I was reading a recent post by Chad Aldeman at Aldeman on Education that touched on something I’ve been thinking about a lot: the rise of disorder in our schools.

I’ve heard anecdotes for a while, but I first saw it clearly in data while working on a project about teacher working conditions. Since the pandemic, teachers report substantial declines in their working conditions along many dimensions. Most notably, they report a sharp increase in classroom disruptions. We are losing control of the learning environment, and that’s a serious mistake.

Aldeman was thinking about the same thing in his recent post, where he opines on a different post by Noah Smith about the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in California. Bear with me for just a moment while I make the connection from Smith’s post on BART to education.

Smith describes how BART installed fare gates, after which crime and maintenance costs dropped sharply. As it turns out, a small number of riders were responsible for most of the disorder and they weren’t paying fares. Once the gates went up, order was restored. Smith’s conclusion is simple and persuasive: “You only have to restrain a very small number of people in order to maintain public order.”

He continues:

Progressives often argue against measures like fare gates, labeling them “carceral” and “racist”. This demonstrates a principle that I call anarchyfare — the idea that eliminating society’s rules serves as a kind of welfare benefit for marginalized people. But in fact, most poor and marginalized people are just peace-loving people . . . [and] they are the chief victims of the tiny number of chaotic individuals who destroy the commons and make public spaces and public services unusable.

I fear this is what is happening in our schools.

I worry most about students who attend disadvantaged and low-performing schools, where data show that behavioral problems are more prevalent. Some educators—maybe mostly administrators—seem to believe that tolerating disruptive behavior is compassionate. But I think they’re wrong. It does not prepare the misbehaving student to be a functional adult in a civil society, and more importantly, it disrupts learning for the majority of students who are not disruptive, robbing them of the opportunities afforded by a strong education.

If we care about equity and opportunity, we must restore order through stronger, consistently enforced disciplinary policies in our public schools.

The post Anarchyfare in Our Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Evidence of grade inflation continues to mount in K-12 education and at universities (e.g., see here and here). The rising grades reflect a degradation of academic standards. There is clear evidence that when expectations of students are lowered, they (intuitively) respond with less effort.

A recent example of a low-standards grading philosophy is equity-based grading. The philosophy, intended to promote equity by recognizing the varied circumstances and challenges students face, emphasizes measures of student engagement rather than results. However, by de-emphasizing important skills such as turning in assignments on time and demonstrating skills on assessments, it lowers academic standards, reducing effort for true mastery. Cory Koedel recently wrote in this space about how the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) backed away from a “Grading for Equity” plan when too many community members complained.

A new low-standards philosophy, Labor-Based Grading (LBG), is also gaining traction in higher education. LBG is an alternative grading style in which students and teachers establish a grading contract that allows students to earn a default grade if all the work outlined in the contract is completed, no matter the quality of the work.

Notably, departments at prominent universities such as Penn State University and New York University have recently begun implementing LBG (mainly humanities departments—here and here). Practices at prominent universities often trickle down to less-prominent ones, and ultimately into K-12 classrooms as future educators who are exposed to these practices in college implement them in their own classrooms. LGB could come to a school near you, and sooner rather than later.

The key concern is that LBG does not set up students for success. In the real world, effort is not rewarded if it does not generate productive outcomes. In fact, it is a critical life skill to be able to apply effort in a productive manner. But LBG rewards effort for effort’s sake.

LBG exemplifies the continued push by some to lower academic standards. It is well intended, but this doesn’t make it any less harmful. It is important to remain vigilant and continue to advocate for rigor in a system where rigor is constantly under assault.

The post The Rise of Labor-Based Grading and the Continuing De-emphasis on Skill Development at U.S. Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perhaps you, as a parent, would be anxious about sending your young child to this building every day. Technically, you have the legal right to at least move them to a safer school. Under the Unsafe School Choice Option in the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, students in persistently dangerous schools can transfer out just for that reason. Unfortunately, DESE has not designated Oakland Middle School—or any other school in the state—as persistently dangerous. If fact, no schools in Missouri have met that definition in the 23 years that the law has been in place.

