Earlier this month,  the United States Department of Education proposed a regulatory framework to hold postsecondary educational institutions accountable for their students’ labor market and earnings outcomes.

Under the proposed rule, students risk losing eligibility for federal loans and, in some cases, Pell Grants, if they are enrolled in undergraduate programs whose graduates’ earnings fail to exceed those of a typical high school graduate. Graduate programs face similar consequences should their graduates earn less than the average bachelor’s degree holder. Though the benchmarks are modest, in the sense that most college programs will meet these criteria, some will not. And the consequences for college programs are severe, as most universities rely heavily on federally subsidized tuition dollars.

For-profit colleges already have a related form of accountability in place: the 90–10 rule requires them to derive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal sources. This proposed legislation marks the first major step to holding public colleges accountable in a similar way. It remains to be seen whether this rule will become law, and if so, how it will shape institutional outcomes. But this new regulation could create better accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars in higher education.

The post Proposed Accountability Rule for United States Colleges and Universities 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.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Noah Devine, executive director of the Missouri Charter Public Schools Association, about how charter schools in St. Louis are responding after the recent tornado damaged multiple campuses. They discuss the need for flexibility for displaced families, how charter schools are working to reopen quickly, and the broader importance of school choice, especially in times of crisis. Noah also explains why Missouri’s lack of open enrollment makes recovery harder, and shares resources for families navigating this difficult time.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript: Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine

Download a copy of the transcript here

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Today I’m going to be talking to Noah Devine of Missouri Charter Public School Association. You basically represent, to a certain extent, the charter schools across Kansas City and St. Louis. To a certain extent, your organization helps them navigate policy processes, funding processes, and things like that in Missouri. So thanks for joining us.

Noah Devine (00:19)
Thanks for having me on, and yeah, you’re exactly right. We are a membership-based, dues-based organization that supports, represents, and advocates for public charter schools here in the state of Missouri.

Susan Pendergrass (00:30)
Well, like the Show-Me Institute, a few weeks ago, many schools in the St. Louis area were affected by a tornado. We lost the top floor of our building when it came through. I know that I’ve been reading that St. Louis Public Schools have about six buildings that are affected by the tornado. How many charter schools were affected?

Noah Devine (00:50)
Yeah, it was obviously really terrible what happened in St. Louis with that tornado. In total, seven charter school buildings were directly impacted. None of them will be compromised from opening this fall, so that’s a very good thing. Two of them were not able to open the week that it happened or the week immediately after. One of them has an annex that was very badly damaged, and so they’re going to have to rework how they meet the needs of their students. The building impact is very significant. What worries me the most is that they’re doing everything they can to meet the needs of their families and students who were directly impacted. Over the summer and into the fall, I think we’re going to see how things ultimately shake out. I’m quite worried that we’re going to have a large increase in students and families experiencing homelessness, and meeting those families’ needs will be really important.

Susan Pendergrass (01:41)
Why do you imagine that St. Louis Public Schools say six of their buildings can’t be used, but charter schools are going to find a way to use theirs? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Noah Devine (01:53)
Yeah, I honestly don’t know. Some of it could always be just good old-fashioned dumb luck, the location of buildings. I think that’s probably most likely. I do think the buildings that were more directly impacted and were charter schools were in better condition. I don’t know the condition of some of the SLPS buildings, but I think charter schools were able to mitigate things a little more readily.

Susan Pendergrass (02:30)
This is what I was thinking, because we had to scramble to find a place to work. Some of us are in temporary office space. Some people are working from home, and it really does affect people. I assume there are many students whose own homes were affected. It’s summer now, but we’re trying to figure out what to do in the fall. St. Louis Public Schools has said that the kids in these six schools are all being reassigned to new schools.

Wouldn’t it make sense, given that this is an emergency—an act of God type of situation—that families could be given flexibility over where their kids go? If they’re displaced, they might want their kids to stay with the same teacher and group of friends, or they might want to go somewhere closer to where they are displaced or where their job is. It seems to me this is the time for flexibility. What do you think?

