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.

Evidence highlighted by Show-Me Institute researchers shows that charter schools are disproportionately represented among “Bright Spot” schools nationwide; that is, schools where students consistently exceed expectations academically. And Missouri charter schools are doing even better—ours are among the most effective in the country in terms of improving academic achievement relative to their traditional public-school alternatives.

The introduction of a charter school does not replace existing public schools; instead, it adds another option for parents and students to address their diverse needs. The move signals broader momentum for school choice across Missouri. It represents an important step toward a much more diverse and adaptable educational system, one designed to give every student access to high-quality instruction and the opportunity to succeed.

The post Columbia’s First Charter School Approved for 2027 Opening appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For the past several years, the Missouri Legislature has considered letting parents choose a public school in another public school district than the one in which they live—also known as open enrollment. It seems that DESE and the BOE are preparing for the moment that the legislature takes another crack at this idea. And by preemptively adding the word “voluntary,”, they have signaled that they prefer a weak and less effective version of this policy.

Currently, there are sixteen states, including our neighbors Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, that require all public school districts to accept transfer students, provided that there is an open seat available. According to the Reason Foundation, students using open enrollment accounted for about 7 percent of publicly funded students in those states. In other words, open enrollment doesn’t have a massive impact on the system, but it can be a game changer for the students who use it.

In states such as Ohio, which have limited open enrollment to only those districts that voluntarily agree to accept students, high-income suburban districts have declined to participate. Thus, kids in Ohio’s largest urban districts, such as Akron or Cincinnati, don’t have any feasible open enrollment options. They would have to leapfrog over the suburban rings that surround their cities.

Missouri was called out last year in a national study for having district lines that mimic old residential red lines. That legacy could be ameliorated by making those lines more porous and less exclusionary. Regardless of the executive branch’s stated priorities, let’s not start the conversation on open enrollment with an eye toward a weak policy.

The post Voluntary Open Enrollment Means No Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Governor Kehoe has appointed four new members to the Missouri State Board of Education, including two who will, if confirmed, replace the president and vice-president. Given that the current president, Charlie Shields, has held the position for a decade and his term expired five years ago, I would say it’s about time. Hopefully these new members will bring new energy and fortitude as they tackle a challenging to-do list.

First, there is the glaring issue of (a lack of) accountability. Currently, Missouri school districts are held accountable through the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) 6. According to the standards set by this plan, like those in versions 1 through 5 before it, all but six of Missouri’s 520 school districts receive the state’s seal of approval, also known as full accreditation. It defies logic that a district like St. Louis Public Schools, with its numerous academic and financial problems, could be fully accredited. Part of the reason is that when the board switched from using MSIP 5 to MSIP 6 in 2024, it determined that the MSIP 6 results for a single school year were not reliable enough to justify changing any district’s accreditation status. Rather, the board decided to use a three-year rolling average to make that determination, meaning that accreditation decisions will need to wait until 2027. The new Board needs to recognize this for the nonsense that it is, and it needs to create a meaningful accountability system.

Second, the new Board should get fully behind the governor’s effort to revise the Foundation Formula, which distributes most state education dollars to districts. The existing formula is over 20 years old, and at least one-third of our districts don’t even use it. Instead, those districts are “held harmless” and given the amount they received in 2005, regardless of any changes in enrollment or property values. The board, as stewards of billions of dollars in public funding, should insist on a new formula that is highly targeted to student need, is transparent, and allows funding to follow a student to the school of their choice. Ironically, the same MSIP 6 that can’t be trusted to measure student achievement has been deemed perfectly reliable when the board requests that the legislature raise the formula’s base funding amount per student. Which is it?

Third, the Board’s job is to hold schools and districts accountable for their performance, not to hide or apologize for failure. Currently, students who have mastered grade-level content and are ready for the next grade are classified as “Proficient.” In other words, they’re where they should be. But a bill currently under consideration in the Missouri Legislature would add a classification called “Grade Level.” If you didn’t know better, you might think that meant something very similar to “proficient,” but it would actually describe students who may be on grade level. What purpose could this new classification have, other than to provide false reassurance to parents whose children are falling behind? The Board should resist any attempts to water down results.

Finally, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has a website that is notoriously difficult to use. One of DESE’s main jobs is to disseminate information and data on our 2,500 schools and the 850,000 students who attend them. If Missouri were to allow students to choose a public school other than their assigned one, DESE would need a functioning website to track those students. If the Foundation Formula is revised, taxpayers deserve to be able to easily track public funds as they follow students. The Board should prioritize the building of a user-friendly and comprehensive website with easy-to-find, accessible, and transparent data.

