During his State of the State address in January, Governor Mike Kehoe indicated Missouri is opting into the federal government’s new school choice tax credit program. The program resembles Missouri’s MOScholars program. Taxpayers can receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for donations up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting organization, or SGO, in Missouri. The SGO then distributes scholarships to families in Missouri seeking alternatives to their residentially assigned public schools.

For many families, the scholarships will be used to pay private school tuition. But the potential is broader. At least two public school districts in Missouri already participate in MOScholars, allowing nonresident students to use scholarships to pay transfer tuition; a similar arrangement may be possible under the federal program. Funds could also support homeschooling expenses, tutoring, after-school programs, or enrollment in a microschool (the latter is a fast-growing but loosely defined sector and there is no clear consensus on what defines a microschool). The eligibility criteria are still unsettled.

Non-traditional providers are pushing for few guardrails and minimal regulation, while others argue for stronger oversight and quality controls.

I have mixed feelings. The real value of this program is its potential to expand Missouri’s education marketplace. Competition improves quality in virtually every sector of the economy, and education is no exception. But markets don’t work well when consumers have poor information, so I’d like quality controls and transparency so parents can make informed choices. Here’s the tension: expanding choice and imposing quality controls can work against each other. To illustrate, consider a heavily regulated system in which schools that accept the tax-credit payments must administer standardized tests, publicly report results, and disclose detailed information about their curricula and finances. This level of transparency would reassure policymakers, but the problem is that we cannot force private providers to participate.

And if we make it too difficult (and too costly) to participate, which schools are the most likely to opt out? The answer: the ones that already have plenty of customers without this new program—likely the best schools. And if the best schools opt out, it undermines the value of the education marketplace we’re trying to build in the first place. (This is a complicated problem. See here for a deeper discussion in the context of research that finds negative effects of a voucher program on student achievement in Louisiana.)

I don’t have all the answers, but I hope Missouri lawmakers think carefully about how to strike the right balance, particularly if the federal government gives states meaningful discretion in implementation, which I expect it will. I’d favor a middle-of-the-road approach that requires participating schools to provide straightforward, low-cost information, but without overly burdensome regulations or reporting requirements. I want the best education providers to open their doors to more Missouri students; I don’t want to scare them away.

The post The Dicey Details of the Federal Government’s New School Choice Tax Credit Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Learn more about the book here: www.cato.org/books/fighting-freedom-learn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with James Shuls, fellow at the Show-Me Institute and head of the Education Liberty Branch at Florida State University, and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute about their new book, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. They discuss how the fight for educational freedom long predates modern debates over public schooling, why early advocates viewed schooling as a family and community responsibility, and how today’s school choice expansion connects to America’s founding principles. The conversation covers the history of the common school movement, the roots of residential school assignment, and why educational freedom has always been central to the American story, and more.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction

02:33 The Genesis of ‘Fighting for the Freedom to Learn’
05:41 Historical Perspectives on School Choice
08:04 The Evolution of Common Schools and Their Impact
10:59 The Role of Religion in Early Education
14:01 The Shift Towards Standardization in Education
16:43 The Need for School Choice in Disadvantaged Areas
19:29 The Historical Context of Property Taxes and School Assignment
22:17 The Recent Surge in School Choice Movements

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Certainly looking forward to this conversation with two very, very smart people: Dr. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Dr. James Shuls of Florida State University. James, can you first tell us about this new center that you are in charge of at Florida State University? I think it’s innovative and really cool, and I’d like to hear a little bit more about it before we talk about your book.

James Shuls (00:21)
Absolutely. So I’m with the Institute for Governance and Civics, and it was created by the legislature a couple years ago. And while I would like to take credit and say I’m in charge of it, as you sort of said there, Susan, I’m not in charge of the Institute, but I’m one of the branch heads. So the IGC, as we call it, has four branches. We focus on economic liberty, constitutional liberty, conscience liberty, and education liberty. I’m the head of the education liberty branch.
And so part of what we’re doing is outreach to K–12 schools, helping to focus on civics instruction, improving knowledge and preparation for teachers as it relates to civics and governance and those sorts of things. At the same time, we’re writing about issues of educational liberty from a school choice perspective, which is exactly the topic we’re talking about today.

Susan Pendergrass (01:12)
Yeah, so you guys have a book that you just co-edited, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. How did you come up with this idea, and why did you decide to put this book together?

Neal McCluskey (01:27)
Sure, I’ll go with that. The idea behind the book stems from just about everything I ever do, which is I got angry about something, and I was like, well, somebody ought to do something about this. If you work in school choice advocacy for more than a day or so, you’ll quickly hear that school choice started by people trying to avoid desegregation in the South. And that’s always given as the origin. And even if somebody wants to say, well, you know, Milton Friedman wrote this essay in 1955—and he really wrote it before 1955—we know that that was really just taking advantage, at the very least, of this backlash against desegregation.
And it just drives me nuts. There is a very long, rich history of the idea and practice of school choice. So I thought, you know, somebody ought to do a book on that, and we can hit, sort of semi-chronologically, all the different eras in which this happened and the ebbs and flows. The Cato Institute and the Center for Educational Freedom, which I direct, also had something called the School Choice Timeline—this interactive online timeline that I put together also because I was angry. In particular, I wrote a chapter about the gap where not much was going on in school choice, and I wanted to explain the gap.
But we have lots of chapters—one on how progressives were really into school choice for a while, and how schooling worked before the common-schooling movement, and all sorts of stuff like that. The genesis was aggravation on my part, at least, about always hearing this narrative that school choice stems from efforts to avoid desegregation. And then I said, you know, James Shuls—there’s a guy who probably is angry a lot, too. Maybe he’d like to get in on this.