Noah Devine (03:27)
Could not agree more. Setting aside the natural disaster of a tornado, we fundamentally believe, as all of our schools do, that the decision of where to send your kid—whether it be homeschool, private school, charter public school, district school, magnet school, whatever—is the decision of a family. In a time like this, we need to enact provisions, not dissimilar from what we did during COVID, to make sure families have what they need.

If a family in North St. Louis lost everything, let’s not upset the apple cart. If they want to stay at that school, we have to make sure they can get there. McKinney-Vento is the federal classification for students who are homeless. If you lost your home and are temporarily living with someone else, you meet that designation and can stay at your school. We’re working with charter schools and DESE to ensure that’s clearly communicated. But that designation comes with a cost, usually transportation.

We need help to meet that need. Big picture, we should always be trying to meet the needs of families with choice in mind. During emergencies, it’s even more necessary to push through red tape and ensure we aren’t telling families that, on top of everything else, they now have to move schools.

Susan Pendergrass (05:36)
Do you know if the governor has indicated he’s open to an emergency executive order to ensure St. Louis families have maximum flexibility?

Noah Devine (05:47)
I don’t want to speak for the governor’s office or DESE. But I’ve been extremely impressed with how they’ve moved to get direct support to families in St. Louis. During special session a couple of weeks ago, a huge pot of money was allocated to meet those needs. I’m confident they’ll do everything they can within the law. That said, Missouri does not have open enrollment, which limits flexibility. It’s come close many times, but hasn’t passed.

Susan Pendergrass (06:56)
In times of crisis, like pandemics or tornadoes, the need for flexibility becomes very apparent. You and I followed legislation last year that would have allowed students from outside the city to enroll in a charter school. It made so much sense and still couldn’t get across the finish line.

Noah Devine (07:47)
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (07:48)
Families often face personal emergencies too. A child being bullied, a move to live with grandparents—these are real. Charter school leaders want to keep kids where they belong. We just haven’t found the right words to convince enough people.

Noah Devine (08:21)
I couldn’t agree more. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the families impacted. But this is when policy limitations become very real. Missouri is surrounded by states that allow more enrollment flexibility. We shouldn’t lock families into bad situations, whether the crisis is natural or personal. We need to continue pushing for change.

Susan Pendergrass (10:04)
In Kansas City, many top-notch charter schools have strong reputations. If families live on the Kansas side, they can cross the river and choose from any school. Kansas has one of the strongest open enrollment laws in the country. Missouri should follow that example. Not every school is right for every child. And families shouldn’t have to move to find a better fit.

Noah Devine (11:04)
Exactly. I read an article recently about this. People often assume open enrollment would destroy public education. It won’t. Families pick different colleges for their kids based on interests and needs. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to K-12?

Susan Pendergrass (11:58)
Pell Grants follow students to the college of their choice. It works. But in K-12, it’s somehow controversial. I was asked yesterday on the radio about some charter schools closing in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Noah Devine (12:26)
Great question. First, we can’t underestimate the impact of school closures on families. It’s very real and unfortunate. But charter schools are designed to be more accountable. If families leave or the school isn’t performing, it should close. That’s how accountability works.

We are in a period of declining enrollment nationwide. All public schools will have to make tough choices. The charter system allows closures based on whether families want to go there and whether the school is serving them well. That’s how it should work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:30)
Mm-hmm.

Noah Devine (14:45)
When you lead a charter school, you have to earn it. Every student is there by choice. That makes charter schools unique. Missouri ranks among the top five states in charter school performance, according to CREDO at Stanford. We should take that seriously.

Susan Pendergrass (15:36)
This reminds me of the Unsafe School Choice Option under federal law. If a school is deemed persistently dangerous, students have the right to transfer. Missouri has never labeled a school that way, even though the data suggests otherwise. But charter schools already give families that power. If parents feel unsafe, they can simply pull their child out.

Noah Devine (16:37)
Exactly.

Susan Pendergrass (16:50)
That’s how it should be in all public schools. If parents in St. Louis want to know what resources are available for displaced children or schools, where should they go?