Last year, four in ten Missouri 4th-graders tested in English/Language Arts couldn’t read. This fall they will move to middle school, and one can only imagine the difficulty they’ll be having when they can’t read their textbooks. DESE used to publish the percentage of high school graduates who were deemed either college- or career-ready by DESE standards. The percentage for the last year I could find (2017) was 42 percent. My own calculations from last year put the number at around 62 percent. When fewer than half of our young students can read on grade level and only about half of our graduating seniors are prepared for what’s next, we are in an educational crisis.

Being appointed to the State Board of Education is an honor, but it comes with responsibilities. We want board members to know the truth about how Missouri schools and students are faring, and we want them to tell us the truth about it. We want them to have a plan to fix what’s broken. That may include a performance audit of DESE to make sure the agency is functioning at the highest possible level. It may include working to expand rather than restrict parents’ choices for the education of their children. It also should include requesting the appropriate amount of state funds for their budget, rather than reflexively asking for more money each year. Time will tell which direction this new board takes, but one thing is crystal clear: It can’t be business as usual.

The post New State Board of Education Has a Long To-Do List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of this commentary appeared in The Heartlander

Tradeoffs and give-and-take are at the heart of politics. We’re told that the politicians who are willing to compromise are the ones who “get things done.” But not every tradeoff is worth it. Case in point: In the Missouri legislature, passage of a relatively weak open-enrollment measure has been discussed as a “both/and” that could be tied to passage of another bill that strips the State Board of Education (BOE) of its authority to accredit (or refuse to accredit) Missouri’s public schools. If that’s the offer, it deserves a hard no from legislators.

I don’t often find myself defending the BOE, and for good reason. It is fair to wonder what a school district has to do in this state to lose accreditation. Out of 517 districts, 511 (98.8 percent) are fully accredited, six are provisionally accredited, and none are unaccredited. The Ferguson-Florissant school district is fully accredited despite the fact that only 20 percent of its students are proficient in English language arts, and just 16 percent are proficient in math. Hazelwood, another fully accredited district, shows similarly troubling numbers: 25 percent proficiency in English and 15 percent in math. The Clarkton C-4 district in Missouri’s Bootheel is fully accredited even though 85 percent of students scored below grade level in English/language arts or math last year. Sadly, these are just three examples among many.

The question is: if the BOE isn’t holding schools accountable, what should be done about it? According to the proponents of Senate Bill 360, the solution is to strip the BOE of the power it seems so reluctant to use. The bill would prohibit the BOE from using academic performance to classify schools for accreditation purposes. Districts would instead be allowed to hire outside accreditation agencies to evaluate them. It should be obvious that such agencies would have a strong incentive to tell the districts that hire them what they want to hear.

If the fates of these two bills are linked, what do Missourians get in exchange for essentially throwing in the towel on accountability for school districts? They get House Bill 711, which would allow for open enrollment . . . sort of. It would only let up to 5 percent of students transfer out of any district, and more importantly, it wouldn’t require districts to accept students who wanted to transfer in. Compared to what our neighbors in Kansas and Oklahoma have, this is entry-level open enrollment at best, and it isn’t worth letting the districts themselves decide whether or not they deserve to be accredited.

There is no law of nature stating that the BOE can’t hold districts accountable for student performance. The Missouri Legislature could also make the BOE do its job. In fact, we are about to have four new members of the 8-person BOE, and they are likely to bring fresh energy and commitment to accountability.

The research on high accountability and improved student outcomes is clear, so the rubber-stamping of school accreditation needs to stop. The state, which funds public education to the tune of $6.6 billion each year, has a responsibility to both students and taxpayers to make sure that money is being spent to prepare students for college or the workforce.

If a “compromise” is on offer here it is a troubling example of the misplaced priorities of Missouri’s educational establishment. Who are they protecting here—students trapped in failing schools, or school districts threatened by the prospect of being held responsible for their performance?

The post A Bad Deal for Missouri’s Children appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri Senate debated this week whether we should just throw out the MSIP part. Students would still take the MAP tests, but only to meet federal requirements and get federal dollars. Supporters claim that outcomes will dramatically improve because every teacher, freed from the pressure of MAP scores, will thrive and innovate. Of course, that’s not true across the board. We have quite a few districts that need more oversight, not less.

Rather than take an accountability system with almost no teeth and toss it aside, we should be working on building a better one. It is still true that you can’t fix what you don’t measure. We need test scores to tell us if students can read and do math. We need to know how well schools are serving their students. Publicly funded systems should be held accountable to taxpayers.

We are on version six of MSIP. The state board of education recently determined that the results of MSIP 6 are not reliable enough to use without a rolling three-year average. If it is a broken accountability system—which it seems to be—let’s fix it.

