Susan Pendergrass speaks with Todd Davidson, Vice President of Programs at the State Policy Network, about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the think tank world. They explore what AI is good at and where it falls short, how organizations like the Show-Me Institute can use it to become more productive without losing their edge, why face-to-face relationships will only become more valuable as AI-generated content floods the internet, how a Hawaii think tank used an AI agent to help fire victims submit legislative testimony, what good policy looks like in an AI-driven energy landscape, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00) Great, well, thanks so much for joining us this morning. Todd Davidson of the State Policy Network, to talk about the topic du jour: artificial intelligence. Thanks so much for coming on to talk about it. I’m afraid to even say anything out loud about AI because by next week it’ll be…

Todd Davidson (00:11) Yeah, happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

Susan Pendergrass (00:18) Nothing really ages — it changes so fast. But I did just read that Mark Zuckerberg has an AI agent who is performing his CEO duties for him. Did you see that? Why not, right?

Todd Davidson (00:28) I saw that, yeah. And then he can just kick back, go down to his Hawaii bunker and just let Facebook run itself.

Susan Pendergrass (00:37) Yeah, I mean, I still haven’t really dabbled in agentic AI, but I know it’s right there and I’m going to want to do it soon. We’re going to talk about AI in the think tank world, but I have to check legislation and hearings and see how those things are going every day. I can well imagine an AI agent doing that for me.

Todd Davidson (01:01) Yeah, if it’s properly trained. So ShowMe Institute, to give the audience broader context, is a member of State Policy Network, and we have sister organizations like ShowMe in states across the country. The Libertas Institute, which is based out of Utah, did exactly what you’re talking about. Connor Boyack, the CEO, built a legislative tracking system that then feeds into their scorecard where they keep track of legislation. He said it took him about eight hours of work to code the agentic AI, but now it does the work automatically. Of course it needs fine-tuning and always has a final human observer that verifies everything, but it’s being used for those purposes right now across the country.

Susan Pendergrass (01:59) So we’re in the think tank world, and it’s probably more of an art than a science at the state level. Tracking the policies — first of all, thinking about the policies that we think would be best for Missouri, then doing a bunch of research on those policies, then creating content on those policies, then trying to talk to legislators and hope that they see our point of view, and that they enact actual laws that reflect those policies. That’s a really labor-intensive job. Which parts of that could you see being picked up by AI?

Todd Davidson (02:33) I’m by no means an expert on AI, but I work with someone who is. What has been explained to me is that AI is very good at synthesizing information. It’s very good at predicting — it essentially predicts the next word. It takes all these inputs and predicts the next set of words, which comes out to us as sentences. So if you are able to give it certain inputs — say, I want you to look at these bills, I want you to look at these things — and give it a sort of walled garden, it can then be prompted to produce any type of analysis that you want. The reason you want that walled garden is because AI can still hallucinate. It can make stuff up. Actually, this just went viral last week: a lawyer down in Georgia went before the Georgia Supreme Court and had AI produce her entire argument. It cited five fictitious cases, and the judges called that out. So you have to give it constraints and say, here are the data inputs, now summarize this for me. And it can get you a pretty solid first draft of that summary. Of course, you’re still going to need a human to go through and edit it and add voice and texture to it. But summarizing that data, saying tell me which of these align with our principles or does not align with our principles — it would be very good at that kind of thing. What it’s not going to be able to do is the creative part. When you think about what is the policy that we want to design for Missouri, what does Missouri need — it’s not at the stage where it could do that. That’s where you would still want Show-Me Institute experts to be crafting those kinds of things. But if something’s already out there and existing, you can summarize it and score it based on criteria pretty easily.

Susan Pendergrass (04:35) So given how quickly firms are moving towards AI — and in fact mandating AI because it’s such a time saver and productivity increase — how does a think tank position itself in that world? There’s so much talk about AI just replacing all of our jobs. Maybe it does replace my job — I don’t know. I’ve heard podcasts generated by AI in my voice, so it could be doing this job right now. I would like to think it wouldn’t be as great, but how does a think tank position itself? What’s our value add in that scenario?

Todd Davidson (05:12) Start by going back to what your mission and objective is. ShowMe Institute — and by the way, I am a resident of Missouri and a big fan of the Show-Me Institute, both from my SPN perspective and from my Missouri resident perspective — we have principles: free markets, a robust civil society, a thriving economy. We want the feds to get out of the way in a lot of cases. We want the government to get out of the way. And then how we execute that mission is through policy change, mostly at the state level, though I know you also work at the local level. So state and local policy change is the objective. How do we go about that? We produce research and then we advocate — in some cases talking directly to policymakers, communicating out to the public through op-eds and things so that the public then talks to lawmakers. And ultimately we get policies passed that lower the income tax, reduce barriers to work, and provide more options for kids in schools. So what AI is going to do is make research and content much easier to produce. By research, again, I mean that summarization kind of research — it’s going to make that kind of stuff extremely easy for folks to produce. Everybody’s going to have a research assistant. What AI cannot do is personal relationships. It will never be able to do that. What it also cannot do is tour the entire state of Missouri, know all of the history and relationships and connections of people throughout the state. So I believe Show-Me Institute and all of the affiliates across the country that are state and local based are going to have an advantage because you’re in your community. You know people, you know policymakers, you know community leaders, you know people that are affected by your policies. And that’s something AI is not going to be able to do. AI can look at the statistics and arguments and academic literature, and it could put together a brief, and that could be useful. It would make your job more efficient — you’d be able to produce those things in a fraction of the time you do right now. But then with that extra time, I would use it to go out and build stronger relationships in the communities, and then use those relationships towards policy change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:51) What about grassroots? More grassroots-type stuff?

Todd Davidson (07:55) Grassroots very much. AI is going to have an interesting relationship with grassroots. In one way, it actually makes it easier for grassroots individuals to engage their legislature. On the other hand, it’s going to create a flood of grassroots engagement digitally. So face-to-face grassroots engagement is going to have more impact. I’ll tell you a story: Hawaii had the terrible fire that destroyed Lahaina a few years back. Hawaii has terrible building codes — it’s incredibly hard to build homes there. That town was completely destroyed, so the state needed to relax its building codes in order for homes to be rebuilt. Well, they weren’t making this change. Show-Me’s sister think tank, called the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, built an AI platform that allowed individuals to submit testimony to the legislature. Testimony has a higher bar, right? You can email your lawmakers pretty easily, but testimony goes into the legislative record and has to follow a certain format and be structured in a certain way. That’s not something that grassroots individuals were very equipped to provide. So a think tank would typically provide the testimony and then get grassroots supporters to send emails to lawmakers. What Grassroots Institute of Hawaii did was build an AI agent so that an individual could say, “Hey, my house was burnt down, I need these things,” and the AI agent would turn that into testimony and submit it directly to the legislature. It resulted in a skyrocketing number of testimonies being filed. Because of that, the legislature said, “Wow, we’ve heard from 500 constituents — we’ve never heard from that many constituents before.” So they relaxed their regulatory regime, and now homes are being built in Lahaina much faster.

Susan Pendergrass (09:48) Did they know that AI was doing it? Were legislators thinking, okay, this is AI?

Todd Davidson (10:12) That is why they went through testimony. Legislators’ email inboxes — they’re not reading their emails anymore, right? They get thousands of them. But through testimony, the AI was not making up the stories. The people had to fill out the content and explain their story. The AI was just structuring it in a way to make sure that it got submitted as testimony. I do think that is a bit of an arms race. At some point the same thing that has happened with email will happen — there will just be thousands of pieces of testimony and you won’t be able to read all of them. So there was a bit of a first-mover advantage. And once that becomes ubiquitous, I do think what you predicted is going to happen, where legislators just say, well, this is AI-facilitated. And that’s where it’s going to have to go back to face-to-face, bringing those people in.