Noah Devine (17:26)
Start with our website, mocharterschools.org. We have a resource page for families affected by the tornado. Also, we work with Show Me Mo Schools, which runs a common application system. Their site is schoolappstl.org. And finally, DESE’s website has guidance and updates, though it could use improvement.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
Good luck with that. Thanks again, Noah.

Noah Devine (18:20)
Thanks, and take care.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Schools After the Storm with Noah Devine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Each state has already promised every student a free public education. This includes every student currently enrolled in private schools or currently homeschooled. If tomorrow those students decide to go to public schools, public schools would be required to accept them and to educate them. This means states and local communities would be required to fund the education of those students. In other words, the state currently has an obligation to provide funding for every single eligible student in the state.

The only way a parent loses access to the funding for education is by expressing choice. We discriminate on the basis of choice. Parents of school children have the opportunity to receive public funding, but only if they sacrifice their ability to choose the school they want their children to attend.

I cannot think of another public entitlement program that removes the benefit when an individual expresses choice. Poor students can use Pell grants at the school of their choice. Veterans can use the G.I. Bill at the school of their choice, public or private. Welfare recipients who receive food subsidies can choose the place where they will use those funds.

Critics of school choice might point to healthcare programs as an example of government funding with limited choice. Some doctors or hospitals do not not accept certain government funding sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid. That is true, but notice the difference. In that case, it is the provider who doesn’t accept the funds—it is not the individual who loses it based on their choice. Many private schools would like to accept funds but are not eligible to. That is a key distinction.

When we tell families they are no longer eligible to receive funding because they choose to send their children to a school that aligns with their values or provides the type of education that they want, then we are discriminating against them based solely on their choice.

This is not a system designed to meet the needs of every child, but a system designed for control. It is a system designed to force people into accepting the education that the government provides.

It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money to provide the public subsidy to those individuals who are presently in private schools. But the only reason it will cost new money is because we have been discriminating against families who use alternatives to public schools for decades. We have denied them access to the public funding that they should receive. It is time to end the discrimination against choice in our public education system. It is time to end the discrimination against parental power and educational opportunity.

The post Public Dollars for Public School Students: Discrimination of Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Similarly to the Trinity Lutheran Church case in Missouri and the Espinoza case in Montana, the court held that allowing students to take their public dollars to a religious school of their choice does not establish an official state religion any more than using a Pell grant at a religious university does. The ruling does not require states to fund school choice. But, if they have a school choice program, they may not exclude religious schools from participating.

Beginning this fall, qualified Missouri families can apply for an Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) to be used to pay for, among other things, tuition at a private school. Five of the six approved Education Assistance Organizations (EAOs) that will be disbursing the scholarships are religious. The latest Supreme Court ruling should put to bed any questions as to whether anyone should take issue with that.

The post A SCOTUS Victory for Private School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If we had just $10 million to spend on fixing this situation, would it be better to ensure students are career ready before they graduate from high school, or put that money towards those who were part of the 58 percent and have not been successful? To be certain, both are important. But which is the better investment? I think the former.

One of the most high-profile bills in the 2019 legislative session awarded corporate welfare to General Motors. Tacked on to that bill was a measure spending $10 million to create the Fast Track workforce development program. The program will cover tuition for Missourians who are at least 25 years old, make less than $40,000, and want to go back to school to pursue a degree in a “high demand” field. Students are allowed to transfer and can take up to one year off. And when they’re finished, they must remain in the state for three years and be employed full time within twelve months. If students don’t comply with these requirements, the grant will then convert to a loan.

Missouri community college tuition averages $5,750 for in-state students. If a student qualifies for a Pell Grant, most of that cost would be covered. Pell Grants are generally awarded to students with total household incomes below $20,000, which means Fast Track would primarily cover people making between $20,000 and $40,000. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that a typical Fast Track student received a quarter of their funding from the program and finished their program in two years, which is an extremely conservative estimate Under this scenario, the program could serve a maximum of 7,000 students. It’s a lot of money to put toward a complicated program that likely won’t be able to serve many students and may or may not result in a more skilled workforce in Missouri.

