The 2024 results indicate that 4 in 10 Missouri 4th graders scored below the Basic level on the assessment. What does that mean? According to a researcher from the University of Virginia, “students performing below NAEP Basic level have less vocabulary knowledge and less world knowledge, which would limit their inferencing and comprehension capability.” Another researcher describes it thusly: “Below Basic on the NAEP means that a student is performing below the minimum expected level of academic achievement for their grade, indicating a lack of foundational skills and inability to demonstrate even basic mastery of the subject matter being assessed.”  The 42 percent of Missouri 4th graders who scored at below Basic last year are most likely now in the 5th grade trying to figure out what the heck their textbooks in any subject are trying to teach them.

Here is how the performance of Missouri 4th graders has changed over time.

This graph shows scale scores (NAEP is on a scale from 0 to 500). While Missouri was hovering just above the national average until 2017, we then began a steep slide that is barely leveling out.

But scores everywhere have declined because of COVID, right? Not so. In 2024, we outperformed just five states—Oregon, Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and West Virginia. Here is the same chart for Mississippi.

Twenty six years ago, we outperformed Mississippi by 16 scale score points. Now, it’s ahead of us by seven.

What will Missouri look like in 15 years, when almost half of 25-year-olds are barely literate? We have a new governor and a new commissioner of education. Perhaps these questions should be put to them.

The post Missouri Public Schools Have a Very Serious Reading Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Think of some of the top GDP growth states in the nation: Florida, Texas, Tennessee. None of these states have a state income tax. Free markets really do matter, and it has been demonstrated time and time again around the world and in the United States.

The Fraser Institute issues a periodic ranking of states according to “economic freedom.” According to its most recent ranking, Tennessee came in third—right ahead of number four Texas, but behind number one New Hampshire and number two Florida. Missouri came in at a respectable, but distant, number 15 ranking. Almost all of the “least economically free” states in Fraser’s report (New York, California, Illinois, West Virginia, and New Mexico), saw population loss.

Not coincidentally, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have also dominated the U-Haul Growth Index, which measures the ratio of one-way, inbound U-Hauls versus one-way, outbound U-Hauls.

Granted, it is hard for Missouri to be Texas or Florida when we do not have the geographical gifts that those states enjoy.

But Tennessee is right on Missouri’s border and has much in common with the Show-Me State. Tennessee eliminated taxes that hamper growth (such as the Hall Tax, which taxed stocks and bonds), prioritized education reform to increase school choice and accountability, and its leaders are embracing its identity as a pro-growth, freedom-loving state.

Missouri has made recent progress in lowering the income tax burden. Since 2017, the top income tax rate has decreased from 6 percent to 4.7 percent for 2024.

Bringing the number down to zero should not just be a talking point—it ought to be a serious goal. If we want to be a top growth state, a nationwide destination for families, and attract more businesses, lowering the income tax is a great place to start.

I can speak from experience: having no state income tax is a luxury and a draw. Don’t we want that in our state too?

The post Slashing the Income Tax to Zero appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the aftermath of the decision, government unions were unable to convince many non-members to become full-fledged members and pay dues. As I discussed in a previous post, union financial reports submitted to the Department of Labor show the National Education Association lost the 88,000 non-member agency fee payers it had in 2017. And the Americans Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union lost 110,000 agency fee payers. The financial reporting of another large public-sector union, the American Federation of Teachers, does not reflect the impact of Janus because its reporting period ended in the same month as the decision. However, a new report from the Freedom Foundation states that “union spokespeople indicate the union lost nearly all 85,000 agency fee-payers it had at the time of the decision.”

As Kovacs notes later in the piece, the Janus decision doesn’t only affect non-member fee payers, who in many states were the primary beneficiaries of the case, but also union members themselves. As the ruling notes, “Unless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them, this standard [for waiving one’s First Amendment rights] cannot be met.”

But are union members aware of these rights? Kovacs persuasively suggest that the answer is no, and that state law can still act as a barrier to securing these rights.