The post Don’t Throw It Out—Fix It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, what happened last year and what does it mean? It’s hard to say. DESE’s press release states: “The data shows that Missouri schools are meeting the more rigorous requirements and higher expectations set forth in MSIP 6 . . .” This is according to the new commissioner who took over the department last summer. And then in a bulleted list, there’s this: “The APR will not be used for classifying LEAs this year.” (LEA stands for local education agency.) In other words, for the tenth year in a row, the accountability system will not be used for district accreditation. Why not? DESE doesn’t say. Also, when DESE plans to update district accreditation, which won’t be for another two years, it is going to use a three-year rolling average of the APR scores instead of a single year. Why?

What is clear is that the state board of education and the new commissioner are punting when it comes to accountability for school performance. Parents who want to know how their children’s district is doing—both in real terms and compared to other districts in the state—have to rely on sites like MoSchoolRankings. That’s information DESE ought to provide. The state leaders of public education in Missouri either have no confidence in their measurement system or they have no confidence in their schools.

The post Will the New Commissioner of Education Bring More Accountability to Missouri School Districts? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let’s look at this with a clear head. The chart below shows Missouri state and federal revenue for public education, adjusted for inflation, from before the pandemic through the recently approved budget for the 2024–25 school year. In 2017–18, there were just under 920,000 students in pre-K through 12th grade in Missouri and the state legislature appropriated a total of $5.8 million (2023 dollars) from the general revenue fund and other state funds. The federal government kicked in another $1.3 million, largely for the Title I program for low-income students, the IDEA program for students with disabilities, and the school lunch program. Last year, even after the recovery from the pandemic enrollment drops, we had about 25,000 fewer students—a trend that is expected to continue. Yet, the legislature’s appropriation was about $500 million more than seven years ago.

The cliff is in that green hump at the top of the graph. Like a hike in the mountains, if you do a lot of climbing, you’re going to have to descend at some point to get back to your car.

So, is it obvious that we need a special session to get a “mother of all supplemental budgets” for education? Only if you believe that spending can only ever go up. Missouri, like many states, has a persistent trend of declining enrollment. Is it reasonable to think that we can only ever consider level or increased spending on public education?

The post So Predictable 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.

Around a decade ago, both these districts failed to meet state standards and received the status of “unaccredited.” Because these districts lost accreditation, students were allowed to transfer to an adjoining district—and Riverview Gardens and Normandy had to pay tuition to these nearby districts.

Over 2,000 students (a quarter of the two districts’ enrollment) immediately took the opportunity to transfer—with many enrolling in Kirkwood, Mehlville, Hazelwood, Ferguson-Florissant, and Francis Howell. No receiving district gained more than a five percent increase in its student body. This exodus of students was rooted in families’ desire to improve their children’s livelihood—a sentiment that still exists today. One mother described the ability to choose a different district as follows: “She is thriving and has found a place where she fits in. She feels safe in her school environment and as her mother, I don’t worry about her safety while she’s at school.”

Reverting back to the local control is probably not going to dramatically improve the situation in Riverview Gardens or Normandy; these districts have performed terribly both before and after state control.  Parents need to be able to hold these districts accountable. Parents demonstrated they wanted choice back when students transferred out of these failing districts, and they still want it now.

Some people worry what would happen to struggling districts if families had school choice. However, these districts would not simply collapse, as they are allowed to use enrollment from any of the past four years for funding. And school choice could have other benefits for these districts. A smaller student body could lead to more academic success, and the threat of closure could serve as a wake-up call to those who love these school districts.

How much better would it be for a district if students were enrolled because they actually wanted to be there? Perhaps having a student body who actually wants to be at their school would lower the soaring absentee rates we see in these two districts and throughout the state. While I cannot guarantee that parental accountability through choice will save these districts, saving particular school districts isn’t the goal of education policy. It’s giving every student in Missouri the best opportunity to succeed. And that means giving every student in Missouri the chance to pick a school that best fits their needs.

The post Riverview Gardens and Normandy Are Regaining Local Control appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state board made the right decision, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Don’t get me wrong— public feedback and buy-in, especially on issues such as this, is critical. But the board made the right decision because DESE did not have statutory authority to push these standards.

Back in September, I noted that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was pushing the social–emotional learning standards without statutory authority. At the time, DESE claimed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri provided the authority. In the lead up to this week’s state board meeting, DESE has changed its tune. Instead of citing the statute for the “Trauma-informed schools initiative,” it  cited Section 161.092. This section of the statutes is labeled, “Powers and duties of state board.” Despite the change, DESE still lacks statutory authority to impose the SEL standards.

Section 161.092 essentially tells the state board what it must do. It must “adopt rules governing its own proceedings,” for example. The state board must also “make an annual report.” Nowhere in the section does it mention “standards,” “social–emotional,” or anything vaguely resembling the work that DESE has been pushing.

