On December 2, Jabal Companies and Calvary University filed a federal complaint alleging that the City of Belton discriminated in rejecting a proposed 252-unit affordable housing project on city-owned land. The plaintiffs argue that public opposition included racially coded language and that the city council’s decision violated the Fair Housing Act by relying on stereotypes about prospective tenants.

The project was modest in scale, encompassing just over eight acres near Westover Road and Bong Avenue, across from Calvary University and adjacent to a public golf course. Plans included a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, along with amenities such as a pool, playgrounds, and a community clubhouse. The site had remained undeveloped for decades.

Belton’s own community development staff had described the parcel as “an underutilized property not being used for its highest and best use.” The city was expected to contribute nearly seven acres, with Calvary selling an adjacent one-acre parcel. Jabal Companies had already secured low-income housing tax credits and begun engineering and design work.

Public opposition quickly emerged. During rezoning hearings, residents raised concerns about crime, school overcrowding, and declining property values—common themes in debates over subsidized housing. According to the lawsuit, many of these objections, and the council’s response to them, reflected coded language around race and socioeconomic status.

Whether the legal claims succeed remains uncertain. But from a policy standpoint, this case illustrates a broader challenge: what political scientist Francis Fukuyama termed a “vetocracy,” in which a small number of actors can block change, even when there is widespread recognition that change is necessary.

Across the country, similar dynamics play out in neighborhood meetings, zoning boards, and advisory councils. These forums are intended to enhance democratic participation. In practice, they often amplify the voices of politically engaged homeowners who oppose new housing near their properties.

In Belton, the developers spent months working with city officials and cleared several early procedural steps. Yet because no binding approvals had been secured, a single up-or-down vote by the city council effectively killed the project—despite prior staff support and what the plaintiffs contend was a complete and compliant application.

These decisions carry real consequences. Projects that are blocked or delayed leave more families searching for housing that doesn’t exist. Each additional layer of discretionary approval adds uncertainty and expense, discouraging developer investment.

The current system also distorts the market. Developers recognize that affordable housing proposals often face the most resistance and may instead pursue higher-end projects with fewer political risks—or leave the market altogether. Or, as is too often the case, developers seek public subsidies to offset the additional costs of delays and red tape. In contrast, cities such as Raleigh, North Carolina, which have restructured local review boards and relaxed zoning restrictions, have seen measurable increases in “missing middle” housing options such as duplexes and townhomes.

Community input remains essential, and many developers are willing to engage with residents. But Missouri’s approval process, which features duplicative reviews, ambiguous standards, and politicized hearings, is simply too burdensome.

The post Legal Challenge over Belton Housing Project Highlights Flawed Approval Process appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Shaka Mitchell, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, about how a new federal scholarship tax credit, created through the One Big Beautiful Bill, could transform K–12 education across the country. They discuss what this means for Missouri families, the legal threats facing the MOScholars program, how education policy is shifting nationally, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Evolution of School Choice in Missouri
02:59 Charter Schools and Teacher Innovation
05:40 The Impact of Lawsuits on Educational Freedom
08:35 Federal Tax Credit Programs and Their Implications
11:19 The Future of School Choice and Parental Empowerment

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much for joining us on the Show-Me Institute podcast, Shaka Mitchell of AFC. But I think you wear a lot of hats. We’ll just do that hat for now. There have been a lot of changes in the last few years—certainly since the pandemic—regarding how kids end up at the school they attend, especially with parents now getting more opportunities to choose instead of just being assigned. I know you’ve been on the front lines of this, especially through your work with charter schools.

In Missouri, we’re sort of creeping into it. We have a scholarship program now that’s growing, and finally, like in so many other states, the legislature has decided to put some public funding toward it. And now it’s tied up with a lawsuit. Are you following what’s going on with Missouri’s scholarship program?

Shaka Mitchell (00:45):
Yeah, thanks Susan. Thanks for having me on. I sure am following it. I’ve been encouraged in recent years by the steps Missouri has taken to expand school choice. As you know, there had been a charter school law for years, but it was really limited—to Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s a lot of students, but still many others couldn’t access those schools.

Then you had the MOScholars program, which I bet we’ll talk about. On the one hand, there are some encouraging developments coming out of Missouri. And then, per usual, there are lawsuits. Because, in the words of the famous 20th-century philosopher Taylor Swift, haters gonna hate.

Susan Pendergrass (01:30):
That’s right.

Let’s go back to this charter school thing for a minute. Now, for the first time, a charter school can open anywhere in the state—but only if the school board is the sponsor. That happens all over the country, but in Missouri, no school board would even consider authorizing a charter school. Not running them, just authorizing them.

Now there’s one other county where they can open without the board as the sponsor. But there is such strong resistance to the idea of charter schools. Do you find that surprising in 2025?

Shaka Mitchell (02:06):
Yes and no. I’ve worked in charter schools and with several charter networks. I have lots of friends still working in that space. At the American Federation for Children, we’re school-type agnostic. We support parents’ ability to choose.

