Paying teachers to get master’s degrees that do not make them more effective is inefficient. Most obviously, it misdirects school district resources—why privilege teachers who get a credential that does not make them better at their jobs when we could use metrics tied to actual performance, or just pay all teachers more? The master’s pay premium also incentivizes teachers to invest tuition money, time, and energy in degrees with no measurable value. And the artificial demand fueled by these policies encourages universities to expand the degree programs themselves. All around, it is a tremendous waste of resources.

A new report released by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) describes the current national policy landscape with respect to the master’s degree premium. The report identifies Missouri as one of just 15 states that require districts to pay a master’s degree premium. In fact, we just re-upped the policy in 2024 with Senate Bill 727, which raised minimum teacher pay and maintained a new, higher minimum pay standard for teachers with master’s degrees (and at least 10 years of experience).

The NCTQ report also looked at salary schedules in 140 large districts in the United States, including three in Missouri: Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis. All three have large pay premiums for teachers with master’s degrees, especially highly experienced teachers. For example, with 20 or more years of experience the premium exceeds $10,000 annually in all three districts, and it gets as high as $18,600 in Kansas City.

This is a steep price to pay for a credential that has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no connection to classroom effectiveness. It’s time to end this practice.

The post We Shouldn’t Pay Teachers for Master’s Degrees appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, Money for Music, and AG Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While Lee’s Summit stands out for its fee demands, it isn’t alone in its dubious Sunshine Law practices. Last month the St. Louis public school district said it had no records responsive to my identical request of it and would send any if found. After a month without records being sent and after being told again it had no records to send, I informed the district that I knew it had responsive records and showed evidence, at which point the district suddenly, er, remembered it did have some of the documents I had asked for. Thanks to the insiders I’ve gotten to know and the documents I’ve received to date, I anticipate the “memories” of districts statewide are going to be jogged often in the weeks ahead.

It isn’t just some “big city” problem, either. A number of rural districts also have gotten my attention, with Morgan Co. R-I demanding $15,000 for its records. I’m still waiting for a list of how that number was arrived at. Districts and schools that received my inquiries but haven’t responded at all won’t escape scrutiny either; after all, they’re breaking the law by not responding.

The Sunshine Law process is pretty simple. Once a Sunshine Law request is received by a government body, it has three days to respond. Governments can charge reasonable fees for securing and transmitting documents, but they can also waive those fees when the documents requested are in the public interest. Agencies can and do consult lawyers, but in my experience lawyers aren’t the ones interacting with records requestors. Of the over 2,700 requests I’ve sent out to schools and districts, I’ve dealt with a lawyer directly only about a half dozen times, almost exclusively by email, and almost always in ways that would be indistinguishable from interaction with lay staff. In other words, it’s unusual when an attorney gets highly involved, but it isn’t always notable. The Sunshine Law process is that straightforward.

Some of the most outrageous interactions I’ve had so far are with districts that go out of their way to create the illusion of compliance with the Sunshine Law only to use supposed research and production costs to discourage inquiries and withhold public documents. By far the most eyebrow-raising district behavior in that vein has been from the Springfield Public School District.

On June 14th—about an hour after I sent out my Sunshine Law requests to schools and districts statewide—I received a phone call from an attorney representing the Springfield Public School District who (in short) wanted to find out what I was doing with the information I was seeking. I explained plainly to him that I was going to post everything online for the public to see.

The phone conversation, which lasted about half an hour, alternated between friendly and direct. At one point I was told that the only return I’d probably get would be for the term “whiteness,” and it would be from some art textbook. I chuckled that that’s always possible, but the attorney was quick to say that he was joking. The call concluded, and I waited for Springfield’s written response to my request, which was provided days later.

I mention the “whiteness” remark because included in Springfield’s very legalistic response demanding nearly $2,000 for records—signed by its custodian of records—was this odd tidbit:

A review of the District’s approved curriculum documents revealed only one book which has been approved in the past for use in the District’s High School literature classes, and it is not currently being used, that used the term “whiteness.” That book, Brave New World, uses the term once on page 15 in a sentence that reads: “…also pale as death, pale with the posthumous whiteness of marble.”

