It’s not surprising that families have turned to charter schools.

The question is—will new buildings turn that around? The district plans to spend more than $50,000 per child on these capital improvements. Could that money be better spent in the existing classrooms?

The post Are New Buildings the Answer? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.