In some ways, it’s not surprising that school districts—which have in many places become jobs programs for adults—don’t want to disrupt the status quo. Budgets continue to increase, while enrollments decrease. So they’ve got fewer students per classroom, but more money per pupil.

They’ve got it pretty good in terms of job security. But I think what you’re getting at is important: there are great educators who want to do right by kids. And many of them are trapped within that system.

We’re seeing some start their own schools or move to other states or online programs. There’s a lot of innovation happening. But unfortunately, you mostly see the negative reaction from public school districts when it comes to innovation and choice.

Susan Pendergrass (03:42):
Yes, and what’s so tragic in Missouri is that we’ve shut the door on teachers as entrepreneurs. We have plenty of entrepreneurial teachers. Some of the strongest charter school networks were started by teachers who said, “I have a great idea, and I need to do this outside the regulations and bureaucracy.” Cutting off the teacher-as-entrepreneur option is tragic.

Shaka Mitchell (04:10):
Yeah, super tragic. One of my colleagues, Dr. Patrick Graff at AFC, has done work on teacher spending accounts—similar to ESAs.

It’s a great idea. Teachers often say their classrooms are under-resourced. Every parent knows it’s almost back-to-school season—we’re about to get a list of supplies.

Every time I get that list, I think, “Why haven’t we budgeted for enough glue or crayons?” Patrick’s idea is that teachers should have accounts to buy what they need. Surprise: teachers love it, and legislators do too.

But when you say, “Cool, it works for teachers—now let’s do it for parents,” suddenly it’s hair-on-fire. The education establishment just says no. It’s unfair.

Susan Pendergrass (05:19):
Yeah. Public funding for MOScholars in Missouri currently serves mostly low-income students and students with disabilities in Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s where the program started. It’s expanded a bit—but only through tax-credit fundraising, and the organizations have to ask for donations.

Now the lawsuit is basically saying those kids have to go back to their old schools. That we can’t publicly fund private schools for students. It’s saying, “You have to go back to the school that didn’t work for you.”

I know the teachers’ unions brought the lawsuit, and they often take on the PR risk of being on the wrong side of things—like trying to take scholarships away from kids. I don’t see how they can sit well with that.

Shaka Mitchell (06:20):
Yeah. I had the great fortune of meeting a parent in Missouri, Becky Ucello. Her daughter was able to attend a private school through the program. Becky is a public school teacher.

So the idea that private choice programs are anti–public school is a myth. Of course she wants the best for her students—and her own daughter, who has exceptional needs. The district school wasn’t working. Who among us wouldn’t want the best for our child?

The unions get this wrong every time. And they usually get defeated in court. I expect the same in Missouri. There’s strong federal and state case law supporting the idea that parents can choose and that funds given out in a non-discriminatory way can be used at religious schools—because the parent is making the choice, not the government.

Susan Pendergrass (07:47):
In addition to the lawsuit, there’s a potential initiative petition in Missouri to amend the constitution to say you can’t spend public funds at private institutions for students.

But we already have several higher ed programs that work like Pell Grants—you can take them to public or private colleges. We have Bright Flight. This petition might even cut off those programs, too.

And even when open enrollment comes up, it’s often the lowest-performing districts that say, “We can’t be part of it—we can’t let our kids leave.”

Shaka Mitchell (08:41):
It’s totally short-sighted. Nearly every district already outsources some of their special needs education to private providers. That petition could cut off even that.

It’s absurd. Districts don’t make their own computers, books, or desks. They purchase from private companies all the time. The idea that public education is this sacred, fully public institution is a fiction.

Susan Pendergrass (09:33):
Cisco trucks are in every school. Pearson brings the textbooks. Public education is filled with private corporations. And we’ve made so much progress nationally.

I’d love for you to explain the potential for federal scholarship expansion through tax credits. What is that new program, and how will it work?

Shaka Mitchell (10:09):
Sure. The federal scholarship tax credit passed as part of the One Big Bill earlier this year. It’s the first-ever federal K-12 tax credit program.

First, it’s a tax program—not from the Department of Education. So it’s not adding to federal bloat or undermining local control.

Any federal taxpayer can direct up to $1,700 of their tax liability to a scholarship granting organization—like the ones already in Missouri. So instead of sending it to the IRS, I could say, “Let’s send this to a scholarship org in Kansas City.”

Then, the organization can award scholarships to families, most of whom will qualify based on income. The families can use them for a range of educational expenses—just like ESAs. It’s really exciting.

Susan Pendergrass (12:09):
I’ve heard opponents call it a federal voucher—but it’s not a voucher, right?

Shaka Mitchell (12:18):
Correct. Think of it like when your tax return asks if you want to give a dollar to the presidential campaign. But now it’s $1,700 to a scholarship org.

In Missouri, we have Catholic, Hebrew, and non-sectarian scholarship organizations. You can choose which one to support.

Susan Pendergrass (12:59):
Do you know the total amount of available tax credits?

Shaka Mitchell (13:06):
It’s unlimited, within that $1,700 per-taxpayer cap. Initially, there were discussions of state-by-state limits, but now the limit is per individual—not by state.