Once again, I have posted the full statute below for you to examine. It seems DESE is grasping at straws for authority, but coming up empty.

 161.092.  Powers and duties of state board. — The state board of education shall:

(1)  Adopt rules governing its own proceedings and formulate policies for the guidance of the commissioner of education and the department of elementary and secondary education;

(2)  Carry out the educational policies of the state relating to public schools that are provided by law and supervise instruction in the public schools;

(3)  Direct the investment of all moneys received by the state to be applied to the capital of any permanent fund established for the support of public education within the jurisdiction of the department of elementary and secondary education and see that the funds are applied to the branches of educational interest of the state that by grant, gift, devise or law they were originally intended, and if necessary institute suit for and collect the funds and return them to their legitimate channels;

(4)  Cause to be assembled information which will reflect continuously the condition and management of the public schools of the state;

(5)  Require of county clerks or treasurers, boards of education or other school officers, recorders and treasurers of cities, towns and villages, copies of all records required to be made by them and all other information in relation to the funds and condition of schools and the management thereof that is deemed necessary;

(6)  Provide blanks suitable for use by officials in reporting the information required by the board;

(7)  When conditions demand, cause the laws relating to schools to be published in a separate volume, with pertinent notes and comments, for the guidance of those charged with the execution of the laws;

(8)  Grant, without fee except as provided in section 168.021, certificates of qualification and licenses to teach in any of the public schools of the state, establish requirements therefor, formulate regulations governing the issuance thereof, and cause the certificates to be revoked for the reasons and in the manner provided in section 168.071;

(9)  Classify the public schools of the state, subject to limitations provided by law and subdivision (14) of this section, establish requirements for the schools of each class, and formulate rules governing the inspection and accreditation of schools preparatory to classification, with such requirements taking effect not less than two years from the date of adoption of the proposed rule by the state board of education, provided that this condition shall not apply to any requirement for which a time line for adoption is mandated in either federal or state law.  Such rules shall include a process to allow any district that is accredited without provision that does not meet the state board’s promulgated criteria for a classification designation of accredited with distinction to propose alternative criteria to the state board to be classified as accredited with distinction;

(10)  Make an annual report on or before the first Wednesday after the first day of January to the general assembly or, when it is not in session, to the governor for publication and transmission to the general assembly.  The report shall be for the last preceding school year, and shall include:

(a)  A statement of the number of public schools in the state, the number of pupils attending the schools, their sex, and the branches taught;

(b)  A statement of the number of teachers employed, their sex, their professional training, and their average salary;

(c)  A statement of the receipts and disbursements of public school funds of every description, their sources, and the purposes for which they were disbursed;

(d)  Suggestions for the improvement of public schools; and

(e)  Any other information relative to the educational interests of the state that the law requires or the board deems important;

(11)  Make an annual report to the general assembly and the governor concerning coordination with other agencies and departments of government that support family literacy programs and other services which influence educational attainment of children of all ages;

(12)  Require from the chief officer of each division of the department of elementary and secondary education, on or before the thirty-first day of August of each year, reports containing information the board deems important and desires for publication;

(13)  Cause fifty copies of its annual report to be reserved for the use of each division of the state department of elementary and secondary education, and ten copies for preservation in the state library;

(14)  Promulgate rules under which the board shall classify the public schools of the state; provided that the appropriate scoring guides, instruments, and procedures used in determining the accreditation status of a district shall be subject to a public meeting upon notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each of the three most populous cities in the state and also a newspaper that is a certified minority business enterprise or woman-owned business enterprise in each of the two most populous cities in the state, and notice to each district board of education, each superintendent of a school district, and to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president pro tem of the senate, and the members of the joint committee on education, at least fourteen days in advance of the meeting, which shall be conducted by the department of elementary and secondary education not less than ninety days prior to their application in accreditation, with all comments received to be reported to the state board of education;

(15)  Have other powers and duties prescribed by law.

The post In Search of Statutory Authority for Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Trust is foundational to any healthy school learning community. This is because schooling is an inherently personal affair. It is the shaping of minds, the forming of character, and a form of job preparation. And at its heart, it is relational. This is why the results of the recent public comment session for Missouri’s proposed social-emotional learning (SEL) standards are so troubling. They make it clear that many Missourians have lost trust in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

The proposed SEL standards, which are divided into “Me,” “We,” and “Others” categories, attempt to get to the heart of student character and conduct. They include things like setting and achieving attainable goals, effective teamwork, and empathy for others. Generally, these are values that almost every parent wants for their children. Yet when DESE polled Missourians about the standards, the responses were deeply troubling.

When looking at the responses from parents and community members, little more than half (50.4%) were supportive of the “Me” standards. The other two standards areas failed to receive support from even half of those responding. In the “Others” category, which included “respect, kindness, and civility while treating others with dignity and respect,” just 46.2% of parents and community members expressed support for the standards.