Prior to the Janus decision, workers who wished to opt-out of union membership were restricted by what are known as window periods. For example, in Michigan, many public employees could only leave their union once a year during a short period of time in August. Other window periods only permitted members to leave the union for a brief time period around the anniversary of their hiring.

Despite the text of the decision that allows workers to resign union membership nearly at any time, labor unions are still blocking workers who want to leave by enforcing these invalid window periods. In a recent case, Hendrickson v. AFSCME, New Mexico public employee Brett Hendrickson, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, was prohibited from exercising his Janus rights to resign from union membership. Hendrickson, a quality control specialist for the New Mexico Human Services Department, attempted to leave AFSCME Council 18 and stop dues from being deducted from his paycheck, but was told he could only opt-out during a narrow window period. This is just one of many examples of unions coercing worker to continue paying dues and undermining their First amendment rights.

To what extent Missouri government workers are having their rights curtailed is the subject of rigorous debate. For instance, a court injunction against House Bill (HB) 1413, which reformed much of Missouri’s labor law framework, has created uncertainty as to what the law is on basic issues like union membership and representation. Also, collective bargaining agreements in the state were (to be generous) lightly overseen by the state even before HB 1413 became law, meaning that violations of workers’ rights could be ongoing—and hardly anyone would know about it. Fortunately, Missouri did not technically allow for “fair share fees” of the sort that Janus put an end to nationwide, so many Missouri workers had at least incidental knowledge of their labor rights in the Show-Me State. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.

The better educated workers are about their rights, the better off they will be. Especially in this post-Janus legal environment, that educational process is more important than ever.

The post Are Government Unions Adequately Informing Workers of Their Rights? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study examined four different rural charter schools in New Mexico, Minnesota, Florida and Arizona and described the factors that contributed to their success.

According to the researchers, a close connection to the community and the ability to fill an academic need was critical to the success of the charter schools they studied. For example, the Glacial Hills Elementary charter school in Minnesota started up after the local district school closed in 2005 due to issues with finances and declining enrollment. Opening a charter school meant that students had a local educational option instead of having to travel an hour each day to the nearest school.

In a rural community in Florida, families were quickly moving out of the local school system or enrolling in private schools for a quality education, so Crossroads Academy opened to provide a local, rigorous public education for students.

I bet there are Missouri families who would like to shorten their child’s daily commute to school or have a quality academic option nearby. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 61 percent of Missouri’s rural school districts have experienced a decline in enrollment from 2010 to 2016. This is part of a larger migration trend in Missouri, but those who remain in rural areas still deserve a quality education. The Minnesota and Florida schools mentioned above show how charter schools can thrive in rural areas with declining enrollment.

The researchers also produced a website that has more in-depth analysis on their findings, and it’s worth a look for more information on each charter school.

Other states are leading the way in providing quality options for rural students. Why doesn’t Missouri do the same?  

The post Charter Schools Can Fill the Void in Rural Areas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And guess who also eschews letter grades for schools? Missouri. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) recently released the list of Targeted Schools (pretty bad) and Comprehensive Schools (the worst of the worst). Seemingly, this is to be compliant with the federal law to release the list of the lowest five percent of schools in the state in terms of performance, although neither list quite matched that mandate in numbers.

As I converted the PDF lists of Targeted and Comprehensive Schools to an Excel file that I could use (meaning merged with performance and demographic data), I kept having to remind myself which list had 64 schools and which had 323. Targeted and Comprehensive don’t carry much meaning to me. At least these 387 schools got some sort of label. The other 2,200 or so purposefully aren’t “labeled.” Rather, they get a score between 0 and 100 that reflects the number of possible points that a school received (with tons of extra credit points available) divided by their possible points. Parents in the state have been trained to look for the number 70, because that’s the threshold for accreditation.