Susan Pendergrass (13:34):
So governors have to opt in, right?

Shaka Mitchell (14:10):
Yes. Governors or other state officials need to opt in. That may look different state to state. Some legislatures, like North Carolina’s, have already voted to participate.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Where does Missouri stand?

Shaka Mitchell (14:59):
Probably not much discussion yet. It doesn’t go into effect until 2027, so there’s time. But Missouri is in a good spot—you’ve already got scholarship organizations and experience with tax credit programs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:20):
What about blue states like Oregon or California?

Shaka Mitchell (15:27):
Great question. All eyes are on states like California, Pennsylvania, New York. There are a lot of taxpayers there.

Imagine millions of California taxpayers sending $1,700 each to scholarships in Missouri. It would be crazy for a governor to allow that much money to leave their state. But we’ll see.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13):
What do you think those states will do?

Shaka Mitchell (16:25):
Hard to say, but some Democratic governors have said they’re researching it. It’s not really a partisan issue—it’s just the tax code. And everyone pays taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (16:55):
It’s an interesting political move—making school choice national.

Shaka Mitchell (16:59):
Exactly. And because it’s tax-based, it reaches everyone—Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Are states really going to let billions in scholarships go to other states? I doubt it.

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
It’ll be interesting to see how private school supply responds. Like in Arizona, where more parents have access, vendors have stepped in with customized, creative options. This could fuel huge innovation. The fact that it’s unlimited in size is surprising.

Shaka Mitchell (18:43):
Yes. These federal scholarships could stack on top of state programs.

Say your state gives $6,000, but tuition is $9,000. The federal credit could close that gap. That’s a big deal.

Susan Pendergrass (19:38):
Will there be a lawsuit?

Shaka Mitchell (19:39):
There probably will be. Lawsuits are easy to file. But this program is part of the tax code—it’s hard to challenge. It’s not clear who would even have standing.

If unions want to burn money on a lawsuit, I say go ahead.

Susan Pendergrass (20:27):
I think what works against them is how happy families are with these scholarships. Satisfaction is high.

Shaka Mitchell (20:53):
Yes. Since 2019, we’ve seen an explosion of education freedom.

And there’s now long-term data—like from Ohio—showing EdChoice students, especially Black and brown students, have higher college attainment. That kind of data is compelling.

Susan Pendergrass (21:59):
And the ROI is incredible. You keep one kid out of prison or help one finish college—you’ve already saved more than the scholarship cost.

These families take $6,000 when the public system spends $18,000. They make it work. I’ve never seen anything in traditional public education with this much impact.

Shaka Mitchell (23:10):
It reminds me of the early 2000s with the excitement around No Child Left Behind.

But this is even more grassroots. Parents are organizing—helping each other on Facebook, answering questions, forming communities. That’s powerful. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Right. I don’t think we’ll go from more choice to less. And I know people who considered moving to Missouri until they realized they couldn’t pick their child’s school.

Kids from these programs are having their own kids now. It’s not going backward.

Shaka Mitchell (24:40):
Exactly.

There was a great article today in the New York Times saying, “The monopoly is dead.” I mean—from the New York Times!

Susan Pendergrass (25:21):
That’s what these lawsuits feel like: a desperate last gasp.

Never underestimate parents. They’ll show up. Thank you so much for joining us today. That was fascinating. I know you’ll be following the lawsuit.

Shaka Mitchell (25:59):
Happy to do it. Thanks for having me, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (26:01):
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The One Big Education Opportunity with Shaka Mitchell appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rush Island is not the first coal plant to be shuttered, and it will not be the last. At the end of 2022, the 827-megawatt Meramec Power Plant was shut down, and according to Ameren, it plans to phase coal out completely by 2045.

Below is a summary of Ameren’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan:

Note: “Other Zero Carbon” is expected to include a combination of renewables, energy storage, nuclear energy, and new technologies.

The continued shuttering of reliable coal plants presents concerns for energy reliability and affordability.

Is there reason to be concerned with affordability?

North Carolina is another state on the path of shutting down all coal plants and inserting renewables largely in their place. In response to these state plans, the John Locke Foundation and Center of the American Experiment released an in-depth analysis of the state’s proposed paths forward. The analysis finds that North Carolina’s proposed plan would cost more than a more nuclear-focused one. This is largely attributed to the “build and rebuild” treadmill that wind and solar assets need due to their short lifespan (roughly 20 years), whereas nuclear plans have a lifespan of 80 years (and maybe more).

Utilities, like Ameren, are allowed to charge enough for electricity to cover the cost of providing the service to everyone in their territory, plus a government-approved profit, often set at 5–-10 percent, on their capital investments. As long as the expenses are approved by the regulator in their state, utilities make a profit on every dollar they spend on new builds such as wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, or even renovating corporate offices. The more money utilities spend, the more money they make.

A Missouri-specific study of Ameren’s energy plans could be beneficial to future policy research. Nevertheless, there is some reason to be skeptical of the affordability of such a massive energy transition and continued research will be needed as technology changes.

What concerns are there with reliability?

