Susan Pendergrass speaks with Cory Koedel, director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri education policy following the 2026 legislative session. They discuss the governor’s A to F letter grade executive order, why literacy legislation failed to pass, leadership turmoil at DESE, Show-Me’s latest Report on the effects of open enrollment, the case for expanding charter schools in Missouri, and more.

The post Missouri’s Stalled Education Reforms with Cory Koedel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As of today, no local school board has ever sponsored a charter school in their district, despite having the ability to do so. Until that trend is broken, the creation of charter schools depends on securing sponsorship from other state-approved entities, such as:

• 4-year universities;
• Community colleges;
• Private universities;
• Technical schools; or
• the Missouri Charter Public School Commission.

House Bill (HB) 1044 would expand charter access by allowing any state-approved sponsor to authorize a charter school in districts located within a charter county or in any municipality with greater than 30,000 inhabitants. This bill would be a major step toward increasing educational options, fostering competition, and driving innovation in Missouri.

Which School Districts Would HB 1044 Apply To?

Charter school expansion in this bill would be limited to school districts in or partly in St. Louis County, Kansas City, Jefferson County, Clay County, St. Charles County, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, Joplin, Jefferson City, and Cape Girardeau. According to my analysis of the bill language, only around 60 school districts would be included.

It should be noted that if a district has been provisionally accredited (or unaccredited) for three consecutive years, any of the listed state-approved entities can sponsor a charter school in that district. Recently, the Missouri Charter Public School Commission created a charter school called the Leadership School in the provisionally accredited Normandy Schools Collaborative.

The Need to Create a Truly Choice-Rich Educational Marketplace

Expanding charter access is a good step, but it is only one part of building a stronger educational marketplace. Open enrollment is another necessary policy for our state, and it can actually amplify the potential benefits a charter school can bring.

For example, the Arizona Autism Charter Schools attract families from significant distances, with some parents commuting as far as 50 miles to access better services for their children. This opportunity exists partly due to Arizona’s open enrollment policies, which enable the charter to serve students across the entire region rather than just one district.

HB 1044 again moves Missouri in the right direction, but there should be no restrictions on where charter schools can operate. Of the 43 states with charter schools, Missouri is the only state without a rural charter. That needs to change, as educational entrepreneurs across the state should be able to go to the Missouri Charter Public School Commission if the local school district denies their application.

Missouri must build on last session’s momentum and create a stronger, more competitive, and more innovative educational landscape where every family can access high-quality options, no matter where they live.

The post HB 1044 and Expanding Charter Schools in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My colleagues and I will delve into the various reforms in the days and weeks ahead, but here the focus will be on the new procedures and requirements relating to the four-day school week (4dsw).

First, this bill would establish a new voting procedure for larger districts that want to use a 4dsw schedule.

Under the new procedures in the bill, the district school board must pass the measure to implement a 4dsw. Then, the school board–approved proposal will go to a vote by the public. The vote would take place at the next date available for public elections. If a majority of votes are in favor, the 4dsw will be established.

However, this provision is limited, as this requirement only applies to school districts located wholly or partially in a county with a charter form of government, or located wholly or partially in a city with more than 30,000 inhabitants.

Essentially, this provision would be limited to school districts in or partially in St. Louis, Kansas City, Jefferson County, Clay County, St. Charles County, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, Joplin, Jefferson City, and Cape Girardeau. According to my analysis of the bill language, only around 100 school districts and charter schools (about 20% of districts and charters) will be subject to this voting provision.

This voting measure would likely better represent parental preferences, but why are smaller communities excluded from this new policy? Additionally, without open enrollment or greater educational choice policies in Missouri, there will still be numerous families trapped in a 4dsw district despite preferring a different schedule.

This bill also includes reforms regarding the minimum number of school days for districts. Back in 2018, SB 743 changed instructional time requirements in Missouri. At that time, public schools were required to be in session a minimum of 174 days and 1,044 hours a year—but with SB 743, the requirement became only 1,044 hours with no required number of days. Following this change (which took effect in the 2019–20 school year), the number of 4dsw districts in Missouri shot up from 34 to 62, and has since increased to 173 in 2023–2024, according to my own calculations.

SB 727 would re-establish a minimum number of required days in a school year (the 1,044 hour minimum will also remain in place):

• 169 days for five-day school week districts
• 142 days for four-day school week districts

This provision is also limited. The minimum number of days requirement, as with the voting provision, will only apply to school districts in the larger cities and counties mentioned above. Of those roughly 100 districts, only five use a 4dsw, and all already meet the 142-day minimum requirement. In fact, around 87% of all 4dsw districts in 2022–2023 had 142 or more instructional days. (It should be noted that the 169-day limit for 5dsw districts is still rather low—over 30 states have a minimum of 180 days or more. Not a single district or charter school in Missouri reached 180 instructional days in 2022–2023, outside of two charter Pre-K programs.)

