Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, about his research on how artificial intelligence is reshaping higher education. They explore which college majors are most exposed to AI capabilities, why professors are largely not changing their syllabi or assessment methods despite widespread awareness of AI, and what students are doing in response to the uncertainty. They also discuss whether the backlash against AI on college campuses is real, what previous waves of technological change can teach us about the current moment, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast. Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, talking about something that’s very timely right now in this college graduation season. I’m hearing that all the college students are having a backlash against AI. I don’t know if you would agree with that or not, but I want you to try to explain to people listening what first of all you’ve been looking at in terms of AI in college in general, and also what your findings have been, because I find them to be very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Jacob Light (00:31): Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited to join the podcast today. I’m an economist who studies how universities respond to different forces of change, whether that be changes in the labor market, changing political conditions, and more recently, changing technology, which feels very central both as a former student and now as an instructor at a university, thinking about how AI is affecting the way that students interact with their courses. My work right now thinks about this problem of AI in higher education in two ways. First, where should we be looking for exposure of higher education to AI? Where do the skills that students are learning to develop in their courses overlap with the capabilities of artificial intelligence? The second strain of the research is how are universities adapting? How are instructors changing the way that they administer courses? How are students changing which courses they take? And how should we look at these movements as indications of how these two sides of this market are responding to this big shock?

Susan Pendergrass (01:39): So to be clear, you’re not just saying that ChatGPT becomes available and all the professors outlaw the use of AI in classes, but more so: are students continuing in 2026 to be taught skills that we know AI can do? And what’s the answer?

Jacob Light (01:57): Yeah, exactly. I think it’s important to contextualize that we teach students many skills that have already been automated. We teach students basic arithmetic and spelling, even though we have calculators and spell check. We have these tools that can perform a lot of the cognitive work that we teach students to do from a very young age, and yet we still think it’s important for students to develop skills in these areas. We still teach students to add and subtract both because those skills unlock higher order cognitive skills and also just because that exercise is useful to students. So what I do in my research is think not just about whether instructors are changing the courses they offer to reduce the weight on things that ChatGPT and large language models are able to do, but if we think it’s important for students to develop these skills even though AI can do them, things like analyzing data or writing essays, then it becomes important for instructors to modify the way they offer courses so that we still get information about how well students are learning to do the tasks that AI can potentially substitute for them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13): I don’t want to minimize the effort you put into this, because it’s massive. You went through thousands of syllabi to really look at what’s being taught in a very specific way. You also included not just large language model AI but robots, and a lot of the skilled trades. I would imagine that the skills needed 10 years ago have changed now that robots can do a lot of that work. What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (03:42): For this first part of the project, where I think about how different fields of study are exposed to artificial intelligence, I should say upfront that exposure here doesn’t necessarily mean that every computer scientist is going to have their job completely automated. What I’m thinking about is the degree to which students are able to use AI as a substitute for, or maybe even a complement to, their work in the classroom. The approach I take is to leverage a dataset that I’ve spent many years collecting of course offerings from a large number of US colleges and universities. For about 1,000 schools, I’ve scraped the course catalogs and course schedules, which gives me insight into every course offered at the school over a period of up to 30 years. I see course offerings, enrollment, titles, instructors, and course descriptions. I use these course descriptions to build a sense of what skills and tasks a student develops in, say, an economics class. The exposure measure is the degree to which what a student does in that class overlaps with the capabilities of artificial intelligence. To be very specific with an example: in an economics class, students are often trained to analyze data, use models, and evaluate policy. The intuition for the approach I use is that if we see AI is really good at analyzing data, using models, and evaluating policy, we would think of economics as a field of study that is highly exposed to AI. I think about exposure to AI in two different ways. For the broad capabilities of AI, I glean from patents related to artificial intelligence. I look at the overlap between the tasks that students do in their courses and tasks that AI technology patents say those technologies are capable of doing. And then very specifically at the capabilities of large language models, which I think of as a subset of AI.

Susan Pendergrass (05:21): Yeah.

Jacob Light (05:35): So I look at two measures of what AI can do: the broad range of AI capabilities, which I extract from patents, and then the specific capabilities of large language models. What I find is that when you compare the exposure of college courses to AI versus to previous types of technologies, such as robotics, we see that courses are much more exposed to the things that AI can do than to the capabilities of previous technologies. This is consistent with existing research that suggests highly skilled jobs, the types of jobs that college graduates flow into, are more exposed to artificial intelligence than they were to previous waves of technology. That’s the first order finding. But within college majors, there’s pretty wide variation in exposure, and it differs based on whether we think of exposure to the broad class of AI technologies versus just large language models.