What about the first option—improving the career readiness of our students before they leave high school? One proven way to do this is to create financial incentives for career and technical education (CTE) teachers who make sure their students are career ready. These are students who earn an industry-recognized credential (IRC), such as the Automotive Service Excellence credential or the Certified Nursing Assistant credential. At a cost of just $500 per credential-earning student, with some of that going to the district, some to the CTE student, and some to the teacher, $10 million could improve career outcomes for 20,000 Missourians each year. States that have implemented programs like this have seen exponential growth in the number of students who leave high school with an IRC in hand.

Giving CTE teachers an opportunity to earn a few thousand extra dollars each year is a simple and direct way to improve our workforce. Creating a new government bureaucracy to manage a complex new government program very well may not be.

The post It’s Easier to Prepare Someone than to Repair Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, only four out of ten lower-income students who enter college are graduating within six years. What’s more, few additional students graduate after six years; according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, only an additional 6.1 percent of all students entering college in 2009 graduated within eight years. Dropping out and being saddled with student loan debt makes it that much more difficult for these students to climb up the income ladder and access better-paying jobs that can help break cycles of poverty.

Here’s the data for first-time students in Missouri who started college full-time in the fall of 2011, per the Department of Education:

·         56.7 percent of those students graduated within six years, which is lower than the national average of 60.4 percent.

·         Students from the same group receiving Pell Grants from the federal government—most of which have family incomes below $30,000—have a six-year graduation rate in Missouri of only 40.6 percent, while students not receiving Pell Grants or a subsidized loan graduated at a rate of 68.3 percent.

These are startling numbers for Missouri. Not only are we behind the national average in terms of college completion, but a large number of those who fail to graduate appear to be low-income students. Those are exactly the kind of students who are least equipped to handle the burden of high student debt, especially without the benefit of a degree.

A 2013 report from the Department of Education estimated that in 2009 students who did not complete their degree had on average $9,300 of debt if they attended a public 4-year school and $10,400 if they attended a private, non-profit 4-year school. More recent data from Debt by Degree breaks down student loan debt by Pell status and individual schools; it showed Pell recipients attending Mizzou average $19,328 in federal loans.

Addressing the degree achievement gap must start at the K-12 level and, as I discussed before, competition through choice is necessary if we want better outcomes for low-income kids. But in the meantime, making changes at the college level can help lower-income students getting ready to go to college now or that are already there.

In “Creating Pathways for Self-Sufficiency,” I discuss a few ways colleges can boost graduation rates among low-income students. Retention grants or emergency scholarships can fill gaps in financial aid for low-income students who are on track to graduate but would otherwise have to drop out due to lack of funds. Providing supports like mentorships and enrollment or financial aid checklists have been effective in helping first generation college students be prepared.

Not included in my essay but also worth noting is data-based guidance counseling. Georgia State University’s predictive analytics system has helped students from all economic backgrounds graduate at higher rates by connecting students struggling academically with tutors sooner rather than later and making sure students are not taking unnecessary classes that cost extra time and money.

As taxpayers, we invest too many public dollars in education at every level to have results like these. Isn’t it time to move towards a system that better serves students of all economic backgrounds and ensures that those who go to college leave with a degree?

The post The Achievement Gap for Low-income Students Continues into College appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I think this is a great idea, for one reason that is obvious, and for another that might be less so.

The obvious reason is that we have a public university system (note that the university’s name for the program harkens back to the “land grant” nature of Mizzou) to provide higher education to bright students who might not otherwise be able to afford it. This intuition is not new in America.

Thomas Jefferson, the father of the University of Virginia, himself wrote of students:

“that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked.”

As college costs increase, our universities are pricing out many students who would thrive at them, but simply cannot afford the skyrocketing tuition. This program will work to solve that problem and we should laud it for that.

But the second reason why this program is a great idea is subtler.

In the past, efforts to try and help low income student attend college have had unintended consequences. Typically, states and the federal government have given low-income students scholarships, like Pell grants, or subsidized loans to help defray the cost of education. In response, many universities started to “price” these scholarships into the cost of tuition, banking on the fact that students will automatically be able to pay it, and this has driven up the cost of schooling.