While smaller districts may not be subject to the minimum day requirement, SB 727 has a separate provision that incentivizes creating more school days in a different way.

The bill states that any district that provided 169 school days or more will be remitted an amount equal to 1% of its annual state aid entitlement for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, and 2% for 2028 and onward. All monies from this additional aid must be used exclusively to increase teacher salaries. If a district does not meet the 169-day minimum, it is not punished, but it does not receive the extra money. This provision appears to be an attempt to incentivize a five-day school week schedule.

In a recently published literature review that I authored with James Shuls, we noted that districts justify their move to a 4dsw based on district finances or teacher retention and recruitment. Using numbers from the 2022–2023 school year and assumptions based on what the SB 727 fiscal note includes, I found that a 1% aid bonus would equate to an average of around $24,000 for districts that used a 4dsw in the 2022–2023 school year and a 2% aid bonus would equate to an average of around $48,000. On average, a 2% aid bonus for 4dsw districts would be equivalent to around 0.6% of a 4dsw district’s total expenses—not a huge sum to incentivize a major schedule change.

(For 5dsw districts, the average 2% aid bonus is around $173,000—equating to an average 0.5% of their expenses. It should also be noted that these calculations are based on 532 of the 553 districts and charters).

In 2022–2023, around 466 school districts and charters did not have 169 instructional days or more. About 30 districts and charters had 168 days of instruction, and about 110 districts and charters had 164 to 167 days of instruction. SB 727 will most likely move all of these districts to 169 days and incentivize other 5dsw districts to increase instructional days. If the goal of this part of the bill is to increase the number of days most Missouri students are in school, SB 727 could accomplish this.

However, if the goal of this part of the bill is to begin moving the 173 4dsw districts back to a 5dsw, this provision will probably be ineffective. It is too little money for too big a change, and many districts may argue that the savings they receive from using a 4dsw is higher than the aid they could receive. The fiscal note for this bill estimates that the state could end up paying districts $75 million via these bonuses. If there’s extra money lying around, wouldn’t it be better to spend it on something else, such as increasing funding for the ESA program?

With talks of more districts potentially moving to a 4dsw in the 2024–2025 school year, it will be interesting to see if the 4dsw will continue to rapidly grow in Missouri. For now, it does not appear that SB 727 creates any significant incentive to buck that trend.

The post How Will the Four-day School Week Progress in Light of SB 727? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Relying heavily on sales and use taxes may not be the best way to ensure reliable, stable revenue streams. Property taxes tend to provide a more stable revenue stream.

The City of Ashland in Boone County has a sales tax proposal on the April ballot. Typically, new sales tax proposals tend to be something like a quarter-cent for parks or a half-cent for transportation. But the Ashland sales tax proposal is for an additional one percent general sales tax on top of the existing one percent general sales tax. Ashland is proposing to use the new revenues for roads and police. This new tax, if approved by voters, would put the new Ashland sales tax rate at 3.5 %, which, as far as I can tell, would be the highest municipal sales tax rate in Missouri. It would be higher than Joplin’s sales tax rate, which at 3.125% is the highest rate for any large Missouri city. (We need to leave the City of St. Louis out of this because it is an independent city so there are no county sales taxes to consider.)

Ashland’s own promotional materials for the sales tax (which are clearly not just informational but actively promoting it) directly state:

Data show that an estimated 60 to 70% of sales tax revenue generated within the City of Ashland is paid by those that do not reside in Ashland. This sales tax increase will have the largest impact on those that do not live in Ashland. (emphasis added)

This continues the trend of many cities thinking they are smart by taxing “the other person,” even though plenty of other cities and counties are trying to do the same thing. You think your residents are getting a good deal by taxing those outsiders, but your residents are getting jobbed in the same way by the other cities and counties around them. This practice is at its most extreme with traffic ticket revenues. (The adoption of use taxes is the opposite of this—use taxes imposes sales taxes on residents of the community.)

Ashland has a relatively low property tax rate, which will be decreased further if the sales tax passes. This just further increases Ashland’s reliance on taxing shoppers and outsiders instead of people directly paying for the municipal services they use. Residents make smarter decisions about what municipal services they want when they are the ones paying for them, not when they can outsource the cost of running their municipality to non-voters. This is true with the earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City, and it is true with outlandishly high sales taxes in Joplin, Hazelwood, and Ashland.