Susan Pendergrass (06:55): What’s the most exposed? It looks like it’s computer science, right?

Jacob Light (07:00): Statistics and data science and computer science are highly exposed majors. Unfortunately, economics is also a highly exposed major. I should say it’s not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing to be exposed. On one hand, there’s a risk that students are not developing the same skills when they have access to these AI tools as they did in a pre-ChatGPT period. But also, we lower the barriers to entry into computer science and economics through the availability of these tools, because everyone’s vibe coding, and also you have bespoke tutors in your pocket that can help you navigate difficult courses and overcome barriers to entry. So it’s not obviously a bad thing.

Susan Pendergrass (07:35): Because everyone’s vibe coding.

Jacob Light (07:53): But to be specific, especially when we think about exposure to AI as represented by the capabilities of large language models, what seems to drive exposure is a combination of fields of study that involve data analysis and generating text. These are the two things we think of LLMs as being very good at. So the quantitative social sciences, economics, political science, even sociology, as well as fields that involve applied data analysis, including statistics and computer science, are going to be the fields where the skills that students develop overlap most with what AI is capable of doing.

Susan Pendergrass (08:31): So are professors changing their syllabi to reflect that? Are they dropping things that clearly could just be covered by AI?

Jacob Light (08:40): That gets to the second part of this project. Having documented that there is this concern that AI overlaps with what we teach students to do in their courses, and that students might be able to substitute AI for their own work, we might look specifically at these highly exposed fields as places where we want instructors to modify the way they teach as a means of ensuring that students are developing the skills they were developing before ChatGPT was released. We read a lot of these articles about blue books being back.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): Using blue books? I feel nostalgic for the blue books. There’s something almost romantic about writing in a blue book versus clicking buttons on a Canvas quiz.

Jacob Light (09:12): Yeah, I don’t like blue books by the way, but using blue books, yes.

Susan Pendergrass (09:23): But isn’t that just working against an enormous tide? To think that requiring students to write in a blue book is going to force them to not use AI for the exam, but aren’t they using it daily in their coursework?

Jacob Light (09:53): Again, it’s not obvious to me that using AI in their coursework is a bad thing. So much of the work I did when I was a college student was pretty inefficient. I spent a lot of time writing code that didn’t work and writing essays that read very poorly. To automate some of those experiences might allow students to invest more in the types of higher order thinking and learning that are more valuable. But on the other hand, I think I became a better coder because I made mistakes through the process. Now I can distinguish good code from bad code because I’ve written a lot of bad code and I know what my bad code looks like. So we might think that even if we’re not changing the types of skills that students develop in their courses, that we continue to offer economics courses and computer science courses, the way that we assess whether students are learning the skills they need is going to change. There are certain types of assessments, like out-of-class essays and homework, where you just can’t get as much information about how much students are learning, versus in-class proctored exams, participation, and presentations where students have to demonstrate mastery through assessments where you can’t use AI tools. What I do is, for about 20 universities, I’ve collected a panel of syllabi covering both the pre and post-ChatGPT period, and I extract two pieces of information. The first is whether the syllabus has an AI policy or not. The second is the weights that instructors put on different types of assessments, such as half the grade being based on exams and 25% based on essays. I find two interesting things. The first is that following the release of ChatGPT, instructors became very aware of AI. We see a massive increase in the share of courses that have any AI policy, and most of those policies are restrictive of the use of AI. My own syllabus has clear instructions about when I want students to use AI and when I don’t. My students are very compliant and of course listen to everything I say, both when I’m lecturing and in the syllabus. So we see that instructors are aware of AI and think of it as a concern in the classroom.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): You think they follow that?

Jacob Light (12:24): Sure, great, okay. But the second thing I extract is assessment weights, which allow me to assess whether instructors are changing the way they offer courses in a way that lets them extract more information about how much students are learning. What I find is that despite instructors being very aware of AI, we see virtually no changes in how much weight instructors are putting on the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work, versus assessments like exams and participation where they can’t. We hear a lot about blue books being back. We hear anecdotal stories about how instructors are concerned about students using AI in the classroom. But I just don’t see this in the data.