Mizzou’s program is different. Rather than rely on outside funding, Mizzou is footing the bill itself. That means that any increase in the cost of providing an education is borne by Mizzou. This should provide a powerful disincentive for the school to become more expensive.

Now, the devil is always in the details, and the program isn’t launching for another school year, so we won’t know the full scope and effect of the program for some time. But if programs like these are representative of the type of bold thinking that university leaders are engaging in, Mizzou is putting itself on a much better path into the future.

The post It’s a Good Idea for Mizzou to Cover Tuition for Low-Income Students, but the Reason May Surprise You appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tuition revenue is a huge part of Mizzou’s operating budget, as are Pell Grants and other forms of state and federal support that are directly linked to the number of students who enroll. Huge declines in enrollment mean huge declines in tuition, which mean huge declines in funding and serious ramifications for the university’s operations.

Already the university has closed seven residence halls. The University of Missouri system as a whole is looking at 8 to 12 percent budget cuts.

There is not a lot to say at this point, to be quite honest. As I wrote over a year ago, actions have consequences, and we are continuing to see them play out today. Students have more and more choice in where they spend their college years, and Mizzou isn’t guaranteed students. It desperately needs to change its image and reform its operation.

One thing I will say is that we are rapidly moving out of tinkering-around-the-edges territory. Continuing to lose students at this rate means a fundamentally different university in a few short years.  While I certainly appreciate president Choi offering ideas like free open source textbooks as a way to decrease costs, it’s going to take more than that to right this ship.  It’s time for some fresh thinking. I hope we get it.

The post Mizzou Enrollment Shrinks to a New Low appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But I wanted to take a moment and dig into the historical origins of Blaine Amendments. Specifically, why was James G. Blaine so interested in amending the Constitution? Was he a crusader for the separation of church and state?

To save you the runaround, the answer is no. At best, he and his compatriots were political opportunists who saw alienating Catholics as a winning political strategy in the age of Know-Nothingism. At worst, he was an anti-Catholic bigot. The “sect” that he was referring to was Catholicism. Don’t believe me? Look closely at the famous Thomas Nast cartoon (above) from the era. Yes, those alligators are bishops, the capitol is the Vatican, the public school is under siege, and a teacher is being led to the gallows. Not our nation’s finest hour.

Ultimately, Blaine’s anti-Catholicism torpedoed his quest for the presidency. At a rally just weeks before the election of 1884, where Blaine was the Republican candidate, a speaker derided Democrats as being the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion,” invigorating the Catholics of New York and elsewhere to come out in force against Blaine and narrowly elect Grover Cleveland.

So this is really the question before the Supreme Court, and the people of Missouri: Are we still afraid of rum, Romanism, and rebellion?

Personally, I’m a big supporter of the separation of church and state. I don’t want to see a state religion. At all. At the same time, I believe that the education of children or the use of playgrounds can be provided by a religious organization, subsidized by public dollars administered on a religiously neutral basis, without fear that it will establish a state church. We let people take Pell Grants or the GI Bill to SLU. We let Medicaid patients get care at Missouri Baptist Hospital. No state religion yet. It’s not clear to me why in 2016 K-12 education should be peculiarly sacrosanct.

I hope that the Supreme Court closes this sad chapter in American history and puts Blaine Amendments in the grave. Educational opportunities for millions of children hang in the balance.

The post Are Blaine Amendments Really about the Separation of Church and State? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There have been a slew of common-sense, market-oriented reforms that have been floated to help rein in the cost of college. No, not just making it “free.” Rather, opening up the college market to more experimentation, innovation, and competition to help hold prices in check.

In general, these reforms have gone nowhere. Why? Well, a new data visualization by Washington D.C.’s New America Foundation puts some great numbers to what  my old friend Andrew Kelly of the American Enterprise Institute has been arguing for years; college and universities are enmeshed in the economies and political ecosystems of the state and nation. That gives them an incredible amount of power to block or water down efforts to spur competition and reform.

New America breaks down the number of institutions, the number of employees, the amount of money institutions receive in Pell grants (federal scholarships for low-income students) and the total amount of money institutions spend by congressional district.