Susan Pendergrass (11:08) I think you’re absolutely right. As more video content comes out and we all realize it’s AI — I just don’t really believe that any videos are real anymore. I don’t really believe pictures are real. I don’t really believe music is real. And it doesn’t necessarily bother me that much, but I think because of that skepticism and unwillingness to believe in digital content, things happening in real life right in front of us are going to take on higher and higher value, so that we know for sure that if I’m speaking to a legislator, it is me saying it and what’s coming out of my head. That’s about the only way we’re going to know if something is real — or the default is just going to become AI-generated.

Todd Davidson (12:01) 100%, I absolutely agree. And that’s where I think organizations like ShowMe are well positioned. Because you’re in the state of Missouri, you can be in Jefferson City or you can be in St. Louis or Kansas City in those face-to-face relationships. It’s going to make your government affairs personnel far more valuable, your fundraisers who can be face-to-face with donors far more valuable, grassroots activists that are face-to-face. It’s going to put a premium on face-to-face interactions for sure. I agree — there’s going to be so much content out there. You’re still going to need content because that gives you credibility, it gives you what you’re going to talk about. But then you’ve got to pair that with the face-to-face interaction, otherwise it’ll just get ignored.

Susan Pendergrass (12:47) And you can definitely see the gap when people are generating stuff through AI and they don’t know the subject matter enough — like you said about the attorney. But there is definitely a role for humans to say, I mean, I do this all the time with AI: I’ll say give me five of these things, give me five infographics or something like that. But the human has to know which one is the best or which one makes the most compelling argument. AI simply really can’t do that. So while some people would love to believe that AI is going to run the world, I do believe there is an emerging role for human discernment to know which AI products are better than other AI products. Would you agree with that?

Todd Davidson (13:32) Yeah, 100%. I think the sweet spot is utilizing AI to make yourself more efficient or do things that you don’t like doing. But then that raises you up into that discernment phase where you’re the one making the call. I do this all the time — I’m having conversations with AI to increase the outputs. I should not spend any time making infographics. I’m not good at it. But I can have a conversation with AI where it produces that infographic much more effectively than I could. I’ve also found that, if you put the prompting on it, it can help you find those particular sources that you’re looking for. Say you want to write a survey on school choice research — it can help you gather all of those materials much faster. But then you have to make sure that it’s of high quality.

Susan Pendergrass (14:35) What do you think about the current pushback on AI-generated pictures? Do you think that is just a learning phase we all need to get through? Some top artists on Spotify have been determined to be AI-generated.

Todd Davidson (14:57) Really?

Susan Pendergrass (14:59) Yeah. The number two Christian artist is just AI, and across all genres there are artists with millions of subscribers who are just AI-generated music based on what AI knows we all like. So we do like it. Does it matter that there’s no real person writing the music? I don’t know.

Todd Davidson (15:12) It’s kind of sad. Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (15:21) I know the initial reaction is, that’s sad. But then after a while you’re like, I don’t know.

Todd Davidson (15:26) There is going to be intense pushback to all things AI. AI is very unpopular right now. I saw some polling just last week that showed it is the number one concern of voters. There will be a populist pushback against AI. We’re seeing this pushback against the data centers. There’s even polling that showed a plurality of the population believes it’s immoral to use AI. And I think it gets at the core of some of what you’re talking about here — yes, there’s this very popular, satisfying music, but it loses some human element because there’s not a human behind it. I do think we’re going to see a lot of pushback to AI on multiple dimensions. There’s that cultural dimension. There’s the economic anxiety dimension right now: a fear that AI is driving up energy costs, a fear that AI could take my job. There’s going to be pretty significant pushback. Right now we’re mostly seeing that in anti-data center efforts, trying to stop the building up of data centers across the country. I was looking at some Democratic pollsters today who were pitching that Democrats should advocate for a guaranteed job, guaranteed income, guaranteed healthcare, and a guaranteed home if you lose your job to AI. That kind of populist messaging is going to resonate with a lot of the public. What is the response going to be to that? What are the other solutions that we could advocate for that both allow the continued growth and opportunity and also allow continued innovation around AI, because we’re going to need AI to continue to develop?

Susan Pendergrass (17:30) It’s already here. I mean, we’re doing this in reverse order. And I think my opinion is that massive new technologies always get pushback — like the car. People were on their horses, and then we started designing roads for cars. Calculators got a lot of pushback, the internet got a lot of pushback. But ultimately people decided that they liked it better. I think AI is the same — we just have to figure out how to work with it. And I know that it is threatening to take a lot of jobs, but I see it more as a good thing. It gives us an opportunity to become the expert over AI. AI is not going to be the expert — we still need the human component. Like you said, face-to-face interactions. Legislators are still going to know what Missourians want and how to represent their constituents, and those are real-world issues. The data center pushback is because I don’t want to look out my window and hear a buzz and see a data center — I don’t want all that land going to data centers. That’s a real-world, in-person issue. But I just think we’re going to have to learn to work with it. I don’t think robots are going to — maybe this is where I don’t want to say things out loud — but maybe the robots will take over the world, I don’t know. But personally I feel like it is helpful to get a lot more content out, because you don’t know what’s going to resonate with stakeholders. Whether it’s a video or an infographic or a report or a different type of content, the fact that we can generate these things much more quickly I think is a benefit to us, and it makes the in-person time more meaningful to me.

Todd Davidson (19:11) You’re absolutely right. When a new technology comes out there’s going to be pushback, and organizations like ours have to figure out what’s the policy framework that allows that innovation to thrive without getting in the way. And fortunately we have a lot of those policies already. Like Avery, your colleague at Show-Me Institute, talks a lot about energy. One of the biggest pushbacks on AI is that it’s driving up energy costs. There’s some research that shows that’s not quite what’s happening. What’s happening is a lot of green policies that got passed in the 2010s are coming to roost — the renewable portfolio standards and those things are really what’s driving up energy costs. But even still, what can we do to make energy more affordable and reliable, even with a bunch of data centers added to the grid? And Avery’s got good policy on this: expanding nuclear power, expanding the use of reliable energy sources.

Susan Pendergrass (20:23) It’s separating out consumer electricity from data center electricity. You can carve these things differently.

Todd Davidson (20:29) Yeah, that’s another one — where the data center has its own power source. So there are policies out there that can mitigate it. And on the job question, unfortunately AI is happening at the same time that we’re having a continued cost of living and inflation issue. It’s one more thing that is driving anxiety. It’s not the root cause of what’s going on — we’ve got other factors that we need to address to get inflation under control, particularly on the energy side.

Susan Pendergrass (21:08) Yeah, but I do think it’s great that we have so many opportunities to expand or improve how we do things. In our little corner of the world, which is think tanks, we’ve been doing things kind of the same way for a long time. So I think a new approach to how we do business is a welcome change, and I think we could be a lot more effective.

Todd Davidson (21:38) Yeah, I think we’re going to see far more productive think tanks on the research side. On the litigation side, I was talking to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. They litigate a lot of cases. With the advent of AI, every lawyer essentially got a legal clerk right away. They went from nine lawyers and a handful of legal clerks to nine lawyers who each now have their own AI legal clerk. It’s dramatically expanded the number of cases they can take on. And the same thing on the research side. On the marketing side, production of content is going to be quite a bit easier and more cost effective as well.

Susan Pendergrass (22:26) Well, I appreciate having a chance to talk to somebody who has a positive perspective on it, because I do hear a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to AI. I was reminded by somebody that many of the scenarios in movies and books about AI are very dystopian, but perhaps it’ll be utopian. We don’t know. It’s all in how we approach it, right?

Todd Davidson (22:48) Yeah, it is. It’s going to be an exciting new world that we live in and we’re right on the frontier.

Susan Pendergrass (22:54) Anyone with little kids, like you — who knows what the world’s going to look like when they’re going to college. So you’ve got to stay flexible, right? Well, thanks so much, Todd. I appreciate you coming and talking to us about it. We’ll have to talk about it again sometime soon when the whole thing has changed.