Susan Pendergrass (13:23): That’s surprising to me.

Jacob Light (13:42): I think what’s interesting and informative is that there are two shocks in pretty quick succession over the last couple of years that push in opposite directions on the information that instructors can get from different types of assessments. During the pandemic, it became harder to offer in-person exams. There was a physical constraint that limited exams. What I see is a shift away from exams and towards homework, a gradual pre-pandemic shift away from exams that sharply accelerated during the pandemic, and that persists even in the years after in-person instruction resumes. We can use that as a benchmark: at minimum, instructors could revert back to the way they were weighting courses before the pandemic. What we see is basically nothing. There are very modest shifts away from homework and other AI-substitutable assessments, primarily essays. We’re slightly reducing the weight on essays and offsetting that with increases in participation and presentations. But we’re seeing very little movement at scale away from the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:44): Maybe higher education just moves slowly. It’s an ivory tower. People get entrenched. Some professors use the same syllabus for 20 years. Maybe it just moves more slowly in reaction to this. I know some that are angry about the AI thing, but it’s up to them to figure out how to change it. In terms of what students are doing, how are they reacting to the changes in terms of what they’re choosing as majors? What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (15:32): Yes, so I track changes in enrollment over the last 20 years using this course schedule data from a large number of universities. Similar to the relatively slow movement on the instructor side, students are moving pretty slowly as well. Despite stories about concerns about the viability of computer science as a major, and after a period of very rapid growth in CS enrollment, we’re only seeing a slight dip in CS enrollment and in other AI-exposed fields of study in the last couple of years. What I can show is that for the first time since around 2005, when CS enrollment began to take off, this current year, the 2025-26 year, we see a slight decrease in computer science enrollment. But it still remains elevated compared to the start of the pandemic and substantially elevated compared to 2010. In a way, perhaps this makes sense, because although there is greater uncertainty around the returns to developing CS skills, CS courses are now easier to take because you have tools that can help you with your homework and tutor you. One of the barriers to entry into CS courses previously was that they were hard, and these tools make more AI-exposed courses easier. I think the risk and the concern is that the same tools that can do your work in the classroom can also potentially do your job, and I don’t think we see students internalizing that risk yet.

Susan Pendergrass (17:12): Even though the Wall Street Journal has a layoff tracker and Meta is constantly seemingly laying folks off, and Amazon as well. We see a lot of thinning of the herd when it comes to software engineers. I just imagine it’s going to change. Is this generation of college students in a weird bind? They’re right between the pre-AI and post-AI worlds, spending a lot of money on college tuition at a time when the future of different types of work is very uncertain.

Jacob Light (17:54): I’m very sympathetic to college students who are navigating uncertainty right now of a form that I don’t think college students have had to navigate previously. During previous technological change, we’ve always looked to universities as the resource that we send people to upskill, with the promise that the skills you develop in college are going to have returns when you enter the labor market. I continue to believe that’s the case, certainly in the short term. But I recognize that the nature of work is changing quite rapidly as new technology can perform some of the tasks that workers are able to do. Economists often conceptualize occupations as a bundle of tasks, and when a new technology comes online, the technology is able to do some of those tasks while the human worker continues to perform others. The net impact on an occupation really depends on which tasks are being automated, and whether that means we need fewer people doing that occupation because the technology can do it for us, or whether the ability of technology to make workers more efficient actually increases the demand for people with those skills because now more firms will benefit from having a single software engineer on staff when it previously would not have been rational for them to have any. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now, and I think it’s difficult to navigate as a 19 or 20 year old.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37): What about this backlash? Eric Schmidt spoke at a college graduation and folks booed him, I think. Even Jonathan Haidt, who is sort of anti-smartphone and screen time. Do you perceive that? You work on a college campus. Do you see that age group wanting to turn away from AI?

Jacob Light (20:02): My perception is that the backlash is to the uncertainty that AI introduces. Many students are eager to use the technology when it makes them more efficient or when it allows them to substitute time they would spend solving problem sets towards leisure and other pursuits. But I’m sympathetic to the frustration that students are feeling, that this investment they’ve made and the promise of opportunity that college has previously offered is now at risk because of the changing technological landscape.