Why would roughly half of Missourians not support standards that attempt to promote positive character traits? The only plausible answer is that many parents and community members simply don’t trust DESE.

Some may point to sensational social media posts or outlandish rhetoric as the culprit for the lack of trust. While it is true that issues may get blown out of proportion on these platforms, DESE and the State Board of Education bear much of the blame in this case. For too long, they have operated without any meaningful accountability. They have made promises and failed to deliver, have pushed policy proposals without the support of the people, and they have acted, at times, without statutory authority. Three examples, including the proposed SEL standards, make this clear.

Do you remember the “Top 10 by 2020” initiative? No? Well, that’s because DESE memory-holed that initiative. It was a lofty goal to move Missouri to the top of the national rankings. It was a colossal failure. Not only did we not move to the top, we moved down in most rankings. As we did, DESE acted as if the initiative had never existed.

Consider also the state’s adoption of Common Core State Standards. Without public support, DESE and the State Board jettisoned our standards and with them the state’s standardized exams. That shift launched Missouri schools into a tumultuous decade that has seen bitter fights over state academic standards and continuous changes to state testing regimes. In 2011, Missouri’s proficiency standards were rated the eighth most rigorous in the country by Education Next. By 2017, the same publication rated Missouri 48th in the country. In one of the few areas in which we actually were in the top 10, the rigor of our academic standards, DESE and the State Board of Education led us to the bottom of the barrel.

Recently DESE promoted social-emotional learning standards. As if their track record wasn’t bad enough, they did so without proper authority. When DESE began this process, they listed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri as justification for implementing the SEL standards. Then, after I noted this statute had nothing to do with SEL standards, DESE began listing new statutory authority on documents, specifically Section 161.092. This statute is about the “power and duties of the state board.” Once again, the statute has nothing to do with standards or social-emotional learning. In other words, they were grasping at straws to justify a proposal that they have no statutory authority to make or implement.

If many Missourians do not trust DESE to teach their children about good character or social-emotional learning, maybe it’s because DESE has failed to lead responsibly for far too long.

The State Board of Education rejected the SEL standards at their last board meeting, citing the negative feedback. This was the right move, and it could be seen as a first step toward regaining the trust of Missouri parents and community members. At that same board meeting, Commissioner of Education Margie Van Deven stated that she will be stepping down at the end of the school year. This provides the State Board with a terrific opportunity to take the next step: finding a commissioner of education who is able to restore the public’s confidence in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The post It Is Time to Restore Trust in Missouri’s Public Education System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You can take a look at DESE’s proposed standards yourself. For the most part, they seem to be fairly straightforward standards that many could get behind. For example, the standards say students should learn “Processing and managing one’s own thoughts and behaviors to regulate emotions in a healthy manner.” Here’s another: students are to show “Respect, kindness, and civility while treating others with dignity.”

DESE breaks the standards into three categories: “Me,” “We,” and “Others.” “Me” is about developing a healthy sense of self. “We” is about building healthy relationships. “Others” is about treating others well. If you click on the link to provide feedback, you will be asked, “What comments do you have on the ‘Me’ section of the proposed standards?” You’ll have the same opportunity to reply on the “We” and “Others” standards.

DESE is asking for reactions and suggestions to its proposed standards. But this is not the question it should be asking.

The key question anyone should ask is this: What gives DESE the authority to set SEL standards?

The May 2023 Missouri State Board of Education Agenda lists Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri as justification for implementing SEL standards. Curiously, I cannot find a single thing in this section that would even remotely give this authority to DESE. You can read the statutes for yourself. I’ve copied them below.

The statute DESE claims gives it authority pertains to the “Trauma-informed schools initiative.” Nowhere in the statute does it say anything about SEL, nor does it mention the adoption of standards of any kind.

The statute says DESE should “provide information regarding the trauma-informed approach to all schools.” It is a big leap from providing information about trauma-informed education to setting SEL standards.

Without the proper statutory authority, it doesn’t really matter what comments anyone has on the “Me,” “We,” and “Others” standards. It does not matter because based on the authority cited DESE should not be writing the standards in the first place.

Missouri Revised Statutes

 161.1050.  Initiative established, department duties — definitions. — 1.  There is hereby established within the department of elementary and secondary education the “Trauma-Informed Schools Initiative”.

2.  The department of elementary and secondary education shall consult the department of mental health and the department of social services for assistance in fulfilling the requirements of this section.

3.  The department of elementary and secondary education shall:

(1)  Provide information regarding the trauma-informed approach to all school districts;

(2)  Offer training on the trauma-informed approach to all school districts, which shall include information on how schools can become trauma-informed schools; and

(3)  Develop a website about the trauma-informed schools initiative that includes information for schools and parents regarding the trauma-informed approach and a guide for schools on how to become trauma-informed schools.