Many states acknowledge that students shouldn’t be forced to attend a school that the state categorizes as extremely low performing. Students are given an automatic out. Missouri used to have a transfer program for students in low-performing districts—meaning districts that were unaccredited—but we magically no longer have any unaccredited districts.

DESE knows where the dangerous and low-performing schools are. The students, and their parents, undoubtedly know if they’re attending one of these schools. And I would imagine that the teachers are fully aware as well. So why do we insist on locking kids into them? Just three miles from Oakland is Jefferson Middle School, which has double the test scores and no reported weapons violations.

If you’re thinking that all anxious parents should just move—please don’t. Every child, regardless of their address, deserves to attend a safe school that can effectively teach children. And if more state support and more money were the answer, these schools wouldn’t exist. We’ve been doing both for decades.

DESE should enforce the Unsafe School Choice Option law with integrity. The state board of education should, with DESE, create an open and transparent system that identifies low-performing schools and they should not force children to attend them. The state legislature should allow students in Missouri to choose a public school that fits their needs. It would be so easy to make education better for so many children in Missouri—we just need policymakers to do their part.

The post Missouri Children Deserve 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.

For my take on why equitable grading policies are illogical and misguided, see my previous post about San Francisco’s recent bid to introduce a sweeping Grading for Equity policy. It ultimately failed under intense public pressure once families understood what was happening, because most people do not support these ideas.

It turns out most teachers don’t support them either. That’s the main conclusion from a new report by David Griffith and Adam Tyner at the Fordham Institute. The report draws on a nationally representative survey of teachers to examine their views. Key findings include:

• Equitable grading practices are widespread: About half of teachers say their school or district has adopted at least one “equitable” grading practice, and a third report multiple such policies.
• Most teachers believe these practices are harmful to academic engagement.
• Most teachers want high standards for students but feel pressured to inflate grades.

I encourage interested readers to take a look at the full report. Among other things, it’s a good reminder that teachers aren’t so different from everyone else, and they’re also frustrated by policies that lower expectations.

(Note: In a previous post about the San Francisco policy, I indicated that I hadn’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” policies in Missouri, but a reader reached out to explain that many Missouri districts have adopted them. It is hard to know how many, but their widespread use nationally—as documented in the Fordham report—suggests it could be a lot.)

The post Most Teachers Don’t Like Equitable Grading Practices Either appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript: Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine

Download a copy of the transcript here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noah Devine (07:47)
Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan Pendergrass (14:30)
Mm-hmm.

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

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

Noah Devine (16:37)
Exactly.

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

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

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

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

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

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

• Homework and weekly tests would no longer count toward students’ final semester grades.
• Semester grades would depend entirely on a final exam, which students could retake multiple times.
• Tardiness and absences would have no impact on grades.
• Cheating or copying would carry only non-grade-based consequences.
• The threshold for earning an A would fall to 80 percent.
• The threshold for a D would fall to 21 percent.

My first reaction was to laugh out loud. I suspect many others feel the same. Still, it’s worth pausing to consider where these ideas come from and why they resonate with some educators. Like many flawed policies, these changes are rooted in good intentions. Proponents of “Grading for Equity” see grade gaps between students from different backgrounds—by race, poverty status, etc.—and are trying to reduce those gaps. I see the same gaps, and I want them reduced, too.

But here’s the reality: grade gaps reflect real gaps in skills and knowledge. And when school ends, it’s not the letter grades that shape students’ futures—it’s the underlying skills and competencies those grades are supposed to reflect. “Grading for Equity” is just wishful thinking. It is a refusal to grapple with the truth.

Fortunately, I’m not aware of any Missouri school districts as extreme as SFUSD, and I haven’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” initiatives here. But this episode is a useful reminder that some educators seem to misunderstand what it takes to prepare students for success. Lowering expectations to conceal skill gaps will not help anyone in the long run.

