Susan Pendergrass speaks with Cory Koedel, director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri education policy following the 2026 legislative session. They discuss the governor’s A to F letter grade executive order, why literacy legislation failed to pass, leadership turmoil at DESE, Show-Me’s latest Report on the effects of open enrollment, the case for expanding charter schools in Missouri, and more.

The post Missouri’s Stalled Education Reforms with Cory Koedel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the final week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. They discuss the constitutional amendment heading to voters that would begin the process of eliminating Missouri’s state income tax, where property tax reform efforts stand heading into the final days, the early literacy bill’s uncertain path through the Senate, the legislature’s approach to A through F school report cards, what the state budget does and does not get right, the Ferguson city council’s rejection of a major data center tax subsidy, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity. Today I’m joined by Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes from the Show-Me Institute. It is the last week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. Today we’re going to go through what has crossed the finish line, mostly what has not crossed the finish line, and see what these guys think about the possibility of that happening here in the home stretch. Elias, we’ll begin with something that has crossed the finish line, and that is the start of a discussion about phasing out Missouri’s state income tax. Legislation did pass. It goes to the governor, and he gets to decide when it goes on the ballot. So what do we know right now, what passed, and what are Missouri voters going to be asked sometime in the fall?

Elias Tsapelas (00:50): By May 22nd, the governor needs to decide whether this constitutional amendment will go on the August or November ballot. What it says, essentially, is to Missouri voters: do you want to start the process of getting rid of Missouri’s income tax? It comes with three main components. The first piece is the legislature will be required to enact legislation that would get rid of the state’s income tax based on revenue growth. Once that income tax is gone, it cannot be reinstituted. Previous versions of this bill had some details lined out about how the income tax rate would be cut based on revenue growth, but in later versions this was stripped back to just the legislature will decide this later. The other two pieces say you will also be authorizing the legislature to expand the state sales tax base, meaning the things the state sales tax applies to. This could also involve changing the rate, because right now Missouri’s constitution does not allow the state legislature to expand the sales tax to anything that was not taxed in 2015. But this does come with a guardrail: if the legislature does change the state sales tax, it has to be done in a revenue neutral fashion. So expanding the sales tax base or raising the rate to bring in additional tax revenues has to go towards lowering the state income tax. That gives the legislature the authority to change how much revenue comes in, which would speed up the process for getting rid of the income tax. The last piece is a component for local governments. If the state changes the number of things that the sales tax applies to, this would also increase revenues to local governments. Those additional revenues would have to go towards a list of other taxes that would be lowered. In places like St. Louis and Kansas City, that would go towards lowering the earnings tax. For other local governments, they get to choose whether it goes towards lowering the sales tax, property tax, personal property taxes, or real property taxes. The key piece being revenue neutral. This is not going to be a windfall for anyone. It is basically the start of a discussion, because they don’t say what the rate might need to go to, what the sales tax could be expanded to, or what revenues would trigger income tax elimination or cuts. This is just the start of the discussion, giving the legislature the authority to keep moving in the direction we started around 2014.

Zach Lawhorn (03:57): Taking those a piece at a time: the first one, if it passes and the income tax is eliminated at some point, it cannot come back. That seems pretty straightforward. The next two seem like responses to opposition that we hear on a regular basis. The first being the revenue triggers, which seem designed to prevent what we often hear about with Kansas, where they cut the income tax without cutting spending, leading to revenue shortfalls. And the expansion of the sales tax base seems like protection against having to raise the sales tax rate on goods. Do I have that right?