Todd Davidson (23:02) Yep, stay flexible and always be learning. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI, Think Tanks, and the Future of Policy Work with Todd Davidson appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Shaka Mitchell, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, about how a new federal scholarship tax credit, created through the One Big Beautiful Bill, could transform K–12 education across the country. They discuss what this means for Missouri families, the legal threats facing the MOScholars program, how education policy is shifting nationally, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Evolution of School Choice in Missouri
02:59 Charter Schools and Teacher Innovation
05:40 The Impact of Lawsuits on Educational Freedom
08:35 Federal Tax Credit Programs and Their Implications
11:19 The Future of School Choice and Parental Empowerment

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much for joining us on the Show-Me Institute podcast, Shaka Mitchell of AFC. But I think you wear a lot of hats. We’ll just do that hat for now. There have been a lot of changes in the last few years—certainly since the pandemic—regarding how kids end up at the school they attend, especially with parents now getting more opportunities to choose instead of just being assigned. I know you’ve been on the front lines of this, especially through your work with charter schools.

In Missouri, we’re sort of creeping into it. We have a scholarship program now that’s growing, and finally, like in so many other states, the legislature has decided to put some public funding toward it. And now it’s tied up with a lawsuit. Are you following what’s going on with Missouri’s scholarship program?

Shaka Mitchell (00:45):
Yeah, thanks Susan. Thanks for having me on. I sure am following it. I’ve been encouraged in recent years by the steps Missouri has taken to expand school choice. As you know, there had been a charter school law for years, but it was really limited—to Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s a lot of students, but still many others couldn’t access those schools.

Then you had the MOScholars program, which I bet we’ll talk about. On the one hand, there are some encouraging developments coming out of Missouri. And then, per usual, there are lawsuits. Because, in the words of the famous 20th-century philosopher Taylor Swift, haters gonna hate.

Susan Pendergrass (01:30):
That’s right.

Let’s go back to this charter school thing for a minute. Now, for the first time, a charter school can open anywhere in the state—but only if the school board is the sponsor. That happens all over the country, but in Missouri, no school board would even consider authorizing a charter school. Not running them, just authorizing them.

Now there’s one other county where they can open without the board as the sponsor. But there is such strong resistance to the idea of charter schools. Do you find that surprising in 2025?

Shaka Mitchell (02:06):
Yes and no. I’ve worked in charter schools and with several charter networks. I have lots of friends still working in that space. At the American Federation for Children, we’re school-type agnostic. We support parents’ ability to choose.

In some ways, it’s not surprising that school districts—which have in many places become jobs programs for adults—don’t want to disrupt the status quo. Budgets continue to increase, while enrollments decrease. So they’ve got fewer students per classroom, but more money per pupil.

They’ve got it pretty good in terms of job security. But I think what you’re getting at is important: there are great educators who want to do right by kids. And many of them are trapped within that system.

We’re seeing some start their own schools or move to other states or online programs. There’s a lot of innovation happening. But unfortunately, you mostly see the negative reaction from public school districts when it comes to innovation and choice.

Susan Pendergrass (03:42):
Yes, and what’s so tragic in Missouri is that we’ve shut the door on teachers as entrepreneurs. We have plenty of entrepreneurial teachers. Some of the strongest charter school networks were started by teachers who said, “I have a great idea, and I need to do this outside the regulations and bureaucracy.” Cutting off the teacher-as-entrepreneur option is tragic.

Shaka Mitchell (04:10):
Yeah, super tragic. One of my colleagues, Dr. Patrick Graff at AFC, has done work on teacher spending accounts—similar to ESAs.

It’s a great idea. Teachers often say their classrooms are under-resourced. Every parent knows it’s almost back-to-school season—we’re about to get a list of supplies.

Every time I get that list, I think, “Why haven’t we budgeted for enough glue or crayons?” Patrick’s idea is that teachers should have accounts to buy what they need. Surprise: teachers love it, and legislators do too.

But when you say, “Cool, it works for teachers—now let’s do it for parents,” suddenly it’s hair-on-fire. The education establishment just says no. It’s unfair.

Susan Pendergrass (05:19):
Yeah. Public funding for MOScholars in Missouri currently serves mostly low-income students and students with disabilities in Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s where the program started. It’s expanded a bit—but only through tax-credit fundraising, and the organizations have to ask for donations.

Now the lawsuit is basically saying those kids have to go back to their old schools. That we can’t publicly fund private schools for students. It’s saying, “You have to go back to the school that didn’t work for you.”

I know the teachers’ unions brought the lawsuit, and they often take on the PR risk of being on the wrong side of things—like trying to take scholarships away from kids. I don’t see how they can sit well with that.

Shaka Mitchell (06:20):
Yeah. I had the great fortune of meeting a parent in Missouri, Becky Ucello. Her daughter was able to attend a private school through the program. Becky is a public school teacher.

So the idea that private choice programs are anti–public school is a myth. Of course she wants the best for her students—and her own daughter, who has exceptional needs. The district school wasn’t working. Who among us wouldn’t want the best for our child?

The unions get this wrong every time. And they usually get defeated in court. I expect the same in Missouri. There’s strong federal and state case law supporting the idea that parents can choose and that funds given out in a non-discriminatory way can be used at religious schools—because the parent is making the choice, not the government.

Susan Pendergrass (07:47):
In addition to the lawsuit, there’s a potential initiative petition in Missouri to amend the constitution to say you can’t spend public funds at private institutions for students.

But we already have several higher ed programs that work like Pell Grants—you can take them to public or private colleges. We have Bright Flight. This petition might even cut off those programs, too.

And even when open enrollment comes up, it’s often the lowest-performing districts that say, “We can’t be part of it—we can’t let our kids leave.”

Shaka Mitchell (08:41):
It’s totally short-sighted. Nearly every district already outsources some of their special needs education to private providers. That petition could cut off even that.

It’s absurd. Districts don’t make their own computers, books, or desks. They purchase from private companies all the time. The idea that public education is this sacred, fully public institution is a fiction.

Susan Pendergrass (09:33):
Cisco trucks are in every school. Pearson brings the textbooks. Public education is filled with private corporations. And we’ve made so much progress nationally.

I’d love for you to explain the potential for federal scholarship expansion through tax credits. What is that new program, and how will it work?

Shaka Mitchell (10:09):
Sure. The federal scholarship tax credit passed as part of the One Big Bill earlier this year. It’s the first-ever federal K-12 tax credit program.

First, it’s a tax program—not from the Department of Education. So it’s not adding to federal bloat or undermining local control.

Any federal taxpayer can direct up to $1,700 of their tax liability to a scholarship granting organization—like the ones already in Missouri. So instead of sending it to the IRS, I could say, “Let’s send this to a scholarship org in Kansas City.”

Then, the organization can award scholarships to families, most of whom will qualify based on income. The families can use them for a range of educational expenses—just like ESAs. It’s really exciting.

Susan Pendergrass (12:09):
I’ve heard opponents call it a federal voucher—but it’s not a voucher, right?

Shaka Mitchell (12:18):
Correct. Think of it like when your tax return asks if you want to give a dollar to the presidential campaign. But now it’s $1,700 to a scholarship org.

In Missouri, we have Catholic, Hebrew, and non-sectarian scholarship organizations. You can choose which one to support.

Susan Pendergrass (12:59):
Do you know the total amount of available tax credits?

Shaka Mitchell (13:06):
It’s unlimited, within that $1,700 per-taxpayer cap. Initially, there were discussions of state-by-state limits, but now the limit is per individual—not by state.

Susan Pendergrass (13:34):
So governors have to opt in, right?

Shaka Mitchell (14:10):
Yes. Governors or other state officials need to opt in. That may look different state to state. Some legislatures, like North Carolina’s, have already voted to participate.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Where does Missouri stand?