This is also a powerful example of why we need high-quality, comprehensive tests in our public schools. Standardized tests compel schools and districts to confront the reality of student performance. They offer families and the public reliable, externally benchmarked data about what students have—and have not—learned. In an ideal world where we all prioritized student learning, such tests might not be necessary. But in the world we live in, they’re a vital safeguard.

The post Grading for Equity in San Francisco, and What It Means for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

As Missouri’s budget conference committee finalizes its priorities, one investment stands out as both strategic and essential: restoring the governor’s proposed $50 million for the MOScholars program in House Bill 12. This tax credit–funded scholarship initiative expands educational opportunity across the state, especially for students who need it most. In recent polling, two out of three Missourians expressed support for the MOScholars program, and it’s time for the state to commit to it.

MOScholars provides scholarships to eligible K–12 students, particularly those from low-income families or with special educational needs, so that they can attend the school of their choice—whether public, private, or homeschool. By doing so, the program empowers parents, promotes educational freedom, and drives innovation across the education landscape.

Currently, the program is entirely donor funded. It was launched with a $25 million cap, and the six Missouri organizations that raise the funds and grant the scholarships have been working hard for the past few years to serve as many students as possible. The state committing to an appropriation of $50 million would help clear waiting lists, provide stability to scholarship-granting organizations, and ensure that more students can benefit from the learning environments that best suit them.

Giving families more options can lead to healthier competition, better outcomes, and stronger public education systems. States with robust choice programs have shown that when families are empowered, all schools—district, charter, and private—tend to improve.

Moreover, the scholarship expansion would especially benefit rural families, who too often are left out of school choice conversations. By including micro-schools and homeschool supports, MOScholars brings flexible options to small towns and agricultural communities where traditional alternatives are limited.

This is not just about education policy—it’s about economic opportunity, parental rights, and long-term prosperity. A child’s ZIP code or income level should not determine the quality of their education. Missouri’s leaders have the chance to deliver real change by restoring the $50 million commitment to the MOScholars program.

The post MOScholars Program Remains a Worthwhile Investment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Kelly Williams-Bolar about her harrowing experience of fighting for her daughters’ education, which led to a legal battle that changed her life forever. After enrolling her daughters in a better school district, Kelly faced accusations of fraud and was ultimately charged with grand theft. After spending nine days in jail, Kelley was pardoned by the governor, who recognized the injustice of her situation. They discuss the systemic issues in education, the consequences of parental choices, and the importance of advocacy for educational equity. Kelly’s story serves as a cautionary tale for parents navigating the complexities of school enrollment and the legal ramifications of seeking better opportunities for their children.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Struggle for Education
08:22 The Legal Battle Begins
14:06 Consequences of a Fight for Education
22:13 Advocacy and Change
30:50 Reflections and Future Directions

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A Mother’s Fight for Education: Kelly Williams-Bolar’s Legal Battle and Time in Jail appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If passed, SB 177 would require any new charter school to receive a certificate of need from the governing board of the local school district or the governing body of the city or county in which it intends to operate. This added hurdle would not only create an unnecessary extra step, but it would also give existing public school districts—which are historically opposed to charter schools—more power to block competition.

The Problem with SB 177’s Requirements

The rationale for certificate of need (CON) laws is that the number of providers in a particular market must be controlled in order to prevent market oversaturation. Such laws are inherently anti-market, as they give regulators, rather than entrepreneurs and families, the ability to determine need and to select who may participate in the market.

SB 177 would require a “governing board of the [local] school district or governing body of the city or county in which the proposed charter school would be located” to affirm that the following conditions apply to the school district in which the charter is proposed:

1. Consumer demand for alternative educational options exceeds supply;
2. The school district’s attendance area contains sufficient economies of scale to ensure both an adequate supply of high-quality teachers and potential students in order for the proposed charter school to succeed without hurting the school district; and
3. The proposed charter school is likely to:
   • Alleviate economic and racial inequities
   • Improve students’ academic outcomes
   • Reduce student–teacher ratios
   • Result in a more efficient education service without duplication of services
   • Limit the number of schooling disruptions
   • Address family priorities including safety, convenience, transportation time, neighborhood walkability, and school culture.