James Shuls (03:17)
Yeah, that’s right. Susan, I’ve been on the podcast before talking about some of my scholarship related to Virgil Blum. He was a real strong school choice advocate starting in the ’50s, did a ton of work, and gets absolutely no credit. I was angry that Friedman gets all the credit—he wrote this paper in 1955, yada, yada, yada—and then in the 1990s we get school choice programs. It’s like, well, a lot happened in that yada, yada, yada period that we’re not covering.
I had been writing about that when Neal came along with the idea to do the book. Part of what we’re doing as we frame this is saying: looking at school choice today through the current lens we have is the wrong way to do it. We think of school choice today as opting out of the public school system—but that only works to frame it that way if there is a public school system. Before common schools were around, people were still advocating for their kids, still trying to get schools created. So there was lots of stuff that wouldn’t fit the framework we have today.
What we’re saying in this book is these impulses for educational freedom have always existed, and we’re essentially tracing them from colonial times to today.

Neal McCluskey (04:36)
James’s stuff on Blum was also a major reason I thought, here’s a guy who could really contribute to this. I just stumbled on Blum in large part because of what James wrote. I was like, why do people not know about this guy?

Susan Pendergrass (04:41)
We did a whole podcast on it. I’ll tell you what makes me mad is that in the last month or two, tops, there have been articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post talking about low-income families—both in Florida and Arizona—generally Black and brown parents, who are participating in this right-wing conservative movement to kill the public school system because they think they deserve to be able to choose where their kid goes to school.
Even locally in political groups, people say, well, that’s a MAGA person, which means they support charter schools. When those two things get put into a sentence, it really makes my blood boil because I’ve been working in this space a long time. As we’re going to find out more, school choice is not a new thing at all. The latest iteration of it is not a MAGA thing or five years old or a COVID thing. Since at least 1990—at least 35 years—parents and activists like Howard Fuller were saying, hey, this isn’t right. We’re literally assigning kids to the worst schools and not letting them out. We ought to let them out.
Somehow this has become the Republican agenda to kill teacher unions and break up the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. That makes me mad. That’s why I’m really glad you guys put this book together. Let’s go back—not to the very beginning of the country—but pre–industrial revolution, pre–John Dewey, before standardized schools, attendance zones, and district lines. What did it look like, say 150 years ago? Did parents decide where their kids went to school, or did you have to go to a certain school because that was the one you helped pay to create? How did it work back in the day?

James Shuls (06:50)
I’ll jump in here because I’m awfully angry about this. Before common schools, there was a wide mixture of different types of schools. You had dame schools, private schools, public schools, and publicly funded private schools.
What you get in Charles Glenn’s chapter, “Emergence of the Common School Ideology,” is an understanding of the movement towards common schools. The impetus behind them was really to separate schooling from the family and the community and to use schools for social change. That’s the difference that comes in here—schooling would be used for social change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:29)
Mm-hmm.

James Shuls (07:35)
—to create and form Americans. Some people look at that and say it’s a good thing, but there are certainly negative side effects as well when you separate the impact of community and families. An interesting element that comes out in this book is that the common school ideology and the public school system that has come in its wake was created to form a certain kind of American citizen.
Then we get into Neal’s chapter, where Neal talks about the sort of gap where things aren’t happening. It’s because these systems were under attack. You see a reemergence in the 1950s—not just because of Brown and segregation—but because you start to have a return to some of these values and a return to trying to connect schooling and the family and the church.
When you look at school choice with this longer arc, rather than looking at the ’50s as your starting point, you see the various impulses that were leading pre–common schools, how common schools helped to squash some of those things, and how we’re starting to come back to a decentralized and pluralistic system.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50)
Certainly the common schools—also called public schools before 1900—were Protestant. They absolutely taught religion. They didn’t stop teaching religion until the Catholics started showing up. Then it was, yeah, maybe we get religion out of schools, right? Because we don’t want Catholicism in a public school. Public schools taught Protestantism; they just didn’t want to teach Catholicism. People think there’s always been separation—no religion in public schools—and that’s not true.

James Shuls (09:16)
That’s a key point in Matthew Lee’s chapter: Catholics turned to private schools. He would say it’s not necessarily school choice because the Catholics were saying you had to go to the Catholic schools—so no choice among Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic schools came up because the public schools were Protestant. Protestants went in—though not all in. There were some segments, which Neal could talk about, with the Lutherans.
By and large, Protestants supported the common school movement. Then there was a movement to secularize public schools. Again, that’s part of what happens in the 1950s with the return of Protestants starting to support school choice—because their capture of the public school system had been weakened and there were no longer Protestant schools.