Am I to believe that in three days someone at the Springfield Public School District not only went through the curricula and lesson plans district wide and found nothing, but also went through books the district was no longer using by hand to search for terms and designate a page number? As the attorney suggested, the only term that the district discovered had to do with “whiteness,” and only in connection with something outside of the CRT context. Quite a coincidence.

I have contacted hundreds of districts and thousands of schools. No one besides Springfield has returned a result for a piece of literature, let alone one that was no longer taught. None have returned a result from an art or language arts class, either. In my opinion, Springfield’s was the kind of response a lawyer would deliver to flout the text and spirit of the Sunshine Law, and the demand for thousands of dollars was an added (but expected) insult that local governments often will present to stop transparency requests. This isn’t my first rodeo; we saw these ridiculous demands from local governments for their checkbooks, too.

I replied to Springfield by asking whether the district’s response represented the records held by the schools as well. I received a non-responsive answer. At the end of June, I sent a second Sunshine Law request for emails from within the district that related to our Sunshine Law correspondence. In July I got a response from the new custodian of records who had a remarkably similar writing style to the last custodian of records, and who now presented a bill for over $4,000 for that request, at a different and higher rate for “redaction and processing” activities the district said it would have to undertake. I asked for an explanation for that rate difference; I have received none.

I asked for the district to remove attorney time expenses, which is what the law requires, given the costs that were driving both estimates were related to redactions the district said had to be made and privileged correspondence the district said had to be excised. The district responded that attorney time expenses weren’t included. Really? So lay people are making the determinations about materials subject to attorney–client privilege and other legally sensitive redactions?

What is Springfield concerned about disclosing?

Sitting in the background throughout this process has been the fact that the Springfield Public School District is already under fire for the CRT-informed trainings it’s conducted with teachers. The idea that these professional trainings aren’t informing district curricula or lesson plans, explicitly and implicitly, doesn’t seem credible, and the refusal of the district to exercise complete openness and transparency in showing what is being taught to kids is wrong.

Parents and taxpayers deserve to know what their kids are being taught. If a district, school, or teacher doesn’t want to share that information, then they shouldn’t be teaching it.

The post The Unbelievable “Whiteness” of Springfield Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project. [Emphasis mine]

I’ll let readers unpack for themselves what all those other terms mean. But not only do we know that CRT is already in K-12 classrooms around the country and here in Missouri, but its instruction is now officially supported by one of the biggest teachers unions in the United States.

Is your school in an “NEA district”? Maybe.

The Missouri NEA’s website offers the most current list of the group’s 300 or so affiliates in Missouri, but thanks to our Show-Me CBAs Project, we also know that there are a lot of Missouri districts that had formalized and active working relationships with the Missouri NEA in recent years. That list includes:

You can find our full CBA report here.

It might not be coincidental, then, that several of the districts on these lists have been less than open about what they’re teaching kids in response to our Show-Me Curricula inquiries. Taking the cake so far is Springfield, whose public schools want nearly $2,000 to produce documents relating to what they’re teaching their kids. If the district’s partners in the NEA are any indication, I can imagine why they might be reluctant to hand over these public documents.

The NEA’s endorsement of CRT reaffirms how important it is for Missouri schools to be honest with parents and the public about what’s being taught in their classrooms. Hopefully, those districts currently resisting our transparency requests will relent in their effort to evade what’s required of them under the Sunshine Law. We certainly won’t relent in pursuing those documents.

The post Major K-12 Teachers Union Endorses Teaching Critical Race Theory appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Magnet schools are public schools that have a specialized focus, like STEM or the arts. They will often have admission and retention requirements, such as a minimum test score or GPA for students. Charter schools are another form of public school choice; they are granted autonomy and accept all students who apply. If a magnet school can get millions of dollars and support in Springfield, why does Missouri stifle the growth of charter schools, which could serve students outside of Kansas City and St. Louis?

I bet there have been many other ideas from would-be school leaders across the state on how to create new opportunities for students with an innovative school, but Missouri has been hostile to expanding school choice. Students in Springfield are fortunate enough to soon have access to another option. Unfortunately, many other Missouri students don’t have the chance to pick an education that’s right for them.

The post Why Does Missouri Make it So Difficult? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Using data from the National Center of Education Statistics’ Private School Universe Survey, I estimate that there are more than 28,000 available seats in currently operating private schools. This estimate does not count the tens of thousands of students already being educated in private schools; rather, it is an estimate of the gap between how much the schools could serve and how many students they currently enroll.

