Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the final week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. They discuss the constitutional amendment heading to voters that would begin the process of eliminating Missouri’s state income tax, where property tax reform efforts stand heading into the final days, the early literacy bill’s uncertain path through the Senate, the legislature’s approach to A through F school report cards, what the state budget does and does not get right, the Ferguson city council’s rejection of a major data center tax subsidy, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity. Today I’m joined by Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes from the Show-Me Institute. It is the last week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. Today we’re going to go through what has crossed the finish line, mostly what has not crossed the finish line, and see what these guys think about the possibility of that happening here in the home stretch. Elias, we’ll begin with something that has crossed the finish line, and that is the start of a discussion about phasing out Missouri’s state income tax. Legislation did pass. It goes to the governor, and he gets to decide when it goes on the ballot. So what do we know right now, what passed, and what are Missouri voters going to be asked sometime in the fall?

Elias Tsapelas (00:50): By May 22nd, the governor needs to decide whether this constitutional amendment will go on the August or November ballot. What it says, essentially, is to Missouri voters: do you want to start the process of getting rid of Missouri’s income tax? It comes with three main components. The first piece is the legislature will be required to enact legislation that would get rid of the state’s income tax based on revenue growth. Once that income tax is gone, it cannot be reinstituted. Previous versions of this bill had some details lined out about how the income tax rate would be cut based on revenue growth, but in later versions this was stripped back to just the legislature will decide this later. The other two pieces say you will also be authorizing the legislature to expand the state sales tax base, meaning the things the state sales tax applies to. This could also involve changing the rate, because right now Missouri’s constitution does not allow the state legislature to expand the sales tax to anything that was not taxed in 2015. But this does come with a guardrail: if the legislature does change the state sales tax, it has to be done in a revenue neutral fashion. So expanding the sales tax base or raising the rate to bring in additional tax revenues has to go towards lowering the state income tax. That gives the legislature the authority to change how much revenue comes in, which would speed up the process for getting rid of the income tax. The last piece is a component for local governments. If the state changes the number of things that the sales tax applies to, this would also increase revenues to local governments. Those additional revenues would have to go towards a list of other taxes that would be lowered. In places like St. Louis and Kansas City, that would go towards lowering the earnings tax. For other local governments, they get to choose whether it goes towards lowering the sales tax, property tax, personal property taxes, or real property taxes. The key piece being revenue neutral. This is not going to be a windfall for anyone. It is basically the start of a discussion, because they don’t say what the rate might need to go to, what the sales tax could be expanded to, or what revenues would trigger income tax elimination or cuts. This is just the start of the discussion, giving the legislature the authority to keep moving in the direction we started around 2014.

Zach Lawhorn (03:57): Taking those a piece at a time: the first one, if it passes and the income tax is eliminated at some point, it cannot come back. That seems pretty straightforward. The next two seem like responses to opposition that we hear on a regular basis. The first being the revenue triggers, which seem designed to prevent what we often hear about with Kansas, where they cut the income tax without cutting spending, leading to revenue shortfalls. And the expansion of the sales tax base seems like protection against having to raise the sales tax rate on goods. Do I have that right?

Elias Tsapelas (04:40): Yes. The revenue trigger piece is basically what Missouri has been doing for a while, waiting to see how much revenue we have before lowering the income tax by that amount. We’ve been doing that for over a decade now and have lowered the top individual income tax rate from 6% to 4.7%. We’re just continuing down that path to be sure we don’t create some enormous budget hole. Now, when you look at the sales tax, Missouri has a very complicated, out-of-date sales tax system. The state sales tax rate is 4.225%, but when you go to the store you’re paying something significantly higher, largely due to local governments and a lot of special taxing districts. Missouri also has a lot of sales tax exemptions. Missouri really needs a full look at its entire sales tax system. But economically, when thinking about switching a state from being primarily funded by income taxes to something closer to sales taxes, the best way to fund a state is to tax as broad a base as possible so you can have the lowest rate possible. You want to be taxing final consumption, not business inputs. As we start the idea of transferring to more of a consumption tax in Missouri, the goal is to make sure it doesn’t become a tax increase for some people while things change elsewhere. It’s trying to keep it level the whole way, and at least right now it seems like a pretty neutral proposal going forward.

Zach Lawhorn (06:24): David, for people who don’t think about taxes as a corresponding tax system, can you explain the idea of local governments rolling back certain taxes and how people might experience that on their property tax bills or personal property tax bills?

David Stokes (06:44): It’s trickier than you might think, but it’s vital that it be done right. If you expand the sales tax base at the state level, as Elias discussed, you don’t want local governments to start collecting significantly more sales tax revenue for no reason. At the state level we’ll do something good with that and phase out the income tax, but at the local government level we don’t want just more revenue with nothing to spend it on. You need tax relief for citizens, which is why they’re going to require rollbacks. They’ve given local governments some options in how you roll that rate back, which is a good thing, but they need to give them a few more options. For example, they said you could roll back property taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, or sales taxes. A few things that need to be considered: many municipalities don’t have a property tax, so they won’t be able to roll back the property tax. And it’s trickier to roll back sales taxes than you might think. Unlike property taxes and income taxes, which can be reduced in small increments, sales taxes have to be done in set increments. You can’t go from a 1% sales tax to a 0.92% sales tax. It’s just not allowed and would be incredibly difficult for retailers to implement. So local governments need even more flexibility in how they roll back taxes. I would say the utility tax, which just about every county imposes, is a great option to add to the choice mix for rollbacks. These are the sales taxes that can be placed on utilities, which unlike other sales taxes can be rolled back in small increments. That’s a very good option. The biggest challenge of all, though, is the special taxing districts that Elias mentioned earlier, such as transportation development districts and community improvement districts. These usually only have sales taxes and nothing else. You have to address what they do if their sales tax collections go up 30% and they have no legal way to roll it back by that same amount. So we need to adjust that. I would also hope that part of this whole deal would be a substantial cap on how these special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs operate in the first place, to really restrict their continued expansion in Missouri, which has been very harmful. Those are just a few ideas out of many in how local governments are going to have to address this.

Zach Lawhorn (09:59): Finally, Elias, as you said, it’ll be on the ballot sometime in the fall. But between now and either August or November, people interested in this topic are going to see a lot of data, modeling, estimates, and projections. We want to be honest about what we can know and what we cannot know. With the legislation that has passed now, what should people keep in mind when they see some of these estimates or models or projections this summer?

Elias Tsapelas (10:39): The first thing is, if you see anything claiming this is going to generate a tremendous budget shortfall or major harm to local governments, this thing is set up to be revenue neutral. This is not something that is going to create enormous holes. Most of the time, estimates that reach that conclusion assume this would work in an entirely different way than what is allowed. So that is something you don’t necessarily need to worry about. What people are more reasonably worried about is: if you empower the legislature to expand or raise the sales tax, how is that going to impact everyone? Missouri’s state and local combined sales tax rates are relatively high already. The state’s portion is pretty low, but combined it’s relatively high. So what the state decides to do in terms of how much it expands the sales tax base, whether that involves more services versus goods, will impact different people differently, in different parts of the state and at different income levels. Anything right now that says this is definitely going to be bad for X person, we just can’t know that, because there’s not enough information out there. Everyone should keep an open mind and also recognize that the reason for this amendment and this proposal is that Missouri’s economy is falling behind. We are falling behind our neighbors in terms of tax competitiveness, and the only way to change that is to improve Missouri’s tax standing. Our sales tax system is incredibly broken, so this is something that is going to need to be fixed. At least right now we are at the point of asking: do we want to go down this path? Let’s hope the legislature does a good job. We’ll be shining a light on whatever they do, but we can’t know some of the things that people are warning about right now.