Elias Tsapelas (04:40): Yes. The revenue trigger piece is basically what Missouri has been doing for a while, waiting to see how much revenue we have before lowering the income tax by that amount. We’ve been doing that for over a decade now and have lowered the top individual income tax rate from 6% to 4.7%. We’re just continuing down that path to be sure we don’t create some enormous budget hole. Now, when you look at the sales tax, Missouri has a very complicated, out-of-date sales tax system. The state sales tax rate is 4.225%, but when you go to the store you’re paying something significantly higher, largely due to local governments and a lot of special taxing districts. Missouri also has a lot of sales tax exemptions. Missouri really needs a full look at its entire sales tax system. But economically, when thinking about switching a state from being primarily funded by income taxes to something closer to sales taxes, the best way to fund a state is to tax as broad a base as possible so you can have the lowest rate possible. You want to be taxing final consumption, not business inputs. As we start the idea of transferring to more of a consumption tax in Missouri, the goal is to make sure it doesn’t become a tax increase for some people while things change elsewhere. It’s trying to keep it level the whole way, and at least right now it seems like a pretty neutral proposal going forward.

Zach Lawhorn (06:24): David, for people who don’t think about taxes as a corresponding tax system, can you explain the idea of local governments rolling back certain taxes and how people might experience that on their property tax bills or personal property tax bills?

David Stokes (06:44): It’s trickier than you might think, but it’s vital that it be done right. If you expand the sales tax base at the state level, as Elias discussed, you don’t want local governments to start collecting significantly more sales tax revenue for no reason. At the state level we’ll do something good with that and phase out the income tax, but at the local government level we don’t want just more revenue with nothing to spend it on. You need tax relief for citizens, which is why they’re going to require rollbacks. They’ve given local governments some options in how you roll that rate back, which is a good thing, but they need to give them a few more options. For example, they said you could roll back property taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, or sales taxes. A few things that need to be considered: many municipalities don’t have a property tax, so they won’t be able to roll back the property tax. And it’s trickier to roll back sales taxes than you might think. Unlike property taxes and income taxes, which can be reduced in small increments, sales taxes have to be done in set increments. You can’t go from a 1% sales tax to a 0.92% sales tax. It’s just not allowed and would be incredibly difficult for retailers to implement. So local governments need even more flexibility in how they roll back taxes. I would say the utility tax, which just about every county imposes, is a great option to add to the choice mix for rollbacks. These are the sales taxes that can be placed on utilities, which unlike other sales taxes can be rolled back in small increments. That’s a very good option. The biggest challenge of all, though, is the special taxing districts that Elias mentioned earlier, such as transportation development districts and community improvement districts. These usually only have sales taxes and nothing else. You have to address what they do if their sales tax collections go up 30% and they have no legal way to roll it back by that same amount. So we need to adjust that. I would also hope that part of this whole deal would be a substantial cap on how these special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs operate in the first place, to really restrict their continued expansion in Missouri, which has been very harmful. Those are just a few ideas out of many in how local governments are going to have to address this.

Zach Lawhorn (09:59): Finally, Elias, as you said, it’ll be on the ballot sometime in the fall. But between now and either August or November, people interested in this topic are going to see a lot of data, modeling, estimates, and projections. We want to be honest about what we can know and what we cannot know. With the legislation that has passed now, what should people keep in mind when they see some of these estimates or models or projections this summer?

Elias Tsapelas (10:39): The first thing is, if you see anything claiming this is going to generate a tremendous budget shortfall or major harm to local governments, this thing is set up to be revenue neutral. This is not something that is going to create enormous holes. Most of the time, estimates that reach that conclusion assume this would work in an entirely different way than what is allowed. So that is something you don’t necessarily need to worry about. What people are more reasonably worried about is: if you empower the legislature to expand or raise the sales tax, how is that going to impact everyone? Missouri’s state and local combined sales tax rates are relatively high already. The state’s portion is pretty low, but combined it’s relatively high. So what the state decides to do in terms of how much it expands the sales tax base, whether that involves more services versus goods, will impact different people differently, in different parts of the state and at different income levels. Anything right now that says this is definitely going to be bad for X person, we just can’t know that, because there’s not enough information out there. Everyone should keep an open mind and also recognize that the reason for this amendment and this proposal is that Missouri’s economy is falling behind. We are falling behind our neighbors in terms of tax competitiveness, and the only way to change that is to improve Missouri’s tax standing. Our sales tax system is incredibly broken, so this is something that is going to need to be fixed. At least right now we are at the point of asking: do we want to go down this path? Let’s hope the legislature does a good job. We’ll be shining a light on whatever they do, but we can’t know some of the things that people are warning about right now.