Shaka Mitchell (14:59):
Probably not much discussion yet. It doesn’t go into effect until 2027, so there’s time. But Missouri is in a good spot—you’ve already got scholarship organizations and experience with tax credit programs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:20):
What about blue states like Oregon or California?

Shaka Mitchell (15:27):
Great question. All eyes are on states like California, Pennsylvania, New York. There are a lot of taxpayers there.

Imagine millions of California taxpayers sending $1,700 each to scholarships in Missouri. It would be crazy for a governor to allow that much money to leave their state. But we’ll see.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13):
What do you think those states will do?

Shaka Mitchell (16:25):
Hard to say, but some Democratic governors have said they’re researching it. It’s not really a partisan issue—it’s just the tax code. And everyone pays taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (16:55):
It’s an interesting political move—making school choice national.

Shaka Mitchell (16:59):
Exactly. And because it’s tax-based, it reaches everyone—Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Are states really going to let billions in scholarships go to other states? I doubt it.

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
It’ll be interesting to see how private school supply responds. Like in Arizona, where more parents have access, vendors have stepped in with customized, creative options. This could fuel huge innovation. The fact that it’s unlimited in size is surprising.

Shaka Mitchell (18:43):
Yes. These federal scholarships could stack on top of state programs.

Say your state gives $6,000, but tuition is $9,000. The federal credit could close that gap. That’s a big deal.

Susan Pendergrass (19:38):
Will there be a lawsuit?

Shaka Mitchell (19:39):
There probably will be. Lawsuits are easy to file. But this program is part of the tax code—it’s hard to challenge. It’s not clear who would even have standing.

If unions want to burn money on a lawsuit, I say go ahead.

Susan Pendergrass (20:27):
I think what works against them is how happy families are with these scholarships. Satisfaction is high.

Shaka Mitchell (20:53):
Yes. Since 2019, we’ve seen an explosion of education freedom.

And there’s now long-term data—like from Ohio—showing EdChoice students, especially Black and brown students, have higher college attainment. That kind of data is compelling.

Susan Pendergrass (21:59):
And the ROI is incredible. You keep one kid out of prison or help one finish college—you’ve already saved more than the scholarship cost.

These families take $6,000 when the public system spends $18,000. They make it work. I’ve never seen anything in traditional public education with this much impact.

Shaka Mitchell (23:10):
It reminds me of the early 2000s with the excitement around No Child Left Behind.

But this is even more grassroots. Parents are organizing—helping each other on Facebook, answering questions, forming communities. That’s powerful. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Right. I don’t think we’ll go from more choice to less. And I know people who considered moving to Missouri until they realized they couldn’t pick their child’s school.

Kids from these programs are having their own kids now. It’s not going backward.

Shaka Mitchell (24:40):
Exactly.

There was a great article today in the New York Times saying, “The monopoly is dead.” I mean—from the New York Times!

Susan Pendergrass (25:21):
That’s what these lawsuits feel like: a desperate last gasp.

Never underestimate parents. They’ll show up. Thank you so much for joining us today. That was fascinating. I know you’ll be following the lawsuit.

Shaka Mitchell (25:59):
Happy to do it. Thanks for having me, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (26:01):
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The One Big Education Opportunity with Shaka Mitchell 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.

Last week, I submitted testimony on House Bill (HB) 1511, which would protect St. Louis–area business owners from being forced to install, operate, and maintain electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on their own dime. The legislation would not prevent mandates for the installation of EV chargers. However, it would require St. Louis–area governments to pay for their mandates. You can read the full testimony here.

HB 1511 was filed because some St. Louis municipalities (the City of St. Louis and Brentwood, among others) are forcing business owners to install and operate EV chargers (on their own dime) following new construction or significant renovation. There are a few reasons why such mandates are a bad idea.

Remember when people thought MySpace was the future? It is possible (although I think not likely) that EVs could suffer a similar fate.

Fully electric vehicles are only 1% of the cars on the road.

Governments are assuming that the EVs of the present are also the vehicles of the future. A new type of electric vehicle could emerge (like when Facebook surpassed MySpace) and make premature government investment unnecessary. A whole new technology like hydrogen-fuel cells could emerge as the best way to power our transit in the future.

Additionally, EV chargers that are currently on the market are in their early stages. The typical public charger used in cities (also known as a Level 2 charger) takes 4–10 hours to charge an EV from empty to 80%. As charging technology improves, faster options will hopefully become available. Will there need to be a mandate for new construction each time the technology improves?

As EVs make up a bigger share of cars on the road, and as developers hopefully improve charging speeds, establishments such as apartments, hotels, and restaurants will likely seek to lure this growing consumer base with EV chargers. There is no need to force any business to build charging stations that cost $2,000–$5,000

As of right now, public chargers are rarely used. The market can grow at its own pace. I see gas stations everywhere, but I do not fill up all the time. I usually fill up when I am nearing empty and it is convenient for me. EV owners typically follow a similar pattern, as over 90% charge their car at home daily (55%) or weekly (38%).

According to a 2023 survey:

• Only 4% of EV owners report using a Level 2 public charger daily.
• Approximately 14% of EV owners report using one weekly.
• Approximately 16% use one monthly.
• Approximately 46% say they “rarely” use a public charger.
• Approximately 21% say they have never used one.

It’s possible that plug-in electric chargers will never be popular.

The current legislation is restricted only to the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. But why is it so limited? Unfunded mandates for EV chargers are bad policy wherever they are in the state.

The post Who Will Be Getting Charged for New EV Chargers in STL? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Given his influence and the freshness of his work in my mind, I was particularly excited to see that a new private school bearing his name is opening this year in St. Louis—The Chesterton Academy of St. Louis. The school bills itself as “a classical high school grounded in the Catholic faith.” By “classical” the school is describing its educational philosophy, which is primarily about the cultivation of the liberal arts—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—through the reading of the great books of the western canon and Socratic seminars. In recent years, the classical model of education has seen a significant resurgence. I am a fan of the classical model; indeed, two of my children attend a classical school.

I came across a posting for the new school in a Facebook group I’m a part of: “Chalk Talk: Education in the St. Louis area.” The group is hosted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. My excitement for this new school quickly turned to dismay as I read the comments from members of the Facebook group. Rather than welcoming this new option for students, I saw nothing but attacks. One individual asked whether the school was “proud boy sponsored,” referring to the far-right organization. Others joined in, noting that most of the people in the pictures were white. One person said, “It reminds me of the Segregation Academies that started opening across the South in the wake of Brown v. Board of Ed.” Others commented on the size of the houses seen in pictures for the group. Much of the ire seemed to stem from a Nerf War the school hosted for students. (You know how dangerous Nerf Guns can be.)

The discussion of this exciting new school in the Chalk Talk Facebook group perfectly illustrates why we need school choice programs. This is an educational model that is simply not offered by most public school districts and it is a model that many parents want. Parents who want something different than what their public schools provide have few options:

• They can petition the public school to adopt a classical model (it wouldn’t be Catholic)
• They can just suck it up and accept what they are offered even if it doesn’t fit their education desires for their children
• They can choose a new school that offers what they are looking for

If they go with option one, they will likely be met with the same sophisticated level of opposition that they met in the Chalk Talk Facebook page (please read my sarcasm). Their chances of success are very low; but even if they succeed, they are then pushing their educational vision on other families who would rather have something else. It is a winner-take-all system.

Option two . . . well, option two is not a very good option. Can you imagine saying that to any parent? “Just suck it up, buttercup. The public schools know what is best for you.”

That only leaves option three—parents choosing their own school. This is the only way in our pluralistic society that parents can each get the type of school they want for their children. Of course, that only works if children can actually access schools of choice, whether charter or private. Without robust school choice options created by the state, most families will simply not be able to afford to send their children to a private school.