Zach Lawhorn (12:50): David, after the legislature got the income tax bills out the door, they shifted to talking about property taxes, which is something we hear a lot about. People want property tax reform. With only a few days left in the session, where do those efforts stand and what are your thoughts?

David Stokes (13:11): Unlike a lot of the property tax changes of the past few years, I actually like the property tax changes being proposed this year. At least one property tax bill is in conference committee being debated between the House and Senate right now. Another major bill has passed out of the Senate but hasn’t made it through the House yet. I’m told there are going to have to be some compromises on both sides to get a bill across the finish line, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The biggest change this year, which seems very much in the weeds but is significant, would take the way property taxes are imposed in St. Louis County and apply it to the rest of the state. St. Louis County has different tax rates for all the different types of property: residential, agricultural, commercial, and personal property, which includes your car, boat, farm equipment, livestock, and the like. Those rates adjust differently as assessments go up and down each year. This approach was originally intended to be extended to the rest of the state about 20 years ago when they did it in St. Louis County, but the following year they came back and said the rest of the state didn’t have to do it. It’s a good idea. It might sound strange to some people, but a good example of why it would be beneficial came from stories in the St. Louis Business Journal about the real decline in commercial property values in the city of St. Louis over the past year. Because they set one tax rate measured under one unified property value, residential homeowners in St. Louis end up making up with their taxes for the decline in commercial property. In St. Louis County, with the siloed tax rates, if commercial property goes down, the commercial property tax rate will go up to offset that instead of passing it on to homeowners. In rural Missouri, which has so much agricultural property, this would allow agricultural property tax rates to increase to fund goods in rural areas without as dramatically impacting commercial and residential property. I think this is a good idea and I hope it passes. There are also some good amendments that would put taxpayer protections in place to avoid the temptation of local officials to target commercial property with these new different tax rates. It’s in the weeds, but I think these are good changes this year.

Zach Lawhorn (16:24): That sounds like the other side of the coin from what’s happened in Jackson County, where over the last few years people have been very upset that their assessments have gone up by more than 20% and residential homeowners have seen gigantic leaps in their property taxes. Is this kind of like having to turn one knob one way and another knob the other way?

David Stokes (16:55): Sort of. The tricky part is that the situation in Jackson County for the past 10 years has been so bad, it’s hard to compare it to other counties. It’s been uniquely horrible for the people of Jackson County. But it does start with one basic truth: 15 to 20 years ago, Jackson County was under-assessed. The assessor was ordered to increase the valuations because they were improperly low, and probably artificially and intentionally low. The right approach would have been to raise those assessed valuations to more accurate totals while lowering the rates at the same time to avoid crushing people with higher taxes. But Jackson County’s taxing entities have not really done that, starting with the Kansas City 33 school district, a very large school district in Kansas City, which is the only taxing body in Missouri exempt from rolling back rates as values increase. So you’ve seen these giant increases within that school district and they don’t even have to roll back rates. They just get to keep their same rates, as they have frequently over the past 10 years. So people are getting walloped. And then you throw in the fact that the Kansas City Assessor’s Office has done a terrible job managing the process year after year, not hitting deadlines for notifying people about changes and not properly running the appeals process. It’s just been a terrible system in Jackson County, and almost uniquely so.

Zach Lawhorn (18:30): All right. Before we have Elias read the budget line by line, Avery, I want to get an update on the education items here in the last week of the session. Early literacy, the reading bill, we’ve been talking about it all session long. How’s it looking?

Avery Frank (18:47): When it first passed out of the House before spring break, 131 to 10, I was genuinely excited. It wasn’t necessarily that it passed so early; it was that it passed with such little resistance and such bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Teaching our students how to read, giving every student the best chance to become a confident, capable reader, that seems like common sense and a goal that everyone wants to work toward to help our state improve and perhaps become the next Mississippi. It looked that way before spring break, but the Senate version of the early literacy bill got filibustered and set aside. The House bill has made it through the process and is on the informal calendar for third reading, so it could be taken up at any time. If it does pass the Senate, I anticipate it would easily pass the House again. But that is the problem with a lot of education legislation: can it pass the Senate? There have been different concerns about the early literacy bills. Some people are concerned that the MAP test, or the Missouri Assessment Program, which we use to test all of our students, is not a good measure and we shouldn’t be basing anything on it. Some are concerned with third-grade retention and whether it actually helps, looking at states like Mississippi and noting that while fourth-grade scores are great, eighth-grade scores have only improved a little. Those are the main pushbacks we’re seeing. I would still say this is something we really need to do. The early literacy bill is built on two different pillars. The first is a mandatory third-grade retention policy. Missouri already tests all K through third-grade students with a reading screener to see how they’re doing with reading. What this bill would do is set a passing score for those screeners. If students don’t meet that score, they would be retained in third grade, because reading is such a foundational skill. If you don’t know how to read, that’s something worth holding back for, to make sure students get it down before moving on for the rest of their educational career. Students would still have the opportunity to retake the screener, and there would be good-cause exemptions for students with disabilities, for students who have been held back previously, and for English language learners. The second main pillar is reforming our teacher preparation programs. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality conducted a survey of all of our universities and teacher preparation programs and found that half of them received an F in teaching the science of reading, which is the best evidence-based way to teach students to read. The early literacy bill would align our teacher prep programs with those best practices. If they don’t do it, they can’t certify teachers. You can see how there could be pushback and reason why people would filibuster or not want it to come to the floor. That’s where it stands right now. I’m hoping people set aside their objections and recognize that this is a great first step to get Missouri back on track. Our reading scores have been really poor, especially after the pandemic. They continue to decrease and have not bounced back at all. They’re lower now than they were the first year after the pandemic, and we have to turn things around. These early literacy bills, I hope people see the common sense in them.

Zach Lawhorn (22:30): It’s not even the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just people being afraid to push back against the status quo. Missouri has fallen back in reading test scores, and other states, most notably Mississippi, have found ways to improve. I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as some kind of radical moonshot. In the final days of the session, the urgency cannot be overstated. The other thing we’ve talked about a lot this session is A through F report cards, a transparency measure. Governor Kehoe issued an executive order before the session started. What’s the status of the legislature trying to adhere to the governor’s executive order?

Avery Frank (23:19): The legislature has tried to legislate its own way into how the executive order gets implemented, because DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, could implement it in their own way. The legislature wants to determine how things are going to be scored instead of letting DESE make that decision. There’s been a lot of back and forth, and a lot of different interested parties. Not to get too in the weeds, but some districts really want academic achievement, their base score on the Missouri Assessment Program, to be weighed the most heavily because that would give them the highest score. Some want growth to be weighed the most heavily for the same reason. Some want basically no grades and a lot more qualitative information. There are a lot of different factors. The best vehicle for A through F report cards right now looks like Senate Bill 1351, which continues the long legacy of education omnibus bills used in recent years in Missouri. It combines the report card, limits on screen time for young students, and a couple of other things. I’m not sure if that’s going to make it past, to be honest. People are still concerned about whether the Missouri Assessment Program is something they want to base all of this on. Personally, I think the executive order is better than the legislation as it currently stands. They got rid of one aspect I liked as a researcher: in Governor Kehoe’s executive order, there was a penalty if districts didn’t report their data properly. In the current legislation, Senate Bill 1351, if districts don’t report sufficient data, it’s just written as an aside, basically saying they have to note on their report card that there is not sufficient data, and then they’re not included in the ranking as much. I don’t like that. It gives districts, especially poorly performing ones, an incentive not to report their data so they can have this qualifier on all of their report cards. I also don’t like it because, from all the education research I’ve been doing, we really do have a data reporting problem and we need to be a lot better about transparency. I hope we get some good report cards, because right now at the Show-Me Institute we do our best with the data we have, but we have to work with unsuppressed data, meaning we don’t have data that could potentially identify certain students. So there are some districts we have no data on because they’re so small. But DESE and the state have the best data possible. They could make a really good report card even better than we could, because they have better data than we do. That’s why I’m really hoping we get a good report card, because it would be very helpful for all the parents, legislators, and researchers across the state to see which districts are doing well and learn from them, and which ones are doing poorly and need more support.