I recognize that people in Ashland are not trapped. Residents and visitors may choose to shop in Columbia or Jefferson City if local sales taxes are too high. But that doesn’t mean it is good public policy to increase the sales tax rate as much as you can. The purpose of government is not to maximize revenue just for the sake of it.

I don’t claim to know for certain what “too high” is for sales taxes, but watching Ashland try to pass another general sales tax on top of the state, county, and local sales taxes the residents already pay makes me think that Ashland is almost certainly above it. Sales taxes have an important role in funding state and local governments, but Ashland city officials are taking things too far with their latest proposal.

The post Ashland Wants to Make Its Sales Tax How High? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For accredited districts (districts that meet the academic standards set by the state), only the local school board can sponsor a charter school. This has served as a formidable roadblock to charter school formation, as no accredited district has sponsored a charter school. However, if a school district is unaccredited (districts that fail to meet the standards set by the state) for three consecutive years, or has been provisionally accredited for three consecutive years, any of the other entities mentioned in the above paragraph can sponsor a charter school. Recently, the Missouri Charter Public School Commission created a charter school called the Leadership School in the provisionally accredited Normandy Schools Collaborative.

While the Missouri Legislature is most likely not thinking of charter schools in terms of nightclubs, the prospect of charter school expansion is being discussed to make the list less exclusive. Senate Bill (SB) 304 would allow charter schools to be created in any municipality with a population of more than 30,000 or any school district located within a county with a charter form of government. If SB 304 passed, charter schools could be established in:

• All currently eligible districts
• School districts in the following counties: St. Louis, Jackson, St. Charles, Jefferson, and Clay (a sponsor from a state-approved entity would be required)
• School districts in municipalities with more than 30,000 residents, which currently includes: Cape Girardeau, Jefferson City, Joplin, Springfield, and Columbia (a sponsor from a state-approved entity would be required)

SB 304 would be a solid first step to give parents outside of St. Louis and Kansas City more options. Columbia is a good example of a city whose residents could benefit greatly from this bill. In Columbia , English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics scores are below the state average—students in the district currently have 43.8% and 30.8% proficiency rates, respectively. Low-income students are particularly struggling, with rates of 24% and 13.1% in ELA and mathematics—around 7 points below the state average for low-income students. With these scores in mind, maybe a family in Columbia wants a charter school because it is unsatisfied with the instruction in the local district. Perhaps a low-income family could find a charter school that specializes in instruction for low-income students. Charter schools can provide these needed alternative options for Columbia families, and SB 304 would make it possible.

Charter schools of various types (classical, English as a second language, low-income, etc.) have opened in Kansas City and St. Louis. One school, University Academy, has been named a “Blue Ribbon School” (an honor bestowed by the U.S. Department of Education for schools that exemplify excellence). Families across the state want and need more options. Missouri is a diverse state, and families deserve a diverse array of options to cater to their children’s needs and hold education institutions accountable.

The post Expanding the VIP List for Charter School Eligibility appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One such very bad policy idea is right of first refusal, which grants major Missouri utilities the automatic right to win all bids on new electric construction lines if they so choose. You may want to read that again. It doesn’t just give major utilities the right to bid on all projects—that goes without saying. It gives them the right to win any project they want, no matter what any other utility or construction company may bid. The idea here is to funnel projects to Missouri companies and “protect” Missouri jobs at the expense of out-of-state competitors. If you think this raises prices on consumers, as any grade school economics textbook would predict, it does. Significantly.

My former Show-Me Institute colleague Jakob Puckett wrote about this issue last year.  The same bills have been introduced again this session, so we shall return to Jakob’s arguments from last year:

Wouldn’t it be better for the legislature to propose subjecting transmission lines to competitive bidding, rather than shielding them from it? Since transmission costs are ultimately passed on to customers, it’s customers who bear the brunt, or receive the benefit, of cost-inflating or cost-saving policies.

Missouri will need more electric transmission lines built in the coming years. To build those lines at the lowest possible cost, Missouri needs more free-market activity in transmission projects, not less.

The state-based protectionism here is really something. While you frequently see such types of anti-market, anti-consumer protectionism at the national level (such as the administration’s ill-conceived plan to require only American-made products in our infrastructure efforts), you rarely see it at the state level. But here we have it. It is bad at the national level (with some exceptions, of course), but at least one can understand where it is coming from. As for this one, I’m at a complete loss. Are we really willing to cast everything aside because a company based in Arkansas that hires workers from Oklahoma might offer the best bid (and thereby save Missourians’ money) for a project near Joplin? (That’s a hypothetical project, for the record.)

As Jakob said, we need more markets in electricity, not less, and these bills power us in completely the wrong direction.