With school choice, the supporters of The Chesterton Academy can get the schools they want for their children . . . and so can those critics on Facebook. School choice allows us to coexist.

If you are interested in G.K. Chesterton or classical education, I encourage you to check out this new school. I’m looking forward to learning more about it. And remember, don’t believe everything you read on Facebook.

The post St. Louis’s New Classical School and the Need for School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, Exeter’s response to our request didn’t live up to the cheery atmosphere of its Facebook account, which has the city’s brightly colored logo of a cartoon tree as its profile picture. Two days after we sent our initial request, city attorney Darwin Groomer responded with this:

“Before the City will comply with your records request, you must tell me who you are and why you believe you need the information. No one has ever heard of you. Your request/demand is denied, until you comply with our demands, and until we deem it necessary to comply.”

Obviously, there are some real problems with Mr. Groomer’s response. I’m not a lawyer, but it was just as clear to me as to the attorney on our checkbook request team that there’s no loophole in the Sunshine Law requiring the government in question to have heard of the person making the request. The law is intended to make government documents accessible to anyone who wants to see them, not just those who city officials decide meet their personal criteria. After we informed the Attorney General’s office of Exeter’s violation, we received a second email in which Mr. Groomer told us that at some point he would provide an estimate. We received the estimate, $15, almost 2 weeks later.

Of all the cities in this year’s municipal checkbook project, Exeter’s initial flat-out refusal to comply unless we met a standard set not by a democratic process, but arbitrarily by a single attorney, showed the least interest in transparency. Even though the city eventually complied with our request at a fair price, I believe Exeter residents deserve better than a government that may decide to invent exceptions to a law that protects citizens’ right to know how city officials make important decisions and spend public money.

The post In Denial: Municipal Checkbook Hall of Shame appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My conclusion was simple: AOC was right to oppose the tax giveaway.

The question of whether, or to what extent, incentives are necessary isn’t just an issue in the case of Amazon, either, and research into the incentives that include or imply “but for” language—“but for the incentive, the project won’t happen”—[is] helpful here. For example, a study by the W.E. Upjohn Institute published last year reveals that the vast majority of businesses that receive tax incentives under a “but-for” rubric likely would have pursued their projects even without the incentive. . . .

This failure of stewardship from governments across the country costs state and local taxpayers billions of dollars annually. That affects not only government services, including roads and education, but also a government’s ability to reduce taxes for everyone, if it so desired. The city of Kansas City, Missouri, where I’m from, redirects $90 million annually from its budget through tax incentives, but that doesn’t include the additional $42.5 million those decisions redirect from the city’s public schools and other taxing districts, who rely on these tax streams but have relatively little say in their diversions.

When a government incentive package is worth billions of dollars, it has truly reached the outer frontier of questionable economic interventions. At $3 billion, New York’s Amazon package was prodigious, but what if I told you last year Kansas City put together an incentive package worth up to $8.2 billion for a nondescript data center development? What if I told you the state of Missouri was also kicking in potentially millions of dollars?

And what if I told you that last week, Facebook—I mean, “Meta”—accepted their offers?

The data center, set to open in 2024, will support up to 100 permanent jobs and is the first of its kind in Missouri. During construction, the job will bring in an additional 1,300 jobs. . . .

The $800 [million] facility will come to Golden Plains Technology Park, a 5.5-million-square-foot land development in Kansas City’s Northland.

Tax incentives are always a dicey proposition because they substitute government decision making for the market. But tax incentives for data centers are especially dicey because the number of permanent jobs they generate is almost always paltry, with the “cost per job” of these packages often landing over $1 million. Although the final accepted package remains to be published, the KC Meta data center project seems likely to far exceed that already absurd baseline of cost per job.

Economic development policy that is determined by the number of ribbons that get to be cut and hard hats that get to be donned by politicians is inherently fraught with perverse incentives that force every other taxpayer to carry the weight of government on behalf of an increasingly select group of developers and corporations. Local government should be reducing taxes on everyone rather than just for some of the wealthiest companies in the world, especially in an era of historic inflation.

That Facebook gets priority over every other individual and company in Missouri is infuriating—but unfortunately, it is not surprising.

The post So Meta: New KC Data Center Heavy on Tax Incentives, Light on Jobs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Event Information

This is a virtual event.

In a time when some people argue that Big Tech has gotten too big, Robby Soave’s message is simple: don’t panic. In his new book, Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future, Robby argues that whatever challenges the future holds, we will be better prepared to handle them as a country, as a society, and as individuals if the government hasn’t vaporized social media via some giant, metaphorical “Unfriend” button.

Robby is a senior editor at Reason and has also been published in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, and U.S. News & World Report. Named on Forbes’ “30 Under 30” list in 2017, he became well known for his correction of a Rolling Stone article on sexual assault at the University of Virginia and his correction of the highly reported incident concerning Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial in 2019.

Please join the Show-Me Institute and Reason for an evening of conversation. The webinar link will be sent to you after you register.

Register

The post What Should We Do About Facebook? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While we did find a fair amount of information in our review, there are many holes left in the data as some district’s websites and Facebook pages were non-existent, outdated, or didn’t include parent communications. It is also possible that some districts updated their policies after we reviewed their websites. Despite this, we were still able to get a glimpse into what many districts were doing.

Through the data we collected, we found information on grading procedures for 178 districts and charter schools. Of those, we found that fewer than 15 percent of districts and charter schools stated that they graded coursework for credit during the school shutdowns. Forty two percent opted for a hold harmless approach to grading. These schools decided on a baseline for students’ grades—possibly their grade the last day of in-person classes or 3rd quarter grades—and any work a student completed during the shutdown could only raise that grade, not lower it.

Additionally, we sent out a survey to all superintendents in the state and asked key questions about how their district educated their students during the lockdown. While the survey responses from districts and charters were not necessarily representative of the state, we did receive 70 responses. Of those, just one district responded that it was conducting grading as normal. Another nine districts responded that they were still grading, but grades counted for less than they would under normal circumstances. Thirty-nine districts, or just over half, said they chose hold harmless grading.

Given how unexpected and sudden the COVID-19 shutdowns were, some patience as districts adjusted was necessary. It may have taken some time for schools to work out any mishaps or miscommunications before grading could take place, and families were also adjusting to a sudden change in responsibilities. But still: Almost no Missouri students have done graded work for over five months. If normal grading procedures resume this fall, it would indicate that districts are again teaching material to students. If not, it could be another semester for students without much learning.

The post Did Missouri Schools Grade Coursework during the COVID-19 Shutdown? 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 petition gets a few things wrong.

The first problem is the claim about the test using 20 percent of the funds. According to the fiscal guidance on DESE’s website, “90% of (CARES Act) funds must be distributed based on the Title I formula (FY19), with equitable services provided to non-public schools.” Title I funds go to items such as instructional supports or behavioral programs in schools. That leaves 10 percent for “administrative costs and the remainder for emergency needs as determined by the state educational agency to address issues responding to coronavirus, which may be addressed through the use of grants or contracts.” The diagnostic test for students would be constrained to this portion of the money. DESE’s current proposal for the test would use $10 million, less than 6 percent of the CARES Act budget.

Second, a DESE administered diagnosis test would not cost the state millions of dollars, as the petition goes on to suggest. While Missourians do pay federal taxes, CARES Act money has already been allocated to states for things like testing.

Third, despite what some may think, DESE has an obligation to find out how much learning loss has occurred throughout Missouri. We know COVID-19 has caused more learning loss than what would normally occur over the course of the summer due to additional missed class time in the spring. To start addressing the issues caused by COVID-19 learning loss, we first need to understand the extent of the problem. Rather than a “misuse” of emergency relief funds, this test could be a crucial first step in helping our students.