So, which Missouri schools are doing well and which are doing poorly? Maybe ask your neighbor or the parents on the sideline at this weekend’s soccer game. They probably have some sense of what “most” people think are the “good” schools and which ones to avoid. They may be right, they may be wrong. I don’t recommend turning to DESE to figure it out.   

The post Welcome to the Club, New Mexico! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Repeal the Certificate of Need law.

Eliminating CON requirements would allow Missourians to benefit from true marketplace competition in the health care arena.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming have no CON law.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Missouri would join a growing list of states that have opened the door to real health care competition.

KEY POINTS

• CON laws separate patients who need care from doctors who want to provide it.
• More competition would create pressure to reduce health care prices.
• Missouri would be able to compete with nearby states, including Kansas, where smaller hospitals are opening up because they aren’t restricted by CON laws.
• CON reform is an opportunity to help communities threatened by the loss of existing hospitals.
• Ending CON would empower patients to make choices that benefit their families, rather than support the government-backed competitive advantages of hospitals.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Essay: Demand Supply: Why Licensing Reform Matters to Improving American Health Care

Blog Post: Missouri’s Certificate of Need Law Needs to Go

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Certificate of Need appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Far from it. Of the 77 U.S. cities that KPMG ranked (which was not exhaustive of all major metros), Saint Louis ranked 45th and Kansas City ranked 46th. Among the cities cheaper than Saint Louis (and Kansas City) are regional competitors like Nashville, Omaha, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Worse yet, Saint Louis was more expensive than all 18 Southeastern cities KPMG looked at, from Atlanta to New Orleans.

So where did the Post-Dispatch get a top ten ranking for Saint Louis? If we only consider regions with populations greater than two million (of which KPMG ranked 31), Saint Louis is the 9th cheapest. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Saint Louis should pat itself on back for being cheaper than New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, when it has higher costs for businesses than Nashville, Memphis, and just about every other regional competitor. But if we do decide to use population as criteria, it seems more justified to look at metros with populations similar to those of Saint Louis and Kansas City (between two and three million residents). When we do that, Saint Louis is 7th and Kansas City is 8th out of 14 such cities. That seems awfully middling.

That’s probably why, if one reads the study that the Post-Dispatch reports on, they’ll find that it does not claim that Saint Louis is among the most competitive cities in the country. KPMG didn’t even break down cities by population in the study, choosing instead to do so by region.  The Post-Dispatch story (while citing the study) is actually based on an ancillary KPMG press release, which lauds Cincinnati, and is careful to note context.

Titling an article “St. Louis among most cost-competitive cities for business, report says” when the report in question says no such thing is a questionable decision for a newspaper of record. But this is not just a problem with the headline. The article itself is equally misleading, and it was not a headline writer who placed this story front and center on the Post-Dispatch’s website less than a week before a vote on multiple tax issues (where the city’s business climate is an issue). 

The post Report: Saint Louis, Kansas City *Not* Among Most Cost-Friendly Cities for Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several of the speakers have since noted the growth in both the quantity and quality of young liberty activists over the last few decades. In his Washington Examiner column, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy recollects that when he founded a college libertarian group in the early 1990s, “we considered ourselves lucky when we could get a couple of dozen socially awkward malcontents together to grumble about the government.”

But economist Bryan Caplan probably summed it up best: “Twenty years ago, a pack of libertarian students would have been roughly as awkward and freakish as attendees at Comic-Con … or, say, me. Now I see hundreds of students who aren’t just smart, but smooth.”

My college experience was not nearly as benighted as Healy’s or Caplan’s. I helped lead a libertarian group at Washington University in Saint Louis from 2001 to 2005, and we were extremely active: holding weekly meetings, bringing speakers to campus (sometimes multiple times per semester), debating other student groups, helping to publish a biweekly conservative-libertarian student newspaper, etc. The group was a major force in campus political life, but we were still outnumbered and isolated. There were only a few other large and active libertarian college groups across the country (Loyola New Orleans, Hillsdale College, and George Mason University spring to mind), so we felt like the last of a dying breed, a remnant of brighter days.