The post ROFR Makes Me ROFL appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By now, we have all seen that wonderful photo of the young child sitting in the backseat of her parents’ car. You know, the one where the adorable blonde with buck teeth gives her mother the side eye. The meme has been shared countless times via social media. It also happens to exemplify the exact feeling I had upon reviewing the Heritage Foundation’s recently released Education Freedom Report Card.

The report ranked Missouri 17th overall in terms of education freedom. This ranking includes measures on “transparency,” “regulatory freedom,” and “spending.” But it was the ranking on “school choice” that stood out the most. The Heritage Foundation ranked Missouri 4th in the country in terms of having the best school choice environment. This ranking included considerations for private school choice, private school choice program design, charter schools, homeschooling, and public school choice.

The reason I was so shocked by this ranking should be obvious to anyone living in the Show-Me State—school choice options are almost nonexistent for anyone living outside of St. Louis or Kansas City.

This is what school choice looks like in Missouri.

Charter Schools

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that in Missouri there were 71 total charter schools in 2019—20 (Missouri ranks 27th in the number of charter schools). This accounts for 2.9 percent of total public schools (34th overall). In total, these charter schools served fewer than 25,000 students (28th overall), or 2.7% of all public school students (34th overall).

What the NCES rankings don’t reveal is that all these schools and all these students are in either St. Louis City or Kansas City. Missouri has had charter schools for more than 20 years. The first one ever to open outside of the major cities just opened this year; the Leadership School opened with 94 students in the Normandy School District, and it faced considerable opposition. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:

Normandy schools have not been fully accredited for the last decade and are under the control of the Missouri Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. In 2021, Normandy students scored lower than any district in the state in English with 14% proficiency and second lowest in math with 5% proficiency.

This is what number four looks like?

Private School Choice

The Missouri Legislature created the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program in 2021. Students are using the program for the first time this year. EdChoice reports that 51% of families in “applicable Missouri cities and counties” are eligible for the program. While that sounds impressive, it is not. The program is limited to counties eligible for charter schools or cities with more than 30,000 residents. Just as charter schools are out of reach for many in our state, these program restrictions put school choice out of reach for many Missourians. Furthermore, that 51% number includes everyone eligible based on income restrictions without taking into account other factors (200% of the federal free-and-reduced price lunch income level).

Even if you do live in Clay, Jackson, Jefferson, St. Charles, or St. Louis County (the eligible counties), or Columbia, St. Joseph, Joplin, Jefferson City, Cape Girardeau, and the City of St. Louis (the eligible cities) and you meet the income requirements, you still have other hurdles. Your child must meet one of the following criteria to be eligible: have an Individualized Education Program, be entering kindergarten or first grade, or have attended public school the previous year.

At most, based on the number of tax credits available for the program, the scholarship program could serve 3,900 Missouri students.

This is what number four looks like?

We are certainly glad to see the small gains Missouri has made toward greater educational freedom, but the work is not done despite this curious number four ranking.

The post This Is What Number Four Looks Like? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The cities covered in the report are:

• Ballwin
• Blue Springs
• Cape Girardeau
• Chesterfield
• Columbia
• Florissant
• Independence
• Jefferson City
• Joplin
• Kansas City
• Lee’s Summit
• O’Fallon
• Springfield
• St. Charles
• St. Joseph
• City of St. Louis
• St. Peters
• University City
• Wentzville
• Wildwood

Click here to read more, or download the report by clicking on the link below.

The post Tax Burden in Missouri’s 20 Largest Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If these students do one day get into the food truck business, one thing they will learn about is government regulation. Food trucks in Missouri are overregulated in many parts of the state—sometimes they are outright banned from operating in certain cities. While everyone would agree there are some safety rules that should apply to food trucks, such as not blocking busy intersections or parking in dangerous places, many places still engage in protectionism against them in favor of sit-down restaurants.

In some locales food trucks can operate, but not within a set distance from brick-and-mortar locations. That compromise is better than a total ban, and it may be a political necessity in some cities.

How are the food truck regulations in Joplin that these students may one day encounter? The good news is that the city allows them in the first place, and there does appear to be an active foot truck scene in the community.

But the regulations for food trucks appear to be heavy-handed. Don’t get me wrong, I know they are heavy-handed for restaurants, too. The obsession with “safety” in health regulations has led to things like banning popular (and perfectly safe) bake sales at schools. For example, in Joplin’s regulations I fail to see why a food truck has to:

“report to an approved commissary daily for servicing, food prep and cleaning”

There are other regulations on the list that seem unnecessary, but that is typical for the field.

But at least Joplin kids will be able to operate a food truck if they so desire, getting a real-world education in government regulations at the same time.