Fourth, if individual schools or teachers create their own tests, as is suggested in the petition, it would not help identify which schools need the most support. If you ask more than 500 districts to create their own diagnosis assessment, you may get 500 completely different assessments. Without a common assessment, there would be no accountability and no basis to develop plans to address shortfalls.

To my fellow teachers who signed the petition: Let’s do our homework on the facts and let’s instead support DESE in gathering the data it needs.

The post Teachers Should Do Their Homework on the CARES Act appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dear Missouri teachers and all Missouri citizens:

As a Missouri public-school employee, I don’t pay into Social Security; I pay into the Public School Retirement System (PSRS) pension—to the tune of 13-15% of my salary.

The Missouri pension system for public employees REPLACES Social Security (i.e., I will never get Social Security or my spouse’s SS); that’s why the word “pension” misleads a lot of people.

We don’t get both.

Last month, a Missouri state representative from Nixa, MO, introduced a bill to change the current funding structure for teacher pensions to a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan, claiming that taxpayers might need to pay for any shortfalls in future years should the funds not be adequate. THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Missouri’s PSRS has long been admired nation-wide as one of the MOST SOLVENT pension plans IN THE NATION.

We (teachers) are not the enemy; we are not the problem. Missouri’s financial problems should not be balanced on the backs of teachers who have paid into the system for their entire careers. The Missouri government set the rules. We have followed them. They have not. Now, they want to blame teachers for the State’s money woes, and steal from teachers’ retirement again!

Please call your state reps to support teacher-retirement funding and not changing it!

PLEASE.

Claim 1: “I pay into Public School Retirement System (PSRS) pension— to the tune of 13-15% of my salary.”

MOSTLY TRUE

Since 2012, Missouri teachers have paid 14.5 percent of their salary into the public school retirement system. This is matched by another 14.5 percent from the employer. It rose steeply from around 10 percent in the early 2000s in an effort to address unfunded liabilities (See Figure 3 here).

Claim 2: “The Missouri pension system for public employees REPLACES Social Security (i.e., I will never get Social Security or my spouse’s SS); that’s why the word “pension” misleads a lot of people.”

MIX OF TRUE AND FALSE

Missouri teachers do not pay into Social Security, but they may still be eligible for a benefit. According to the PSRS website, teachers “may qualify for Social Security benefits if you have 40 units (10 years) of Social Security-covered employment. You may also be eligible for benefits from Social Security through your spouse or ex-spouse (living or deceased).”

Claim 3: “Last month, a Missouri state representative from Nixa, MO, introduced a bill to change the current funding structure for teacher pensions to a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan…”

FALSE

House Bill 864 does not change the structure of current defined-benefit pension system for anyone in the system. In fact, it sets the current PSRS system as the default option for all incoming teachers. It would simply allow teachers the option of choosing a defined-contribution (DC) plan if they want to. Teachers who opt into the DC plan could chose to contribute between 3 and 50 percent of their salary into their own individual retirement account. The school district would be required to contribute 5 percent. If teachers wanted to stay with their traditional plan, they could. HB 864 would just give them more options.

This is a very important point that is worth repeating. The current bill, which has not even been referred to a committee and has virtually no chance of passing, would not change anything for anyone unless the individual teacher chose to opt into the DC plan. (To find out why some teachers might choose a DC plan, click here.) Florida has a DC option and roughly a quarter of teachers choose this plan.

Claim 4: “Missouri’s PSRS has long been admired nation-wide as one of the MOST SOLVENT pension plans IN THE NATION.”

MIX OF TRUE AND FALSE

Yes, it is true that PSRS is rated as one of the best funded pension systems in the nation. According to PSRS, PSRS was 84 percent funded as of June 30, 2018. This amounts to over $7.4 billion in unfunded liabilities. According to an analysis by Rebecca Sielman, an actuary at Milliman, this puts PSRS in the top quarter in terms of funded ratios among the 100 largest U.S. pension plans. This fact, however, says more about the sad state of other systems.

It should be noted that these comparisons are slightly suspect as they are based on plan reporting, and plans use very different assumptions. In determining that PSRS is 84 percent funded, the plan uses a high assumed discount rate of 7.75 percent to calculate liabilities. The median discount rate was 7.5 percent. That difference may not sound like much, but when you are talking about compound interest on billions of dollars, it adds up quickly. As Sielman writes, “A relatively small change in the discount rate can have a significant impact on the Total Pension Liability.”    

In an analysis for the Show-Me Institute, economist Andrew Biggs shows that if PSRS used a Corporate Bond Yield rate of 4.26 percent, the plan would be 52 percent funded and would have over $27.7 billion in unfunded liabilities.

It’s important to understand that not all of the money that is contributed to a teacher’s pension actually ends up funding the pension. Teachers contribute 14.5 percent of their pay into the pension, and their employer adds an equivalent amount, so the amount that goes into the pension is equal to 29 percent of the teacher’s salary. Only 17.44 percent is required, according to plan actuaries, to pay for the teacher’s retirement benefits. This means nearly two-fifths of the contributions are used to pay for unfunded liabilities (see p. 106 here).

Claim 5: “Missouri’s financial problems should not be balanced on the backs of teachers who have paid into the system for their entire careers. The Missouri government set the rules. We have followed them. They have not. Now, they want to blame teachers for the State’s money woes, and steal from teachers’ retirement again!”

COMPLETE NONSENSE

Ok there isn’t really a claim here, but there is a completely nonsensical assertion that this bill would somehow take money away. A version of this myth has been repeated numerous times—they want to take our pension money to pay for roads is a popular one. This bill (and every other pension reform bill that I have ever seen in Missouri) would not touch teacher contributions to the system. There is absolutely no mechanism for the state to take that money.

CONCLUSION

Teachers who spread viral posts with completely inaccurate information do not reflect well on their profession. Why are you trying to scare your colleagues? And have you thought of the unintended consequences?

My advice, teacher to teacher, is the next time you see a viral post like the one above and feel compelled to do something, consider this: read the actual bill, think critically, and do not blindly share hyperbolic posts filled with factual errors.

The post Viral Facebook Post about Missouri Teacher Pension Bill Is Filled with Falsehoods appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Governor’s statement matches the sentiment of previous writings by my colleague, Patrick Ishmael. The costs for our state’s Medicaid program are too high and are continuing to grow. It would fiscally irresponsible to consider adding more people to the program until our policymakers can get a handle on the program’s biggest cost-drivers. Missouri is not alone in the struggle to contain growing health care costs, but that is not a reason to sit idly by as scarce state revenues continue to be diverted from other priorities. With that in mind, our policymakers should consider looking outside Missouri for potential solutions.

Several other states that have declined to expand Medicaid have submitted proposals to the federal government for initiatives that would help contain costs. Two of those proposals, Wisconsin’s and Florida’s, were recently approved and offer policy ideas that could benefit Missouri.

Wisconsin is the first non-expansion state for which a work requirement proposal was approved. Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have written about the potential benefits of work requirements in Missouri. Unfortunately, Missouri’s lawmakers considered but were unable to pass work requirement legislation in 2018. With the federal government indicating new willingness to accept such proposals, perhaps this issue could serve as a starting point for Medicaid cost containment and reform discussions in 2019.

Florida’s proposal allows the state to reduce its retroactive eligibility requirement for non-pregnant adults from 90 to 30 days. Currently, Medicaid programs cover the medical costs of beneficiaries up to three months prior to their application to the program, provided the individual was deemed to have been eligible during that period. And while the existence of that coverage may seem surprising, the reduction of that retroactive window could actually be beneficial to applicant, the idea being that a shorter period of retroactive eligibility incentivizes beneficiaries to apply as soon as possible when they get sick and believe they are eligible. Florida officials also believe the policy will encourage the maintenance of coverage, even when participants are healthy. On top of that, it is estimated the policy change could save up to $98 million annually, though it is unclear at this point how those savings estimates would translate to Missouri.