Susan Pendergrass (20:53): I was talking to a lawyer recently about AI and how they use it and how great it is for them. They said basically every lawyer now has their own legal assistant. And I was like, what does that do for legal assistants? Everyone’s got a research assistant, which is great. I use it all the time. But what does that do for people who used to start as a research assistant? It’s obviously changing things. I kind of remember, because I’m pretty old, desktop computers being the thing that was going to kill all these jobs, and it just shifted the market. It didn’t kill anything. It just dramatically increased productivity. I think people have a lot of dystopian views of this, but you sound like you’re a little more on the utopian side, and I think there could be a lot of positives that come out of it.

Jacob Light (21:38): I think that’s right. Economists are not in the business of making predictions generally, and I’d have to give up my PhD if I did. I take some comfort looking at previous waves of technological change, exactly as you said. Computers created more job opportunities than they reduced. Mechanized agriculture unlocked widespread growth in the economy despite reducing some employment in agriculture. My belief, if we take the past as precedent, is that we will see something like that with artificial intelligence as well. Some, perhaps many, occupations will be disrupted. Workers in those occupations will experience difficult consequences of this change. But there will be more and new opportunities available once this technology is more widely deployed. There’s a trade-off, and the transition is messy and painful. But I think on net, the precedent is that new technology is generally helpful for society.

Susan Pendergrass (22:57): AI spits out a lot of bad content and you still need a human, I think, to determine what’s bad and what’s good. I think that’s the skill set within the CS world. You can have AI code five versions of something, but somebody needs to know which one is good. So what do you think about that?

Jacob Light (23:22): I think that’s exactly right. The expertise becomes more valuable. In a way, it’s kind of a bummer that the parts of work where humans maintain their advantage are in evaluating quality rather than in generating. We’ve kind of taken the creative component of work away. I think it creates a less satisfying, perhaps less intellectually stimulating workflow. At this stage, certainly, we continue to need humans with expertise beyond the capabilities of AI to evaluate what AI is producing. I think that points to the crisis that higher education faces: if we are not able to produce these experts because students are not developing the skills we need them to develop in college, then how will we produce the next cohort of experts? Similarly to your point, if we don’t have legal assistants and research assistants who will eventually become lawyers and researchers, then we are not training people to preserve their comparative advantages over these new tools. I think that’s a big risk we face, and it emphasizes the importance of education right now more than ever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:56): So are you going to continue with this, scraping the data and looking at it?

Jacob Light (24:58): Yeah. It’s my maniacal hobby. I started this data collection in February 2020, and a month later the world changed. But I had a lot of free time on my hands, so it gave me something to do. This little hobby of mine became my pandemic hobby. It was my sourdough. This data gives really rich insight into how universities differ in ways that I don’t think researchers have been able to explore previously.

Susan Pendergrass (25:36): No, I think it’s great. That’s really cool. If people want to find out more, where can we find it?

Jacob Light (25:42): I’m a researcher at the Hoover Institution. You can go to my website at jacob-light.com. I’m always eager to talk about this work.

Susan Pendergrass (25:51): That’s fascinating stuff. Well, thanks so much. I’d love to see a follow-up in a year or two. I think it’s really interesting. Thank you so much.

Jacob Light (25:57): Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI and the Future of College with Jacob Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This resolution prohibits students in first grade and younger from using devices and outlines a process for parents to choose to opt their student out of technology use. It also requires LAUSD to develop a comprehensive screen time policy for each grade and subject, set to take effect in the 2026–2027 school year. This decision has gained broad support from parents, many of whom have formed an advocacy group, Schools Beyond Screens, to voice their concerns about excessive screen time.

House Bill (HB) 2230, a bill recently passed by the House, reflects Missouri’s efforts to address concerns surrounding screen use during school. Missouri’s law would be an important first step, and LAUSD’s resolution offers a helpful example of how those concerns can be effectively translated into clear, actionable policy—such as limiting use in early grades or parental choice. A key part of HB 2230 is that it will require each district to develop its own policy. LAUSD’s policy can be a useful guide for Missouri districts.

The post Major Los Angeles School District Becomes First to Implement Screen Time Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed House Bill (HB) 2230, a bill focused on limiting screen time for students in public schools. This legislation is not about cell phones, which already cannot be used in Missouri public schools. This is about screens used for instruction.

