A version of this commentary appeared in The Heartlander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although over 21,000 families signed up, the program had problems from the beginning. First, it took the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) a full year to figure out how to implement the program. How that impacts the federal regulations is unclear, but families had only a short window after that to spend the money. Families had problems finding what they needed and, ultimately, the program was not as impactful as it might have been.

According to the DESE budget requests, in fiscal year (FY) 2024, $25 million was appropriated to the program, but none was spent. In FY 2025, the other $25 million was appropriated, but just $13,875,123 was spent. It’s too late to spend the money, so what happens to the $36,124,877 that went unspent? Technically, it needs to be returned to the federal government.

What a shame. At the same time, the legislature has created another scholarship program, MO Scholars, aimed at low-income students and students with disabilities, but hasn’t appropriated any money to fund it. The MO Scholars program has structure, scholarship-granting organizations, and thousands of scholarship recipients. Thousands more students across the state would probably love to participate in this program if it were funded.

The logic of helping disadvantaged students find their best educational option is there. The structure of the program is there. Why not the funding?

The post The Scholarship That Wasn’t 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.

The nonprofit yes. every. kid. released a report that discusses how allowing non-residential students (those outside the district) access to individual classes and extracurriculars could effectively complement open enrollment. Whereas open enrollment focuses on full-time transfers, this complementary policy would allow students to remain in their school and enroll part-time in individual classes—maximizing flexibility. According to the report, eight states* allow students to enroll in classes outside of their current school.  In these states, students in a smaller rural district could enroll in physics, AP calculus, or even a music program in another district if their school does not have these classes or programs available. If open enrollment finally gets its long-needed day in Missouri, this policy could create additional opportunities for families across the state.

First, how could this benefit students?

Well, the answer is pretty obvious—more classes and more opportunities to help every kid in our state!

Second, why would a school with no physics program want its own students to participate?

The number one reason is that districts should care about their students. Competition can be cooperative, and districts should all be on the same team to best educate the students of Missouri. I chose physics as my example subject because there is a legitimate shortage of qualified physics teachers. These sending districts should want every student in their district to succeed, and many simply cannot provide classes in valuable subjects. Additionally, allowing your students to participate would lower their incentive to leave. If Johnny wants to study physics in college, but your district does not have it, he may be forced to leave your district by moving or enrolling in a private school.

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

The freeloading problem goes like this: “This policy would incentivize bad schools to not expand or offer new programs because they can simply mooch off our resources (and tax levies).” In Arizona, one of the states that employs this policy, part-time students (those which enroll in individual classes at different schools) are funded by the state at one fourth, one half, or three fourths of a full-time student—depending on how many classes they are taking. Therefore, state funding follows the student. Missouri does not have backpack funding like Arizona does (which we need), but a similar policy could be implemented to compensate receiving districts. Additionally, if you properly paired this policy with open enrollment, these classes could attract students. It would go both ways, as many students would stay in their home district and take individual courses elsewhere so they would not have to transfer away from their friends, sports teams, or other extracurriculars.

Receiving districts should care about all the students in our state trying to receive the best education they can. I can understand why one might take issue with another district benefitting from your district’s resources, but the most important thing is doing what works best for students. One may not think it is “fair,” but is it “fair” that a student cannot learn physics just because they live within arbitrary boundaries? Petty jealousies over dollars and cents should not stand in the way of opportunities for children across the state.

*Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin (all these states have open enrollment)

The post Sharing Classes for the Kids appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In that post where I corrected the record on Missouri’s actual starting teacher salary, I noted some additional facts related to Missouri’s staffing policies:

Missouri ranks 43rd in average salaries for instructional staff. Meanwhile, Missouri ranks 48th in student-to-teacher ratio, with 11.3 students per teacher. In comparison, Illinois’s ratio is 14.3 to 1, ranking the state 28th. In 2021, revenues for Missouri’s public schools were $15,809 per student, which is 31st overall nationwide. These data suggest that part of the reason Missouri’s teacher salaries are relatively low is due to staffing choices made by school districts themselves. It is funny when you question the narrative with facts how some people like to twist what you are saying. On Twitter, for example, one person responded by asking, “Are you upset the teacher/student ratio is so low, too?” That’s a strange interpretation. I’m just offering an explanation. It’s simple math really.