Zach Lawhorn (12:50): David, after the legislature got the income tax bills out the door, they shifted to talking about property taxes, which is something we hear a lot about. People want property tax reform. With only a few days left in the session, where do those efforts stand and what are your thoughts?

David Stokes (13:11): Unlike a lot of the property tax changes of the past few years, I actually like the property tax changes being proposed this year. At least one property tax bill is in conference committee being debated between the House and Senate right now. Another major bill has passed out of the Senate but hasn’t made it through the House yet. I’m told there are going to have to be some compromises on both sides to get a bill across the finish line, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The biggest change this year, which seems very much in the weeds but is significant, would take the way property taxes are imposed in St. Louis County and apply it to the rest of the state. St. Louis County has different tax rates for all the different types of property: residential, agricultural, commercial, and personal property, which includes your car, boat, farm equipment, livestock, and the like. Those rates adjust differently as assessments go up and down each year. This approach was originally intended to be extended to the rest of the state about 20 years ago when they did it in St. Louis County, but the following year they came back and said the rest of the state didn’t have to do it. It’s a good idea. It might sound strange to some people, but a good example of why it would be beneficial came from stories in the St. Louis Business Journal about the real decline in commercial property values in the city of St. Louis over the past year. Because they set one tax rate measured under one unified property value, residential homeowners in St. Louis end up making up with their taxes for the decline in commercial property. In St. Louis County, with the siloed tax rates, if commercial property goes down, the commercial property tax rate will go up to offset that instead of passing it on to homeowners. In rural Missouri, which has so much agricultural property, this would allow agricultural property tax rates to increase to fund goods in rural areas without as dramatically impacting commercial and residential property. I think this is a good idea and I hope it passes. There are also some good amendments that would put taxpayer protections in place to avoid the temptation of local officials to target commercial property with these new different tax rates. It’s in the weeds, but I think these are good changes this year.

Zach Lawhorn (16:24): That sounds like the other side of the coin from what’s happened in Jackson County, where over the last few years people have been very upset that their assessments have gone up by more than 20% and residential homeowners have seen gigantic leaps in their property taxes. Is this kind of like having to turn one knob one way and another knob the other way?

David Stokes (16:55): Sort of. The tricky part is that the situation in Jackson County for the past 10 years has been so bad, it’s hard to compare it to other counties. It’s been uniquely horrible for the people of Jackson County. But it does start with one basic truth: 15 to 20 years ago, Jackson County was under-assessed. The assessor was ordered to increase the valuations because they were improperly low, and probably artificially and intentionally low. The right approach would have been to raise those assessed valuations to more accurate totals while lowering the rates at the same time to avoid crushing people with higher taxes. But Jackson County’s taxing entities have not really done that, starting with the Kansas City 33 school district, a very large school district in Kansas City, which is the only taxing body in Missouri exempt from rolling back rates as values increase. So you’ve seen these giant increases within that school district and they don’t even have to roll back rates. They just get to keep their same rates, as they have frequently over the past 10 years. So people are getting walloped. And then you throw in the fact that the Kansas City Assessor’s Office has done a terrible job managing the process year after year, not hitting deadlines for notifying people about changes and not properly running the appeals process. It’s just been a terrible system in Jackson County, and almost uniquely so.

Zach Lawhorn (18:30): All right. Before we have Elias read the budget line by line, Avery, I want to get an update on the education items here in the last week of the session. Early literacy, the reading bill, we’ve been talking about it all session long. How’s it looking?