These conditions range from things that are too vague and open to interpretation to things that shouldn’t be considered to begin with.

Little Incentive to Allow Competition

For incumbent school districts, there is little incentive to allow competitors to challenge their market share. In fact, no local school board in Missouri has ever sponsored a charter school in its district, despite having the ability to do so. It seems unlikely then that any district would grant CON approval to a charter school.

What Missouri Should Pass Instead

Rather than passing legislation that stifles charter school expansion, Missouri should focus on removing barriers to entry for charters. SB 398 and House Bill 1044 would expand charter access to additional districts, including those in charter counties or municipalities with more than 30,000 residents. These bills would move Missouri in the right direction. Of course, if Missouri wanted to remove all barriers to access it should allow charter expansion without regard to population requirements. It is a sad note that of the 43 states with charter schools, Missouri is the only state without a rural charter.

Limiting competition and restricting opportunities for students across our state is not how to improve education in Missouri. SB 117 would represent a big step backward in Missouri education policy. We need to continue moving forward.

The post Preventing a De Facto Ban of Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to read the full report.

The post Fixing Missouri’s School Funding Formula appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Each state has already promised every student a free public education. This includes every student currently enrolled in private schools or currently homeschooled. If tomorrow those students decide to go to public schools, public schools would be required to accept them and to educate them. This means states and local communities would be required to fund the education of those students. In other words, the state currently has an obligation to provide funding for every single eligible student in the state.

The only way a parent loses access to the funding for education is by expressing choice. We discriminate on the basis of choice. Parents of school children have the opportunity to receive public funding, but only if they sacrifice their ability to choose the school they want their children to attend.

I cannot think of another public entitlement program that removes the benefit when an individual expresses choice. Poor students can use Pell grants at the school of their choice. Veterans can use the G.I. Bill at the school of their choice, public or private. Welfare recipients who receive food subsidies can choose the place where they will use those funds.

Critics of school choice might point to healthcare programs as an example of government funding with limited choice. Some doctors or hospitals do not not accept certain government funding sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid. That is true, but notice the difference. In that case, it is the provider who doesn’t accept the funds—it is not the individual who loses it based on their choice. Many private schools would like to accept funds but are not eligible to. That is a key distinction.

When we tell families they are no longer eligible to receive funding because they choose to send their children to a school that aligns with their values or provides the type of education that they want, then we are discriminating against them based solely on their choice.

This is not a system designed to meet the needs of every child, but a system designed for control. It is a system designed to force people into accepting the education that the government provides.

It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money to provide the public subsidy to those individuals who are presently in private schools. But the only reason it will cost new money is because we have been discriminating against families who use alternatives to public schools for decades. We have denied them access to the public funding that they should receive. It is time to end the discrimination against choice in our public education system. It is time to end the discrimination against parental power and educational opportunity.

The post Public Dollars for Public School Students: Discrimination of Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although over 21,000 families signed up, the program had problems from the beginning. First, it took the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) a full year to figure out how to implement the program. How that impacts the federal regulations is unclear, but families had only a short window after that to spend the money. Families had problems finding what they needed and, ultimately, the program was not as impactful as it might have been.

According to the DESE budget requests, in fiscal year (FY) 2024, $25 million was appropriated to the program, but none was spent. In FY 2025, the other $25 million was appropriated, but just $13,875,123 was spent. It’s too late to spend the money, so what happens to the $36,124,877 that went unspent? Technically, it needs to be returned to the federal government.

What a shame. At the same time, the legislature has created another scholarship program, MO Scholars, aimed at low-income students and students with disabilities, but hasn’t appropriated any money to fund it. The MO Scholars program has structure, scholarship-granting organizations, and thousands of scholarship recipients. Thousands more students across the state would probably love to participate in this program if it were funded.