Missouri school districts could choose to hire fewer teachers and pay them more or hire more teachers and pay them less. They choose the latter.

Let’s work this out a bit more. Let’s assume everything remains constant (the number of students and the state’s payroll for teachers), but we change the student-to-teacher ratio. If Missouri were to match Illinois’ ratio of 14.3, Missouri teachers could realize a 26.5% increase in their salaries.

By choosing to hire fewer teachers, Missouri schools could choose to raise average teacher salaries from $51,557 to $65,244. This would push the Show-Me State’s ranking in average teacher salary up to 16^th in the nation.

If we moved the students enrolled per teacher figure up to match Florida’s 19.6 to 1 ratio, it would result in a 73.4% increase in teachers’ salaries. This would raise Missouri’s average teacher salary up to $89,426 and would put  Missouri second only behind New York.

All of the policy attention has been on Missouri’s minimum teacher salary of $25,000. According to the Missouri State Teacher’s Association, only one district in the entire state starts teachers at that rate (the Middle Grove School District, with 35 students).

Of course, raising a student-to-teacher ratio is not as simple as the mathematical exercise I’ve done here. Nevertheless, the point remains. School districts make staffing decisions and those decisions impact salaries as much, if not more, than the state-mandated minimum salary.

Note on the calculations used:

average salary = P/T = P/S x S/T, where S= students, P=payroll, T=teachers.

So if spending per student (P/S) is constant, salary varies proportionately with S/T. If MO had the same S/T ratio as Illinois then average teacher pay in Missouri could rise by 26.5% (100 x 14.3/11.3) with no change in spending.

The post Raising the Student/Teacher Ratio Would Increase Teacher Salaries appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If we are in a hypothetical war with low test scores, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) actions do not effectively inspire me to charge up the hill. We need our leaders to formulate concrete strategies and implement real changes to improve our education system. For an example, look no further than Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, and the Tennessee Commissioner of Education, Penny Schwinn.

Policy is guided by leadership, and Tennessee’s education-focused leadership has instituted free-market policies that would help Missouri students succeed.

Parental rights are paramount in Tennessee. New laws were enacted in 2021 for curriculum transparency and 2022 for protection against inappropriate materials in school libraries and classrooms. Show-Me Institute analysts have advocated for a parental bill of rights in the past, although Missouri failed to commit to this idea in the past legislative session.

Governor Lee has stated that: “We can fund public schools and provide alternate opportunities for children at the same time if we are committed to funding students and not systems.” In early 2022, Lee pledged to add $1 billion to education initiatives, including teacher salary raises (tied to accountability measures), increased funding for 110 statewide charter schools (in Missouri, about 60 charter schools exist and they are located exclusively in St. Louis and Kansas City), learning initiatives (e.g. new phonics program), and career and technical programs. This increased funding was conditioned on changing the state’s 30-year-old funding formula.

This past session, Lee’s pledge was fulfilled, as a bill with the additional money and the changes to the funding formula passed. Tennessee’s education funding is now calculated by student, not by system. Under the new formula, per-pupil expenditures are set at a base level of $6,870, and then additional funding goes toward individual student needs: special education funding, personal tutoring, or helping disadvantaged kids in rural and urban areas, as a few examples. This type of “backpack funding” assists schools that serve students with additional needs, helping districts and teachers. This type of funding system also helps pave the way for the expansion of comprehensive school choice, as parents who choose a new school for their children more easily have their funding follow them to their institution.

The actions of Tennessee’s leaders are generating results. Missouri used to be far ahead of Tennessee in terms of academic achievement. In 2011, Missouri scored about 8 points better on the NAEP in every category. Tennessee is now (as of 2022) four points ahead in 4th-grade mathematics, one point ahead in 4th-grade reading, and tied in both 8th-grade reading and mathematics. Missouri leaders could learn a lot from Tennessee.  We need concrete action, not just vague rhetoric about the problems in Missouri education. If something doesn’t change soon, Missouri students will end up getting left further behind.

The post Lead Us into Battle for Academic Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But has education policy in the last 50 years closed that gap? Not even close. Back in the 1970s, students from poor households were as much as three to four years of schooling behind their wealthier peers. Fast forward to 2015, and that gap has virtually stayed the same despite pouring billions of dollars into the education system. Isn’t it time for a new approach—shouldn’t we start giving parents the power to control education dollars?