Both policies have the potential to save the state tax dollars, but neither of them should be expected to fully address the growth in Medicaid costs. Nevertheless, lawmakers shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. There are certainly other possible avenues for reform that could help address the “failing system,” but these already-federally-approved initiatives may be the easiest place to start.

The post Opportunities for Medicaid Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Were there health-related complaints or reports of people getting sick from the food? No—they simply did not have a permit to be serving food. The group is not a nonprofit; it is just an informal network of people in the Kansas City metro area giving of their own time and resources, so getting permits for the weekly gatherings would not be so simple.

If the group had a track record of making people sick or there were other safety concerns, then it would make sense for the Health Department to step in and shut them down. But does the city really have a good reason to disrupt this community of individuals who want to feed and build relationships with the homeless and those in need? If the city does have health or safety concerns beyond the lack of a permit, it should make that clear. But with areas of need in the city, it seems that Kansas City could use more of these organic communities, not fewer of them.

In the discussion forum on the group’s Facebook page, several people noted that the police officers and some of the inspectors were not happy with having to shut down the gathering and throw away the food—so we’re not dealing with heartless city officials here. The problem is that there are regulations in place, and they have to be enforced.

Unless there are compelling health and safety reasons to keep them in place, shouldn’t Kansas City—along with other cities in Missouri—identify and amend these kinds of regulations that get in the way of people reaching out to those who are less fortunate?

The post Why Is the KC Health Department Stopping Neighbors from Feeding the Homeless? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Important details of the new terminal remain unknown. We don’t know the final costs. We don’t know the financing details, or how building contracts will be awarded. All those things are being reevaluated now. Voters should vote no on Question 1 until they know exactly what is being asked of them. This is too important to get wrong.

Voters approved the measure by a wide margin, with three-fourths voting yes. It was a clear mandate to move forward. But the details remain murky even to insiders. Just last week, the City Council voted 9 to 4 against a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate. Following the vote, Mayor James described the vote as an “ambush” and excoriated his colleagues, saying “you can’t lead people you can’t trust. . . You can’t lead people who sneak.” But Councilman Quinton Lucas, who supported a yes vote on Question 1, told The Kansas City Star,

There’s a reimbursement agreement that obligates the city to potentially millions of dollars, a number of those costs incurred before the election. There was absolutely no detail on financing. I know we want flexibility, but we also want to know what we are binding the city to, potentially for years to come.

Lucas was not alone. Councilman Scott Wagner, who also supported approval of Question 1, issued a statement about his concerns on Facebook in which he detailed important matters that appear to be unresolved in the MOU. He indicated that he had been raising these concerns for quite some time. Just before the vote, Kansas City’s Black Chamber of Commerce said that the MOU before the Council lacked transparency and were “weak for minority participation.” As David Hudnall at The Pitch writes in an excellent overview of the debacle, the astonishing part is the failure of the MOU to protect the city’s interests.

These were all the same concerns I detailed before the public vote, and it is a shame that they were not addressed before the Council vote. Given all this, it’s surprising that Mayor James did not know that 9 of his colleagues were going to vote against the MOU. But in an effort “marked by distrust, misinformation, unnecessary secrecy and conflict,” maybe it should be no surprise at all.

The post The Airport and Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s a two-part idea – beginning with the proposition that the robots are coming and they are about to change all of our lives – mostly for the better. Think of having a machine that can respond to the command, “Hey, Robot, build me a house.” The upside will be greater ease and prosperity; the only downside will be massive unemployment. Says Tesla CEO Elon Musk, “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that robots can’t do better.”

The 19th-century Luddites had the same fear of automation. During the Industrial Revolution, with mechanization replacing manual labor on an unprecedented scale, their proposed solution was to smash the new machines that were taking jobs away from some people (even as they were creating new jobs for many more people).

The 21st-century Luddites – Musk, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and other big names in Silicon Valley – have a different solution. Rather than smash their own machines, they are promoting a “universal basic income” (UBI, for short) to take care of people unable to find work because of the job-destroying robots.

A UBI of, say, a couple thousand dollars a month for unemployed yet able-bodied adults would create a whole new “safe space” – freeing millions of people from the nasty necessity of having to go out and find work in order to enjoy life unencumbered by financial difficulty.

“We should have a society that measures progress not just by economic metrics like GDP, but how many of us have a role that we find meaningful,” said Zuckerberg in a recent speech at Harvard. “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”

Musk argues that unemployment and economic output will both rise as a result of greater automation, leaving society with “no choice but to distribute a portion of the money to everyone equally.”

Let’s try to talk a little sense here. Who is to pay the vast sum of money needed to create a new leisure class of non-workers if not the people who continue to work? And in the long history of automation, has there ever been a time when a rapid expansion in unemployment (as happened in the Great Depression) was accompanied by a still more rapid expansion in GDP. The answer is never.

More importantly, automation creates more employment than it destroys. During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, automation made weavers who worked on ancient looms obsolete. But the number of people working in textiles exploded. That is because capital investment in labor-saving devices raised productivity, lowered prices, improved quality, and left more money in people’s pockets to spend on things besides the bare necessities.

The Silicon Valley superstars promoting a UBI display an incomplete understanding of how free-market capitalism works. It depends upon human motivation no less than technological innovation. Under free-market capitalism, people compete with one another to satisfy the needs of others. Rather than living off the sweat from the brows of other people, they have the satisfaction that comes from earning their own way and living useful, purposeful lives.

On this Labor Day, let us celebrate the enduring value of work. There may be other motivations for a basic income, but a fear of robots destroying all the jobs absolutely shouldn’t be one of them.

The post The Utopian Apocalypse: Silicon Valley Freaks Out over Automation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, there is a terrible myth going around about teachers. This myth is pervasive and has been around for decades. It is the belief that teachers are badly underpaid.

Jay Greene, Distinguished Professor of Education Policy at the University of Arkansas, wrote about it in his influential 2005 book, “Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe about Our Schools and Why It Isn’t So.” Greene argued that when we compare a teacher’s hourly rate to those of other professionals, the pay is quite comparable. He also noted that we must consider other employment benefits, such as health care and retirement, which are typically more generous in education than the private sector.

Despite these arguments, the myth of grossly underpaid teachers has persisted. Recently, an Education Next poll asked respondents if they thought teacher pay should increase, decrease, or stay the same. Overwhelmingly, respondents said we should “increase” (47%) or “greatly increase” (14%) teacher pay. That in and of itself isn’t telling; if it were feasible, most of us would happily pay teachers more. The telling part is what happens when survey participants are given actual teacher salaries. When people are told how much teachers are paid, support for pay raises drops.

Most people greatly underestimate how much teaches actually paid. In the survey, the average guess for the national average teacher salary was $40,587. That is $17,672 less than the actual average of $58,258. It is also less than the average here in Missouri, where the average total teacher salary in 2016 was $49,060. In Saint Louis City and County, the average climbs to $58,701 (author calculations).

 About two years ago I had to battle this teacher pay myth in my own home. My son came home from school saying teachers didn’t make very much money, at least that’s what his teacher said. I said, “I bet she makes more than me.” So, we looked it up (both of our salaries are public information). As it turns out, his teacher made several thousand more than I do.

The problem with the teacher pay myth is that it undermines a very noble and valuable profession. As Harvard education professor, Marty West suggests, “To the extent that the public has a falsely low impression of [how] much teachers earn, that only makes it harder for us to attract talented individuals into the teaching profession.”

 If we keep perpetuating the notion that teaching is a thankless job and teachers are underpaid, we shouldn’t be surprised when we have teacher shortages. Instead, let’s be honest—teaching is a great profession and the pay isn’t bad!