This is discussed in more detail in my new paper, Available Seats 2.0: Opportunities Abound with Private School Choice. Additionally, I show that a private school choice program, depending on the design, could potentially save the state millions of dollars.

While the discussion about program design and potential savings is a substantial part of the paper, it should not be construed as the most important component. The main takeaway from the paper is really captured in the subtitle itself—opportunities abound with private school choice.

If Missouri were to enact a voucher or a scholarship program, they could open the doors of hundreds of private schools to students who otherwise may not have had any educational options outside of their traditional public school. Having the ability to choose the type of school—maybe a Montessori school or a classical academy—means having educational freedom.

Opportunities abound for families to find a school that meets their needs and aligns to their values. That is the promise of school choice. To read the essay, click on the link below.

The post Available Seats 2.0: Opportunities Abound with School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From reading Missouri’s State Board of Education’s reports, one would think that the state’s kids are succeeding in their studies and attending their classes; however, this is not the case. While Missouri schools and districts report their average daily attendance, and it’s incorporated into their Annual Performance Report (APR), these numbers hide individual students who aren’t showing up.

We can’t prove a causal relationship between truancy and poor academic outcomes, but the two are clearly correlated, and common sense tells us that students need to be present to learn. Unfortunately, recently released federal data show that nearly 110,000 Missouri students missed 15 or more days of school in the 2015–16 school year, meaning that they are categorized as “chronically absent.” In seven Missouri school districts, serving a total of over 50,000 students, more than one-quarter of the students were chronically absent.

At the school level, 42 Missouri schools had chronic absenteeism rates of more than 33 percent.

And yet these high-absence schools earned an average of 70 percent of the possible points in the APR evaluation in 2017—well above the 50 percent needed for full accreditation. It’s not surprising that with more than one-third of their students chronically absent, an average of only 15 percent of the students at these schools were proficient in math, and just 32 percent were proficient in reading. In one egregious case, at Kansas City’s Central Middle School, where 54 percent of the students were chronically absent, only 5 percent of students were proficient in math. Yet this school received 75 percent of their APR points, making it fully accredited.

The same trend is apparent at the district level. Kansas City leads with 38 percent of its students qualifying as chronically absent, even though DESE reports a proportional attendance rate of 83 percent for the same year (more on that disconnect in another blog) and a math proficiency rate of less than 25 percent. Yet, the district garnered an APR Score of 64 percent—making it provisionally accredited. Springfield was able to get 84 percent of its APR points, even though one-quarter of its students were chronically absent, and only 40 percent of them are proficient in math.

Though reducing chronic absences will not solve Missouri’s educational woes, making sure kids show up to class is an essential first step for progress. A rating system that gives the impression that children can get a good education when they are not physically present in schools robs them of the chance to succeed. Even more troubling are misleading APR scores that hide the fact that children are not being given the educational opportunities they deserve but being set up to fail.

The post A is for Absent appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last month, former Missouri legislator Dr. Roy Holand wrote a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader warning about trends—including both an increase in student poverty and declining test scores—that have the Springfield School District headed in the wrong direction. Could Springfield end up like Kansas City or St. Louis and, as Dr. Holand warns, suffer from “local urban flight” to surrounding districts? Moreover, will students from low-income families be stuck in poor-performing schools because they cannot afford to move to another district or attend a private school?

Based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Springfield’s enrollment is remaining steady around 25,000, but it is not faring as well as neighboring districts. Take a look at nearby districts’ performance as measured by the 8th grade MAP tests and student population characteristics compared to Springfield:

Compared to surrounding districts, Springfield has a similar achievement level in eighth grade English, but scores much lower in math. Moreover, Springfield is close to the statewide average of 60.2 percent of eighth graders scoring proficient or better in English, but it is far behind the statewide score of 30.5 percent of eighth graders scoring proficient or advanced in math.

Given these scores, it is not surprising that six out of nine middle schools in the district scored less than 70 percent on the 2017 Annual Performance Review (APR), which is the state’s threshold for full accreditation.

Additionally, legislation has been introduced that would allow for charter schools to open in any district that has at least one school that earned 60 percent or fewer of the possible points on the APR in two of the last three years. Four elementary schools and three middle schools in Springfield currently meet those criteria. If this legislation passes, Springfield will join St. Louis and Kansas City as “charter schools as intervention” districts.