The post Joplin Students Learn About Food Trucks and (Perhaps) Government Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since moving to Missouri, I’ve (reluctantly) become accustomed to high sales tax rates that vary from city to city, and even from street to street. Special taxing districts, political subdivisions that can impose taxes, are often to blame for these high sales tax rates, as they add additional taxes on top of state, county, and city taxes. As we work through this economic downturn, many will feel the burden of these high sales taxes.

The chart below shows the highest general sales tax rates in select cities according to Missouri’s Department of Revenue. As you can see, general sales taxes can get pretty high all over the state, peaking at 11.679% in several areas of St. Louis City (specific sales taxes, such as hotel room rates, can get even higher). Even in places with smaller populations like Joplin, there are enough special taxing districts to push sales tax rates up to nearly double digits.

With little oversight and a flawed implementation system, special taxing districts have taken over Missouri. While these districts have been a growing problem for years, the poor state of the economy underscores how little we can afford more special taxing districts right now. Isn’t it time for Missouri to stop taking money out of the pockets of regular citizens and giving it away to wealthy developers?

The post The Burden of Special Taxing Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Measuring the success of economic development packages is challenging because it’s almost impossible to tell if any growth is actually due to the incentive package. Economic growth may have occurred without the incentivized project and new projects can happen without incentives. Research suggests that 75 percent of incentivized firms would have made the same location choice even without the incentive.

On top of that, the incentivized investments don’t always pay off. Tesla plans to build a large factory that could employ up to 7,000 people, but we’ve seen companies fail to live up to promises before (such as with Cerner in Kansas City). There’s really no guarantee that new jobs or infrastructure will come to the city as promised. Even if the jobs or infrastructure do arrive, it still might not be a net positive for the city, given the cost of the incentives. One study found that the costs and benefits of incentive packages are typically the same.

As I’ve previously pointed out, it’s probably not the best time to be giving out incentive packages. Government budgets are expected to be extremely tight due to COVID-19 and the resulting economic shutdown. Why should new, big businesses receive tax breaks while the citizens and businesses suffering through this pandemic in Joplin are left with their full tax burden?

With no guaranteed benefit and potential budget issues looming, offering $1 billion in incentives doesn’t seem like a great idea, and it definitely doesn’t seem like a good deal for Joplin’s citizens.

The post An Incentive Package for Tesla May Not Benefit Joplin appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

State and local government

Missouri has received roughly $2.096 billion for state and local government relief. $521 million of that must be distributed to counties and cities with populations under 500,000 within ten days of Jefferson City receiving the funds. St. Louis County has also received roughly $173.5 million and Jackson County $122 million. The money is to be used for non-budgeted coronavirus-related expenses.

Community health centers

Twenty-nine community health centers have received a total of $29.8 million for testing, treatment, and continuing primary care.

Education

Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has filed the appropriate paperwork to receive $208.4 million from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund. Further, the governor has announced that $54.6 million from the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund will also arrive to assist with K-12 and higher education, as well as $117 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help provide school lunches. Senator Roy Blunt has announced that Missouri will receive $206 million for colleges and universities, half of which will be immediately available for institutional and student use, as well as $66.5 million through the Child Care and Development Block Grant for early childhood education needs.

Transportation

The Missouri Department of Transportation has received $61.7 million from the CARES Act to be used for operating expenses and capital assistance for 30 rural agencies. Additionally, Missouri has received $152.4 million to be used for revenue assistance at 75 airports across the state.

Housing

$57.7 million in Community Development Block Grants are reported as being available to a combination of 16 Missouri cities, counties, and state government by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This money is supposed to be used as block grants, emergency solution grants, and housing opportunities for persons with AIDS. The Missouri Department of Economic Development has announced that it will receive $13.6 million of that total.

Unemployment

The Missouri Division of Employment Security has used more than $66 million in federal funds to provide additional unemployment compensation, although more compensation will be distributed once the state determines how to process workers in the “gig” economy.

Emergency management

Missouri can apply for roughly $1.86 million to assist with emergency management procedures ranging from data collection and sharing to response plan development. A 50 percent match in state funding for the program is needed to receive funding.

Public safety

The cities of Joplin and St. Joseph have received funds to assist with public safety expenses for a combined total of $170,000. Overall, $5.5 million is available for 28 Missouri county and city agencies and $11.6 million for state agencies, should they choose to apply for these funds.

Small business loans

Over 46,000 Missouri businesses have received loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, totaling slightly more than $7.5 billion.

Summary

Received: $10.201 billion

Expected: $710.2 million

Available through application: $18.79 million

If you add these sums together you get $10.918 billion. This is what we know so far. More dollars may arrive in the future, boosting the totals for many—if not all—categories.