Neal McCluskey (10:10)
Just as a pitch for the book: there’s so much good history in here that we won’t be able to talk about. You definitely want to get the book. It’s worth noting that for much of our early history—colonial period, early republican period, even into the common-schooling period—there wasn’t a separation people would recognize if you say, well, this is a public school and this is a private school. There were schools. There was education.
Government was sometimes involved in assisting private schools. Going back to British traditions, someone would provide—usually from the proceeds of owning land—funds to help maintain a school. In America, land was the one thing in superabundance, so that wasn’t as profitable. Governments would sometimes say, look, you’re running a school here; we’ll give you a little money to do it. There was often cooperation between government and schools.
The first voucher program that we’ve at least been able to catalog was in 1802 in Pennsylvania—specifically in Philadelphia. So this is not new. Go back more than two centuries and you had people like Paine and John Stuart Mill talking about helping people to consume education by funding parents so they can choose, not by funding schools.
Even as we have common schools, they were extremely localized. Think of the one-room schoolhouse—it was also the meeting house and often the church—serving pretty homogeneous communities. Even within what eventually became common schooling, there was a lot of differentiation where people could get the schooling they wanted. It’s only as progressives consolidate control that we move far away from that community-level, very small schooling.

Susan Pendergrass (12:13)
I thought it was so odd that Maine and Vermont have had town tuitioning of high schools for a couple hundred years. Where the town didn’t want to build a high school, they just paid tuition for their high school students to go to a different school the student picked. In some cases it’s a boarding school, even overseas. They were challenged in the Supreme Court within the last couple of years, even though those programs have existed for hundreds of years.
All of a sudden, people who don’t like the voucher idea went after Maine for town tuitioning, even though that program has been in place for so long.

James Shuls (12:53)
That radical right-wing bastion in Maine.

Susan Pendergrass (12:55)
—decided at a town meeting to do it. I think as you get into the earlier or middle part of the last century, you start building up this industrial education complex: we’re going to be the great equalizer; everyone’s going to have the same kind of school; 20 kids and a chalkboard and teacher; separate kids by age, not ability; common standards; and we’re going to be in charge of it.
Anyone who disagrees with what’s being taught there is seen as a radical who wants to break the system and doesn’t understand the importance of it. That’s what I feel has been happening lately, where any parent—my own experience: I homeschooled one of my kids and was considered a radical because why wouldn’t I accept that the public school to which he was assigned would be best for him? The idea that uniformity is what we need.
I still think there are a lot of people within the public education establishment who say uniformity is the key. We are clearly seeing a backlash, but the uniformity principle—maybe 75 years, maybe the 1950s—would you say?

Neal McCluskey (14:15)
It depends. In the early republican period, people like Benjamin Rush said we need schooling for everybody to make them into good citizens—into “republican machines,” his term. Horace Mann certainly wants to standardize people. Not because of Catholics at the beginning—they hadn’t come in at great numbers—but because he saw people coming in from the countryside.
New England industrialized first—relatively poor farming area, but lots of rivers to run factories. These early factories with big water wheels. Mann saw parents coming from the countryside and thought they were all idiots. He thought we needed to take their kids away from them and standardize them. So we started it even at the very beginning.
It gets even more standardized as more immigrants arrive and people get scared of them. One overarching theme of the history of school choice: it’s about people who do not fit into whatever mold the elites decide. Catholics didn’t fit the Protestant mold. In my research, Germans were most disturbing for people because they spoke German—people said, they really need to speak English. We have a thread of fear of Germans going back to colonial Pennsylvania.
The chapter on African Americans is particularly powerful: it talks about a system that never wanted to incorporate them. They needed freedom to get the education people were denying them. That’s the big theme—people who don’t want to be standardized or who are refused help need school choice to get something out of education.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13)
I’ll only say that’s true today. It’s ironic that the kids with the least options—the most disadvantaged kids in the worst schools—are the ones people openly talk about denying options to. Even in Missouri, when public school choice is considered, some of the lowest-performing districts say, okay, but not us. We can’t let kids out of our district because we’re one of the worst in the state and everyone will leave and take money.
They want to draw a line and say, whatever unfortunate child got assigned to this school, we cannot let them leave. That’s flipped on its head. That child needs choices as much as every other kid. They say, no, we have to lock those kids in and strap them to the deck of a Titanic. Why do you think that is, James?

James Shuls (17:07)
I’d say Ron Matus’s chapter on the progressive movement toward school choice is terrific for the points you’re making. There was a tremendous progressive move for school choice in the ’70s and ’80s that culminated in the early voucher programs.
They were making exactly the cases you’re making: we should not assign students to failing schools; school choice was progressive in that it allowed disadvantaged students to opt out and get the type of school that would meet their needs, and to bring competition into the marketplace. The progressives were making the case for school choice exactly because the most disadvantaged students needed it the most.
That’s why the recent idea that school choice is a MAGA movement is off. The progressives got there first, as Ron and others explain.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
One last thing. I have a hard time articulating to folks who believe there’s an ironclad connection between property taxes and school assignment that goes back to the beginning of time and must continue until the end of time: if you pay property taxes here, your kid goes to school here; if you don’t, your child doesn’t get to go to school there. I don’t want any kids coming into my kid’s school if their parents didn’t pay property taxes.
I think that is particularly strong in Missouri. In St. Louis County we have dozens of school districts within one county. People feel very strongly—even supporters of school choice—about this property tax/school assignment idea. They can’t get past it. What would you say to that? You lived in St. Louis, James; what do you say?