The legislation is a scaled-back version of an earlier proposal that would have imposed a firm 45-minute cap on student screen use and mandated cursive instruction. Instead, the bill—passed by a vote of 143 to 10—requires individual schools to develop their own screen-time policies. It also requires schools to share information about student technology use with parents upon request.

The bill additionally establishes the Framework on Classroom Use of Screens Council, or “Focus Council,” which will be responsible for reviewing best practices for screen use and providing policy guidance, ensuring that sustainable monitoring systems of classroom screen use are present.

Currently, there is no statewide guidance or requirement addressing screen time in public schools. By establishing a baseline framework, the bill represents a step toward balancing technology use in Missouri classrooms.

Parents are increasingly raising concerns about the adverse effects of screens on student learning. For example, parents in the Los Angeles Unified School District are pushing for reduced screen time for instruction, consistent with the intent of HB 2230. Some teachers seem concerned, too: Chalkbeat recently covered a teacher who has taken screens out of his classroom entirely. He reports that his reduced reliance on technology has resulted in improved relationships with his students and better student effort and performance.

There is growing interest in unwinding the reliance on technology in our classrooms that accelerated with the onset of the pandemic. This may prove beneficial for students, parents, and teachers alike. While technology can still be an effective tool in education, there are downsides to being too reliant on screens. HB 2230 is a step in the right direction.

The post Missouri Takes a First Step on Classroom Screen Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent study by Ronak Jain and Samuel Stemper offers compelling new evidence on this issue. Drawing on data from over 2.5 million student test scores across 82 countries, the researchers examine how the rollout of 3G internet affected educational outcomes. Because 3G technology was introduced unevenly across regions, it created a natural experiment; it was available to some students before others based on where they lived. This variation allows Jain and Stemper to isolate the causal impact of 3G technology on student performance.

Importantly, the rollout of 3G was not just about internet access—it was also about mobile internet access. It facilitated the rise of smartphones and data-intensive social media and gaming applications. Correspondingly, Jain and Stemper show that the spread of 3G internet increased student access to smartphones, in addition to overall internet use.

The research shows exposure to 3G networks caused significantly lower test scores in math, reading, and science. Students also reported greater difficulty making friends and a weaker sense of belonging. For many parents and educators, these results likely confirm what they already know, or at least strongly suspect: smartphones and the constant connectivity they allow are taking a toll on both the academic performance and well-being of our children.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to address this problem. One straightforward policy with growing support is to ban smartphones in schools. Several states have already passed statewide bans, but even in the absence of a statewide ban in Missouri, local officials in school districts can enact bans on their own. Available research suggests the stricter the phone policy, the better.

The post Phones Down: The Negative Effects of the Internet on Student Learning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post MOGE, Open Enrollment, Banning Phones, and COVID-era Water Bills appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Numerous studies have investigated the potentially harmful effects of smartphones and social media. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General has recently called for a warning label on social media for youth. While national leaders are considering action more broadly, numerous states are considering the issue, including Missouri. House Bill (HB) 408 proposes a statewide approach to the smartphone problem in schools.

What Would HB 408 Accomplish?

If passed, HB 408 would require every school district to adopt a written policy governing “electronic telecommunication” (primarily smartphone) use. At a minimum, each policy would need to:

• Prohibit students from using, operating, possessing, or keeping on such student’s person a smartphone or connected device during regularly scheduled instructional activities.
• Require students who bring a device to school grounds to turn it off and store it properly during instructional activities.
• Establish guidelines for using smartphones during field trips, transportation, and other “noninstructional” school activities.
• Provide exceptions for students with an individualized education program (IEP), a 504 Plan (for students with special accommodations), or those with individualized healthcare plans.

Why HB 408 Would Help

Teachers overwhelmingly report that smartphones are a major classroom disruption. A Pew Research Center study found that 72% of U.S. high school teachers say that smartphone distraction is a major problem. Additionally, 83% of National Education Association (NEA) members support prohibiting smartphone and personal devices during the entire school day.

Research reinforces these concerns, as studies have shown that receiving notifications (or even the potential of receiving them), can disrupt learning and lead to lower performance.

Bullying has routinely been connected to smartphone use, with devices being used for recording fights, cyber bullying, and spreading harmful content on social media. Missouri has seen a rising number of disciplinary incidents despite a smaller student population. In the 2012–2013 school year, there were 11,703 suspensions of 10 or more consecutive days—that number rose to 14,890 in 2022–2023.