Some sources of energy are more reliable than others, and there are numerous ways to measure this: accredited capacity, unforced capacity (UCAP), or capacity value. All three measure the general reliability value to the grid. The figure below displays capacity values for the two main regional energy organizations in Missouri—Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

Solar and wind, which are projected to replace much of the energy that retiring coal plants have produced, are intermittent and do not provide consistent streams of electricity, nor are they available at all times of day (although battery storage is improving). As shown in the table above, MISO rates the reliability of solar and wind far lower than coal and other replacement options. Relying so heavily on them may be dangerous.

There is also the task of building out a vast amount of advanced transmission infrastructure. The New York Times reports: “Already, a lack of transmission capacity means that thousands of proposed wind and solar projects are facing multiyear delays and rising costs to connect to the grid.” We should not bank on the ability to break this trend.

Will Ameren be able to replace 66% of its current generation while also meeting the needs of rapidly rising electricity demand? There is reason for concern. In my next post, I will discuss one policy that could help maintain and strengthen the reliability of our grid.

*Note: This post was updated on October 23 to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Rush Island’s closure.

The post Ameren to Shut Down Rush Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

Next year, Alabama families making up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line ($78,000 for a family of four) will qualify to receive $7,000 in state dollars to customize their children’s education. By the 2027–28 school year, the scholarships will be available to every family in the state. Homeschoolers can receive up to $2,000. The money can be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses.

Like Missouri, Alabama’s scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have been poor for the last couple of decades. Like Missouri, Alabama has wide gaps in achievement between low-income and non-low-income students. Like Missouri, Alabama families whose children are struggling in their assigned public schools want (and need) an alternative. Alabama families now have that. What about Missouri families?

The post Add Alabama to the List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Elsewhere, Tennessee has been lauded for completely overhauling its funding formula so that it is responsive, accountable, and student centered. Public funding is sent to where students attend school and not to where they attended school three years ago, as in Missouri. In the process of this redesign, Tennessee also raised teacher salaries and encouraged flexibility in teacher pay over the old step-and-ladder systems. Again, there’s nothing wrong with raising teacher salaries in the process of crafting good policy.

Currently, the Missouri Legislature is considering a bill that addresses a range of education issue, perhaps with the idea that if some groups like one part and others like another part, it may pass. That makes sense. The legislative sausage machine requires negotiation. But let’s look at this bill closely to see how much Missouri families might actually benefit.

The bill greatly expands eligibility for the existing MO Scholars education savings account (ESA) program. That could be a win for families. Almost every student in the state would qualify to receive a scholarship, because the income limit would be raised to four times the federal poverty line, or $120,000 for a family of four. The bill also eliminates the current geographic restriction on which students are eligible to receive scholarships—a much-needed change.

There’s just one problem with the ESA expansion proposed in this bill. Unlike Arkansas (or Iowa, Arizona, Utah, West Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida), Missouri isn’t willing to provide the scholarships. Sure, Missouri is willing raise the cap on the amount of money that the existing six approved scholarship organizations can fundraise in order to pass out scholarships. But that’s as far as the bill goes—no public funding at all.

There is a distinct possibility that, to get this passed, Senate Bill (SB) 727 (or actually its committee substitute) will be amended to provide state funds to raise minimum teacher pay in the state from $25,000 to $38,000 with a provision that school districts can request reimbursement for any mandatory salary increases from a new Teacher Salary Baseline Grant Fund.

A gap seems to exist between those who believe in school choice and those who support public education. I’m for both, but I’m just one voice. I think it’s fine to try to bridge that gap by offering concessions to both sides. But let’s make sure they carry equal weight. If one comes with public funding and the other comes with “good luck getting the money together,” then they’re not really equal. Maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

The post This Is a Compromise? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Universal school choice—which is what we call it when all families can choose a school, not just those who can afford private schools or afford to move to a “good” school district—is having an interesting political movement. Bipartisan efforts have led to many of the recent universal choice programs. The concept that a child might find themselves in a school that is not working well for them seems to cut across party lines. Divisive issues such as vaccines, curricula, and bullying (particularly of LGBTQ students) also make it easier to understand why children and families might feel trapped by school assignment policies.

Those invested in the traditional public school system have fought hard against opening up the system to choice. Many still cling to the idea that one school or one district can serve every need equally well. Most children probably fall into some range of being able to adapt (though not necessarily thrive) to whatever is offered at their neighborhood school. But should we continue to kid ourselves that the system will adapt to support those students who can’t seem to learn in their neighborhood school or who dread going there in the morning?

North Carolina families have just become entrusted with a big responsibility—taking ownership of their children’s education instead of accepting the default. They join families in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, West Virginia, Utah, Arizona, Florida, and New Hampshire. Don’t Missouri families deserve that trust?

The post And Then There Were Ten appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

An income tax cut is basically the gift of money. Taxpayers would get to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend or save in any way that they want. That means more opportunities for taxpayers and more money that can be spent at Missouri businesses. And it’s the gift that keeps on giving, because you’d get this “extra” money year after year.