Avery Frank (18:47): When it first passed out of the House before spring break, 131 to 10, I was genuinely excited. It wasn’t necessarily that it passed so early; it was that it passed with such little resistance and such bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Teaching our students how to read, giving every student the best chance to become a confident, capable reader, that seems like common sense and a goal that everyone wants to work toward to help our state improve and perhaps become the next Mississippi. It looked that way before spring break, but the Senate version of the early literacy bill got filibustered and set aside. The House bill has made it through the process and is on the informal calendar for third reading, so it could be taken up at any time. If it does pass the Senate, I anticipate it would easily pass the House again. But that is the problem with a lot of education legislation: can it pass the Senate? There have been different concerns about the early literacy bills. Some people are concerned that the MAP test, or the Missouri Assessment Program, which we use to test all of our students, is not a good measure and we shouldn’t be basing anything on it. Some are concerned with third-grade retention and whether it actually helps, looking at states like Mississippi and noting that while fourth-grade scores are great, eighth-grade scores have only improved a little. Those are the main pushbacks we’re seeing. I would still say this is something we really need to do. The early literacy bill is built on two different pillars. The first is a mandatory third-grade retention policy. Missouri already tests all K through third-grade students with a reading screener to see how they’re doing with reading. What this bill would do is set a passing score for those screeners. If students don’t meet that score, they would be retained in third grade, because reading is such a foundational skill. If you don’t know how to read, that’s something worth holding back for, to make sure students get it down before moving on for the rest of their educational career. Students would still have the opportunity to retake the screener, and there would be good-cause exemptions for students with disabilities, for students who have been held back previously, and for English language learners. The second main pillar is reforming our teacher preparation programs. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality conducted a survey of all of our universities and teacher preparation programs and found that half of them received an F in teaching the science of reading, which is the best evidence-based way to teach students to read. The early literacy bill would align our teacher prep programs with those best practices. If they don’t do it, they can’t certify teachers. You can see how there could be pushback and reason why people would filibuster or not want it to come to the floor. That’s where it stands right now. I’m hoping people set aside their objections and recognize that this is a great first step to get Missouri back on track. Our reading scores have been really poor, especially after the pandemic. They continue to decrease and have not bounced back at all. They’re lower now than they were the first year after the pandemic, and we have to turn things around. These early literacy bills, I hope people see the common sense in them.

Zach Lawhorn (22:30): It’s not even the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just people being afraid to push back against the status quo. Missouri has fallen back in reading test scores, and other states, most notably Mississippi, have found ways to improve. I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as some kind of radical moonshot. In the final days of the session, the urgency cannot be overstated. The other thing we’ve talked about a lot this session is A through F report cards, a transparency measure. Governor Kehoe issued an executive order before the session started. What’s the status of the legislature trying to adhere to the governor’s executive order?

Avery Frank (23:19): The legislature has tried to legislate its own way into how the executive order gets implemented, because DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, could implement it in their own way. The legislature wants to determine how things are going to be scored instead of letting DESE make that decision. There’s been a lot of back and forth, and a lot of different interested parties. Not to get too in the weeds, but some districts really want academic achievement, their base score on the Missouri Assessment Program, to be weighed the most heavily because that would give them the highest score. Some want growth to be weighed the most heavily for the same reason. Some want basically no grades and a lot more qualitative information. There are a lot of different factors. The best vehicle for A through F report cards right now looks like Senate Bill 1351, which continues the long legacy of education omnibus bills used in recent years in Missouri. It combines the report card, limits on screen time for young students, and a couple of other things. I’m not sure if that’s going to make it past, to be honest. People are still concerned about whether the Missouri Assessment Program is something they want to base all of this on. Personally, I think the executive order is better than the legislation as it currently stands. They got rid of one aspect I liked as a researcher: in Governor Kehoe’s executive order, there was a penalty if districts didn’t report their data properly. In the current legislation, Senate Bill 1351, if districts don’t report sufficient data, it’s just written as an aside, basically saying they have to note on their report card that there is not sufficient data, and then they’re not included in the ranking as much. I don’t like that. It gives districts, especially poorly performing ones, an incentive not to report their data so they can have this qualifier on all of their report cards. I also don’t like it because, from all the education research I’ve been doing, we really do have a data reporting problem and we need to be a lot better about transparency. I hope we get some good report cards, because right now at the Show-Me Institute we do our best with the data we have, but we have to work with unsuppressed data, meaning we don’t have data that could potentially identify certain students. So there are some districts we have no data on because they’re so small. But DESE and the state have the best data possible. They could make a really good report card even better than we could, because they have better data than we do. That’s why I’m really hoping we get a good report card, because it would be very helpful for all the parents, legislators, and researchers across the state to see which districts are doing well and learn from them, and which ones are doing poorly and need more support.