Zach Lawhorn (26:42): Let’s talk about the budget. Elias, the legislature passed the budget a little early this year. They beat the deadline by a couple of days, right?

Elias Tsapelas (26:53): They finished early, which is a little bit different than the last few years.

Zach Lawhorn (26:56): Are we spending more or less money than last year?

Elias Tsapelas (27:01): Spending less, but I’m not throwing them a party. There’s just a lot less federal money going around. There was a lot of COVID money in recent years, and Missouri hasn’t spent all of it. The current budget this year is about $54 billion. What the legislature passed is a little bit less than $50 billion, depending on whether you count different construction items. But there was a lot of federal money in that total. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a budget that is still going to spend more general revenue, where our income and sales tax dollars go. It’s still going to spend more than we expect to bring in. So we’re still going to exhaust all of our surplus that we built up over those years. There were some positive things that happened this year, but ultimately part of how they got the budget done early was by spending just a little bit more, so they left some of the good on the table.

Zach Lawhorn (28:20): So we’re spending the surplus, as you’ve been warning about for several years, the federal money is drying up, and to circle back to the opening segment, I think part of the trust the legislature is going to have to build this summer is demonstrating we’re getting spending under control. You said you’re not throwing them a party. But is this reduction, whatever the reason, directionally good enough for the legislature to say they’re working on the spending side of things, or is it just not good enough?

Elias Tsapelas (29:00): I think I’ll know a lot more going into next year, because there were a lot better discussions this year, especially looking at spending incentives. As was mentioned, DESE is going to have a new funding formula, or at least the governor has a task force working on one. The way education is funded for K through 12 is going to change. There was also a big fight this year about how to fund higher education. What seemed to me like a common sense idea, essentially having the legislature fund colleges based on how many students are enrolled, turned out to be considered too radical and was pushed off for the future. But there’s talk of coming back with a performance funding measure going forward. There’s also some movement on changing how the state does its IT work. There are a lot of IT changes coming, including things affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Missouri has a very bad track record with IT. Part of this budget moves some IT resources over to the Department of Social Services to support getting things going there, because most IT for the state of Missouri is currently consolidated in the Office of Administration. While that can seem efficient because every state department doesn’t need its own IT department, it also makes it a lot harder to hold people accountable. There has been a big issue recently with the state’s accounting software, where a contract is millions of dollars behind schedule and not working. The budget tries to get at that too, and it raises this major incentive question: are the people in charge of implementing new IT going to do their best at something that will ultimately try to eliminate their job? I think the legislature is finally starting to deal with that. Ultimately, if we go down the path of a more efficient government and a better tax system, that may mean fewer state employees, and that is something that hasn’t come up much but I think the legislature is finally starting to look at. Pushing toward better funding models, a better state workforce, all those type of things, is moving in the right direction as opposed to how it has been, where the budget just grows larger every year. They’re looking in the right direction. I would have liked to see more, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next year, especially because the federal COVID funding will essentially be gone.

Zach Lawhorn (32:12): Our final topic, partly so we can put it in the title of the episode for clicks, but also because it seems like every week there’s a story from across the country or across the state about data centers and communities pushing back for a lot of reasons. The most recent one was Ferguson in the St. Louis area. David, can you catch us up on what was on the table for this data center in Ferguson and what happened?

David Stokes (32:40): The vote that the Ferguson city council took last week was strictly on a tax subsidy, I believe about $1.8 billion in tax abatements and various subsidies for the project. It was not a vote on approving the data center itself. This was a commercially zoned area, so it didn’t need any permission to put a data center there, and that’s a good thing. But the city nonetheless rejected the tax subsidy, which I thought was the right call. These data centers are very profitable and important, and I’m certainly not anti-data center. But the demand that they get enormous subsidies everywhere they seem to be going is improper. Festus was right to approve the data center operation there, but I think very much wrong to approve the enormous tax subsidy the city granted, which I believe was about a half a billion dollars. Avery can correct me if I’m wrong on that exact number. I like what Ferguson did, and I hope the data center moves into the old Emerson complex there nonetheless. We need data centers. Data centers produce so much tax revenue that they can generate their own tax cuts, and I don’t mean a special subsidy for the data center itself. I mean they go into a city or a small area, generate so much revenue, and you can cut taxes for everybody in that community, including the data center itself. I think that’s the road to follow, and hopefully that’s what we’ll have in Missouri. I also think we need to change the way data centers are taxed in an upcoming legislative session, taxing them a little more like utilities to reduce the incentive for one city or county to hand out a big subsidy and instead spread those tax benefits around a little more.

Zach Lawhorn (34:46): Avery, are you heartened by this rejection? Because as David said, we need the data centers, but we really want to avoid this new layer of corporate welfare that could pop up everywhere. So how do you feel about it?

Avery Frank (35:00): I’m actually very excited by the rejection in Ferguson. I’ve talked to a lot of people on both sides of the data center debate, those who have gone to the meetings and stayed up until 3 a.m. and protested, and those who want them. When I look at this Ferguson project specifically, the numbers David was talking about involved granting up to 15 years of tax abatements on real estate, personal property, and sales tax for a data center project. When I see something like that, it gets at what David was talking about. The only true significant benefit of a data center is the tax revenue it could bring. It doesn’t bring a lot of jobs. It takes a lot of electricity and a lot of water. It generates noise. It already makes a lot of people upset, and there are concerns about housing values and everything else. So if you’re not getting any tax revenue, there really is no strong incentive to have a data center project. That Emerson complex in Ferguson had thousands of employees. A data center does not take very many employees at all. So when you have people coming up and saying this data center project won’t succeed unless we get all these tax subsidies, I say that’s fine and I hope you don’t build a data center there, because the tax revenue is really the only benefit you’re getting from it. One of the bigger things is just something about Missouri in general. I’m from Tennessee and there are a lot of concerns there about having too much growth. Missouri sometimes feels like the opposite of Tennessee. We’re so desperate for growth that we’re willing to hand out a bunch of money. We don’t have enough pride. This Emerson complex is a good building and a good place. Ferguson has a STEM high school that produces very high test scores and graduates people who can work in the tech industry or an engineering industry. We shouldn’t waste a good building and a good workforce on a project that’s going to get all these tax subsidies and not bring a lot of jobs. The same thing happened over in Independence, where they gave out billions in subsidies for a data center project. Whenever I see that, I think we have to have a little bit of pride in Missouri. We can’t just be giving out all this money to get anyone to come. We have a good parcel of land, a good workforce, a lot of water, and a central location in the country. We can attract good projects, data centers or not, without giving out a bunch of subsidies. We need to understand what the benefits and costs of a data center are and what data center developers are actually looking for. They have a lot of money already. If you give them a good workforce, a place to build, and community support, I think they’ll come, even without a bunch of money.