The logic of helping disadvantaged students find their best educational option is there. The structure of the program is there. Why not the funding?

The post The Scholarship That Wasn’t appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This fall is the first time Kansas families can choose a school in a district other than the one in which they live. The crowds of uninvited students haven’t appeared. The Shawnee Mission district admitted it could accept as many as 1,000 transfer students. It actually received a few dozen.

What could possibly be the explanation? Maybe people underestimated parents. Parents who make the effort to join the transfer program, find a way to get their children across town every day, and accept that their children’s friends will most likely not live in the same neighborhood may not be as susceptible to the “shiny object” explanation as superintendents feared. Perhaps the program is working as designed—as a much-needed option for those who are truly struggling in their assigned public school.

Maybe the word just hasn’t gotten out. It will likely take some years for the program to grow to participation rates that other states have experienced after decades of open enrollment. Parents will take their time to learn about all of the options within a reasonable distance and will get more comfortable with asserting their right to take a seat in another district.

Maybe some of the unpleasant things claimed about poor parents put them off at first. Legislative hearings in 2022 led some folks in upscale districts to say the quiet part out loud. They aren’t interested in throwing open their doors to low-income, potentially low-performing students.

Time will tell. The fact remains that public schools belong to the public and they should be free and open to any student who wants to attend them.

The post We Can All Take a Breath Now appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The argument is that private school choice programs are inequitable because they do not open options equally for all students. In other words, private schools can deny admission to some applicants.

Take for example the admissions criteria I found online for one school. Students applying to the school must score in the top 30% on standardized tests, have excellent attendance (90%), have good grades, and submit letters of recommendation from teachers, counselors, or other administrators. In addition, the student and his or her guardian may have to pass an interview with the school and write an entrance essay.

Oh wait. Those aren’t the rules for a private school, but for a public school—Metro Academic and Classical School. Metro is a magnet school in the Saint Louis Public School District. Magnet schools are public schools that are allowed to have admissions standards. As St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Blythe Bernhard has reported, Metro is “thriving” and is the “highest-performing high school in the state.”

Many private schools have admissions standards, but most pale in comparison to Metro.

Opponents of private school choice use a lot of arguments to make their case but they fail to consistently apply those arguments to public schools. They say they oppose school choice because some dollars may go to rich families in private schools, but do not oppose publicly funding rich students in rich public schools. And they complain public schools will lose money if a student leaves for a private school but you’ll hear nary a word when a school loses money because a student moves to another public school.

The underlying element in all these school choice criticisms is a philosophy of control. As long as public funding goes to rich kids in public schools, or dollars flow from one public school to another, or admissions criteria are used in a public school system, the critics remain silent.

What then is the real opposition to school choice policies? It seems fair to wonder if what school choice critics fear most is losing control.

The post Do Private Schools “Choose” Their Students? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What SB 727 does is transition the counting of students from all attendance based to half attendance based and half enrollment based. That matters. If attendance is the method of counting students for state funding, districts are incentivized to get kids to school. If it is enrollment, districts are incentivized to register students. Right now we have a chronic absenteeism crisis in Missouri. We should not simply change the rules because we know that poor students are less likely to attend school.

Either way, it won’t really matter for many years because, even under the current system, districts can use the highest number of students from the past three years—meaning pre-pandemic attendance numbers are still being used this year. That is the most generous counting of students in a funding formula of any state in the nation. Many states use prior year numbers. A couple use the highest of the last two years, or an average of them. Only Missouri uses the highest of the last three years.

Most school districts rely on state funding. If it goes down, either local funding needs to go up or districts will need to reduce costs (likely meaning cutting staff). We have had declining enrollment for at least a decade. We now have declining attendance combined with declining enrollment. So, the effort to change the formula is not surprising.

Missouri needs to take its funding formula back to the drawing board and start over. Tennessee did so several years ago and created the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) formula. TISA is student centered, weighted to reflect student needs, and outcome based. It is considered the gold standard of funding formulas. Until we are ready to make a wholesale improvement, let’s not tinker around the edges of the foundation formula.