4.  Each school district shall provide the address of the website described under subdivision (3) of subsection 3 of this section to all parents of the students in its district before October first of each school year.

5.  For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:

(1)  “Trauma-informed approach”, an approach that involves understanding and responding to the symptoms of chronic interpersonal trauma and traumatic stress across the lifespan;

(2)  “Trauma-informed school”, a school that:

(a)  Realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery;

(b)  Recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in students, teachers, and staff;

(c)  Responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into its policies, procedures, and practices; and

(d)  Seeks to actively resist retraumatization.

The post Social-Emotional Learning Standards: Under What Authority? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri, along with many other states, is struggling to bounce back to pre-pandemic achievement levels. In Missouri, scores have mostly recovered in math, but our English/language arts (ELA) scores have declined.

Here is a brief overview of the preliminary 2023 MAP results.

Mathematics took a bigger initial dive but has largely bounced back to its pre-pandemic levels. All cohorts of students (3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, etc.,) have gradually recovered in mathematics and had a higher average score in 2023 than they did in 2021. On the other hand, only Missouri 5th graders had a higher average score for ELA in 2023 than they did in 2021. Interestingly, ELA scores are actually decreasing rather than recovering (hopefully the new LETRS program can help).

Particularly concerning are 3rd-grade and middle-school ELA levels, both of which are still much lower than pre-pandemic levels. For 3rd graders, scores slumped in 2021. Even as kids returned to school full time, scores have not increased—but have remained completely stagnant. Missouri’s 6th graders have actually had their scores decrease steadily for four straight years, with scores decreasing even before the pandemic. Compared with other grade cohorts, Missouri 6th graders have the biggest loss between pre- and post-pandemic scores. Additionally, our state’s 7th graders have had their scores drop lower every year since 2021 (8th graders dropped in 2022 and remained steady in 2023). Our middle schoolers are not rebounding from the pandemic, they are actually struggling even more in ELA.

We need drastic actions to address this education emergency. Missouri’s Commissioner of Education claimed that the teacher shortage is impacting student learning as positions are filled with substitutes or left vacant entirely. I agree that there is a teacher shortage in Missouri, but it’s concentrated in specific schools and subject areas. We need major change. Allowing school districts to offer bonuses or higher salaries to recruit and retain high need positions could help fill these roles and make the education system more responsive to the market.

These scores are concerning, but I am hopeful that these “deflating” results might motivate our legislators and districts to bring more freedom and innovation to education in our state.

The post Missouri Students Are Sadly Still Struggling appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

*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

The Demonstration Project is a formal trial implemented with the goal of determining whether the Missouri Assessment Project (MAP) (which tests at the end of the year) should be replaced with an individualized and continuous system. I have discussed the details, benefits, and concerns with this project in two previous posts. If this new system sees success, Missouri could try to incorporate it statewide.

What will change for students this year?

Students in these 20 districts will be tested more frequently—three times in English/language arts (ELA) and three times in math (45 minutes for each subject), and the assessments will be on a computer. Students should know that it is an adaptive test, meaning the test will change in real time based on the responses—if a student misses questions, the test offers easier questions and vice versa. For a test taker, this means one cannot afford to make any careless mistakes. On traditional tests, all questions are weighted equally, so if one accidentally marks bubble C instead of bubble B, it will count as one mistake. However, if one accidentally picks bubble C or carelessly forgets to flip the sign on a negative number, the adaptive test will count it wrong and think the student cannot do harder problems since one of the easier problems was missed. Therefore, students should double check their work, because a careless mistake on the wrong problem can tank their score.

Students in these 20 districts will also take the MAP this year. The federal government mandates that every district in a state participate in a uniform standardized test. The MAP is a federally approved and mandated test, so any exemption from taking the MAP would have to come directly from the federal government. These 20 districts have requested a federal waiver, and we will see whether it is accepted or not.

What will change for parents?

The results of these student assessments will return quickly via an online form, and there will be a detailed breakdown of each student’s strengths and weaknesses (here is an example of adaptive test results). A dashboard will also be designed to report annual performance targets and goals. Page 29 of this report shows a sample dashboard. A parent should be able to access information relating to their district via the dashboard.

Hopefully this new trial will yield success that can help us find better ways to teach and assess our students.

The post 20 Missouri Districts Get the Green Light to Try New Assessment System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let me put it another way: If I told you that last spring, upon DESE’s recommendation, the State Board of Education reinstated fully accredited status to Kansas City Public School District, where 12 percent of students scored at a Proficient level or higher in math and 25 percent did so in English/language arts (ELA), what would be your takeaway? Would you think any more highly of the district knowing that it has DESE’s seal of approval? Or would you think instead that accreditation must not have much to do with how successful the district has been at preparing students to succeed?