In January, Normandy Schools Collaborative enacted a total smartphone ban on district property, citing that smartphone use has been a primary cause of bullying, staged fights, and sexual misconduct. However, the success of the policy will hinge on effective enforcement.

When asked about the total ban on school property, a director of security at the Normandy School Collaborative stated: “We tried a policy where you could have a cell phone, just not in class. The students did not adhere to the policies.”

It would be inaccurate to completely scapegoat smartphones for all the aforementioned issues in schools, but it would also be difficult to argue that they are not exacerbating the problem.

HB 408 is a policy that would potentially improve the academic and social environment for Missouri schools, but its success still hinges on how districts and parents enforce the policy. If passed, it will be fascinating to see which strategies (such as allowing cell phones but not smartphones) prove most effective.

The post Hanging Up on Smartphones in Missouri Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Banning Smartphone Use in Schools with John Ketcham appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, James V. Shuls speaks with Michael Q. McShane, Director of National Research at EdChoice and Senior Fellow of Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute, about his latest paper, ‘Why Markets Matter in Education.’ They explore the growing role of market forces in education, the benefits of choice and competition for schools and students, the impact of educational marketplaces on innovation and quality, the challenges of government intervention in schooling, and the long-term advantages of allowing parents to shape their children’s educational journeys.

Read the essay here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Why Markets Matter in Education with Mike McShane appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The National Hybrid Schools Project with Eric Wearne 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.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Dalena Wallace is a busy homeschool mom of six. She manages a co-op serving 35 local homeschoolers and operates a hybrid microschool called AIM High. She is the founder of AIM Educational Collaborative LLC which helps provide assistance and coaching for others who would like to build Autonomous, Innovative, and Missional educational models.

To learn more about her work visit: www.aimeducationks.com/

Learn more about KPI’s September 23 event here: kansaspolicy.org/events/

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Highlighting Creativity in Education with Dalena Wallace appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In: letting parents find an education setting that works for their families

Out: giving every student just one assigned option

 So many reasons have popped up for this one in the last year or two. Parents want their children and everyone around them masked. Parents don’t want their children to have to wear a mask all day. Parents want everyone vaccinated. Parents want vaccination to be a personal choice. Parents like, or don’t care, about their school’s curriculum. Parents care a lot about their school’s curriculum. Regardless, the single, assigned option is “out” and letting every family avail themselves of at least one alternative is “in.”

In: school board meetings that include parents and the community

Out: school board meetings with no one but the board in attendance

People have discovered an interesting fact in the past year—school boards actually impact what happens in school buildings, including selecting curricula. Who knew? School boards create textbook selection committees. They hear from textbook publishers. They weigh the options and approve curricula. A broader understanding of their role will (hopefully) make broader participation in their decisions “in” and forgetting they exist “out.”

In: innovative new learning environments

Out: every student learning in a room with a teacher at the front and 20 other students

 When schools shut down, parents didn’t just go along with that program. They joined with other families and created micro-schools in someone’s basement. They sent their children to karate academies or churches for guided virtual learning. They decided to join the homeschool movement. They founded Boys and Girls Clubs, or some other nonprofit, that morphed into an outright school. Necessity is the mother of invention, and public education became inventive. The 1950s education model got tossed “out” in favor of bringing “in” new models of learning.

In: giving teachers autonomy and flexibility

Out: step-and-ladder pay scales

School shutdowns also affected teachers. Some teachers didn’t like teaching virtually; others loved it. Some teachers discovered that teaching just ten students in a micro-school means applying skills more directly, and no staff meetings or red tape. There is a massive opportunity for good teachers to take on gig work as tutors. Joining a school district at the age of 23 and staying in the same district until the age of 55 to be “taken care of” with a pension until death is so “out,” and teachers as entrepreneurs who can be paid directly to teach is “in.”

This list could go on. The bad news is that we are in the middle of a tough road back to recovering learning loss for so many students. The great news is that we’ve been forced change some of the old ways of doing things in favor of parent empowerment and engagement, systemwide flexibility and autonomy, and the notion that one size definitely does not fit all.