Zach Lawhorn (26:42): Let’s talk about the budget. Elias, the legislature passed the budget a little early this year. They beat the deadline by a couple of days, right?

Elias Tsapelas (26:53): They finished early, which is a little bit different than the last few years.

Zach Lawhorn (26:56): Are we spending more or less money than last year?

Elias Tsapelas (27:01): Spending less, but I’m not throwing them a party. There’s just a lot less federal money going around. There was a lot of COVID money in recent years, and Missouri hasn’t spent all of it. The current budget this year is about $54 billion. What the legislature passed is a little bit less than $50 billion, depending on whether you count different construction items. But there was a lot of federal money in that total. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a budget that is still going to spend more general revenue, where our income and sales tax dollars go. It’s still going to spend more than we expect to bring in. So we’re still going to exhaust all of our surplus that we built up over those years. There were some positive things that happened this year, but ultimately part of how they got the budget done early was by spending just a little bit more, so they left some of the good on the table.

Zach Lawhorn (28:20): So we’re spending the surplus, as you’ve been warning about for several years, the federal money is drying up, and to circle back to the opening segment, I think part of the trust the legislature is going to have to build this summer is demonstrating we’re getting spending under control. You said you’re not throwing them a party. But is this reduction, whatever the reason, directionally good enough for the legislature to say they’re working on the spending side of things, or is it just not good enough?

Elias Tsapelas (29:00): I think I’ll know a lot more going into next year, because there were a lot better discussions this year, especially looking at spending incentives. As was mentioned, DESE is going to have a new funding formula, or at least the governor has a task force working on one. The way education is funded for K through 12 is going to change. There was also a big fight this year about how to fund higher education. What seemed to me like a common sense idea, essentially having the legislature fund colleges based on how many students are enrolled, turned out to be considered too radical and was pushed off for the future. But there’s talk of coming back with a performance funding measure going forward. There’s also some movement on changing how the state does its IT work. There are a lot of IT changes coming, including things affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Missouri has a very bad track record with IT. Part of this budget moves some IT resources over to the Department of Social Services to support getting things going there, because most IT for the state of Missouri is currently consolidated in the Office of Administration. While that can seem efficient because every state department doesn’t need its own IT department, it also makes it a lot harder to hold people accountable. There has been a big issue recently with the state’s accounting software, where a contract is millions of dollars behind schedule and not working. The budget tries to get at that too, and it raises this major incentive question: are the people in charge of implementing new IT going to do their best at something that will ultimately try to eliminate their job? I think the legislature is finally starting to deal with that. Ultimately, if we go down the path of a more efficient government and a better tax system, that may mean fewer state employees, and that is something that hasn’t come up much but I think the legislature is finally starting to look at. Pushing toward better funding models, a better state workforce, all those type of things, is moving in the right direction as opposed to how it has been, where the budget just grows larger every year. They’re looking in the right direction. I would have liked to see more, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next year, especially because the federal COVID funding will essentially be gone.