DESE doesn’t appear to be very picky about which schools qualify for full accreditation. The Ferguson-Florissant School District, for example, is now fully accredited despite the fact that only 8 percent of students scored Proficient or higher in math, and 20 percent did so in ELA.

On the other hand, DESE seems to be tireless in its quest to perfect its system for evaluating school districts. It changed the test it uses four times in five years—making it difficult if not impossible to compare student test scores from consecutive years. And now, amid all the upheaval caused by the pandemic, it is replacing the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) 5 with MSIP 6. It’s an awful lot of trouble to go to just to tweak a system that has consistently accredited 99% of Missouri school districts. And that work will take time—nearly a decade will pass before school districts receive a new accreditation update from the state.

None of this is to say that the MSIP 5 shouldn’t be replaced; the Show-Me Institute has repeatedly pointed out its shortcomings. Under that system, districts needed to get at least 70 percent of their possible points to be accredited. However, there were multiple opportunities for “extra credit”—including all of the points for academic growth—and plenty of non-academic points at play. That explains why accreditation has been so easy to come by, and so far removed from the academic success of students.

Under MSIP 6, academic growth is now officially counted in the point total, but academic indicators still only comprise 48 out of 100 points. Districts can now earn points for creating a Continuous School Improvement Plan. They get points for “reflecting upon current practices and data.” They get points for having the “required documentation.” All of which is to say that districts with troublingly low academic performance are still quite likely to be able to get full accreditation.

But here’s the real kicker: DESE is going to go through the laborious calculations of MSIP 6 for each district, and then it’s going to make an accreditation recommendation to the State Board of Education. The recommendation will be based on the Accreditation Score, but also on “previous department MSIP findings” (whatever those are), on financial status, on statutory and regulatory compliance (whatever that involves), and on the employment of an “appropriately certified” superintendent. In other words, we will have State Board meetings like the one earlier this year that reinstated Kansas City Public Schools full accreditation, and the decision will be subjective.

So it doesn’t bother me that it will be a couple of more years before we are officially reminded of how stubbornly DESE and the State Board of Education refuse to face reality. What bothers me is that Missouri’s accountability system, if you can call it that, is heading in the wrong direction. It is becoming less academic, more watered down, and more about the adults in the system rather than the children in the schools.

The post The Suspense Isn’t Exactly Killing Me appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The reason that the president of a teachers union is joining forces with the bipartisan SALT caucus is that taxpayers are more willing to raise state tax rates if they can at least deduct what they pay to the state from their federal taxes. If they can’t deduct state taxes, then they prefer to keep them at a minimum, thank you very much. Same goes for local property taxes. And why does the teachers union want higher state and local taxes? So that more resources can be directed at teacher pay and teacher pensions. The education establishment is taking time to throw support at having everyone pay more out of their pockets to support and grow the education establishment.

Teacher pay, teacher recruitment, and teacher retention are also on the list of legislative priorities for the Missouri State Board of Education. The board would like to see legislatively mandated minimum starting salaries of $35,000 for teachers by 2024. In addition, $50 million in federal stimulus funds have been directed at recruitment and retention.

It’s true that having a high-quality teacher in every classroom is one of the few things that can have a positive impact on academic achievement. But do we get there by protesting for higher state taxes for everyone? Do we get there by paying every teacher more, regardless of their effectiveness? Do we get there by perpetuating a costly and outdated system of retirement that often pays teachers for more years of retirement than working years?

Stuck In the middle of all this are the 65 percent of Missouri students who were not at grade level on the state math assessment last year. Also in the middle are students with disabilities who did not receive any services when their schools shut down, along with the parents who desperately want tutoring for children who have fallen behind these last two years. It’s a sad state of affairs when public education starts to look like a battle between those who support teachers and those who support families.

The post Is SALT Really a Priority for Schools Right Now? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But those of us who pushed for this didn’t give up. Last summer the State Board of Education met and considered a proposed rule change to the MOCAP law. Instead of giving districts unlimited time to respond to parent requests to enroll their child in MOCAP, a 30-day time limit should be set. The proposed rule change was then posted for public comments that the Board could consider before they voted on it at their next meeting.

In the meantime, the Joint Committee on Education met and suggested that the need to get district permission to enroll in MOCAP should be waived altogether—particularly given the unique educational challenges presented by the pandemic. Again, those of us who support parental choice did our best to inform parents and the public that this obstacle needed to go. Parents across Missouri are figuring out what to do for their children this school year, and accessing the approved virtual education programs in MOCAP needs to be simple.