The post Now Is Not the Time to Tinker appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Around a decade ago, both these districts failed to meet state standards and received the status of “unaccredited.” Because these districts lost accreditation, students were allowed to transfer to an adjoining district—and Riverview Gardens and Normandy had to pay tuition to these nearby districts.

Over 2,000 students (a quarter of the two districts’ enrollment) immediately took the opportunity to transfer—with many enrolling in Kirkwood, Mehlville, Hazelwood, Ferguson-Florissant, and Francis Howell. No receiving district gained more than a five percent increase in its student body. This exodus of students was rooted in families’ desire to improve their children’s livelihood—a sentiment that still exists today. One mother described the ability to choose a different district as follows: “She is thriving and has found a place where she fits in. She feels safe in her school environment and as her mother, I don’t worry about her safety while she’s at school.”

Reverting back to the local control is probably not going to dramatically improve the situation in Riverview Gardens or Normandy; these districts have performed terribly both before and after state control.  Parents need to be able to hold these districts accountable. Parents demonstrated they wanted choice back when students transferred out of these failing districts, and they still want it now.

Some people worry what would happen to struggling districts if families had school choice. However, these districts would not simply collapse, as they are allowed to use enrollment from any of the past four years for funding. And school choice could have other benefits for these districts. A smaller student body could lead to more academic success, and the threat of closure could serve as a wake-up call to those who love these school districts.

How much better would it be for a district if students were enrolled because they actually wanted to be there? Perhaps having a student body who actually wants to be at their school would lower the soaring absentee rates we see in these two districts and throughout the state. While I cannot guarantee that parental accountability through choice will save these districts, saving particular school districts isn’t the goal of education policy. It’s giving every student in Missouri the best opportunity to succeed. And that means giving every student in Missouri the chance to pick a school that best fits their needs.

The post Riverview Gardens and Normandy Are Regaining Local Control appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, what exactly is the “Close the Gap Grant”?

Close the Gap is a one-time grant paid to families with students enrolled in Missouri public schools—those in private school or homeschool are not eligible to receive these funds. With these tax-exempt funds, parents can pay for:

• Tutoring services
• Academic/summer camps
• Educational materials
• Computer equipment
• Internet connectivity
• Learning-relating subscriptions
• Software to support educational activities
• Before- and after-school programs
• Study skills services
• Costs associated with college credit for AP, dual credit, dual enrollment, ITV (instructional television), and international baccalaureate
• Art enrichment lessons (such as piano, singing, or dancing lessons)

Additionally, because this program was supposed to be up and running last year, parents can also request reimbursement for an allowable service or product they purchased since July 1, 2022.

After all the applications are received, grant awards will be divvied out to families below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. If there are surplus funds still available (which there could be from the $75 million budget), applicants above the stated poverty level will receive grant awards. Parents will be notified regarding the amount of their grant reward starting on November 1st. For the awardees, grant funds do not roll over and must be used by June 1, 2024. These funds are a one-time payment; these payments are not recurring and are only available for this year. Unless Missouri finds a way to carve out new funding to continue this program, there will be no grant in 2024–2025—this grant comes from emergency federal COVID relief funds in 2022.

Who is administering this program?

An organization called Odyssey will be administrating the program. The founder of Odyssey previously founded SchoolHouse, an at home micro-school company. Odyssey is a startup that manages education scholarship accounts (ESAs) and microgrant programs. Odyssey will handle basically everything required for the Close the Gap grants: all application management, marketing and outreach, marketplace creation, payments, and customer support.

Odyssey will have an online marketplace with listed vendors where individuals can see all allowable education services and products. Along with a marketplace, the Odyssey Parent Portal will also have a tab to upload receipts for reimbursement.

With the deadline quickly approaching, make sure to sign up and get your grant award now.

The post Application Deadline for Close the Gap Grant is Almost Here appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

First, how could this benefit students?

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

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

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

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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