James Shuls (19:13)
We didn’t write the book through this specific lens, but if you read closely you see this: the system evolved over time. You had a radically decentralized system. Horace Mann and the common school movement advocated for state structures and more organization. Over time it evolved to the system we have today.
From the founding, the idea of residential assignment where local property taxes only follow the kids—and the high level of state and federal regulation—was not anyone’s early vision. It’s not the system most people would advocate if they could design it from scratch. We get wedded to the structures we have.
What we have to do is step back and ask, is this the way it should be? I think the answer is no. We shouldn’t have systems that restrict resources to small local communities and assign students, because we get the problems we all see: high-poverty districts with struggling schools and students assigned to terrible schools with little opportunity for the types of coursework and experiences that lead to success. The system we have isn’t inherently good just because it’s the system we have.

Neal McCluskey (20:57)
We probably needed a chapter on the history of taxation to answer this directly. My suspicion is that for a lot of our history we didn’t have a lot of income tax or other taxes, and drawing on the English tradition, we probably funded things at the community level with property taxes—very local and democratically controlled.
It’s not until the industrial era, with consolidation, that communities stopped running their own schools. My guess is that’s the history of a lot of this property-tax and local-tax funding. But things have obviously changed.
My colleague Colleen Hroncich always points out: it might have made sense to have local public schools when nobody had a car and most people walked places. You couldn’t travel 10 or 20 miles every morning to drop your kid off. That doesn’t make sense now—we have modern transportation—so we don’t have to be shackled to the school a mile or two away.

Susan Pendergrass (22:04)
See you next time. I also think that starting in the 1950s—partly because of Brown v. Board—states and then the federal government started tinkering with the distribution of tax dollars to districts to give more money to poorer districts and less to wealthier districts. That’s been going on with funding formulas. I’m not sure any of them have had an impact on poor kids or reducing achievement gaps, but they thought that moving levers at the state and federal level would get a different outcome.
In my opinion, wealthier districts with higher property tax bases and more local funding aren’t really impacted by those. Now they say, you can move kids around—but not from us—because we’re not part of that system where you move money around. We’re happy with what we’ve got. If you can afford to live here, fine; but they want to be left out of it.

James Shuls (23:10)
Sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to weigh in on that last point, because—reason to listen to the podcast and get the book—this is not in the book, but Virgil Blum had some correspondence with Milton Friedman back in the ’50s and ’60s. They weren’t closely associated; they were operating in different circles. But Blum sent Friedman something he had written and asked for feedback. Friedman responded.
One thing he said was, when it comes to the voucher idea, he thought it should start at the higher education level, not K–12. Then he said it should be at the level where the taxation or the money is supplied. So in K–12, that probably means vouchers should come from the local community, not from the state or the federal government.
So to your point: we had a system that relied more on local tax dollars, and Friedman was saying the vouchers should be local. But we’ve shifted over time to a system that provides a lot more money from the state and federal government than it used to. If you look across the country, every school choice program is a state system—very rarely do you have a district creating a voucher system. It almost always comes at the state level. Even Friedman was wrong from time to time.

Susan Pendergrass (24:44)
On that note, I know you have a chapter on this, but what about this explosion of school choice? Now it feels unstoppable. We have more than a dozen states with universal-ish programs. At least five states have truly universal school choice systems. Why now? Why has it picked up steam so fast after barely making progress through the ’90s and early 2000s?

Neal McCluskey (25:17)
Jason Bedrick has a particular take on it—which I think is probably right—but I think it has deeper roots. Generally, the idea is people are unhappy and increasingly unhappy with how they’re being served by public schools.
My theory—and I think a lot of people hold this—is that COVID made people realize that in a public school system, if a powerful minority or majority wants X and you want Y, someone loses. Many parents who wanted in-person school—generally well-heeled and used to getting what they want—suddenly couldn’t get it. They realized the system didn’t work for them even if they liked it in theory.
Anecdotally, in rich places like Montclair, New Jersey, people were at each other’s throats because many wanted mutually exclusive things. Then you had ideological battles over vaccination and mask requirements. Many say that virtual school let parents see what their kids were learning, and they didn’t like it—books like Gender Queer, how African American history is taught, etc. We haven’t shown concretely that anger was because of peeking into the classroom via Zoom, but it certainly coincided. People were angry.
Jason argues that, yes, people were unhappy, but it wasn’t really COVID; it was the strategy of reaching out to red-state parents in environments where you could get school choice, saying: public schools are teaching stuff you don’t like; you don’t want your kids trapped in that. All the big school-choice gains were in red states—the red-state strategy worked. Now the future is moving into purple and blue states. I think that’s right too, but the underlying driver is people realizing one system can’t fit everyone.

James Shuls (28:32)
I’ll weigh in here too. Friedman made the free-market case for school choice in the ’50s, and that case continued to today—choice, competition, rising tides lift boats. You also had the progressive case in the ’70s and ’80s—students shouldn’t be trapped in failing schools; create programs to help the most disadvantaged. Those arguments kept creating small, targeted programs, but not a wider audience.
A third element—cultural, right-leaning values—added a new coalition. It layered on top of the free-market and progressive cases. I wouldn’t say the movement is completely going to the right; it’s making arguments that appeal to those individuals.
If you go to a rural Missouri voter and say “choice and competition,” with one local public high school and one elementary school, that doesn’t land. If you say the most disadvantaged students in St. Louis and Kansas City need choice, the rural voter may not care. But if you weigh in on some conservative values, you reach a new audience. Maybe that’s part of what’s happened.