The post Year-end In-and-out list appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Discovery School has an amazing story. When the coronavirus struck in March of 2020, the Discovery Center, a children’s science museum, worked around the clock to transform into a licensed childcare center to continue students’ education even if their schools were closed to in-person instruction. Every member of the team agreed to work in person instead of working from home. By August, it had cultivated a community of learners who wanted to keep the good times going. The Discovery Center leased and renovated a building that used to be part of Everest College and created a space for children to do their virtual learning in small learning pods. By January of 2021, it was ready to launch a standalone school. It currently operates as a private school for students in Springfield. The STOP award created an informative webpage on the school, and it is worth checking out.

Simply by being named a finalist, the school is guaranteed at least $250,000 in prize money. The full prize will be announced December 14th at Forbes’ annual 30 under 30 event.

The post Innovative Springfield School Up for $1 Million Prize appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is surprising is how pervasive this apparently is. EdChoice has been polling parents since the shutdown last spring, and its latest poll results indicate that a shocking 35 percent of parents now report that their children are in pandemic pods, and another 18 percent are looking for one. Over half of parents, according to this survey, are writing (or trying to write) their own playbook for how and where their children will be educated. This represents a major disruption that is not going to just go away when schools reopen.

Equally surprising, nearly 70 percent of teachers surveyed expressed at least some interest in teaching in a pandemic pod. Teacher frustration seems to be high. They are dealing with mixed signals and many have to swap between teaching in person, recording virtual lessons, and virtual instruction in real time. The thought of just teaching eight or ten students in a home with no district bureaucracy must be tempting.

We are all exhausted by COVID and ready for things to go back to normal. But normal now is everyone wearing masks, touch-free bathrooms, and no hugging. Some of that will go away and some of it will stay. The same is true for public education. Families and teachers are taking ownership of public education like never before. To have some of that stick would be a much-needed step in the right direction.

The post Parents Are Taking Control of Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen here:

The post SMI Podcast: Education Needs Innovation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the latest from Susan Pendergrass

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri Virtual Ed

Letter: Missouri online program virtual lifesaver for students

Missouri committee may propose changes to virtual education program

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

Free virtual resources:

Khan Academy

NoRedInk

Virtual resources that cost money:

Virtual Stream tutors

Florida Virtual School

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

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

Acton Academies:

Acton Academy

Lighthouse International 

Prenda network:

Prenda

More on the Micro-school Movement (Forbes)

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

Why and How to Open a Microschool (gettingsmarter)

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

Parents turn to “pods” as a schooling solution

YMCA of Metropolitan Columbus offering learning pods

College Station Taekwondo business offering learning pods

Kansas City YMCA

At least one parent has started a POD business

Watch: How to Start an Education Pod

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

“Pandemic Pods” Are Fundamentally Reshaping K-12 Education

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

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

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

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

South Carolina used GEER funding to create SAFE Scholarships

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

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

For Missouri families that might be considering homeschooling, I’d like to share a couple of potentially useful resources.

First, and perhaps most important, is the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). HSLDA offers lots of resources on its website, including a state-by-state guide of laws and regulations related to homeschooling. For families worried about running afoul of the law, they can join HSLDA for $130 a year and get access to legal advice and protection as well as a host of other homeschooling resources.

Second, there is Khan Academy. Started as a series of YouTube videos Sal Khan created to tutor his nieces and nephews, Khan Academy has grown into a huge free online repository of lessons and projects for students. It has really stepped up during the coronavirus, creating a fully articulated school schedule for students with all the lessons and supplemental videos and articles necessary to complete it. Again, this is all available for free.

Third, Study Island by Edmentum offers a full self-paced online curriculum for students aligned to state standards. For those families thinking that homeschooling will be temporary and that their children will return to their traditional public school next year, keeping up with state requirements is important. Study Island provides its service for around $180 per student per year (though they do offer a free trial for folks looking to check it out). It is not free like Khan Academy, but is plug-and-play and standards-aligned, two key features that parents under pressure might think are worth the cost.

The fourth resource is Carol Topp, the Homeschool CPA. “Pandemic pods” are cropping up as a popular option for families to link together and share resources as they homeschool for the upcoming year. How can families set one up and potentially hire a teacher or set of tutors without running afoul of non-profit or employment law? This is where a knowledgeable CPA can help. Even for those who are homeschooling independently, tax questions can frequently arise. Her website has lots of free content, and she also offers one-on-one consulting services to help families navigate the homeschool landscape.

If you’re thinking seriously about homeschooling in Missouri this year, you are not alone. There are lots of families in the same boat, and lots of resources out there to help.