At one point, we tried to launch a national libertarian student group, much like what SFL has become. When we started planning for a conference, we thought 100–200 student attendees would be phenomenal, but we never achieved that because there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the idea outside of those few groups. If someone told us that, less than 10 years later, there would be a pro-liberty student group hosting a convention with more than 500 attendees (and many others turned away because of a lack of space), we would have laughed in his face.

I don’t think it has ever felt this good to be wrong. (Maybe in 2006, when the Cardinals surprised even me by beating the Tigers and winning the World Series, but I’m pretty sure this is better.) Students and young people in general are listening to the message of freedom being articulated by talented writers, filmmakers, artists, etc. — and by groups like the Show-Me Institute. I get dispirited on an almost daily basis when I see the government grow and grow, seemingly without end, but I have seen real changes in people’s beliefs since I first started tilting at these government windmills. That’s no guarantee that things will change for the better, but it is something. It’s hope.

The post A New Hope appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• No state can “win” the film subsidy war . Film subsidies are sometimes described as an “investment” that will pay off by creating a long-lasting industry. This strategy is dubious at best. Even Louisiana and New Mexico — the two states most often cited as exemplars of successful industry-building strategies — are finding it hard to hold on to the production that they have lured. The film industry is inherently risky and therefore dependent on subsidies.

Regular readers of Show-Me Daily know that I am a frequent critic of these programs. The following is a list of additional recent studies that I have referenced previously, all of which are specific to film tax credit programs. Each of these concludes that film tax credit programs have negative fiscal consequences for states. If any of you are aware of quality literature on the topic that I may have excluded, please leave a note in the comments section of this post.

1. In October 2010, the state auditor’s office in Iowa released a report on the state’s film tax credit program, which was subject to recent scandals. The auditor found that a full 80 percent of the credits that the state had granted were issued improperly — amounting to more than $25 million.
   
2. In September 2010, the Senate Fiscal Agency in Michigan released a study showing that the state spends more on film tax programs than they generate in economic activity. For example, in fiscal year 2010–11, Michigan will spend $125 million on film credits, which will generate merely $13.5 million in new tax receipts. This amounts to a net fiscal cost of $111.5 million.
3. In March 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Commerce published a cost-benefit analysis of the state’s film tax credit program, reporting that it costs 20 times more to create a job using the state’s movie tax incentive program than it does using other state job creation programs.
4. In January 2010, Tax Foundation released a study, “Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy,” concluding that production incentives such as targeted tax credits do not spur economic growth.
5. According to a 2007 study by Oxford Economics, “The Economic Impact of the UK Film Industry,” the film industry has a multiplier of only 2.0. This is lower than the multiplier for the economy average, and indicates that the indirect impacts on employment and output from the film industry are not very far-reaching. Even if there were a significant multiplier when money is spent in the economy, then certainly permanent businesses would provide more favorable returns — not short-lived activity such as film productions.

The post State Film Tax Credit Program Reading List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Every dime that the state takes away from an individual or business, through an income tax, is essentially taken out of the productive economy. Consequently, the capital that would have been spent investing in future goods is no longer available to the entity that would have otherwise used it. This, in effect, stifles growth.

Some might argue that public spending pumps that money back into the economy, but the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a perfect example of that kind of Keynesian theory failing in practice. The bill massively increased government spending,but did little to stimulate growth in the economy; unemployment remains around 10 percent. In practice, government spending provides much less of a stimulative effect than comparable tax cuts.

It would be in Missouri’s best interest to lower — or even abolish — the state income tax, thus enabling Missourians to spend and invest more of their own money to grow our stagnant economy. As demonstrated in the table below, which displays average annual growth rates per state between 1997 and 2008, Missouri’s growth ranks seventh-worst in the nation. Abolishing or reducing the state income tax would be a step in the right direction toward positive change.