The post Federal Stimulus Money in Missouri: What We Know So Far appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

Joplin’s city council created the TIF district following the devastating tornado that hit Joplin in 2011. As I detailed in my 2017 case study:

While Joplin was certainly blighted, the speed with which the city was rebuilt—and the overwhelming amount of private, unsubsidized capital that was used to do so—give the lie to the claim made by Wallace Bajjali in Joplin, and other developers around Missouri, that capital just won’t move without taxpayer subsidies. In this case, the developer never delivered on promises, leaving the redevelopment corporation to just buy and sell land while the real work of redevelopment was done by individual homeowners and private companies.

What makes the Joplin experience different from most others is that for whatever reason, the partners in the development firm had a falling out. The company vacated its offices and none of its grand TIF plans were realized. This allowed us a rare opportunity to examine the rebuilding in the absence of subsidized TIF activity. When a TIF plan results in new construction, the plan itself is typically credited with the result. But in Joplin, the reconstruction was just the result of individuals and businesses rebuilding on their own.

That rebuilding was impressive, and TIF subsidized development did not play a significant role (just over $20 million was collected by the TIF district from its creation to closure, compared to more than $2 billion in insurance claims). As I observed in the 2017, this is what Joplin had accomplished a mere six years after the tornado:

Joplin has been rebuilding itself—largely from the proceeds of insurance claims that the but-for test never considered! Not only has Joplin recaptured all lost assessed property value and then some, but the city claims that the population was higher in 2015 than it was in 2010 before the tornado.

We know from study after study after study that TIF is ineffective at spurring business growth or job creation. Instead, TIF frequently just lines the pockets of developers with taxpayer cash—often for doing what there were going to do anyway. If there were any doubt of this, one need only look to the people of Joplin, who rebuilt without TIF and in a quarter of the time promised by the TIF plan.

It is long past time that Missouri legislators rein in the use and abuse of economic development incentives such as TIF. Municipal policymakers are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from important public projects and for no appreciable gain.

The post Good Riddance to Bad Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The article, which cites the dramatic rise in scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for both groups of students, concludes with three takeaways that other cities can learn from DC:

• Cities should embrace charter schools while limiting authorizers to one or two “strong” ones.
• Cities should welcome the potential positive effects of competition. It’s been a force for positive change across the country.
• If cities allow that to happen, middle-class families will stay.

This dynamic of charters having a broad, positive impact for everyone is playing out in big cities—Chicago, Indianapolis, Denver, Nashville, Boston—and in small cities.  While we haven’t seen dramatic results in St. Louis or Kansas City, we also haven’t embraced charter schools. There continues to be this odd notion in Missouri that charter schools are an intervention for low performance. Everywhere else they’re an option—often sponsored by local school boards—that parents across all types of communities and backgrounds are choosing.

Here’s the more important point—Missouri has a lot of other cities that would benefit from school choice. The school districts in Springfield, Joplin, Jefferson City, and Cape Girardeau are not exactly thriving. And yet, school boards and state legislators in these cities continue to fear public school choice. This year, the Missouri Senate filibustered a bill that would have made it much easier for charter schools to open in these cities. The Senate floor was held hostage for hours to ensure that the traditional public school monopoly wasn’t threatened by parents who want something else.

How long will Missouri continue to cross its arms and staunchly defend the status quo of thirty years ago? How long will the positive stories about what’s working when it comes to improving public education only be about other states?

The post It’s a Head-Scratcher appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter schools could be coming soon to a suburb near you, and that’s not necessarily a good thing. Before the Missouri Legislature expands the charter school experiment beyond urban districts in St. Louis and Kansas City, lawmakers must consider the risk it would pose to some of the strongest public school districts in the state.

Charter schools could be coming soon to a suburb near you, and that’s a great thing. As the Missouri Legislature considers making it easier to expand the charter school experiment beyond urban districts in St. Louis and Kansas City, lawmakers should think about the risk that sticking with the status quo poses to parents in public school districts across the state.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Rebecca Roeber, R-Lee’s Summit, would allow charter schools to expand into St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jefferson County and cities like Columbia, Jefferson City, Springfield and Joplin.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Rebecca Roeber, R-Lee’s Summit, would make it easier for charter schools to expand into St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jefferson County and cities like Columbia, Jefferson City, Springfield and Joplin by allowing groups other than the local school board to sponsor them.

Proponents have long insisted that the greater choice offered by publicly funded but privately run charter schools improves students’ education options. But charter school performance data over the past 20 years hasn’t yielded consistently positive results.

Proponents point out that the greater choice offered by publicly funded but independently run charter schools improves students’ education options. And charter school performance over the past 20 years has yielded consistently positive results both for the students who attend them and for the school districts in which they operate.