According to a recent study, there has been a persistent gap in academic achievement between low-income and high-income students for decades. What’s more, student performance overall hasn’t gotten better; any gains seen in earlier grades dissipate by the age of 17 when students are preparing to go to college or enter the workforce

This is despite numerous local, state, and national efforts to provide quality education for low-income kids. In the last 50 years, we have provided services to students with disabilities, evened out school funding between rich and poor districts, instituted a number of accountability systems (Missouri’s accountability system is in its sixth iteration since 1991), and increased funding overall. In fact, the report notes, “Overall school funding increased dramatically on a per-student basis, quadrupling in real dollars between 1960 and 2015.”

To show just how bad the achievement gap between high- and low-income students is in Missouri, check out the data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Beginning with 2005, the data points represent the percentage of 8^th grade students in Missouri who were at or above grade level in math and reading, separated by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (which is for families with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty line).

For low-income 8^th-graders, only 16 percent were proficient or advanced in math in 2017. The number for reading is hardly better, with only 22 percent of students considered proficient or advanced. Compare that to students who were not eligible for the National School Lunch Program: 42 percent of these kids were at least proficient in math and 47 percent were proficient or advanced in reading. And the gap in both subjects has gotten larger since 2005.

What are the consequences of this failure? As I discuss in my two recent essays, “Intergenerational Poverty in Missouri” and “Creating Pathways for Self-Sufficiency,” quality education and the ability to move up the economic ladder are closely linked. How can Missouri expect to break cycles of poverty if it can’t even educate low-income students well?

Meanwhile, charter schools and private school choice programs are providing opportunities unmatched by many traditional public schools. Graduates from IDEA Public Schools, a charter school network founded in the impoverished Rio Grande Valley in Texas, have a 100 percent college acceptance rate and half of the class of 2012 acquired a bachelor’s degree within six years after enrolling in college. In Florida, tax-credit scholarship recipients have higher college-going and degree completion rates, and charter school students score higher on tests than students in traditional public school students.

So where do we go from here? Should we be satisfied with reforms that just tinker around the edges of our education system and increase spending indefinitely for programs that are failing? Or should we allow more competition and innovation through choice that will make schools more responsive to families of all economic backgrounds? Based on the failure of the education bureaucracy to close the gap in the last 50 years, it seems Missouri’s best option is to start trusting parents. 

The post After 50 Years, Low-Income Students Are Still Being Left Behind-When Will Enough Be Enough? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This quote comes from an ABC 17 news report, but it is simply not true. They attribute that statistic to “A recent report by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.” Over the past few weeks similar stories have spread like wildfire across Missouri media outlets. The Kansas City Star calls this “pathetic.” The Herald-Whig draws on this statistic to claim that Missouri’s school funding is “inadequate.”

There’s just one problem—the statistic is completely wrong.

Although the $31,842 figure is attributed to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), DESE officials did not calculate the figure. In his report to the State Board of Education, Paul Katnik, assistant commissioner at DESE, cites this figure from Niche.com. But, of course, Niche.com didn’t calculate the figure. It cites a report from the National Education Association. We don’t know how the NEA calculated the figure.

What is shocking is that people who should recognize how wrong the number is have not done so. Rather, they are perpetuating this lie. For instance, Todd Fuller, the director of communications for the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) is quoted by KOMU as saying, “I don’t think it’s surprising that we’re ranked where we are…For starting teacher salary to be that near the bottom, it’s discouraging.” The MSTA’s own research contradicts this low salary number!

MSTA collected the starting salary schedule of every school district in the state. It then calculated the average starting salary for each school district. In 2018-19, the starting minimum salary was $34,290. It hasn’t been as low as the DESE reported figure in over five years.

What’s more, the MSTA figure is undoubtedly a lower bound. The MSTA calculations weight each district evenly. Smaller school districts tend to have lower teacher salaries, but they hire fewer teachers. So, we can conclude the average is most likely higher than $34,290. (It’s worth noting that all of these salary figures do not include benefits like health or retirement. This means the economic benefit is quite a bit higher than the salary would indicate.)