If you know of any other resources, particularly Missouri-based ones, please feel free to share them in the comments below.

The post Thinking About Homeschooling in Missouri this Year? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For quality distance instruction, you need a few basic items—students with high-speed internet connections, proper learning devices (laptops), content from the instructor, and synchronous feedback on student work.

How did Missouri respond overall? After reviewing distance-learning plans from the more than 500 school districts throughout our state, it can be said we barely managed.

The main obstacle for many schools to implementing quality distance learning was access to high-speed internet. For students without high-speed internet, education was delivered through printed learning packets.

And many Missouri students did rely on printed learning packets because nearly 1 in 4 students in our state does not have access to high-speed internet. Just as shocking: 1 in 10 teachers don’t have access either. Without a reliable internet connection, students couldn’t use online resources and their teachers couldn’t provide proper feedback. Thus, districts were left with providing homework packets that were for “enrichment” purposes only. From our research of distance learning plans, most packets found on district websites did not cover fourth quarter state standards that students were expected to learn. To put it simply, learning did not happen for many students.

Some schools deserve credit for responding creatively to the unexpected challenges. Some creative solutions included providing Wi-Fi in school parking lots, having teachers post read-a-longs on school Facebook pages, and partnerships with internet companies that provided two months of free service to households. However, these temporary band-aids are not long-term answers for Missouri student learning.

The few school districts that were able to continue with effective distance instruction made sure that every student had a device and access to high-speed internet before resuming instruction. Those districts were by and large suburban and already had the infrastructure in place. Most rural and urban areas in the state don’t have such infrastructure.

A majority of districts have sizable student populations without high-speed internet or without devices. In those communities, school leaders decided to not leave these students behind, meaning instruction goes at the speed of those receiving paper packets in the mail. This means instruction is slowed down to the lowest-common denominator, and other kids with online resources are being held back. And there’s no quick solution. Despite numerous grants, expanding high-speed internet across Missouri it is not cheap and is not a problem that falls on the school districts.

We all hope that schools can reopen and that students can go back to in-person learning. However, if schools must temporarily shut down due to an outbreak, students deserve more than what was offered last spring. If we don’t start getting ready for the next crisis now, the prospect of quality distance learning is unlikely for Missouri.

The post Missouri Barely Managed Distance Learning. Here’s Why appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The American Federation for Children found that 40 percent of parents nationally say they are more likely to homeschool or virtual school their children once lockdowns are over. A poll from USA Today found that 6 in 10 parents are likely to consider at-home learning options for their children, and 3 in 10 are “very likely” to do that.

Public School Options also polled parents and found that parents are largely concerned about safety for their child this fall. More than two-thirds of parents are concerned about whether or not they can safely send their children to school when schools reopen. Over 40 percent of parents in the survey are considering online options for their children.

In Missouri, the Columbia Public Schools District surveyed its community and found that roughly half of parents wanted to remain online and half wanted to return to the school building in the fall. The district is now offering families the option to choose online classes for the fall.

There are ways to keep students safe while still giving them a quality education. Safe Student Scholarships are one option that I’ve discussed before, but there are others. Of course, the coronavirus situation could change by the time school starts, and parents could change their minds. But right now, parents are clearly indicating they want more options. While Missouri has previously resisted online education, it finally might be time for the supply of online offerings to meet the demand.

The post What Type of Education Will Parents Want in the Fall? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Florida Virtual School (FLVS) has been serving public, private, and homeschooled students in the United States and abroad for decades. It recently increased its capacity to 2.7 million students. FLVS is geared up to serve all Florida students and is available to discuss options with out of state districts and schools. Similarly, the Uncommon Schools charter school network in New York quickly created a high-quality online learning option for its students. But it then went a step further and made the online option completely publicly available. That means any student with internet access can fully access a program created by a network with student proficiency rates at or near 100 percent. Sal Khan, creator of the Khan Academy, made his platform open and free as well.

Let’s cross our fingers that parents and students in some of Missouri’s shuttered districts—like Parkway, Joplin and the very low-performing Riverview Gardens—magically find these resources and use them. They will be doing so without their district’s guidance or support. And let’s think about whether Missouri public school students should be able to enroll in top notch programs in other states even after the pandemic. We now know that education can happen outside of public school buildings. The providers of high-quality education should reap the rewards of that effort, not the closest public school building to a child’s address.

The post Fingers Crossed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.