Elias Tsapelas (38:28): I was really hoping this was the discussion we were going to have this year in Missouri’s legislature, because it started off so well with the discussion of how to get rid of the income tax and everything that goes with that. Talking about the income tax is really about how you make your state more desirable and how you grow faster. But Missouri for so long has just said: we want this industry or this type of business, so let’s give it an economic development tax credit. Let’s give out a billion dollars worth of those. Let’s give out sales tax exemptions. As far as I know, data centers in Missouri already get state and local sales tax exemptions. We just give those out. If we’re really going to start thinking about how to make the state the most desirable place, how to grow the fastest and be the most desirable for families and businesses, that’s really more about making the tax climate the best for everyone, not constantly picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the budget didn’t see as many cuts as I had hoped. As we go into the last few days of the legislature, there are plenty of tax credit bills waiting to pass. The film tax credit is back and there’s talk of extending the sunset on it. There are other tax credits. We’re still going down that path. There are still more sales tax exemptions being considered. Missouri just needs to decide what direction we want to go, because ultimately if we do get rid of the income tax, a lot of these economic development incentives don’t even really work anymore. You have to look at different things. You have to look at what is really the criteria for families and businesses. States across the country are dealing with these issues, changing their economic conditions, their tax policy, and people are moving there. We know people are leaving Missouri. We know income is leaving Missouri. We need to change things. The status quo is not going to work going forward, and I was hoping that would have sunk in a little bit more this year than it did.

Zach Lawhorn (40:37): We will leave it there this week. We’ll talk to everyone again after the session ends over the next few days and see how everything turned out. As always, plenty more at showmeinstitute.org. David, Avery, and Elias, thank you very much.

The post Missouri’s 2026 Legislative Session Final Week appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once again, Missouri has been outdone by a neighbor. On the very important issue of early literacy, we should look closely at the move Oklahoma just made. With the signing of Senate Bill 1778, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has essentially ended the era of social promotion for children who can’t read. Oklahoma’s “Strong Readers Act” provides a roadmap that Missouri should follow.

One of the more controversial aspects of the law relates to third-grade retention. Starting in the 2027–28 school year, students who score below the basic level on the Oklahoma state test (the equivalent of Missouri’s MAP test) and who cannot pass a secondary literacy assessment may be required to repeat the grade. While retention is an unpopular strategy, the bill balances this with a multi-tiered system of support. This means schools will use statewide screenings to identify issues as early as kindergarten, triggering immediate interventions such as small-group tutoring and summer academies. Missouri should adopt a similar mandate. By making retention a real possibility, the law forces the system to pivot toward early intervention.

Unfortunately, Missouri’s attempts at literacy reform have stagnated this legislative session. Despite broad recognition that our reading scores are headed in the wrong direction, Missouri lawmakers are stuck in debates about which test to use, the negative effects of retention, and local control. There are still a few weeks left for them to resolve their differences. They owe it to our students to stop passing them through a failing system and start ensuring that every student is equipped with the reading skills they need to succeed.

The post Oklahoma Is Holding Itself Accountable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I attended the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee hearing on Wednesday, January 28. The hearing covered two bills under current consideration—one on A–F letter grades for schools, and the other on literacy reform.

The committee is a diverse group with diverse views, as were the individuals giving testimony. I was expecting a lively debate and opinions from all different angles, and that’s what happened.

However, one thing I wasn’t expecting was the view expressed by several members of the committee that Missouri schools are doing just fine, or even excelling. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Missouri schools are performing very poorly. The data on this point are publicly available and unambiguous.

The best evidence comes from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is widely viewed as providing the most credible test data in the country. Here are charts showing the changes over time in Missouri’s national rank on NAEP, in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, since about the turn of the century:

(These graphs are courtesy of the Show-Me Institute’s Avery Frank.)

Our 4th-grade reading results are especially bleak—we rank 38th out of the 50 states as of 2024, whereas two decades earlier we ranked in the low twenties. Today, an alarming 42 percent of our 4th graders score Below Basic on NAEP.

Making matters worse, our ranking decline since about 2015 is in the context of generally declining test scores nationwide during this time. Our scores are declining faster than the rest of a declining nation.

The only reason not to be worried about this is if you don’t believe these tests tell us anything important. On this point, there is overwhelming evidence that NAEP—and standardized tests more broadly—are highly predictive of consequential long-term outcomes. There are hundreds—maybe thousands—of articles that show a link between standardized test performance and later life outcomes.

In fact, just last year a high-quality study on NAEP scores found the following: “More recent birth cohorts in states with large increases in NAEP math achievement enjoyed higher incomes, improved educational attainment, and declines in teen motherhood, incarceration, and arrest rates compared to those in states with smaller increases.” Whatever outcome you care about for our children, NAEP scores predict it. (If you’re interested in recent, related evidence from Missouri’s MAP test, see here.)

Our declining test scores should concern all of us. Whether the committee members recognize it or not, under their watch and the watches of their predecessors over the last decade plus, Missouri’s academic performance has been declining. An overwhelming body of research tells us the decline will have real consequences for our children, and ultimately this will have real consequences for the future of our state.

I recognize we won’t all agree on the solutions, but it became apparent during the hearing that we don’t even agree on the problem. I encourage skeptics of my message—especially members of the education committee, who have the power to make change—to look at the data themselves. Putting our heads in the sand will not make the consequences any less dire down the road.

(If you’d like to see specific examples to get a sense of the kinds of NAEP questions Missouri children can and cannot answer correctly, see an earlier post here.)

The post To the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee: We Have a Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Jokes aside, I came across a recent poll from the yes. every kid. foundation that reminded me of a vital pairing for holding education systems accountable: understandable information and comparable information.

The poll is nationwide, but the results apply to Missouri. Parents want to hold schools accountable, but they need high-quality information to engage.

Our annual Blueprint has consistently emphasized the importance of building informational resources that are both understandable and comparable. Missouri provides some data, but there is no central, user-friendly landing place where parents can easily access and evaluate information about the quality of their children’s schools.

For instance, this data dashboard from DESE reports a number of understandable statistics for the year, but you cannot compare districts to each other. Some DESE sources are difficult to decipher and navigate altogether. And if a parent truly wants to compare districts and years, they will need to break out their Microsoft Excel skills.

Using DESE’s dashboard, a parent can see that 58 percent of Parkway C-2 students scored proficient or advanced in mathematics on the Missouri Assessment Program. But is that good? Isn’t 70 percent usually a passing score? How does it compare to last year? How does it compare to other districts across the state? Should a parent be concerned, or encouraged?

These are all important questions, and sadly, the answers require a lot of digging.

Thankfully, parents can find the answers to these questions on our own website, MOSchoolRankings.org.

There, Parkway C-2 is ranked as one of the better districts in our state: 133 out of 551 overall. In fact, its math score is the 37th best in the state. But it’s not all peachy in Parkway, as its low-income math scores ranked 378th in the state, and the overall mathematics score declined from the prior year. These statistics give meaningful context for parents to more accurately hold schools accountable.

Our website serves as a valuable resource for the state, but DESE ought to provide a similar tool—one that is even more comprehensive and accessible—using the state’s greater manpower and authority.

Taken together, survey data and practical experience point to the same conclusion: Missouri’s education system needs to be more accountable to parents. Achieving that goal requires creating resources that are both understandable and comparable.