So, what is the real starting teacher salary? Using DESE data containing teacher salaries for all Missouri teachers in 2017, I attempt to answer that question. First, I limit the data to those who are reported as first-year teachers in Missouri public schools with no experience in another state. Then, I remove any teacher who is not listed as full-time or is not making $25,000, the required minimum for a full-time teacher.

When I do this, the average starting teacher salary in Missouri is over $37,000. It is slightly higher when we consider the extra pay teachers get for engaging in additional duties, such as tutoring.

Should we really quibble about a few thousand dollars? Absolutely! We should demand accurate information from our policymakers, especially when those statistics are being used to drive policy discussions. We have already seen calls to raise the state minimum starting teacher salary. Interestingly, only three school districts start teachers out at the minimum, according to the MSTA report.

In 2017, just 39 teachers earned a salary of $25,000 and less than two percent of the total teacher workforce earned less than $30,000. Moreover, many of these “teachers” are not what we would consider regular classroom teachers. Of the teachers earning less than $30,000, at least 16 of them are classified as “in school suspension” teachers. Another 58 are listed as “Advisory/Homeroom.”

If you raised all these teachers up to $30,000, it would increase average pay in the state by about $30 a year in average salary. Importantly, it would place an inordinate financial burden on small, rural school districts. The end result of this blunt policy change would likely be teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, more four day school weeks, or the cutting of extra programs in these districts.

The debate about teacher pay is important, but this is the wrong way to go about it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If we are going to have important policy discussions, we should have that discussion honestly and with the correct facts.

The post Missouri’s Starting Teacher Salary Is Higher Than Previously Reported appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a 2017 asset/liability analysis commissioned by KCPSRS, the system only has enough money in the bank to pay 64 percent of what it owes to current and future retirees. We’ve written about this problem before, but it’s worth repeating. The fund needs to earn at least 5 percent per year, every year, for the next 20 years, or they’ll be out of money. That’s right—no money left in the fund. (For reference, between 1998 and 2018 the annualized Dow-Jones Industrial Average inflation-adjusted return was 5.528 percent.) Not surprisingly, the KCPSRS has requested increases to the school contribution rate over the next few years from the state legislature. So, Kansas City Public Schools and Kansas City charter schools will have to take another chunk of their revenue out of the classroom to send to KCPSRS.

STLPSRS was also just 64 percent funded (see p. 11) in 2016 and has almost as many retirees as active teachers. An annual analysis by actuaries determines how much SLPS and the St. Louis charter schools have to contribute to the fund each year. However, difficulty keeping up with increasing costs led SLPS to request that the state legislature cap their contribution rate at 16 percent, and they did. Unfortunately, STLPSRS looked at how that cap would affect the fund and determined that it would leave them with a $192 million shortfall within 15 years, so they’re suing SLPS and the St. Louis charter schools.

Economic conditions, unaffordable benefit promises, and an unwillingness to use realistic investment return assumptions have resulted in shaky fund positions, lawsuits, and balancing the books on the back of the youngest workers. What’s worse is that in 2017, the average pension payment took about $1,200 per student out of the classroom.

Does it have to be this way? No. We’re actually seeing teacher retirement benefit innovation from within public education. In 19 states, charter schools may choose to participate in their state’s pension plans or not. A recent analysis of charter school participation in five states found that the schools most likely to opt out of the state plan are urban schools, elementary schools, and those that are managed by charter networks. And new schools in high-cost states like California are much less likely to join than they were just five years ago.

Most of the opt-out charter schools offer their teachers 401k or 403b plans in which the teachers are vested in less than one year. The reasons given for choosing this path include wanting to lower their estimated costs, giving teachers a wider range of investment options, and making their benefits more portable.

For today’s youngest teachers, this is an important point. Most of them will not meet a vesting period of ten years in one state, which means they will lose the amount that their employer contributed for them. Even if they stay, Missouri teachers have to work for 26 years before their contributions are higher than their expected benefit. When you take nearly 10 percent off the top of a teacher’s salary, plus another 6 percent for Social Security, you have to wonder why anyone would want to be a public school teacher in Kansas City or St. Louis.

The post Innovation Brings Hope for Teacher Pensions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One path, outlined in the governor’s budget, simply funds a course access program. Missouri already has the architecture with its Missouri Virtual Instruction Program (MOVIP), but there simply aren’t funds for students to take advantage of it. Governor Greitens proposed $2 million in funding so that students could access those courses.