Susan Pendergrass (30:24)
Just a bigger tent. It’s clear we’ve only scratched the surface of your book—this is only a 30-minute podcast and there’s so much more in there. A lot of it is so intriguing—going back to the history of this country and realizing the system we have now is relatively new compared to the various systems we’ve had.
Parents don’t really care what the name is on the outside of the school. They care about how their kids come home at the end of the day—how much they appear to be learning. They want them challenged; they want them safe. That’s universal. Whatever system gets them there, they don’t care what it’s called or what it looks like. If they thought they’d get it out of a uniform system and now they don’t…
There’s so much in this book. You picked a lot of great authors—12 leading education scholars. When will folks be able to buy this book and read it themselves, and where?

Neal McCluskey (31:37)
It comes out November 11th. I think it’s available online—online bookstores everywhere—as well as the Cato website, Cato.org.

Susan Pendergrass (31:43)
And can folks reach out to you guys if they have any comments or questions?

Neal McCluskey (31:53)
As long as it’s nice stuff, they can reach out to me.

Susan Pendergrass (31:55)
I can’t promise them.

James Shuls (31:55)
The nice stuff can reach out to me; the negative comments go to Neal.

Susan Pendergrass (32:00)
Well, it’s great. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It’s a fantastic book, and I highly recommend folks get it and read it themselves.

James Shuls (32:09)
Thank you.

Neal McCluskey (32:09)
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Long Fight for Educational Freedom with Neal McCluskey and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This shift will ripple through many of our institutions that depend on population growth. Social Security is an obvious example. But there’s a broader problem: modern institutions are built for expansion, not contraction. Enter our public school system, which is already experiencing declining enrollment. Statewide, enrollment in Missouri public schools is down 4 percent since the pre-recession peak in 2007–08, a trend recent fertility data suggest will only accelerate. On top of this, traditional public schools must contend with the reality that families are increasingly choosing alternative schooling options (e.g., charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling).

Are we prepared to address declining enrollment in Missouri’s traditional public schools? My gut tells me no, and there are some worrisome indicators. For example, many Missouri school districts already have declining enrollment, in some cases stretching back decades. What are we doing about this? At the state level, one thing we aren’t doing is adjusting their funding to reflect fewer students. Missouri’s “hold harmless” provision allows districts with shrinking enrollment to continue receiving funds as if their enrollment hasn’t fallen. In effect, the state is subsidizing higher per-student spending in these districts (this is also happening elsewhere).

This bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach is manageable for now, but as more districts fall into the declining-enrollment category, it will be harder to keep overfunding them; education is one of many state priorities and our budget must balance.

More broadly, I worry school districts will be slow to close buildings, reduce staff, and otherwise cut costs in response to declining enrollment. These steps are painful and politically difficult, but delaying them only narrows future options. Ideally, districts—guided by the state—would use realistic enrollment projections to plan ahead. With proactive leadership, we could adapt to a new era of declining enrollment while minimizing harm to students. But if district and state leaders wait until acute financial pressure forces their hand, the cuts will likely be deeper and more disruptive.

The post Are Missouri’s Public Schools Ready for Declining Enrollment? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Senate Bill 63: Expanding Access to Extracurricular Activities for Nontraditional Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The size of Missouri’s kindergarten classes is getting smaller. The birth rate peaked in the state in 2008. Five years later, kindergarten enrollment in the state peaked at nearly 72,000 children. Since then it has steadily declined and total kindergarten enrollment is down by 10,000 students. The chart below illustrates the decline:

Missouri Public Schools Kindergarten Enrollment

It doesn’t take a demographer to see where total enrollment is going. Ultimately, every public school grade will be down by at least 10,000 students—which is a total of 130,000 from peak enrollment in the state.

There will no doubt be handwringing about teacher layoffs, school closings, and consolidation. But anyone who had been paying attention could have planned for this.  We’ve had a decade to adjust our perspective.

The post Public Education in Missouri Is Shrinking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Dr. Collin Hitt, Executive Director of the SLU PRiME Center and co-author of the paper “Taking Attendance: Estimating Homeschooling Populations in States Without Official Homeschool Data—A Pilot Analysis in Missouri”.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Homeschooling Trends in Missouri with Collin Hitt appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

During the COVID-19 pandemic many families formed small learning communities. These “pandemic pods,” as they were often called, caught the nation’s attention and were the subject of numerous stories in the New York Times and elsewhere. Now, though the pandemic is over, many have realized the benefits of alternative learning environments. With the expansion of school choice programs throughout the United States, new schooling options seem to be sprouting up everywhere.

Recently, I had the pleasure to attend the Heartland Hybrid and Micro Schools Summit where we heard from entrepreneurs who have started new schooling options in Kansas. It was exciting to see the possibilities that are opening as parents, educators, and entrepreneurs create unique schooling options to meet the needs of students and their communities.