Zach Lawhorn (32:12): Our final topic, partly so we can put it in the title of the episode for clicks, but also because it seems like every week there’s a story from across the country or across the state about data centers and communities pushing back for a lot of reasons. The most recent one was Ferguson in the St. Louis area. David, can you catch us up on what was on the table for this data center in Ferguson and what happened?

David Stokes (32:40): The vote that the Ferguson city council took last week was strictly on a tax subsidy, I believe about $1.8 billion in tax abatements and various subsidies for the project. It was not a vote on approving the data center itself. This was a commercially zoned area, so it didn’t need any permission to put a data center there, and that’s a good thing. But the city nonetheless rejected the tax subsidy, which I thought was the right call. These data centers are very profitable and important, and I’m certainly not anti-data center. But the demand that they get enormous subsidies everywhere they seem to be going is improper. Festus was right to approve the data center operation there, but I think very much wrong to approve the enormous tax subsidy the city granted, which I believe was about a half a billion dollars. Avery can correct me if I’m wrong on that exact number. I like what Ferguson did, and I hope the data center moves into the old Emerson complex there nonetheless. We need data centers. Data centers produce so much tax revenue that they can generate their own tax cuts, and I don’t mean a special subsidy for the data center itself. I mean they go into a city or a small area, generate so much revenue, and you can cut taxes for everybody in that community, including the data center itself. I think that’s the road to follow, and hopefully that’s what we’ll have in Missouri. I also think we need to change the way data centers are taxed in an upcoming legislative session, taxing them a little more like utilities to reduce the incentive for one city or county to hand out a big subsidy and instead spread those tax benefits around a little more.

Zach Lawhorn (34:46): Avery, are you heartened by this rejection? Because as David said, we need the data centers, but we really want to avoid this new layer of corporate welfare that could pop up everywhere. So how do you feel about it?

Avery Frank (35:00): I’m actually very excited by the rejection in Ferguson. I’ve talked to a lot of people on both sides of the data center debate, those who have gone to the meetings and stayed up until 3 a.m. and protested, and those who want them. When I look at this Ferguson project specifically, the numbers David was talking about involved granting up to 15 years of tax abatements on real estate, personal property, and sales tax for a data center project. When I see something like that, it gets at what David was talking about. The only true significant benefit of a data center is the tax revenue it could bring. It doesn’t bring a lot of jobs. It takes a lot of electricity and a lot of water. It generates noise. It already makes a lot of people upset, and there are concerns about housing values and everything else. So if you’re not getting any tax revenue, there really is no strong incentive to have a data center project. That Emerson complex in Ferguson had thousands of employees. A data center does not take very many employees at all. So when you have people coming up and saying this data center project won’t succeed unless we get all these tax subsidies, I say that’s fine and I hope you don’t build a data center there, because the tax revenue is really the only benefit you’re getting from it. One of the bigger things is just something about Missouri in general. I’m from Tennessee and there are a lot of concerns there about having too much growth. Missouri sometimes feels like the opposite of Tennessee. We’re so desperate for growth that we’re willing to hand out a bunch of money. We don’t have enough pride. This Emerson complex is a good building and a good place. Ferguson has a STEM high school that produces very high test scores and graduates people who can work in the tech industry or an engineering industry. We shouldn’t waste a good building and a good workforce on a project that’s going to get all these tax subsidies and not bring a lot of jobs. The same thing happened over in Independence, where they gave out billions in subsidies for a data center project. Whenever I see that, I think we have to have a little bit of pride in Missouri. We can’t just be giving out all this money to get anyone to come. We have a good parcel of land, a good workforce, a lot of water, and a central location in the country. We can attract good projects, data centers or not, without giving out a bunch of subsidies. We need to understand what the benefits and costs of a data center are and what data center developers are actually looking for. They have a lot of money already. If you give them a good workforce, a place to build, and community support, I think they’ll come, even without a bunch of money.