While Springfield is technically still accredited under the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) system, the number of struggling schools in the district is cause for concern. Because some of the 2017 MAP tests were thrown out, 2016 is the most recent year that all school received an APR score; as you can see, the schools’ performance varies significantly:

Considering this range in performance, can a parent in Springfield be confident that their child will be able to attend a quality school? While Springfield does have some choice programs, such as the option to enroll in schools emphasizing STEM subjects and an intra-district transfer option, the seats for these programs—and in the good middle schools—are limited. With so few quality options for middle school, and with the elementary schools being a mixed bag, it would not be surprising if families started leaving for the surrounding districts or sending their kids to private schools.

Holand is not the only one worried about the direction of the district. As the school board considered renewing Superintendent John Jungmann’s contract, former Springfield teacher Carl Herd also argued that district’s performance is “not acceptable” and it will hurt the economic health of the city. Nonetheless, the school board voted unanimously to extend Jungmann’s contract through 2021.

Kansas City’s and St. Louis’s experiences serve as a cautionary tale. Fortunately, families in these cities have charter schools as an option. And while these districts’ enrollment continues to decline, charter school enrollment grew by 11 percent last year. If Springfield’s performance continues to slip—and there is growing evidence that it this is happening—the families who cannot afford private school or are unable to move to another district will suffer.

The needs of the students and parents in the Springfield should be the top priority of the school district. Expanding school choice programs, such as charter schools or education savings accounts, which are popular with parents, would ensure that these students have more quality options.

The post Will Springfield School District Become the Next Kansas City or St. Louis? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Course access.

Course access programs allow students to direct a portion of their annual per-pupil funds to take—and receive college credit for—courses outside of their traditional public school course offerings.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Eleven states across the country have some form of course access program.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Missouri has much of the infrastructure needed to create a course access program through an underused program known as the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program (MoVIP), which was signed into law in 2006. In addition, the Grandview R-II and Springfield school districts have created their own online programs, but these courses are not available to all students in the state. In all three cases, the course offerings are vetted by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and can be credited toward graduation.

KEY POINTS

• During the 2015–2016 school year, of the 448 school districts that offer high school in the state, 9% had no students enrolled in chemistry, 42% had none enrolled in advanced physics, 40% had none enrolled in calculus, and 63% had none enrolled in AP courses.
• Course access allows students a cost-effective way to take courses not otherwise available in their district.
• Course access increases parent/individual control over education spending.
• Missouri already has the infrastructure needed to create a course access program.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Essay: Course Access in Missouri: Diversity, Personalization, and Opportunity

Blog Post: Missouri Students Need Access to Advanced Coursework

Video: Course Access: Opening Opportunities across Missouri

Video: Course Access Brings the Classroom to the Student

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

The post 2018 Blueprint: Course Access appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I have two problems with this statement.

First, I am not sure Missouri students are “maintaining their overall level of achievement.” In both fourth and eighth grades, the average scale score for Missouri students declined from 2009 to 2012. The decline in fourth grade was a noticeable 3-point drop.

Secondly, we should not be pleased with maintaining our level of achievement; our goal is to improve. Moreover, we should not simply look at national rankings because our students will have to compete for jobs in a global economy.

The George W. Bush Institute has made it easy for us to compare the performance of our local school district with the performance of students around the world with its Global Report Card, which was recently updated. Here you can visit the website and see how the average student in your local school district compares to students across the globe. You may be surprised at what you find.

The average student in the Kansas City School District outperforms only 15 percent of students in other countries in math. In the Saint Louis Public School District, it is a paltry 12 percent. But do not make the mistake of thinking only students in the “big cities” are falling behind. Here is how the average student in a few other school districts compares:

Hume: 40 percent in reading, 26 percent in math

Cape Girardeau: 48 percent in reading, 29 percent in math

Springfield: 57 percent in reading, 48 percent in math

If students in Springfield were transported to Singapore, the district would only outperform 34 percent of Singapore students while students in the high-ranking Clayton School District would be at the 46th percentile.

It is time to stop celebrating mediocrity and expect more for our children.

The post Celebrating Mediocrity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.