Hybrid schools are schools that meet on an alternative schedule, blending school and home education. A hybrid elementary school, for example, might meet in person twice a week. The other three days, they will have intentional learning activities or experiences for students to engage in at home with their families. Some have called this hybrid-homeschooling, and it operates similarly to many of the homeschooling co-ops families have used for decades.

Micro schools are what they sound like, small schools. Often, students are taught in multi-age or mixed-grade classrooms. Some micro schools are intentionally small, with maybe 10 to 50 students enrolled. Other micro schools are startups that may grow into full-size schools at some point in the future.

Entrepreneurs are starting these schools for a variety of reasons. Some are concerned about the values taught in the local public schools, others want different teaching practices, and some find themselves as school founders almost out of necessity. In many cases, teachers themselves are the ones starting the schools.

• Josiah Enyart taught in the Shawnee Mission School District. He disagreed with school policies related to mask mandates during the pandemic and the district’s focus on critical race theory. After more than a decade in the classroom, he left and started Freedom Learning Academy.
• Madeline Herrera too was a veteran public school teacher. She loved leading her students through engaging, project-based learning activities. After a frustrating experience where her public school stymied her efforts with her class to engage in meaningful changes at the school, she started Limestone Community School in Lawrence, Kansas. She has made project-based learning the cornerstone of the school.
• When the Prairie Hills School Board voted to close the district school in Wetmore, KS, population 368, Analyssa Noe and other concerned community members jumped into action. They purchased the school building and started a new school, Legacy Learning Academy.

While this type of entrepreneurial activity is somewhat new in the heartland, it has been going on for a while in places with more generous school choice policies. In 2022, I contributed to a report, Leaving the Classroom but Starting a School, published by Step Up for Students, Florida’s major school choice organization. Our report highlighted the findings of focus groups conducted with 10 former public school teachers who founded private schools. The school founders in that report sounded a lot like the school founders I met at the Heartland summit. They were passionate educators who cared deeply about kids and had a vision for how schooling could be done better.

Hybrid and micro schools embody exactly what Show-Me Institute analysts have been writing about for nearly 20 years—when you empower educators and students with educational options, you unleash the creative and entrepreneurial spirit in education.

The post New School Options in the Heartland: Hybrid and Micro Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The single program started in Wisconsin in 1996 has grown to 75 school choice programs in 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And in just the last few years, 10 states have implemented universal school choice programs in which all or nearly all children in the state are eligible. These states are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama and Louisiana will be joining the list next year.

When the one million private school choice students are added to the 3.7 million charter school students the result is that one in five children in the United States is receiving a publicly funded education outside of traditional public schools. What was once considered controversial has become mainstream.

The post A Milestone Reached appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The National Hybrid Schools Project with Eric Wearne appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

DESE and the state board of education would have you believe that the pandemic has led Missouri families to simply keep their kids at home—just like the parents who are working remotely. That, they say, is the culprit. Incorrect. I have been making this point routinely over the past year. Missouri, as a state, has declining enrollment. Actually, K-12 enrollment is declining at the national level as well.

If you look at the following graph of the number of Missouri public school kindergartners each year, you can see that, after growing for a decade or so, enrollment peaked in 2013. Since then, pandemics notwithstanding, cohorts have been getting smaller and smaller. That peak is now in high school. Within a few years, the number of our high school graduates will begin a steady decline.

Missouri kindergarten enrollment: 2002–2022

If we take the position that this is a temporary problem and we manipulate the formula to make sure that overall funding stays the same (DESE actually asked for a $100M increase), we will be misappropriating taxpayer dollars. We need to fund the schools and students we have, not the schools and students we used to have.

The post Stop Blaming Homeschoolers 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.

The foundation formula—which is used to equalize public education dollars between property-rich and property-poor school districts—is based on the highest student attendance number in any of the last four years. It has always been the case that Missouri districts can pick the highest of any of the last three years to use as their average daily attendance (ADA), but the law was adjusted during COVID to allow districts to use any of the last four.

Here’s what puzzles me—this is still happening. According to instructions from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), in FY 2022 student attendance was “broadly impacted” by the Delta and Omicron variants and therefore, for FY 2024, districts can still use the highest attendance of the four previous years. Isn’t it time to stop leaning on COVID?

But here’s what this means in reality. Let’s take the district Fort Zumwalt district as an example. In 2021, it received an average of about $3,000 in foundation formula money per student. Even though its ADA in 2022 was 15,971, Fort Zumwalt gets to use its 2019 ADA of 16,856 for four years, giving it almost 900 ghost students to use in the formula. Moreover, its ADA has steadily declined from over 17,200 students in 2015 to just under 16,000 in 2022—this decline started before the pandemic. Statewide, using the maximum ADA for the past four years for all school districts results in a total of 65,500 ghost kids. Using the foundation formula’s per-student State Adequacy Target amount (the minimum amount the state says each student should receive in state funding) of $6,375 results in over $415 million in funding for students who used to be in attendance.

We know that kids have been on the move since the pandemic. Homeschool numbers have skyrocketed. Private schools have enrolled public school switchers. Some students may have decided that virtual schooling worked well for them, and some parents have gotten together to start their own schools. Public funding for education can easily keep up. We should be funding students where they are, not where they used to be.