Legislation now making its way through the legislature is taking a second path. House Bill 138 and Senate Bills 327, 238, and 360 create a course access program funded by redirecting existing funds that the state sends to school districts. If students want to take a course access program course, the fraction of funding that would have funded the class in their school of residence is used to pay for it. What’s great about these plans is that, as their fiscal notes attest, they cost the state zero additional dollars. They simply redirect existing spending.

A third is outlined in this great piece by AEI’s Rick Hess and the Manhattan Institute’s Max Eden. The broader article is about how states can best use the flexibility inherent in the Every Student Succeeds Act (the 2015 update to No Child Left Behind), but this paragraph stands out:

State education leaders would do well to employ ESSA’s direct student-services provision, which allows states to set aside a portion of federal Title I funds in order to support districts that are expanding instructional choice (in addition to school choice) for students. This means expanding choices for students without requiring that they opt to change schools, as with “course access” programs. Such initiatives, pioneered in Louisiana and Utah, use state funds to provide students the opportunity to access a range of online courses that their school might not offer — and to pursue them at their own pace. Under ESSA, states can use up to 3 percent of federal Title I funds to deliver online-course options that give rural students access to subjects that their schools don’t offer, to give all students access to Advanced Placement, and to give high schools the ability to deliver robust career and technical training.

According to this table, Missouri school districts get a little bit north of $240 million per year in Title I dollars. Three percent of that would be $7.2 million. This could fund thousands of course enrollments.

Taken together, Missouri could draw from several wells of funding to create a robust course access program that ensures that every student in the state has access to the coursework that best fits their needs.

For an overview of course access and information on how it has been implemented in other states, see this essay that Brittany Wagner and I co-wrote last year.

The post Different Paths to Course Access appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Informed Vote: Funding Our Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Roza points out that rewarding teachers in this manner has serious implications for teacher recruitment and retention, fiscal sustainability, and pension obligations. High-quality college graduates with high-paying alternatives may steer clear of education. Similarly, young teachers may be more inclined to leave the profession because of low salaries.

Teachers are primarily paid via a salary schedule, which gives standardized raises to teachers for each additional year of service and each additional postgraduate degree earned. The problem is that a salary schedule often gives teachers a raise that is set as a percentage of what they make, not a predetermined dollar amount. This leads to larger end-of-career increases, because the raises compound over time. For a teacher who starts at $40,000 per year, a 3% raise at the end of the first year will mean a $1200 increase. But their second-year raise will come to 3% of $41,200, which works out to $1,236. Keep projecting the numbers out and each year’s raise just gets bigger and bigger.

In addition, school districts often give cost-of-living (COLA) raises. These too are often awarded on a percentage basis, further widening the pay gap between veteran and novice teachers.

I highlighted this in a post a couple years ago. In which I wrote:

Take, for example, the salary schedule for a teacher with a master’s degree in the Parkway School District. In his or her first 10 years, a teacher in Parkway only receives a 17 percent pay raise. Between their 11th and 20th years, they receive a 51 percent pay raise. The difference is $20,000. It is no wonder we have difficulty retaining new teachers. The system is designed by veteran teachers for veteran teachers. After all, veteran teachers are usually the ones who serve on salary bargaining committees.

Teachers are unique among professionals in this regard. Using U.S. Census Bureau data, Roza calculated the earnings trends for teachers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, and computer programmers. Compared to these other professions, teacher pay is significantly back-loaded.

I have written a number of times about the need to revamp how we pay teachers (see here and here). In this report, Roza doesn’t go that far. Rather, she offers a simple solution to slow down the growth in inequity between junior and senior teachers—a fixed-dollar pay raise. Instead of awarding COLA’s on a percentage term, districts should award the same dollar amount to teachers at every step of the pay schedule.

Regardless of your preferred method of reform, Missouri will struggle to attract and retain great young teachers until we stop back-loading teacher salaries.

The post How to Prevent Teacher Pay Inequity from Worsening appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The parents eventually settled on Citizens of the World, a network that started in California and focuses on purposely building a diverse student body and preparing children for both academic success and engaged citizenship.  If it ends up working as they hope it will, it will be the stuff of charter schooling dreams.

To date, one key detail is missing—a building. 