This would not only be an individual gift, but also a gift to Missouri’s economy. Income taxes are destructive to growth and disincentivize working. For a number of reasons, Missouri’s economy would be better off if the state relied more on other forms of taxation for revenue.

In recent years, Missouri lawmakers have taken steps to lower the individual income tax. The “Wayfair” bill in 2021, for example, added a reduction of the top income tax rate by 0.1 percent in 2024 and two triggers to eventually lower the top rate to 4.8 percent. But it’s not time to take our foot off the gas. Other states (like North Carolina) are implementing tax cuts, and Missouri should follow suit to support taxpayers and stay competitive.

In the mass of pre-filed bills, I know of at least one that would reduce the income tax, but it’s difficult to predict what will happen in Jefferson City in 2022. If lawmakers really want to give taxpayers a gift (albeit a late gift, given the timing of the legislative session), they’ll consider further income tax cuts this session.

The post A Tax Cut is the Gift that Keeps on Giving appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past decade, Missouri’s population grew by only about 160,000 residents, or 2.8 percent. This growth badly trails the national rate of 7.4 percent and every neighboring state except for Illinois. In fact, only eleven states in the country experienced less population growth than Missouri. Missouri dropped one spot in total population rank, from 18th to 19th. This is a significant decline from the state’s high-water mark of 5th at the turn of the 20th century.

Census results are important because they have real-world implications for states. Aside from being a measure of a state’s relative desirability, these population totals determine the apportionment of representation in Congress over the next decade. After losing a seat following the 2010 census, Missouri’s population is still sufficient to maintain eight congressional districts for another ten years, but Illinois was not so lucky. Along with Missouri’s neighbor to the east, six other states will be losing a congressional seat: California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. States gaining these lost seats will be Florida, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, which gets two additional seats.

While it can be difficult to fully understand what is driving the country’s population shifts, there appears to be a relationship with cumulative tax burdens. The state’s losing seats rank 1st, 8th, 10th, 18th, 23rd, and 26th in total tax burdens. On the other hand, the state’s gaining seats rank 11th, 21st, 32nd, 34th, 43rd, and 47th (Texas). While this isn’t the only factor in migration, people are indisputably moving from high-tax states to states with lower taxes.

State and local governments competing for residents via tax rates is not a new idea, and is something my colleagues have written about for years. Charlies Tiebout originally proposed the idea that people would “vote with their feet” by moving to communities with their preferred level of public services and taxes. If Missouri’s population growth continues to lag much of the country, there’s reason to believe the state’s taxes are contributing to the problem. Over the next decade, it should be a priority for Missouri’s elected officials to bring more people to the Show-Me State, or we could face the same fate as Illinois.

The post Missouri’s Population Growth Is Still Lagging appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s gas tax—MoDOT’s largest in-state funding source—has not been adjusted since 1996.  Inflation, the rising costs of road maintenance, and increasing vehicle fuel economies have all lowered the value of the static gas tax over time.

However, many states have found ways to keep their gas taxes in line with changing times.

For instance, numerous states have indexed their gas taxes to inflation to keep gas tax levels in step with the rest of the economy. Some states index gas taxes to other metrics. For instance, North Carolina’s gas tax is indexed to account for changes in the state’s population, as well as for inflation. Nebraska’s gas tax adjusts based on a combination of the state transportation budget and a tax that varies based on the price of fuel. Georgia’s gas tax is indexed to vehicle fuel efficiency to keep up with auto industry advances. Other states apply the state sales tax to gasoline on top of a base cents-per-gallon rate, so that the total fuel tax revenue collected varies with the price of fuel.

In other states gas tax increases are revenue neutral, a point which is worthy of consideration, especially this year. South Carolina is in the process of increasing its fuel tax in two-cents-per-gallon increments over six years. However, residents can write off the extra gas taxes paid at the pump from their income taxes. This essentially restructures where the taxes go, as residents don’t necessarily pay more taxes, but more of the taxes they pay go toward transportation.

Lawmakers have already proposed measures to raise Missouri’s gas tax by 10 cents per gallon over five years in the new legislative session. And while gas taxes are not a perfect solution, as they do not always align road usage and damage to payment for their upkeep, they are one option. And as evidenced by other states, Missouri policymakers have options as to how to approach this problem.

The post Gas Taxes Around the States appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Heading south on the West Virginia Turnpike, I hit all three mainline toll plazas. Each occurrence involved coming to a complete stop as I handed a toll booth worker $4.00 to drive through. No credit cards were accepted, but I was fortunate to have enough cash. Drivers who had an E-ZPass transponder were able to avoid a complete stop, although they still had to slow down to 5 miles per hour.

In North Carolina, the I-77 express lane was quite a contrast. The express lane was the smoothest-paved part of the road, set apart by a light barrier to easily identify which lanes are tolled and which are not. There was no stopping, as most drivers paid via a NC Quick Pass transponder. If you didn’t have a transponder, you would get a bill in the mail based on your license plate registration. Rates were per mile and variable depending on traffic conditions, and if you had three or more people in the car you could travel in the express lane for free.