The post Missouri’s Ghost Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These rules govern the types of scholarship organizations that can be created, the types of programs that are eligible to receive scholarship funds, including certified homeschool, and the final eligibility requirements for students who can apply for the scholarships. The only remaining hurdle is getting taxpayers to donate to the program.

The wheels of government don’t always move quickly, but at least in this case they have moved. Hopefully, by the fall, nearly 5,000 Missouri students will have Empowerment Scholarships Accounts. Missouri parents are finally getting more options for directing the education of their children without having to move.

The post Boxes Are Finally Getting Checked 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 downward leg of the K is made up of several types of students, including those who were not able to quickly transition to a virtual education of even modest quality. These students probably sat out the end of the 2019–20 school year and at least part of the following one. Incredibly, as of summer 2021, nearly one-quarter of Missouri students still did not have access to high-speed internet.

The bottom leg also has students—as much as 3.5 percent of enrollment in Missouri—who simply didn’t show up for the 2020–21 school year. We’re not sure where they are or how they’re doing. Finally, we have many students who have simply struggled for the last year and lost critical time in their education—from kindergartners needing to launch, to third graders needing to read fluently, to high-school students heading out into college or careers. These same students are likely among the most disadvantaged to begin with.

Of course, there are many examples of students who thrived last year and are in the top leg of the K. They may have attended private schools that knew tuition-paying parents were not going to settle for online learning for very long. They may have been public school students who found virtual learning to be a great fit. They may be in families that realized how great the homeschool experience could be as kids can work at their own pace with no limits.

It goes without saying that policymakers in Missouri—both the legislature and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)—need to focus like a laser on the bottom leg of the K. We need high-quality diagnostic assessments that will honestly inform students and parents about any academic growth lost to the pandemic. Then, we need to make public funds available to families so that they can find the academic resources their children need, from tutoring, to part-time learning hubs or pods, to private schools. We need to empower parents and fund everything they need.

The post It’s not about the ABC’s—It’s about the K appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once again, many, many parents are completely fed up with district leadership. In addition, teacher union leadership is whipsawing in what it does and doesn’t support for teacher safety. Most schools figured out how to safely provide in-person instruction by the end of the last school year. Now it seems like they’re scrambling for solutions. Last year districts were forced to create functional virtual education programming. This year they risk losing state funding if they bring it back.

Parents have been loudly expressing their frustration for at least a year and a half with having just one option for their children. Yet districts still think they can issue edicts (must mask/mask optional) that apply to each and every kid and expect that parents will just get in line? Those days, in my opinion, are over. Parents are suing. Parents are protesting. Parents are packing school board meetings.

One thing is clear: It is not only possible but also necessary to have a varied portfolio of schools from which parents can choose. It’s time to give parents access to public education funding to find a good solution for their families. That may be an education hub (or pod) at the YMCA. That may be a private school. That may be a neighboring school district with different policies. That may be homeschooling.

Florida is expanding its Hope Scholarship program to families who don’t want to send their children to schools that have mask mandates. At the end of August, Missouri will have a scholarship program for students with disabilities and low-income students. That program could be ramped up and publicly funded. Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has received nearly $3.5 billion in federal stimulus funding. It’s time for real leadership.

The post It’s Back to . . . Wait, What? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is good news and bad news here.

The good news is that for the first time, many of these families decided to take their children’s education into their own hands. They recognized the limitations of the traditional school system and opted for something better. According to the Census Bureau, homeschooling is up substantially, including in populations not traditionally thought of as homeschoolers. Some recent research on families who homeschooled and who personalized their children’s learning during the pandemic showed the benefits that they saw for their children and for themselves. Insofar as the pandemic helped spur people to rethink education and usher in the year of educational choice, the long-term effects will trend positive.

The bad news is that many traditional public schools are going to struggle in the short and medium term. As children filter back into schools this fall, they will have had vastly different experiences during the past year. Some will have accelerated, with more attention from their parents and creative out-of-school learning opportunities. Some will have declined, with low-quality remote learning stunting their development and disconnecting them from learning. Some will be a mixed bag. Teachers are going to have to figure out how to teach to all these different students at the same time.

As noted, the largest declines in enrollment came in kindergarten, where parents appear to simply be holding back their students for a year until school can return to normalcy. That is going to create a bubble of students that will work its way through the education system for the next two decades. Will schools have to operate extra classes each year as these students progress from grade to grade? How about college applications, with all these students applying at once? And what happens when they all hit the workforce when they graduate? The echoes of the pandemic will reverberate for multiple school years.

The post Missouri K-12 Enrollment Declined 3 Percent this Year appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By the start of the next school year, public education should finally be back to pre-COVID normal, right? Buses will be running and school buildings will be filled with students and teachers from 8 a.m. to 3 pm. Not so fast.

The most interesting (to me) takeaway from the April survey of parents is this. When asked “After (emphasis mine) the pandemic, if given the option, to what extent would you prefer schooling to be scheduled each week at home with a parent or tutor to provide the best education for your child?” just 47 percent of public school parents said they would prefer for their children to be educated “Completely outside the home.” Thirteen percent said “Completely at home.” The remaining parents want a combination of days in school and days at home—generally two of one and three of the other. Think about that—almost half of parents surveyed want a new normal.