Unfortunately, Citizens of the World is not alone. All across the state, charter schools have struggled to find facilities, and particularly facilities they can get at a reasonable cost. Charter schools do not get a budgetary line item for facilities like traditional public schools do, and because they are only authorized for 5 years at a time, their borrowing rates are often quite high as lending institutions see them as risky investments.

But it doesn’t have to stay that way.  In fact, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation has identified strategies that states have used to help schools find facilities. 

According to LISC’s report:

1.       Eleven states make district facilities available to charter schools by requiring districts to provide space to charter schools, requiring districts to publish a list of unused facilities for charter schools to access, or by offering right of first refusal to charter schools to lease or purchase district buildings. Missouri is not one of those states, even though, as SMI has highlighted in the past, the state is rife with empty school buildings.

2.       Thirteen states currently fund a per-pupil line item similar to the one that public schools get specifically for facilities. Missouri is not one of those states.

3.       Eleven states currently appropriate funds for some form of capital grant funding for charter school facilities. Missouri is not one of those states.

4.       Four states allow charter schools to tap into local taxing authority through mill levy (a type of property tax) provisions. Missouri is not one of those states.

5.       Ten states have authorized and active publicly-funded loan programs. Missouri is not one of those states.

6.       Nine states offer some form of credit enhancement program, including moral obligation provisions or statewide credit enhancement programs. Missouri is not one of those states.

On the other hand, Missouri does offer two forms of support that LISC recognizes as helpful for schools seeking facilities funding.

1.       Thirty-six states allow charter schools to access tax exempt debt through conduit issuers. Missouri is one of those states.  But, to date, only three schools have taken advantage of this.

2.       Thirty-nine states allow charter schools to participate in one of their Q-Bond Programs (bond programs run through the federal Treasury Department). Missouri is one of those states. However, to date, only one charter school has taken advantage of it.

If we want more charter schools, and charter schools that are community-driven, we have to make it easier for them to access facilities.  The six policies above that Missouri does not utilize are a great place to start.

The post Helping Charter Schools Get Buildings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The debate over how much teachers should be paid will never be settled.  We can, however, talk about teacher pay in the broader context of school funding and perhaps come to agreement on how teachers should be paid, if not how much.

Let’s walk through the numbers.  First, according to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Saint Louis spends $14,093.21 per student per year. That reflects current expenses; it does not count capital costs, debt service, or several other significant line items. DESE also reports that the Saint Louis Public School District (SLPS) has a 1:18 classroom teacher: student ratio and a 1:12 total teacher: student ratio. 

That means that the average 18-student classroom brings in $253,677.78 in revenue per year.  Even looking at a 12-student classroom means $169,118.52 per year.  According to the Post-Dispatch, the average teacher salary is $46,163.*

Bottom line: A lot of money is failing to make it to the classroom.

How can this be? I’d have to dig deeper into the numbers for a full explanation, but even a quick glance points us in a couple of directions.  In no particular order:

1.       Administrative Bloat—According to DESE, SLPS has a ratio of 206 students for every administrator.  That compares to 272 students per administrator in Kirkwood, 274 in Lindbergh, 277 in Rockwood, 306 in Wentzville, and 321 in Mehlville.  Less money to administrators means more to teachers.

2.       A poorly designed salary schedule—Take a look at SLPS’s teacher salary schedule.   The big raises for teachers only come after they have earned degrees with dubious connections to actually improving student learning.  A great teacher who only has a bachelor’s degree tops out at just over $56,000 per year. Removing step-and-lane pay scales and empowering school leaders to compensate teachers based on quality could ensure that top teachers stay in the classroom.

3.       Pension contributions teachers won’t see—Saint Louis teachers are covered by the Public School Retirement System of the City of Saint Louis.  They are required to contribute 5% of their salary every year.  The district puts in an additional 16.5%. Now, if those teachers stay employed by the district until retirement, they can get a tidy pension, usually about 60% of their final salary (and they’re eligible for Social Security!).  The problem?  Teachers who don’t stay in SLPS for all 25 or 30 years of their career get only a fraction of that pension.  Indeed, it takes 5 years to “vest.” More than 60% leave before this time, and while they can take their contributions, they sacrifice what the district has contributed.  Contributing directly to a portable retirement account from day one of employment would ensure that every teacher gets his or her due.