Like it or not, the flight of middle-class families to the suburbs has contributed to higher performance rates for suburban public schools. It’s far from clear whether the demand exists for new education alternatives outside urban areas.

Like it or not, the flight of middle-class families to the suburbs has contributed to higher performance rates for some students in some suburban public schools and lower performance rates for others. Regardless, it’s clear that the demand exists for new education alternatives in all types of school districts.

Roeber’s bill wouldn’t add additional funding to public education nor adequately address the lack of accountability that has been among the biggest complaints about urban charter schools. Charter schools that fail to meet the same educational standards as the local public school district can still be renewed for three years under her proposal.

Roeber’s bill wouldn’t add additional funding to public education. It would simply shift control over a student’s education funding to a public charter school, if their parent so chooses. If there is no demand for charter school in a district, there won’t be one. Charter schools that fail to meet the same educational standards as the local public school district can still be renewed for three years under her proposal, if the school has the support of the local community.

Some high-profile disasters have resulted from lack of oversight and accountability for charter schools. In 2012, Missouri shut down six Imagine charter schools in St. Louis. Students consistently performed worse on state tests than those attending St. Louis Public Schools while Virginia-based Imagine reaped huge profits from a real estate business

Some high-profile disasters have resulted from charter schools opening that shouldn’t have. In 2012, Missouri shut down six Imagine charter schools in St. Louis. And they should have been shut down because students consistently performed worse on state tests than those attending St. Louis Public Schools, while Virginia-based Imagine reaped huge profits from a real estate business. Unlike some local school districts with dismally low test scores, these schools are no longer serving students.

Last month, an investigation by Kansas City’s WDAF-TV found that then-Attorney General Josh Hawley secretly settled a lawsuit with a charter school the state accused of stealing nearly $4 million in taxpayer money.

Last month, an investigation by Kansas City’s WDAF-TV found that then-Attorney General Josh Hawley secretly settled a lawsuit with a charter school the state accused of stealing nearly $4 million in taxpayer money. Of course charter schools don’t have a lock on financial fraud, but when it’s discovered they’re closed.

About half of the 30-plus charter schools that have opened in St. Louis since 2000 have been shut down for academic or financial failure. That’s hardly a success model worth emulating.

About half of the 72 existing charter schools in Missouri performed higher than their district’s average on standardized tests in both reading and math. While some have been shut down for academic or financial failure, others have achieved a success that’s worth emulating.

Nationally, the picture looks even worse. The federal government has wasted up to $1 billion on charter schools that never opened or opened and then closed because of mismanagement or other reasons, according to the Network for Public Education advocacy group.

Nationally, the picture looks even better. Over 7,000 charter schools are now serving nearly 3.2 million public school students in all types of districts. The federal government has helped most of these schools open through a grant program that charter school founders can tap for planning and implementation. While some of these schools did not ultimately open, and others have since been closed, research has shown that the time and money spent on planning is well worth it. We now know that charter schools that start strong, stay strong, and those that start weak don’t make it.

Parents in the districts targeted by Roeber’s proposal owe it to their children to scrutinize charter schools’ performance record and the ways they can weaken their traditional public school systems.

Parents in the districts identified in Roeber’s proposal owe it to their children to demand access to charter schools so that they can find a school that fits the unique needs of their child.

For decades, lawmakers touted charter schools as a way to help students trapped in chronically low-performing districts. But a conservative political movement is afoot to weaken public school education and divert resources to alternative institutions, including private ones.

For decades, lawmakers touted charter schools as a way to help students trapped in chronically low-performing districts because they work. But a political movement is afoot to return to the public education monopoly of the last century (or protect it where it still exists). The charter school sector has created thousands of unique and innovative alternatives and parents want them for their own communities.

The performance record of charter schools is far too spotty to merit expansion beyond urban settings. Roeber’s bill proposes a potentially bad fix for something that might not even be broken.

The demand for charter schools and the long-term impact they make possible merit expansion beyond urban settings. Roeber’s bill proposes letting parents, teachers and communities across the state decide if charter schools are right for them.

The post Who’s Afraid of Charter Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Who preys upon the sightless with such cruel impunity? More often than not, it is leading citizens and business organizations, taking advantage of poorly conceived laws with the stated purpose of promoting economic development.

Under Missouri laws established in the 1990s, transportation development districts (TDDs) and community improvement districts (CIDs) operate as micro-governments that direct tax revenues to private interests to use for the supposed benefit of their local communities. A primary benefit of a TDD – from the viewpoint of a single property owner or a group of owners banding together to form a district – is the ability to impose a tax on people with no vote in the matter.