Last spring, just about every parent with a school-age child was forced to try homeschooling. Clearly, many liked it and would like to continue. But the conundrum to me is what to do with the 4 out of 10 parents who want their kids home some of the time—say a couple of days a week. Should districts just ignore them? Should we assume that when that option goes away, those 20 million or so parents will just give in to reality?

Maybe it’s time to expand the definition of a public school. Could we have rotating in-person and at-home schedules? Could we let teachers form micro-schools with a few families from their school? Could we let the education hubs that have popped up to facilitate public education, like YMCA’s or Boys and Girls Clubs, get fast tracked as charter schools?

One thing I know for sure: The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is going to distribute state education funding to school districts based on the average daily attendance in their buildings a year or two ago. DESE is essentially going to pretend that it’s 2019 and every school-age child will be in a building full time. Reconsidering the definition of a public school would be a better way to have money follow children to the environment of their choice.

The post What Parents Want appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download Infographic Here

How ESAs would be funded

• ESAs are not paid for through the state budget – Under the proposed ESA legislation, individuals and businesses would make a donation to a scholarship granting organization and in return receive a tax credit. Those donations would then be used to grant scholarships to qualifying students who could use the funds to enroll in another school district, a charter school, a private school, or cover the costs of homeschooling.
• ESAs do not directly impact the funding formula – As a result of this funding structure, ESAs may result in decreases in the general revenue through tax collections, but they will not directly impact the foundation formula funding for public schools in Missouri.
• Tax credits go to donors, not scholarship recipients – There is no connection between the individual or businesses making donations and those receiving scholarships. For example, making a donation does not guarantee access to a scholarship for your child and conversely, families do not receive any tax credit for paying for private school tuition or homeschooling expenses.
• There are no federal funds being redirected to support proposed ESA legislation – ESAs would be funded solely through donations that would be encouraged/rewarded through tax credits. No direct funding, either from the state foundation formula or from federal education funding is involved.
• Learn more here

ESAs actually increase funding for public schools

• Two amendments to HB349 would actually increase funding for public schools in Missouri if Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are finally passed.
  • The first amendment ties the operation of the ESA program to increasing state reimbursement for school transportation costs to at least a 40% level. In recent years the state has only reimbursed district schools for 10%-15% of their transportation costs, so this would be a major increase in funding, especially for rural schools. The same provision has been added to SB55.
  • The second amendment creates a “hold-harmless” condition that guarantees that any district that has students leaving their schools as a result of receiving an ESA scholarship will still receive state funding for that student for five years. This means that over a five-year period district schools could receive $31,875 in state funding for every student who receives an ESA even though they no longer have to pay for that child’s education.
  • See the final text of HB349 passed by the House: https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills211/hlrbillspdf/0711H.03P.pdf

ESAs are not vouchers and not the same as 529 plans

• Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are very different from vouchers used in other states:
  • Vouchers involve state funding being directly paid to private schools through a voucher distributed to families sending their children to those schools. Under the proposed ESA legislation, funds would be distributed directly to families who could then choose to use those funds in a variety of ways. As highlighted above, the funds sent to families would come from a non-profit scholarship granting organizations funded through donations NOT from the state budget.
  • Vouchers limit families to spending funds for private school tuition. The proposed ESA program would allow families to use funds for a wide variety of educational costs including costs for homeschooling, testing costs, tutoring needs, therapies for students with special needs, transportation to school, tuition at public charter and district schools outside of their home district and private school tuition. As a result, ESAs give families many more options to find an educational environment that meets their children’s specific needs.
• ESAs are not the same as 529 plans
  • Under current federal law, families can open a 529 savings account for their children, use funds in that account to pay for private K-12 tuition and receive the same tax benefits (about $500 in savings a year) as they would if they used the 529 account to pay for college tuition. While this is a benefit to families who can already afford private school tuition, it does not make accessing a private school a possibility for low-income families in the same way that an ESA would. The Show Me A Brighter Future Scholarship program that has been proposed would be funded the same way as Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, but instead of disbursing funds to families through a scholarship granting organization, the state treasurer would set up a 529 account for families receiving a scholarship and they would then use that account to pay tuition.
  • Learn more here

The post How Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let’s take a look at some enrollment data to see if that checks out. The following table contains only those districts that saw a 10 percent or higher enrollment drop between 2019 and 2020, as measured by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

As it turns out, quite a few parents chose to leave small rural districts. These districts only enrolled about 5,300 total students in both 2018 and 2019, but now over 600 of them have left. Because districts can base their state funding on enrollment from either this year, last year, or the year before, these students will continue to be funded even though they’ve left the district.

Where have they gone? We know that the homeschooling numbers in Missouri have increased dramatically in the last year and I suspect that explains many of the missing 600. Is it reasonable to suggest that these parents don’t need any financial support? At the state average funding of around $6,500 per student, nearly $4 million in state funding will go to these districts for students who aren’t enrolled. Meanwhile, the parents who have decided that their district couldn’t provide an acceptable education this year are left to figure out how to create one on their own dime.

It’s a convenient story that all rural parents love their local schools and have no need for school choice. It keeps all power in the hands of superintendents, school boards, and local teachers unions. But the facts suggest an inconvenient truth. Will legislators pay attention?

The post An Inconvenient Truth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.