Teachers are incredibly important, and they should be paid appropriately.  Unfortunately, the structure of teacher pay in Saint Louis and across the state prevents that from happening.

*Note: When originally posted, the average teacher salary was mistakenly listed as $41,163. The error has been corrected above.

The post Saint Louis teachers want a raise, and they have a point appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full essay:

The post Interdistrict Choice for Students in Failing Schools: Burden or Boon? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We actually went back about eight years and found that there was over $25 million paid in stipends either unapproved, unauthorized or improper. I have to say, with all the money paid in stipends, the district would not be in the condition it’s in if it were under control.

This quote comes from the late Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich, in remarks about his report on the St. Joseph School District. In the same story, Schweich reported, “There were significant other problems with payroll, overtime hours, summer school credits, nepotism issues and other questionable spending.”

The St. Joseph District is not alone in wanting to spend more money. The Kansas City Public School District has been putting “trial balloons” in the air for some time seeking to increase the taxes that fund schools. Many education advocates want to spend more money on teachers and in the classroom. But in Kansas City, the amount spent per student, approximately $16,000 per pupil per year, is already very high. The likely problem, as highlighted by Schweich’s audit in St. Joe, is that the money is often not making it to the classroom; it is being eaten up by administrators through bad policy and perhaps even fraud.

In his 2011 audit of the Kansas City School District, Schweich found lots of similar problems. According to a story by KCTV:

The district could not account for $4 million in food costs and student incentives, repeatedly failed to competitively bid projects and monitor contracts, has excessive overtime and failed to properly oversee its closed buildings, the audit found.

The state audit said a principal at Lincoln College Preparatory Academy made $58,000 in unauthorized purchases and cash withdrawals. Jamia Dock is no longer at the school and has been charged in Jackson County Circuit Court with stealing more than $25,000 in district funds. She has pleaded not guilty and the case is still pending.

The Kansas City School Board was also faulted for repeatedly violating the Missouri Sunshine Law.

Schweich’s 2011 audit grade for KCPS was “Fair,” of a four-point scale including “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” and “Poor.” According to the auditor’s office, most of these findings assume that district spending numbers are correct, which means they don’t do the time-consuming work of digging into expenses. Even still, for Kansas City to score in the bottom half is an indictment.

Many parents and teachers want to see more money making it to the classroom. As Schweich’s comment at the top of this post suggested, efficient money management means that more money can be made available where it matters most. If the Kansas City School District wants to build trust with parents, teachers, and taxpayers, they should invite a thorough and recurring examination of their books and remain transparent in all their expenditures.

The post Audit the Kansas City Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the fall of 2013, students from the unaccredited Normandy School District stepped out in faith. They placed their hope and trust in the hands of nearby schools, sometimes more than 20 miles away from home. Over the course of the past year, these students have overcome great obstacles to get to school in their search for better educational opportunities. Now, area school leaders have a decision to make. They can choose to honor the decisions and sacrifices of these students or they can choose to deny them access to the schools they have worked so hard to attend.

It seems clear what the decision should be.

Financially, the transfer program is a winning proposition for accredited school districts. In most cases, the transfer students – even with the lower $7,200 tuition rate that the State Board of Education set – bring more money to the district than a student moving into the district would generate. Schools are funded primarily through local property taxes and state appropriations. The local property taxes are essentially fixed, they don’t rise when one new student moves into an apartment complex, and the state provides every area school district less than $7,200 per student. Most, in fact, receive less than $2,000 per pupil from the state.

Furthermore, the $7,200 is more than enough to cover the marginal cost of an additional student. That is, it does not cost a district $7,200 to add one student to an existing classroom. As the schools have demonstrated over the past year, they have the capacity to accept and educate these students. Few have needed to hire additional teachers or faculty. They simply have been able to assimilate the students into the day-to-day operations of the school. For many schools, it simply has been business as usual.

This decision, however, is not just about the bottom line. It is a decision that has a direct impact on students themselves. We recognize that most educators enter the profession because they want to make a difference in the lives of students. This is an opportunity to do just that.

Students transferring from the unaccredited Normandy School District are among the most disadvantaged students in the state. In Normandy, nearly half of the students will not graduate on time and among those who do, their future prospects are slim. With an average ACT score of 16.8, many of these students cannot even get into state colleges and universities.