Over the past two decades, more than 200 TDDs and nearly 300 CIDs have sprouted up in big cities, small towns, and suburban enclaves across the state. In 2014 and 2015, TDDs collected more than $175 million in tax revenue, according to the Missouri State Auditor’s Office. “Given that TDDs have been operating this way for nearly 20 years,” Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Graham Renz has observed, “their collective impact is in the billions.”

Before becoming a city councilman and later mayor of Neosho (pop. 12,000), south of Joplin, Richard Davidson served on the town’s school board from 2004 to 2008. He was shocked when supporters of a TDD sought an $800,000 contribution from the school district to support the building of new roads. “We educate kids,” he told the TDD proponents. “We don’t build roads.” Later he wrote a column for the Neosho Daily News titled, “TDD Spells Trouble for Our Schools.”

The Neosho TDD was set up in 2009 to fund $6.9 million in transportation projects, with a projected $4.5 million coming from a half-cent sales tax from businesses within the district and another $2.4 million from the Missouri Department of Transportation. Like many TDDs, this is a special taxing district with no residents. Within its boundaries, the 550-acre district includes the city’s golf course, wooded areas, and mostly uncropped farmland, along with a small commercial strip with a Wal-Mart, a Lowe’s, and some other shops and restaurants. Through the half-cent sales tax, customers of those businesses have paid in excess of $500,000 a year to support the TDD’s activities.

So far, those efforts have not stimulated any new business development. But who is to say that the millions of dollars spent by the TDD on roads and transportation won’t at some point turn woods and idle farmland into valuable commercial property?

Davidson, who served as mayor of Neosho from 2010 to 2016, regards the TDD as a clear case in which the end (not so much economic development as the enrichment of a small number of private property owners) does not justify the means (taxing unseeing and unsuspecting consumers).

Community improvement districts work in a similar way. Examples include the luxurious Intercontinental Hotel on Country Club Plaza in Kansas City and the Cardinals’ Ballpark Village in downtown Saint Louis. CIDs allow both of these commercial ventures to collect a one-percent sales “tax” from patrons, which is really just an artfully disguised part of the selling price.

It is time to jettison two-decade-old Missouri laws that promote taxation without representation and provide a textbook example of what the 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat called “legal plunder.”

The post How Missouri’s Special Taxing Districts Promote “Legal Plunder” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Learning from failure in education policy
• Joplin’s recovery
• Privatizing Lambert Airport in Saint Louis
• Certificate of Need reform
• Rejecting business-as-usual development subsidies
• The runaway “staffing surge” in K-12 education

Click on the link below to learn more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s June 2017 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For more information, read our recent case study, Tax-Increment Financing in Post-Tornado Joplin.

The post Show-Me Now! Joplin Rebuilt Without Government Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For instance, Tubbs suggests charter schools in Missouri do not have to administer state tests. This is simply not true. Charters administer the same exams to students as the traditional public schools do. You can view exam data on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s website. They show that 70 percent of students at City Garden Montessori in Saint Louis scored proficient or advanced on the third grade English Language Arts Assessment in 2014, while just 64.9 percent did so at Joplin’s highest-scoring elementary school, Kelsey Norman. If you look at all the data, you’ll see charter schools in Saint Louis and Kansas City outperforming many Joplin schools.

Of course, not all charter schools are models of success; but neither are all district schools. Contrary to the claim of Tubbs, however, we do have reliable data and the effectiveness of charter schools has been measured. A 2013 study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University showed that Missouri charter school students learned significantly more than their peers in nearby public schools in both reading and math.

Tubbs’s letter also misrepresents how school funding for charter schools works. She states that charter school students will take funds away from the district schools, and that part is true. Anytime a student leaves a district, the district will lose money. If a student moves from Joplin to Carthage, the Joplin School District would lose the same amount of money. Tubbs then goes on to say, “However, that public school district must continue to maintain facilities (pay the utility bills, fix the plumbing) and provide support services (bus transportation) for the remaining students.” But she does not mention that all of the funds used for facilities, maintenance, and debt service remain in the school district. Charters do not have access to these funds.

Tubbs also states that “non-public charter schools are not required to take all applicants.” First off, there is no such thing as a “non-public charter school.” Charter schools are public schools. They are free and open to anyone who lives within the attendance boundaries. They must take all students who apply, unless they are oversubscribed. Then they must hold a lottery.

Tubbs’s letter is filled with inaccuracies that are constantly repeated as if they were true. It’s time to put a stop to arguing with these “alternative facts.” We can have a debate as to whether charter schools are right for Joplin, Missouri, or the rest of the state, but we should do it with the truth in mind.

The post Attacking Charter Schools with “Alternative Facts” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.