The post Accountable, Understandable, and Comparable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Below, I will highlight problematic additions to the bill.

Phonics and Three-Cueing

The finally agreed bill now includes language to make phonics instruction (recognizing written words by connecting letters to their corresponding sounds) the primary instructional strategy for teaching word reading in early literacy. It also restricts the use of the three-cueing system (encouraging students to guess what an unfamiliar word is based on meaning, structure, or visual cues instead of sounding out the word entirely). The original amendment would have prohibited the use of three-cueing for teaching word reading, but the final version only prohibits “instruction in word reading relying primarily on the three-cueing system.” This change leaves the door open for its use and weakens the policy’s impact. I will write more about this in a future post.

New “Grade-Level” Category for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)

The new version of SB 68 also includes the addition of a fifth performance category (called “grade level”) for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The MAP currently has four measures: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. “Proficient” is defined as mastery over all appropriate subject matter and introductory knowledge for the next grade. This sounds like an appropriate benchmark to set.

The new “grade-level” category essentially means partial mastery—a student “may be ready, with appropriate reinforcement” for the next grade. For parents, telling them their children are at “grade-level” makes it sound as if they are where they ought to be academically. But that is not what it means. Why is Missouri adding a new standard that is confusing at best and will make it harder to interpret scores? Do we really want to water down our standards when so many are at basic or below in the state?

Repurposing Scholarship Funds

Another provision allows unused funds for the Teacher Retention and Recruitment Scholarship (given to prospective teachers in high-need subject areas and schools) to be repurposed to non-high-need students in their final semester. These unused funds should be returned to the treasury to fund other existing priorities instead of being used for a new project entirely.

Open Enrollment—For a Select Few

Finally, SB 68 allows open enrollment for students whose parents are a contractor or regular employee of that district. This is a good opportunity for these families. But what Missouri needs is a universal open enrollment policy, which would help families and students in a variety of different circumstances. Why are only these families benefitted?

SB 68 illustrates the risk of omnibus bills: bad policies are often included, good policies get diluted, and elected officials can claim they had to swallow the bad with the good.

The post Senate Bill 68: Another Education Omnibus, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are two key factors to consider when answering this question: academic promotion and social promotion.

• Academic promotion is straightforward—as students gain an understanding of the material, they advance to the next level and build on what they learned in the grade before.
• Social promotion is based on age and allows students to stay with their friends and peers throughout their school experience.

Social promotion largely wins the day in schools. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 40 percent of Missouri 4th graders scored below basic on the 4^th-grade reading assessment in 2022. Additionally, 15.1 percent of the same 4th graders scored below basic on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP).

However, recently, some states have put more emphasis on academic promotion.

Some States Are Focusing More on Academic Promotion

In states such as Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, 3rd grade students can be prevented from advancing to 4th grade if they do not meet reading requirements. This is typically referred to as a “third-grade retention policy.”

All three states have seen significant gains in reading achievement. Mississippi’s commitment to mandatory phonics instruction and 3rd-grade retention has contributed to such a large boost in reading scores, it has been referred by many as the “Mississippi Miracle.”

On the NAEP, Mississippi’s scores increased by almost 10 percentage points between 2013 and 2022. Missouri’s decreased by 6 percentage points over that time period.

Mississippi also implemented targeted reading instruction based on evidence-based reading. It is hard to disconnect 3rd-grade retention from intentional instruction.

Considerations for Weighing a 3rd-Grade Retention Policy

After the pandemic, reading scores in Missouri not only initially nosedived, but they sadly continued to decrease and remained low. Missouri may need to consider new strategies to help our students in need.

However, social promotion is not unimportant. For students who are trying hard and get left behind, this can be a very tough social situation. Having friends go on to the next grade means the student left behind has less interaction with friends—different classes, different sports teams, different lunch schedules, and more.

Additionally, kids being older than their peers can create awkward social situations and increase bullying.

Mississippi’s policy attempts to balance different priorities when considering retention. It has the :

• Limited English proficient students who had less than 2 years of instruction in an English Language Learner program.
• Students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicates that participation in statewide assessment programs is not appropriate.
• Students with disabilities who demonstrate a reading deficiency but whose IEP has provided them with intensive reading remediation for more than two years.
• Students with disabilities who demonstrate a reading deficiency but were previously retained in a K-3 grade.
• Students who meet an acceptable level of reading proficiency on an alternative standardized assessment approved by the Mississippi State Board of Education.
• Students who demonstrate a reading deficiency despite having received two or more years of intensive reading intervention and have been retained in a K-3 grade for two years without meeting exceptional education criteria.

Third-grade retention has a demonstrated track record of success in other states, and it should be given consideration as Missouri students continue to struggle in reading.

The post Should Missouri Consider a 3rd-Grade Retention Policy? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Using school-level data from the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), we evaluated four different types of schools in the City of St. Louis: charters that were open in 2012 and are still open today, charters that have closed any time between 2012 and 2024, magnet schools (which filter enrollment), and traditional public schools. We looked at the total number of students who scored proficient or advanced in each category (charter, magnet, etc.,) and divided it by the total to calculate the percentages. In these totals, grades 3–8 are all aggregated together, and Algebra I and English II students are also included.

Since the MAP has changed in the time period we are assessing, it is difficult to measure performance within schools—but it is possible to measure performance between different types of schools.

In all three subjects (math, ELA, and science), charter schools that have been open since 2012 (SO Charters) surpassed magnet schools by 2023. In ELA, SO Charters had 7 percent fewer students who were proficient or advanced than magnets, but were 3 percent higher than traditional public schools in 2012. Fast forward to 2023, and SO Charters have 4 percent more students proficient or advanced than magnets and were 13 percent higher than traditional schools. The trend also translates to mathematics. All schools have remained relatively similar in science.

The orange line represents the group of charters that have closed down. Most recently, Hawthorne Leadership School and La Salle Charter had to shutter their doors due to low performance. The design of a charter school allows for schools with less successful models to be phased out. As the figures above display, successful models have benefitted students in the City of St. Louis.

The simple ability to close serves as a mechanism for accountability and competition. New models have been tested—some have succeeded, some have failed—but the ones that have succeeded have exceeded the performance of traditional public schools and magnets. This should be taken into consideration when weighing charter school expansion.

The post Comparing the Performance of Public Schools in the City of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In one moment, they counted him out, and in the next, they were amazed at his determination. I’m hoping for an epic comeback story like this in Missouri public schools. Our scores faded badly following the COVID-19 pandemic. And sadly, with the recent release of the preliminary 2023–2024 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) results, it is fair to say we are not running past everyone yet.

One state board of education member stated she was “a little deflated that we didn’t see more growth and progress.” I agree that the results were a little disappointing, so let’s delve into the specific statistics.

It is worth noting these are preliminary results for the 2023–2024 school year, so they could be subject to minor changes.

Overall, English/language arts (ELA) scores remained stagnant and math scores continued to gradually improve.

Figure 1: Missouri Assessment Program: ELA

Figure 2: Missouri Assessment Program: Math

After the pandemic, math scores fell more than ELA scores, but math scores have bounced back, and even surpassed pre-pandemic levels in some areas. Growth in math scores has been driven primarily by success in middle school mathematics, as 6th and 7th grade scores have surpassed pre-pandemic levels and 8th grade scores now match 2019 levels (not shown in Figure 2).

For elementary math, scores still remain below 2019 levels. Third grade scores have declined the most. 5th grade scores did not improve from 2023 and remain below pre-pandemic levels. There could be a need for greater focus in elementary instruction.