Educators – teachers, principals, and superintendents – throughout the area have an opportunity to change these statistics for the transfer students. They have the opportunity to make a difference.

As representatives of the Saint Louis chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Show-Me Institute, a free-market think tank, it is not often that we find ourselves in complete agreement on an issue. On this, we stand in unity. Local school districts should reward the hard work and sacrifice of these students. Allowing them to return is a decision that makes sense to the head and to the heart.

Adolphus M. Pruitt is 1^st vice president of the Missouri NAACP and president of the Saint Louis NAACP. James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is the director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute. 

Co-Signers

Joe Knodell – Executive Director, Missouri Education Reform Roundtable

Courtney Allen Curtis – Missouri State Representative (D – 73)

The post Allowing Normandy Students To Return Makes Sense To The Head And The Heart appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I have noted previously, Riverview Gardens is among the lowest-spending districts in the Saint Louis area and Normandy is about average.  Kansas City, on the other hand, spends considerably more than most of the other school districts in the area (see below). Kansas City spends nearly $13,000 per pupil. Save for the Center School District, this is more than $1,400 above what Grandview and other neighboring districts spend. The neighboring Independence School District spends $3,800 less. This means that when students leave the Kansas City School District, in most cases, it will generate a cost savings.

Let’s assume that a quarter of Kansas City’s 15,500 students apply to transfer. If those students are spread out evenly among the 11 other districts above, the district would have to pay about $39 million in tuition. This may seem like a lot, but the district is currently spending more than $50 million on that quarter of students. If the district could make appropriate budgetary cuts, it could actually come out ahead. More importantly, the students will come out ahead because they now have the option to attend higher-performing schools.

The post Could Kansas City Benefit From Student Transfers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, one Riverview Gardens parent claimed, “What they’re trying to do is keep us in this district rather than let us go where we want to put our kids. I think they are trying to pull a fast one.” That parent stated what I’m sure many parents are thinking. I try not to assign motives to the actions of others but instead try to look at the facts. Doing that, it seems quite clear why these districts were chosen: they are cheaper. This means Riverview Gardens and Normandy will pay less in tuition.

In the table below, I present the total enrollment and current operating expenditures for all of the school districts in Saint Louis County, as well as Francis Howell and the St. Charles School District. The two failing districts are highlighted the same color as the district to which they chose to provide transportation. The data are from 2012 and were obtained from the DESE website.

It is no secret that money was among the primary considerations; Riverview Gardens Superintendent Scott Spurgeon said as much. The real question is, should the decision even have been made in this fashion? That is, should the school determine where they are going to provide transportation, or should they provide transportation to the school that most of their students would like to attend?

The post School Transfers, Follow The Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The high school was surrounded by barbed wire. Doors with broken locks were chained shut or jammed with broom sticks. Science labs had no running water. Gangs used school walls for graffiti.

That was when Superintendent Linda Henke started at the district. Now, 12 years later, as she retires, the district is much better off. It has made big strides academically, with its students outperforming the state average in Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test scores. The buildings look more inviting.

According to the Post-Dispatch, Henke had to make tough decisions to improve the district. She terminated 30 teachers, a no small feat given how hard it can be to fire a teacher in Missouri, and the teachers’ union sued the district. The Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District also successfully passed a tax levy increase in 2010 during the midst of a recession.

But the best sign of the district’s success is that more area parents are opting to send their children to public schools. Now, 75 percent of neighborhood children are enrolled in the district. Though some of this change is due to the recession and parents no longer able to afford private school tuition, most of this change is likely attributable to the positive changes made at the district.  Parents are capable of recognizing educational success, and many will, if able, leave a failing district by moving or finding a better educational alternative.

But for every success story like that at Maplewood-Richmond Heights, there are districts that are falling behind with many parents unable to afford a better option. Instead of relegating students to a failing district for who knows how long, wouldn’t it be better if districts were held accountable for failure and rewarded for success?

One way to do this would be to allow parents to choose what school (and what district) their child attends, with the child taking his or her per-pupil funding to the chosen school. That way, successful districts would attract more students (and funding), while failing districts would have to compete for students and funding, or risk being closed. If competition for students can work for Maplewood, why can’t it work for the rest of the state?

The post Successfully Competing For Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.