Most new toll roads have a similar structure to North Carolina’s. The hassles of always needing adequate cash and the stop-and-start nature of old turnpike plazas are avoided. Further, research has shown that toll roads with no stopping are significantly safer than traditional toll plazas regarding fatalities, crashes, and property damage. Even collection costs are between two to four times lower (page 59) for electronic tolling than for traditional (page 12) toll plazas.

Electronic tolling is an innovative way to fund road maintenance in a driver-friendly manner. Missouri also has heavily traveled highways that need rebuilding (page 18), and the president wants to lift the federal prohibition on tolling interstates. Missourians have opposed toll roads in the past, but if they knew how easy modern toll roads are, they might be inclined to change their minds.

The post Toll Roads, Past and Future appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The idea sounded good to me—so off we went to get the ingredients. But to no avail. You see, the North Carolina state government controls the entire liquor industry in the state. Alcohol can only be purchased at the state-run Bureau of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) stores. Their inventory and prices are decided by the state and, not surprisingly, inventory is minimal and prices are high. There’s certainly no Velvet Falernum, and thus no Best Mojitos Ever in North Carolina.

Recently, it seems “privatize” and “for-profit” have become code words for evil and greedy. But the private sector does many things quite well. My daughter’s Denver neighborhood has multiple boutique liquor stores that would absolutely have Velvet Falernum. Consumer demand is met by commercial supply. In North Carolina, purchasing liquor is similar to getting a driver’s license—strictly on the government’s terms. Do we really want more government control and fewer private markets?

Would the Fourth of July have been better with the Best Mojitos Ever? If you spend it in North Carolina, you’ll never know.

The post What Works Better-Markets or Government? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Busing may have been the only option for blending the two separate school systems in the South in the latter half of the last century. But today, it remains wildly unpopular with parents. White, middle-class children are the key to the policy and yet, when busing goes into effect, they tend to flee the school. Many urban districts don’t have enough white children to create any sort of balance. And suburban districts are often not interested in participating.

The research on the academic impact of such programs is labeled “variable” at best by its most ardent supporters. In fact, there is stronger evidence that having a teacher of the same race as the student improves academic outcomes. In other words, the race of the person at the front of the room can make a difference in a way that the race of the other students doesn’t.

You know what is popular with parents, and especially with low-income parents of color? Getting to choose where their children attend school rather than having them be assigned or bussed to one. And in many cases, parents would prefer to be able to choose a school where the staff looks like their child, rather than a school where the other students don’t. Researchers at Stanford have determined that low-income black and Hispanic students who attended charter schools of their choice made significant academic gains when compared to their matched peers who attended traditional public schools in the same district. This is a policy that works.

Before there were options like charter schools, the only way to get children from distressed neighborhoods out of their troubled schools was to pick them up every day and take them somewhere else. We now know that giving every parent options for where to send their children to school negates the need for districts to shuffle kids around. It’s time to stop arguing about who’s for or against a failed policy from 50 years ago and give disadvantaged parents the educational options they want and need.

The post Don’t Be Nostalgic for A Failed Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

KIPP Gaston College Prep opened in 2005. Six years after graduation, 61 percent of graduates from the 2009 class had earned college degrees. The degree-earning rate after six years was 48 percent for the class of 2010, and 62 percent for the class of 2011. The graduating class sizes are small, with 48 graduates in 2009 and 568 alumni so far, but the early returns are very encouraging. These rates are impressive considering only 11 percent of children raised in the lowest-income quartile (annual family income of $37,564 or less) earn bachelor’s degrees within six years. Gaston KIPP families mostly fall toward the bottom end of that lowest quartile.

In the 2016–17 school year, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that over 225,600 Missouri students that attended a public school in a rural or township area qualified for free and reduced-price lunch (representative of a low family income but not necessarily the lowest income quartile)—roughly a quarter of all Missouri public school students. As the achievement gap between high- and low-income students persists, successful efforts to support rural, low-income students should be encouraged.

KIPP Gaston College Prep is just one example of how educational choice can benefit students beyond urban areas. Isn’t it time Missouri expands charter schools to better serve its low-income, rural students?

The post Charter Schools Can Exist in Rural Areas, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When a student is looking to go to work right out of high school, an IRC shows the potential employer that the student has skills needed for that job. If a student is planning on going to college, an IRC can help them gain valuable experience, make some money, and potentially earn college credit. Particularly in industries like agriculture and animal science where there is a lot of student interest, Missouri should look for ways to create clearer pathways for high schools to earn IRCs.

In a recent article from the St. Joseph area, a local teacher discusses how he is observing more students interested in jobs related to agribusiness such as food safety, veterinary science, and conservation. But according to data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), only three students from the St. Joseph school district passed the MO Agriculture Skill & Knowledge Assessment, an IRC that shows that students have mastered one of 15 areas including farm management and livestock evaluation. Despite interest in veterinary science, no students in the district received the Veterinary Assistant Animal Care Technologies IRC.