ELA scores continue to remain flat and far below pre-pandemic levels. They have actually dipped even further after the initial COVID drop. No grade-level cohort has exceeded its pre-pandemic levels, and only two cohorts (4th and 7th graders) improved from last year. Sixth graders have particularly struggled in ELA post-pandemic, as their pre-pandemic scores have declined more than any other grade level.

Missouri needs drastic action to help our students improve their ELA skills. A solid reading foundation is paramount for educational success, and we need to do everything in our power to catch our students up. Further commitment to the Missouri’s LETRS program (an evidence-based reading initiative) could yield results. Focus on evidence-based reading instruction has proven successful in other states such as South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Those three states have also made phonics instruction mandatory. Reams and reams of research support evidence-based reading instruction.

Let’s dig deep and further commit to helping our students grow. I want to see a legendary comeback story.

The post Is There a Comeback Story in Missouri Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Markets offer three mechanisms that facilitate school choice. First, they allow for a level of diversity in school offerings that traditional, centrally managed school systems are not able to. Second, they encourage competition between providers, improving the quality of school options for students and families. Third, markets are incredible information gathering institutions, and a more market-driven system can help bring attention to better educational practices and ways to meet family needs that can then be copied by other schools.

When I think about policies that increase the diversity of options, encourage competition, and spur innovation, open enrollment and education savings account (ESA) programs come to mind.

Open enrollment allows students to attend any public school district. In Missouri, a voluntary open enrollment policy has been discussed but never implemented. Open enrollment legislation has passed through the House for four consecutive years but has not had enough momentum to push through the Senate. Open enrollment empowers parents to choose the district and school that best suits their children and strengthens school districts by forcing them to compete for students. Through the addition of open enrollment, competition and increased feedback could spur needed innovation and growth, while at the same time matching families with districts that best suit their needs.

While Senate Bill (SB) 727 expanded Missouri’s ESA program (MOScholars), there are issues with financing. MOScholars is still not publicly funded, as robust ESA programs in other states are. Due to this, many families are left out of the program. A stronger ESA program would give more parents the ability to vote with their feet to support schools with beneficial education practices.

Education cannot be forgotten—our state is experiencing chronic absenteeism and lower academic scores. On the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), Missouri students have failed to bounce back from the pandemic drop. In English/language arts (ELA), no grade-level cohort has matched or surpassed its pre-pandemic levels. Almost all ELA scores today are actually lower than they were in the first post-COVID year (2020–2021), with 5th graders being the only exception. Sixth graders have fared the worst of all grade levels—in 2018-2019, 46 percent scored proficient or advanced in ELA. In 2021–2022, that number dropped to 43 percent, and by 2023–2024, it sunk to 38 percent.

Hopefully, SB 727 will not be the end of the road for needed change. Markets do matter in education, and school choice policies can greatly benefit our state.

The post Missouri Needs More Market Forces in Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The authors note that how time is used matters, as it can be difficult to convert total scheduled hours into actual instructional hours. The amount of time at recess, the use of substitute teachers, snow days, etc., all can have an impact on student learning and diminish instructional time.

In their case study of the Providence Public School District in Rhode Island, Kraft and Novicoff estimate that elementary school students lose 16 percent of their instructional time, middle school students lose 21 percent, and high school students lose 25 percent. They observe that unexcused student absences account for the largest portion of the lost time (Missouri has a serious chronic absenteeism problem), but outside interruptions and teacher absences also have an impact.

The authors note that “most school systems which (sic) substantially increase total time are able to convert this additional time into at least small gains in academic achievement.” Essentially, even if the time is used poorly, there are gains to be made just by scheduling more hours in school.

In the paper, which uses national 2017–2018 statistics, Missouri ranked 46th in average number of instructional days and 24th in average number of instructional hours. It must be noted that these were our rankings prior to the passage of Senate Bill 743 in 2018, which removed the requirement for a minimum number of school days starting in the 2019–2020 school year. That was the same year the COVID-19 pandemic broke out—leaving in its wake an immense loss in instructional time, and a need to catch up.

Rather than increasing time to make up for the lost hours, Missouri schools have decreased hours—between 20-30 fewer hours per year on average. This is a small decrease, but it’s a puzzling decision given how much COVID set students back.

Test scores have been decreasing over the last three years as well. In 2019, 39% of Missouri 4th graders scored proficient or higher on the math portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and 34% scored proficient or higher in reading. In 2022, these numbers dropped to 34% and 30%, respectively. Missouri 8th graders fared no better, dropping from 32% in math and 33% in reading to 24% and 28%.

Similarly, on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), Missouri 4th and 8th graders have failed to bounce back from the pandemic drop. In fact, English/language arts scores are actually lower than the post-COVID year (2020-2021). In the 2021–2022 school year, 46% and 49% of Missouri 4th and 8th graders, respectively, scored above proficient. In the 2022–2023 school year, those scores fell to 43% for 4th graders and 46% for 8th graders.

Missouri students are losing out on instructional time, and our test scores are falling. There may be several reasons why scores are declining, but less time learning seems to be at least part of it. The evidence from scholars such as Kraft and Novicoff—along with common sense—makes it clear that kids are going to learn less if they have less instructional time.

Our students should be going to school more, not less.

The post Are Missouri Students in School Enough? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri quietly released last year’s Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores for schools and districts recently. Because Missouri, like most states, currently has a chronic absenteeism problem and because Missouri chose the broadest rule for suppressing data due to privacy concerns, dozens of districts have no useable public test score data in either English/language arts (ELA) or math. How are these districts doing? I have no idea. But I do know that the average spending per student in the “no test score districts” was over $27,000 last year.

The state board of education’s reactions to last year’s statewide test scores, which were dismal, included the two standards—not enough teachers and not enough money. They threw in COVID and classroom behavior for good measure. And despite having multiple districts with fewer than 10 percent of students scoring at grade level on the MAP exam, the state board decided to keep designating 512 out of 518 school districts as fully accredited and have the remaining six be partially accredited—grade inflation at its best.

What if we leaned into testing to find out how we’re doing? What if we didn’t blame money or the kids? Success Academy, a well-known charter network in New York City that enrolls almost exclusively low-income students of color, had to rent an exhibition hall to accommodate students taking an AP exam this spring because there were so many of them. The academy’s founder and CEO, Eva Moskowitz said, “With rampant grade inflation and inconsistent state standards, AP and SAT tests are a critical tool . . . especially for low-income students of color.”

As the pandemic moves further into the rearview mirror, we need a clearer picture of the toll it has taken on Missouri’s children and their futures. We need more accountability, not less.

The post What if We Decided to Lean in to Testing? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mississippi (which typically holds back between 4–10 percent of third graders) is viewed as a successful model for this type of retention policy. Started in 2013, the Mississippi policy requires a sufficient score on the state English/language arts assessment or on either of the two retest opportunities (with certain exceptions made for English-language learning students and students with disabilities). This strategy is rooted in the idea that students need to receive a firm foundation in reading before advancing to higher grades. Mississippi has seen its efforts pay off—between 2013 and 2019, the state’s 4th-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) rose by 10 points, while the national average decreased by 1. Mississippi moved from rank 49th to 29th in 4th-grade reading over this time period.