The post Teachers Are Great, and the Pay Isn’t Bad! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What was farmland near the lake not long ago is now subdivisions teeming with young families.  Over the past 20 years, the Wentzville School District, where Lake St. Louis is located, has grown nearly 200 percent, adding an average of almost 500 students each year. That population growth is the talk of the town today, as it is going to require the school district to build at least one new school in the near future. In doing so, the school board will change the boundaries of the existing schools.  This process will likely uproot hundreds of children from schools they already attend and force them to go somewhere else.

Folks are not happy. Petitions are being circulated. Facebook posts are being shared. The community is in turmoil.

This drama is not unique to Lake St. Louis, to Missouri, or even to 2016. As the American educational system evolved and matured, small schools and small school districts consolidated into larger and larger political units, from more than 170,000 public school districts in 1949 to the 14,000 or so bodies that oversee K-12 education today. This has empowered a smaller and smaller number of school boards to make decisions like where to locate schools, where to demarcate attendance boundaries, with whom to contract for busing and food services, how to compensate teachers, and many, many other decisions. At every point in this journey, as you might imagine, there was controversy.

Still though, it is popular to offer paens to local control, irrespective of political orientation. When education reformers tried to amend the Missouri constitution to change how teachers are evaluated, the Missouri’s NEA affiliate’s headline screamed “local control of public schools takes a hit.” When the NEA’s Michigan affiliate wanted to praise the recent Every Student Succeeds Act, they said that it “puts students ahead of politics; educators ahead of politicians; and local control ahead of federal mandates.” Similarly, Sen. Ted Cruz’s website states that “education decisions should be made on the state and local level, where parents and communities can be more involved and find solutions better suited to their kids’ needs.”

De Tocqueville wrote long ago, “local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations.”  Unfortunately, our local institutions governing education have been weakening in recent decades.  On the other side of the Show-Me State, the recent school board elections in the Kansas City School District didn’t have a single name on the ballot. Only one candidate got the necessary number of signatures to run in the election and was thus automatically elected, and the three other seats had to be filled entirely by write-in candidates.  

To turn a phrase of left wing activists around, is this what democracy looks like? Or, more pointedly for conservatives, what does local control mean in education today? 

Local control is not simply a tyranny of the majority on a small scale. Local control, properly understood, means empowering families, those “little platoons” that another lover of local control, Edmund Burke, so valorized, to make the best educational decisions for their children. It means allowing local community organizations like nonprofits and churches to operate schools where students are free to use their state support to finance their education.  It means interpersonal networks within communities coming together to share information about what schools are doing, which ones are better than others, and where children might thrive.

In short, is has nothing to do with having a school board.

Local educational bureaucracies have unfortunately become 14,000 mini-monopolies. They routinely fight charter school or private school choice programs that would give families more choices as to where they send their children to school. In fact, the National Association of School Boards officially opposes private school choice and makes anti-voucher talking points available on its website.  As the University of Pennsylvania’s Marc Meredith has shown, they purposefully schedule elections to drive down turnout to make it easier to get their desired outcome.  Rather than represent the will of the people, they represent the needs of the bureaucracy.

The people of Lake St. Louis tax themselves to provide for a quality education for the children that live in their community. What if rather than being geographically assigned to schools, students were free to attend whatever school in the district they wanted to? What if they could take the funds levied for their education to schools in neighboring communities or to local private schools because they were the schools that best fit their needs? That would not be incompatible with the purpose of public education or the intent of their neighbors. In fact, it would more tightly align with what the children themselves, not the bureaucracy that has arisen over the years, actually want.

It is long past time that we, in the spirit of Confucius, rectify the name of local control. It does not have to be synonymous with monopoly.  It does not have to fight innovation.  What it needs to do is empower—and reflect the will of—citizens and families. That is the vision of de Tocqueville and Burke, and that is something worth pursuing.

The post Local Control in Education, Properly Understood appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Feinstein pleaded guilty to charges stemming from his use of a credit card to steal about $105,000 from the health foundation he was working for in the early 2000s, news and court records say. He lost the money gambling.

Feinstein served a 38-day sentence in an Iowa prison. He completed his four years of probation.

Allegedly, the WNEA found out about the felony conviction on March 30. On March 31, the union pulled support by issuing a letter to WNEA members (see below).

Apparently the group also removed posts about Feinstein from its Facebook page. However, the WNEA did not alert the public to the issue or to the fact that they dropped support. As voters drove to their polling places, they passed scores of WNEA-approved signs supporting Feinstein. Some claim WNEA representatives were even standing in front of polling places holding these signs.

The election of a convicted felon to the school board brings up many questions. Should Feinstein have disclosed this information sooner? Did the union do its due diligence in vetting the candidate and disclosing the information once they found out about the prior conviction?

While these are important questions, there are some much more basic questions about the role of public-sector unions in elections. To which, this election should sound an alarm.

First, as the Show-Me Institute’s Brittany Wagner has written before, teachers’ unions are a special interest group that can have significant sway in elections. Teachers’ unions may be the sole special interest group active in local school district elections. The Wentzville School District has more than 1,800 employees, roughly half of which are certified teachers. Even in a relatively large district such as Wentzville, this can be more than enough to sway the vote when, as in Tuesday’s election, only a fraction of registered voters bothered to vote. The two candidates endorsed by the WNEA were victorious in the election and received almost the same number of votes. This fact leads to another question: Should we be concerned that when the union sits down to bargain with the school district, there are school board members whom the WNEA helped elect?

Second, dues-paying union members have no say in which political causes their dues support. Would most WNEA members have wanted any portion of their dues to be used to support Feinstein? This election, however, would probably just a drop in the bucket. Teachers’ unions are among the largest political contributors in the country.

This incident illustrates why Missouri should reconsider how we elect school board members and how those members interact with any unions in their districts. For example, should school board elections be in November where turnout is greater? Should collective bargaining negotiations be open to the public, not behind closed doors? Should public-sector unions have to make annual financial filings, just like private-sector unions, so their members and the public can know where union political support is going? Finally, shouldn’t teachers who want to be in the union for professional development and liability insurance purposes have the option before paying any dues to limit their payments to fund only those activities and not the union’s political activity?

These types of reforms may not prevent the election of convicted felons, but they would go a long way to ensuring taxpayers have a seat at the table when it comes to their local schools.

The post Election of Convicted Felon to Wentzville School Board Should Sound Alarm appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The response isn’t unusual. New City is a beacon of creativity in education. The private school is known for its academic prowess and unconventional atmosphere, where students call teachers by first names and climb to the tops of tree-house-like structures to use classroom computers.

Of all the fascinating elements that make New City one of the top schools in Saint Louis, the most interesting feature is its students.

‘There’s no bullying here,’ said one of the sixth graders I interviewed. Several other students went on to explain that diversity education is taught early on—individuality isn’t just tolerated, it’s celebrated. In a time when bullying has progressed from the playground to the internet, the perspectives of New City School students are rare.

According to one study, bullying victims are two to nine times more likely to commit suicide, the third leading cause of death among young people.

Since bullying often occurs outside school property after hours, public school administrators can do little. Families who cannot afford to move or pay private school tuition are left without options.  This is close to the situation Las Vegas mother Natika Bird found herself in before her daughter took her own life in early March.

“She had been getting bullied for a long time, to the point where the happy, bubbly girl that I knew changed,” she said. “They hacked into her email and they created a Facebook page and they massacred her.”

Bird said she had discussed the situation with Clark County School District police.

“The school police told me because it was not on school campus and after hours, I needed to call the regular police. The regular police told me, ‘You need to call the school police,’” Bird said.

Public schools have often addressed bullying through prevention campaigns and anti-bullying contracts, but sometimes, parents need other options. Bird’s daughter’s public school was not at fault for her death, but there should be a safety net for parents who have sought help and were told to look elsewhere.

School choice is that safety net. Though, New City School prides itself in attaining socioeconomic diversity by offering financial aid, choice is still limited for many children.

That all children should have the opportunity to enjoy learning without the fear of bullying is just another reason why Missouri should expand school choice.

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