Source for GDP Numbers: Bureau of Economic Analysis

The post Growth by State appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With the grant, the Health Council will work toward increasing the availability of fresh, locally grown produce and to help transform the eating habits of the community.

There are two things wrong with the Health Council’s plan. First, there’s the assumption that the government ought to transform an entire community’s eating habits. It’s one thing to say that if a public institution like a school district happens to serve lunch to kids, the food might as well be nutritious. It’s altogether different to set out to engineer a lifestyle change for all of a city’s residents.

The Health Council points to the obesity “epidemic” to justify its plan, but obesity isn’t some kind of contagious disease that the state needs to protect us from. You won’t gain weight from coming into contact with an obese person. While the government might have to take action to prevent the spread of a virus or bacteria, it should leave the choices that can result in obesity up to individuals. They won’t put anyone else in danger if they gain weight.

Second, this is another instance of the government endorsing the idea that locally grown produce is superior to food from other sources. Anyone is free to hold this conviction; however, their belief has no place in policy until they come up with evidence for it. Supporters haven’t demonstrated a connection between local food and health. In fact, some dietitians even recommend frozen produce over fresh:

“[F]rozen produce actually can be healthier than the fresh variety. It is on the plant or tree longer than the fresh variety, so it’s packed with a higher nutrient value.”

If a public school near you is giving preference to food grown nearby, watch out. Your government might begin advocating local food as the correct choice for you, too.

The post Local Food Policy Branches Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In New Mexico, the Republican legislator who proposed the mandate said, in the AP’s paraphrase, “the insurance mandate would help families struggling with the out-of-pocket costs of providing therapy and other services for autistic children.” Yes, it would. Of course, everyone else who buys that insurance would be paying higher rates to pay for this coverage. Someone has to pay for it, something the bill’s sponsor either doesn’t know or doesn’t acknowledge.

The bill passed the New Mexico Senate, and the the comparable mandate in Wisconsin is still under debate.

These mandates increase the price of insurance. Although the autism mandate would be more costly than most of its supporters claim, by itself it wouldn’t drive insurance premiums through the roof. But when you add it to mandates about a host of other conditions, the expense becomes a burden. This is the insurance equivalent of, for instance, a grocery store mandate that requires customers to buy cheese and vegetables along with every loaf of bread so that they have the right ingredients to make healthy sandwiches. That hypothetical mandate would obviously affect people’s grocery bills by forcing them to stock up on products that not everyone wants. Insurance mandates have the same deleterious effects, but lawmakers seem to think the cost magically disappears into the insurance pool.

The post We’re Not Alone appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

John Stoeffler, the co-founder of a constitutional think tank, argues that the reason Missouri is missing out is because the Census doesn’t apportion representatives based on citizenship. In other words, he argues that the gain in congressional seats in border states is based on an influx of immigrants without voting rights.

But I wonder if something else could be going on, too? Maybe the reason why “border state” representation has been growing while Missouri representation has been declining is indicative of fundamental economic growth shifts. Could it be that Missouri is stagnating while other states are growing?

In 1900, Missouri had a larger population than California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. Today, only New Mexico lags behind Missouri. An even more interesting picture emerges if we look at the compound annual growth rates of those states’ populations versus that of their household incomes since the 1980 Census.

Since 1980, Missouri’s population and household income growth has lagged behind those of all four southern U.S. border states. Could it be that declining congressional representation has more to do with shifting economic importance?

Missouri is stagnating. This is why it is so important that Missourians petition their state representatives for better legislation. Lower taxes, better education, and more secure property rights will make Missouri a more competitive place to do business. For example, Missouri has a higher marginal income tax rate than any of the states listed above (except for California). Missouri’s education system continues to decline and remains below the national average. If we fix these things, Missouri will become more attractive and people will flock to the state once again.

Missouri needs better laws. That’s why it’s losing congressional seats.

The post Why Is Missouri Losing Congressional Seats? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.