There are also drawbacks to this policy. For students who are trying hard and get left behind, this can be a very tough social situation. Having friends go on to the next grade means the student left behind has less interaction with friends—different classes, different sports teams, different lunch schedules, and more. This can be demoralizing for a student. In Mississippi, students can be held back for up to two years before automatically advancing to the next grade. Kids being potentially two years older than their peers can create awkward social situations and increase bullying. You could be driving a car in 8th grade, be an 18-year-old sophomore, or be a 20-year-old senior. One concern is that being 18 as a junior or sophomore may increase drop-out rates. However, Mississippi actually reached an all-time high in its high school graduation rate in 2022—rising from 74.5 percent in 2014 to 88.9 percent.

Can families bear these unconventional social situations in order for their children to succeed in school? Mississippi has seen drastic improvement in both scores and graduation rates since implementing its reading policy. Missouri’s 3rd-grade scores—and frankly all of our state’s test scores— indicate drastic action is needed. Implementing a reading policy such as Mississippi’s may be a good place to start.

The post Should More Missouri Students Be Held Back? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are legitimate issues with using the MAP to evaluate individual student performance. The current test delivers lagged results—students take the test in the spring, but schools do not get the results until the fall. Additionally, the MAP does not shed enough light on what particular concepts a student is struggling with. My colleague, James Shuls, previously wrote about this and provided an image of a sample test result. As one can see, there is not a lot of specific information for educators to work with to target learning weaknesses in different students.

One of the goals of the new standardized test is to better inform educators on what topics students are struggling with. But what is the point of quizzes, homework, tests, presentations, essays, and in-class discussions? Are our districts not paying adequate attention to their students as they progress through their classes? Having a continuous testing structure throughout the year could be a useful tool, but a district’s understanding of its student body should not be contingent on it.

A standardized test should be built to compare your school district to others around the state to ensure your teachers are actually teaching the material and not handing out free A’s. If students flunk an algebra section of a standardized test even when a vast majority of them receive high marks in the classroom, it would raise questions about the rigor of the course. Standardized tests can also be useful for comparing teaching strategies. If a similar district nearby receives high scores on its algebra standardized test, struggling districts can mimic its practices.

Unfortunately, DESE has made it harder to compare and contrast district achievement over time with repeated changes to our standardized tests and accountability system.

It is also fair to wonder about the timing here. As mentioned before, one of the goals of the project is to create a reimagined assessment and accreditation system. The first results from the new Missouri School Improvement Program 6 (MSIP 6) were released a few months ago—and they were not pretty. Do officials believe the system they designed is so bad that they want to change it as soon as possible? Or are they concerned that far too many districts were provisionally accredited?

The biggest takeaway from this story is how many problems there are in education policy in Missouri. The status quo needs to be changed in numerous ways. It remains to be seen if these 20 districts will find success with this trial program (I hope they do), but the problems in our state go much deeper than deciding which standardized test to use.

The post 20 Missouri Districts Seek Exemption from the Missouri Assessment Program (Part 2) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This waiver is being requested in partnership with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in order to conduct a formal study (called the Demonstration Project) to determine if a new testing system should replace the existing MAP. If the exemption is granted, these districts would use their own test but would not administer the MAP. If the waiver is denied, these twenty districts would use their own test and also administer the MAP.

The MAP test is traditionally given to 3rd through 8th-grade students in Missouri at the end of the school year to evaluate their understanding in mathematics, English/language arts, and science. MAP testing also includes End of Course (EOC) tests for high school students who have completed four chosen subjects—Algebra I (or II if you took Algebra I in middle school), Government, Biology, and English II.

The Demonstration Project will use an adaptive testing system, which will test students and provide timely results three times per year. An adaptive test essentially learns who a test-taker is. As students miss questions, the prompts become easier, and vice versa. Through this process, a computer algorithm can learn a student’s skill set, provide a detailed report to the teacher, remember it, and use that student’s proficiency as a baseline for the next standardized test. In practice, a student will sit down at a computer for 90 minutes to take one 45-minute adaptive test on ELA and one 45-minute adaptive test on mathematics three times per year. Since this system is online and designed for quick feedback, a detailed breakdown of how each student performed will be provided to teachers and parents in order to help students improve throughout the year. The new state assessment will shift from a “lagging” indicator to a “leading indicator.” This system will require 280 less minutes of testing time and will cost $21.60 more per student annually.

Below are the 20 districts that are seeking exemption from the MAP:

• Affton, Branson, Center, Confluence Academies, Fayette, Lebanon, Lee’s Summit, Lewis County, Liberty, Lindbergh, Lonedell, Mehlville, Neosho, Ozark, Parkway, Pattonville, Raymore-Peculiar, Ritenour, Ste. Genevieve, and Shell Knob

These 20 districts roughly represent the demographics of Missouri, with huge districts, rural districts, and a charter school (although low-income students are underrepresented).

The study was created because of doubts about the effectiveness of the MAP; as the Demonstration Project proposal states, “The MAP was never intended as a progress monitoring tool at the student level.” Since the MAP is administered at the end of the year, districts do not receive test results until fall of the following year. Districts claim that makes it very difficult to make adjustments and corrections within the school year if a student is struggling in a certain subject. They also claim that adaptive standardized testing throughout the year would allow teachers and administrators to make adjustments to help students before the next school year. (There are reasons to take these complaints from districts with a grain of salt, which I will get into in my next blog post.)

It will be interesting to see if this trial is successful. The desire to try something different than MAP (which traces its origins back to 1993) raises plenty of questions in itself, and I will discuss those issues also in my next post.

The post 20 Missouri Districts Seek Exemption from the Missouri Assessment Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post St. Louis Water, MAP Test Opt-out, and Medical Bills appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Too often, local officials have resisted oversight of Missouri public schools and districts. School bureaucrats from across the state have pushed back against Sunshine requests filed by the public, including many from the Show-Me Curricula Project, and now lawsuits are flying. I’ve heard stories from concerned parents and teachers about their treatment by school officials and their fears of persecution for speaking up about controversial issues.

This is not how parents and taxpayers should be treated by our public education system. Enough is enough.

In an effort to put the power of schooling back in the hands of the public that funds it, today I am introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR).

The MPBR emphasizes two objectives—transparency and accountability—and sets out reforms that would allow taxpayers and parents to see exactly how their schools and districts are operating and what they are teaching. Titularly highlighting parents’ role in the education of Missouri kids, the MPBR is geared toward promoting good, responsive governance in taxpayer-supported schools and school districts. Certainly, many of these reforms could be just as easily applied to other local governments like cities and counties—and eventually should.

But the taxpaying public should have an unambiguous right to see what’s being taught to their kids, how schools are performing, and how money is being spent. Taxpayers and parents should be able to use every tool available to them to ensure Missouri kids can have a productive educational career and life. For that to happen, taxpayers and parents must have oversight of the educational bodies in our state.

As I’ve written before, the privilege of taxing comes with a duty of forthrightness and responsibility. Denying that forthrightness and responsibility is to entertain the idea that government rules the people and not the other way around. The MPBR seeks to proclaim unequivocally where power in our system resides—with the people—and to emphasize that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable preconditions to accessing tax dollars.

Stay tuned in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we go into greater depth on this initiative.

We’ve only just begun.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The parents of Missouri’s children have a fundamental right to participate in and direct the education of their children. In order to effectuate and protect those rights, the state hereby adopts an approach that affirms “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to ensure parents can see, understand and trust representations made by state and local education officials about their children’s education and equips parents with the tools to make informed choices to educate their children especially if, in their judgment, the unique needs of their children are not being met.