When the Board of Education convened in September, they had hundreds of comments to consider—including, according to the minutes, “numerous comments regarding the enrollment response time.” Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously to insert a decision time limit into the law and to make it 10 business days from receipt of a request to enroll in MOCAP. Parents not provided a decision within this timeframe get default approval. Further, if a district denies enrollment and a parent appeals, the district now has 72 hours to provide the full documentation used to make the decision.

To be clear: This is a win for Missouri parents. Many districts don’t like the MOCAP program, and some had previously indicated that they wouldn’t implement the law as written. Fortunately, the Board of Education did the right thing and shifted some power from district administration to parents, where it belongs. Did they feel some pressure from the persistent drumbeat of groups like the Show-Me Institute? Maybe. Did the shutdown of every school in the state make them realize that they need to work with parents and not against them? Probably. Is this a harbinger of a move away from the monopoly model of public education firmly established in the last century? I hope so.

The post A Win for Parents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The good news is that school districts will have that flexibility this year. DESE recently announced that “The Missouri State Board of Education voted to grant exemptions to the school start date law that goes into effect for the 2020–2021 school year, given the unusual and extenuating circumstances COVID 19 has presented.”

This waiver is good news for districts. The start date law, however, is an unnecessary restriction aimed at supporting tourism at the cost of education. A mandated start date makes even less sense this year, given the chaos created by COVID-19.

To acquire a waiver, districts must apply to the State Board of Education. Requirements for waiver eligibility (listed under the “Calendars, Finance and Funding” tab) include showing local support for moving the start date (DESE is vague about exactly what this means), holding a public hearing on moving the start date, demonstrating how this exemption will benefit students and their learning, and explaining how this exemption will minimize the transmission of COVID-19.

If a district’s waiver is granted, districts can create a school calendar based on student needs. However, the waiver is only good for the upcoming school year. Next year and beyond districts will have to follow the start date law. The coronavirus is an extreme example of how this law can create problems for schools, but there are many other potential situations where adjusting the school calendar could be necessary.

While it’s welcome news that districts won’t be mandated to start school on a fixed date this year, the underlying problem remains. The school start date law harms kids and schools in Missouri, and lawmakers should just get rid of it.

The post School Start-Date Flexibility: A Short-Term Win for Local Control appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There certainly is a problem, but it isn’t what you may think. The problem is misunderstanding.

Katnik was relying on a DESE report to the Missouri General Assembly in December 2018.  The report lists turnover figures which could easily be mistaken for statewide turnover numbers.  Check out the table below.

In the report, DESE claims that the three-year teacher retention rate for teachers starting in 2015-16 was just 63.4%. This number drops to a shocking 34.6% for the five-year retention rate of teachers starting in 2014-15. To the casual observer, the takeaway is that only roughly a third of our teachers are staying in the profession. What’s worse, these numbers seem to be going down over time. In other words, teacher retention appears to be going from bad to worse.

But, that is not what this table is actually showing. The figures presented here are not retention in the field, but retention at the school/district level. In other words, if a teacher were to leave one district for another they would be counted as not being retained.   

In this post, I use data provided by DESE to show the state retention rate of educators in Missouri. I limited the data to only individuals who appeared to be full-time employees in their start year.

In the figure below, I look at the cohort survival for new teachers beginning in 2000 and 2009. The teachers are tracked for nine years, all that was possible given the data. As you can see, retention rates for new teachers in 2000 and 2009 are almost identical. After nine years, nearly 45% are still in the education profession in Missouri. This is well-above DESE’s five-year estimate of retention.

These number more closely fit the percentage of teachers leaving the field in the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Attrition and Mobility study, which found roughly 7-8% of teachers leave the profession each year.

Looking at a shorter period of five years, I compare the retention rates for new teachers in 2000, 2009, and 2013 below.  As this chart shows, the five-year cohort survival is getting better, not worse. For new teachers in 2013, over 65% were still in the profession after five years. 

The numbers presented here are different than DESE’s numbers because we are measuring different things. They look at building level turnover. That is not the best way to measure a state’s health in teacher retention. We have over 500 school districts, and we should expect some movement of teachers among the districts. People move, their spouses get jobs elsewhere, and they seek higher pay or job advancement. For all sorts of reasons, teachers change schools. That is not an indictment of the field and does not require state intervention.   

Before the State Board of Education begins a massive collaborative effort to address the non-issue of a fictitious teacher retention crisis, they should look at all the facts. Whether you look at new teachers starting in 2000, 2009, or 2013, sixty percent or more are still in the profession in the state after five years.

We do not have a statewide epidemic, but many individual school districts may have teacher retention problems. And, just as these problems are local, they will in most cases require local solutions, not broad statewide policies.

The post There Is Not a Teacher Retention Crisis in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.