It is worth noting that some districts do very well in getting their students credentialed. For instance, even though Jefferson School District had fewer than 50 high schoolers enrolled in 2018, students in the district earned 23 MO Agriculture Skill & Knowledge Assessment certifications.

Nevertheless, Missouri as a whole could do a better job of helping students get a jump start on a career or college. And not just in agriculture-related fields—there are opportunities, albeit limited, for students to specialize in areas like welding, web programming and development, health care, and automotive repair. In 2018, only 7,084 IRCs were earned by Missouri high schoolers and about 2,800 of those were ag-related (for perspective, there are over a quarter-million high schoolers and over 64,000 12^th graders in Missouri).

How can we expand these opportunities and make earning an IRC for career-minded students more of the norm in Missouri? Creating an incentive for teachers and districts through bonus pay is one option. In Florida, teachers are awarded a bonus of $25 to $50 for each student that obtains an IRC. After adopting this policy, IRC obtainment increased from 803 in 2007 to over 86,000 in 2017. North Carolina also has bonus pay for high-performing instructors and over 160,000 IRCs were obtained in 2017.

Missouri has over 500 school districts, all with different strengths and challenges. Establishing a bonus pay program would give districts an incentive to find the best way for them to give more of their students a head start on a career or college.

The post Why Aren’t More Missouri Students Earning IRCs in Agriculture-Related Industries? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report projects Missouri to be the ninth-highest state in tech growth over the next decade with 2.9 percent growth, ahead of the national 2.1 percent projection. The tech industry includes energy, environmental, life sciences and information technology (IT).

Despite projected growth, Missouri workers may not be prepared to fill the needs of an expanding tech industry, as jobs could outpace the availability of skilled workers. A survey by Gallup of 1,000 Missouri employers find that only 44 percent were satisfied with the current availability of skilled workers, and only 15 percent agree that high schools are preparing students for the workforce. In 2016 one of the largest workforce gaps was in Science and Technology—around a 9 percent gap  between the workforce demand and available workers.

This gap shows the need for more high school graduates prepared to enter the tech field. If students graduate with the proper credentials, they could have access to a high-demand job and enter the workforce immediately. The largest tech sector in Missouri is IT, of which high school students can earn over 15 IT-related industry-recognized credentials (IRCs) approved by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). An IRC is a nationally recognized credential that tests job skills, awarded by a third-party professional organization. In 2018, fewer than 500 IT-related IRCs were earned among Missouri high school students (less than one percent of the graduating class if all test takers were seniors) according to data received from DESE.

Florida and North Carolina have found that providing bonus pay to teachers is one way to get more students to graduate with an IRC. Bonus pay encourages high schools and teachers to focus on the important work of preparing students for a career.

A growing tech sector would be a huge boon to Missouri’s economy. But if we don’t act now to ensure our workforce is ready for these jobs, the potential boon will turn into a missed opportunity.

The post Missouri Needs to Prepare for Expanding Tech Job Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We are in danger as a society of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. We tell everyone that teaching is a thankless, underpaid job and then we wonder why we see declining rates of people going into teaching. 

It is time for us to engage in a little positivity. Teaching is a great profession.

Take for evidence the results of a recent working paper by Alberto Jacinto and Seth Gershenson. Using survey data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY) and the attached Child and Young Adults Supplement (CYA), they examine whether children pursue a career in the same field as their mothers. Their data include jobs of 4,572 children and 2,488 mothers.

Interestingly, they find that children of teachers are significantly more likely to go into teaching than children of nonteachers. They write, “19% of the children of teachers go on to become teachers, compared to only 8% of the children of nonteachers.” While they see some similar trends in other comparable jobs, such as nursing, the relationship between mothers and their children’s jobs is not as strong anywhere as it is in teaching. As Jacinto and Gershenson note, “there is something unique about teaching, as there is relatively strong inter-generational transmission of the profession, even when compared to “similar” professions.”

Jacinto and Gershenson don’t have an explanation for why this is so. They wonder, “Does the transmission of teaching occur because of parental pressure, network membership, information and choice set, or a combination of factors?”

I have a hypothesis: teaching is a great job and the kids of teachers know it!

Sure, there are challenges; it’s work and all work has its thorns and thistles. Nevertheless, teaching as a profession has many redeeming qualities.

Teaching is a job with purpose. As Justin Tarte, the executive director of human resources in the Union R-XI School District wrote on Twitter: “What most adults will never experience in their jobs: A student visiting them years later to say thanks for being there when nobody else was. A parent writing an email saying you changed their child’s life & they can’t thank you enough. That’s why being a teacher is awesome.”  

Teaching provides a stable middle class income. People think teachers make much less than they actually do, typically underestimating the average amount by nearly $19,000. Plus, benefits for teachers are nearly twice as generous as they are for workers in the private sector.

Teaching provides a family-friendly schedule. There are few other jobs where you get winter break, spring break, summers off, plus an additional allotment of “sick” or “personal” days throughout the year.

I could go on, but I think you are getting the point—teaching is a great profession. It’s time we said so.