Those rights include but are not limited to:

• the right to transparent access to school and school district curricula and lesson plans, made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
  • Curricula shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the beginning of a semester’s classes.
  • Because they are often formulated up to the date of instruction, lesson plans shall be available to the public no later than 30 days after the date such course materials were taught. Parents nonetheless have the right to request such materials directly from teachers prior to that time.
  • The right to instructional material includes the right to transparent access to school and school district faculty and staff training materials, also made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on a website hosted by the state.
• the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • the percentage of all students scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the percentage of students in each reportable subgroup, including race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English language learners, scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the Growth score in English/language arts (ELA), measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 through 8
  • the Growth score in math, measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 thru 8
• the right to transparent access to school and school district financial information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • transactional data similar to that produced from an accounts payable report, and if practicable rendered in a manner similar to the existing Show-Me Checkbook website maintained by the Treasurer’s Office.
  • the district’s latest financial statements filed with the state.
• the right to transparent access to contract negotiations between the district and labor groups with whom the district is considering entering into labor agreement (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) including access to all materials used in negotiation and all finalized documents that describe the legal obligations of parties pursuant to an agreement. Such documents shall be available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
• the right to choose existing educational choice options provided by law that best suit the learning needs of their children.
• the right to request to opt their children out of the classroom for any presentation of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
• the right to control their children’s likeness in district materials, subject to exceptions like court orders.
• the right to control their children’s health and identifying markers, including but not limited to the right to opt out of health measures not required by state order or statute.

Failure by a school or school district to abide by these rights and expectations could subject the school or school district to financial penalties by the state and administrative penalties affecting the privileges afforded districts under state law.

Download a Copy of the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the state level, eight governors have issued executive orders, proclamations or initiated coronavirus task forces. At least seven state education departments have offered statewide guidance, with California’s being an excellent example. Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has a webpage with information related to COVID-19. DESE has also issued administrative guidance to all superintendents regarding school funding, attendance waivers, and the cancelation of Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) testing. Links to information on virtual instruction are provided, but it is left up to districts and schools to determine whether they will use them. Two of the statewide virtual learning programs, Launch and the Missouri Virtual Academy, currently only say that short term-enrollment is “possibly available.”

The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington has been painstakingly building a database of district COVID-19 responses. The plans range from detailed and specific like Miami’s “comprehensive district learning plan that includes online learning curricula and teacher support, technology device and WiFi access provision, and supplemental resources for special populations” to simple and broad, like districts in Pennsylvania that have essentially cancelled school for the rest of the school year. St. Louis Public Schools doesn’t appear to have much of a plan right now. It is “considering” sending homework assignments to students through the mail, the approach that Kansas City Public Schools is also adopting.

So, what does all of this mean? We’re in uncharted territory and everyone is creating their own map. Districts and states that were prepared will have a much easier time providing their students an actual education. Florida, for example, already requires every high school student to take at least one of their courses online and is currently providing $200 stipends to the first 10,000 teachers who pass their virtual education training program. Those that have not embraced virtual education, like Missouri, are either going to have to figure it out very quickly or punt until the end of the school year.

The Show-Me Institute will be monitoring it all very closely and looking for best practices and lessons learned for when we eventually emerge from this crisis.

The post What the Heck Is Happening Out There? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Phi Delta Kappa recently released the results of its annual poll on education. The poll covered a lot of ground, but the results on school report cards raise some questions about Missouri. The poll found that when parents are aware of school report cards, 66 percent read them. Most parents said they have read a school report card within the past year. Eighty-two percent of responding parents found the report card useful after they read it. The positive responses to school report cards show that parents are looking for school information, and report cards can be an effective way to communicate it.

Missouri’s school report cards, which the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) produces, are available on the DESE website. However, they pose significant challenges to readers. DESE’s school report card website is difficult to navigate and filled with jargon and technical language that can be time-consuming and difficult to understand.

For example, when the report card presents a large chart displaying results on the state’s standardized test, the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), there are acronyms including “MAP-A,” “LND” and “HS MAPA” that are not immediately defined. It requires looking through other documents to find out that MAP-A is for students who took an alternative MAP assessment, and HS MAPA is the alternative MAP assessment for high school. Later in the report card, LND is defined as level not determined, even though the test results are the first time the acronym appears.

Why have other organizations found it necessary to step in to help provide school information to parents in Missouri? Other states have successfully produced user-friendly school report cards. Why hasn’t DESE?

The post The More You Know appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Before I explain why, let’s look at the top-line results. In English Language Arts, proficiency rates for all grades hovered at around 60 percent. They ranged from 59.2 percent (in 7th grade) to 64.2 percent (in 4th grade). In Math, the numbers are lower, with the highest scores recorded for 4th graders (at 53.9 percent) and the lowest from 8th graders (at 30.5 percent). These numbers represent a small uptick from last year.

For students in the two grades for which we have science scores, scores for both have regressed slightly over the past three years, with 47.5 percent of 5th grades in 2015 scoring proficient and only 45.7 percent scoring the same in 2017. Meanwhile, 49.0 percent of 8th graders in 2017 scored proficient, down from 49.4 percent in 2015.

So what can we make of these numbers? In all honesty, not much. The eye-poppingly low 8th grade math numbers are most likely explained by the fact that 7th and 8th graders who take the Algebra I end-of-course exam (a higher-level exam typically taken by high-schoolers) are not counted in that data. They would probably help bring those proficiency rates up.

As to the rest, Missouri has been churning through new standards and new assessments over the last several years, which prevents us from knowing what explains any changes. Are the tests easier or harder? Is the actual teaching going on in the classroom getting better, or simply better aligned to the standards? Are students learning more? We cannot disentangle it.

What’s more, we probably won’t be able to understand these forces for some time. Missouri is rolling out yet another new test next year, making comparison to this year’s test results that much more difficult. Frankly, it is going to take several years of solid data from the new tests aligned to the new standards for us to determine whether or not schools are getting better or worse.

The post New Missouri Standardized Test Scores Don’t Tell Us a Lot appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The proponents of upgrading SLPS pointed to the district’s sustained score of over 70% on the Annual Performance Review (APR), along with more stable leadership, as evidence supporting accreditation.

Indeed, SLPS has improved in recent years; but does its progress warrant the state’s seal of approval? If we look at APR scores alone, we might think it does:

Here’s the problem: with the transition from provisionally accredited to fully accredited status, we would expect substantial improvements in the academic performance of the district’s students. But a look at the next table suggests that in 2016, scoring 100% in the attendance and graduation rate categories made up for poor scores in academic and subgroup achievement.  Here is the full table:

Moreover, peculiarities in the formula that takes the raw data and puts it into a point system allows for districts to achieve scores that are disproportionally high compared to their actual improvements. In the following set of tables, you can see how SLPS has made, at best, modest progress in the five areas that are scored.

In the academic achievement category, the district falls far below the state’s goals. When you examine the data behind the achievement scores, the picture looks even worse. Below are the results of the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) tests for SLPS for the past 3 years:

Despite the big increase between 2014 and 2015 in APR scores, there was little improvement in students’ test performance—let alone in other important areas. The following table includes SLPS’s graduation rates, attendance rates, and ACT scores over the last four years.

SLPS’s recent performance is a mixed bag: attendance is close to the goal of 90% of students attending 90% of the time. The graduation rate and the percentage of students taking the ACT are also up, but these students still score very low on the ACT and are unlikely to be prepared for college.

SLPS has made headway in the last 10 years, and it deserves credit for doing so. But we’re still talking about a school district in which just over one-third of students score proficient or advanced in English, and just over one-quarter do so in math. Is that what we accept as sufficient? If we want to improve the quality of education in our state, shouldn’t Missourians set the bar higher?

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