Here’s what Missouri looks like:

Seventy thousand employees, nearly $10 billion in spending, and $685 million straight from the federal government . . . who wants to upset that apple cart? Somebody needs to, because the current trends are unsustainable.

The post Why Taming the Higher-ed Leviathan is Hard Going appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The latter half of DIY U is about the many ways in which innovators (“edupreneurs”) are trying to give students new and better options. Established educational institutions want to sell students a big (and usually very expensive) bundle of education and credentials, but innovators are trying to unbundle those services and sell them separately at much lower cost–or even giving them away.

For example, there is Western Governors University, an online university that costs students less than $6,000 per year. WGU was formed in 1999 and instead of simply following the usual procedure of organizing academic departments in the traditional fields, officials convened a council of employers and asked, “What is it that graduates you’re hiring can’t do that you wish they could?”
[…]
All of this is about unbundling. If you walk into a grocery store wanting just one or two items, you can get just those items. If you want just one of two items of education, you shouldn’t have to buy a whole cart-full of courses. Kamenetz likes the idea that individuals should be able to customize education to suit their particular needs and desires. So do I.

One big problem, though—in a society that has become credential-crazed, how do people who get their education in unstructured, informal ways (I thought of writing “non-traditional” but when you think about it, this idea is very traditional, going back to the ancient Greeks) show that they have a base of knowledge? College degrees don’t necessarily betoken any learning, but they’re better than trying to explain that you got a lot out of the various topics you studied online when the employer insists on a B.A.

“Accreditation and assessment, the source of the ‘sheepskin effect’” she writes, “is proving the toughest nut to crack.” Innovation may crack it, though. Today, students can compile and publish a portfolio to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities by using free software like WordPress and Drupal. Since the college degree is no longer a very useful screening mechanism, if a few employers would start saying to applicants, “Don’t show us where you’ve taken courses, but instead show us evidence that you’ve learned something that would be useful here,” the dam may break quickly.

Notice what is absent in this vision of the future of higher education. It involves no government subsidies, regulations, or even institutions. What makes it work is voluntary cooperation and the free market’s fabled discovery process. Students will learn more at far less cost. Laissez-faire will produce enormous benefits if existing institutions don’t strangle the educational freedom movement in the cradle.

Of course, the “traditional” college is primarily a product of tremendous government subsidization. Very few people attended colleges prior to World War II, but attendance rates skyrocketed in the late 1940s through the 1960s with soldiers using G.I. Bill funding to obtain degrees, and their Baby Boomer children — often funded by the newly created Pell Grant — following soon thereafter. Attendance rates continued to grow to the present, but now many of those who attend college never finish, and the focus of college has shifted from a liberal education to a form of halfhearted career training. Ending these subsidies could put emphasis back on older forms of education, like apprenticeships and trade schools, which could focus on practical arts without betraying their stated missions.

The post The Future of Higher Education? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Offering modest new plans, Bush proposed a $300 million "Pell Grants
for Kids" program to help poor children in struggling public schools
pay for the cost of attending a private school or a better public
school outside their district.

I love this idea, although as I think about it I don’t know how much I like it as a Federal program…

Bush also was to urge elimination of 150 federal programs that [White House counselor Ed] Gillespie called "wasteful or bloated."

Dare to dream for this to actually happen. Again, why wasn’t this proposed earlier in this administration?

The president will issue an executive order Tuesday ordering federal
agencies to ignore "earmarks" that aren’t explicitly enacted into law,
erasing a common practice in which lawmakers’ projects are outlined in
nonbinding documents that accompany legislation. The move is aimed at
making doubly sure that lawmakers have the opportunity to strike
earmarks during floor debates.

However, Bush’s plan leaves untouched the more than 11,700 earmarks totaling $16.9 billion that Congress approved last year.

If the earmarks from last year are not legally required to be spent, then why on earth is the money going to be spent? Who cares when they were passed? I guess it’s better late than never, but this is awfully damned late.

This is the type of thing one can get very excited about — but this is just a speech, not a piece of legislation. When the latter succeeds in doing these things, then I will get REALLY excited.

The post Star Headline Whets Appetite appeared first on Show-Me Institute.