The post Despite What You’ve Heard, Teaching Is a Great Profession appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hundreds of career and technical education (CTE) programs across Missouri offer practical training in fields such as agriculture, business, health care, culinary arts, construction, computer science, and others. In many cases, students who complete the required coursework are issued certificates to that effect. But a school-issued certificate alone isn’t always enough to ensure students can access the workforce; they need credentials that carry weight with employers in the world beyond school.

Private-sector employers have everything to gain by ensuring that new graduates are ready to start work right away. That’s why many professional associations issue their own industry-recognized credentials (IRCs), such as Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification. CTE students don’t have to take IRC exams to graduate, but passing an exam can save students time and money at the outset of their careers. For example, a CNA certificate that could be earned as part of a student’s high school coursework might otherwise require about 5 months of coursework and several hundred dollars in tuition at a community college.

To promote IRC attainment among high school students, several states have begun offering teachers bonus pay for every student of theirs who passes an IRC exam. For example, for every student who leaves high school ASE certified, the auto shop teacher might receive $25 to $50.

Linking teacher bonuses to IRCs has boosted student IRC attainment in states that have adopted the policy. For example, Florida awards a $50 bonus to a teacher for each student who earns an IRC after taking a course that could earn them college credit in the relevant subject, and $25 for each student who earns an IRC after taking only high-school–level classes. IRC attainment has grown from 803 graduates in 2008 to over 86,000 in 2017.

Similarly, since offering CTE teachers bonus pay when students earn IRCs, North Carolina has seen a 53 percent growth in five years. In the 2016–2017 school year, over 160,000 IRCs were earned. By comparison, there were 8,566 IRCs earned in Missouri the same year (according to information provided by DESE), meaning that Missouri has plenty of room for improvement. Unbelievably, just six high school students passed the Masonry IRC exam and just five passed the Construction IRC exam in Missouri last year.

More students getting IRCs could create a stronger workforce for our state. Other states are finding creative ways to make this happen—shouldn’t Missouri?

The post How Can Missouri Get More Out of Its CTE Programs? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Sixteen districts responded with contracts showing superintendent salaries ranging from $125,000 to $294,000 per year. We also looked at an evaluation of those same school districts from the Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA), which measured the performance of 3rd-grade students in 2009 and then, five years later in 2014, measured the performance of the students in 8th-grade. The object of the CEPA study was to determine if students experienced a full five years of academic growth in five calendar years.

The table below shows superintendent salaries from 2011 to 2014 and student performance growth from 2009 to 2014 for each school district that responded to our sunshine request.

The average academic growth between 3rd grade and 8th grade in these 16 districts is 4.7 years. Only three districts had five or more years of growth over the five-year period studied—Fort Zumwalt, Parkway, and Wentzville.

Because the time covered in the Stanford study (2009–2014) doesn’t align exactly with the superintendent salary information (which only goes back to 2011), we can’t make a perfect comparison of the salaries against performance. But based on the four years for which we have both sets of data, it’s difficult to see a direct connection between the two. Of the three districts with more than five years of growth in the table above, only Parkway paid its superintendent above the average rate from 2011 to 2014.

In fact, evidence of any connection between superintendents and student performance is hard to come by. One Brookings Institute study looked at the effect of superintendent turnover on student performance in North Carolina and Florida schools. It failed to find a significant connection. Nor did the study find a relationship between student performance and superintendent longevity.

Such studies make it appropriate to question why superintendent salaries are so high. There are certainly plenty of reasons why people think they should be high. Superintendents are like the CEOs of the school district. They oversee the management and budget of all the schools in the district. Perhaps most importantly, they hire principals and other administrators in the district, who in turn hire the teachers.

But with little evidence that superintendents are making a significant difference in student performance, it’s reasonable to ask why districts are paying them so much. The people in the school hierarchy who have the most effect on student achievement are teachers—and at an average salary of around $53,000, they earn around one-fourth of what superintendents earn. That’s not even considering the school pension system, which definitely favors the higher paid. All of which takes us back to a question that James Shuls raised in an April blog post: Is this really where we want to spend our money?

The post On Superintendents and Their Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Right to work.

Right to work ends forced unionism and lets workers decide whether joining a union best serves their interests. This means that being a member of a union cannot be a requirement for employment, and gives employees the final decision about whether they want to give money to a union that may or may not have their best interests at heart.

In 2017, Missouri passed Right to Work, but in 2018, the state will hold a referendum on that law.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

THE OPPORTUNITY: If the state’s Right to Work law is put into full effect, Missouri will join the majority of American states that already have right to work laws, finally placing Missouri employers and employees on a level playing field with other states.

KEY POINTS

• Missouri will be better able compete with neighboring right-to-work states in attracting businesses.
• Existing unions will be more responsive to the concerns of members, thanks to the credible threat of members leaving the organization.
• Employees will have greater control over their representation in negotiations with their employer.
• Employers will have greater flexibility in managing their businesses and making their operations more successful.
• Private employers are the focus, but similar laws in the public sector, like paycheck protection, should be pursued by policymakers as well.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Op-Ed: Rise of the Roosevelt Law: Is Reform in Government Unions Coming to Missouri?

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: Right to Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.