Elias Tsapelas (38:28): I was really hoping this was the discussion we were going to have this year in Missouri’s legislature, because it started off so well with the discussion of how to get rid of the income tax and everything that goes with that. Talking about the income tax is really about how you make your state more desirable and how you grow faster. But Missouri for so long has just said: we want this industry or this type of business, so let’s give it an economic development tax credit. Let’s give out a billion dollars worth of those. Let’s give out sales tax exemptions. As far as I know, data centers in Missouri already get state and local sales tax exemptions. We just give those out. If we’re really going to start thinking about how to make the state the most desirable place, how to grow the fastest and be the most desirable for families and businesses, that’s really more about making the tax climate the best for everyone, not constantly picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the budget didn’t see as many cuts as I had hoped. As we go into the last few days of the legislature, there are plenty of tax credit bills waiting to pass. The film tax credit is back and there’s talk of extending the sunset on it. There are other tax credits. We’re still going down that path. There are still more sales tax exemptions being considered. Missouri just needs to decide what direction we want to go, because ultimately if we do get rid of the income tax, a lot of these economic development incentives don’t even really work anymore. You have to look at different things. You have to look at what is really the criteria for families and businesses. States across the country are dealing with these issues, changing their economic conditions, their tax policy, and people are moving there. We know people are leaving Missouri. We know income is leaving Missouri. We need to change things. The status quo is not going to work going forward, and I was hoping that would have sunk in a little bit more this year than it did.

Zach Lawhorn (40:37): We will leave it there this week. We’ll talk to everyone again after the session ends over the next few days and see how everything turned out. As always, plenty more at showmeinstitute.org. David, Avery, and Elias, thank you very much.

The post Missouri’s 2026 Legislative Session Final Week appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri House Speaker Jonathan Patterson suggested to Fox4 news in Kansas City that Missouri’s contribution to a Royals stadium could reach around $700 to $900 million. Patterson said:

“I think if you look at the numbers, and there was an audit in 2023, the teams generate almost $60 million, and so if you take half of that, then it would be $30 million, then times 30 years, it could be that number. I think those are good estimates that you’re working with.”

That number is way off.

In 2025, during a special legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB) 3, the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. While the bill does not specify a bonding formula, it does set limits: that state spending “shall be no greater than . . . baseline year state tax revenues,” that appropriations may “not exceed thirty years” and that “the net bond proceeds . . . shall not exceed fifty percent of the total costs of the project.” In setting those boundaries, the bill also limits revenue to that “derived directly from the facility.”

Patterson’s estimate of stadium revenue is from a 2023 Jackson County Sports Complex audit, which reports $55 million in tax revenue generated by both teams (the Chiefs and the Royals). But that figure includes all tax revenue collected by state, county, and local jurisdictions. Of that $55 million, only $34,929,233 went to the state—which is what SB 3 covers.

But SB 3 further limits potential support for the Royals to revenue generated only at Kauffman Stadium. Let’s assume half that number, $17 million, is from the Royals’ Kauffman Stadium,* which aligns with estimates provided by Governor Mike Kehoe. If that entire amount were bonded at 6% interest over 30 years, Missouri would be able to give the Royals $234 million.

Another news outlet assumed a 4.5% interest rate over 30 years and concluded the state would be able to give the Royals about $274 million.

Either way, it’s a far cry from $900 million.

There is a lot more to learn about this deal, but SB 3 provides real constraints on what can be counted and borrowed against. Based on the legislation, the 2023 Jackson County audit, and different interest rates, Missouri could contribute roughly $234 to $274 million toward a downtown ballpark. That’s a lot, but only a small portion of what many believe to be a nearly $2 billion project.

*Note: Although the Royals play more games at their stadium than the Chiefs, Arrowhead Stadium has a larger capacity and also hosts concerts for musicians such as Taylor Swift.

The post By the Numbers: What Missouri Might Give the Royals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once again, Missouri has been outdone by a neighbor. On the very important issue of early literacy, we should look closely at the move Oklahoma just made. With the signing of Senate Bill 1778, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has essentially ended the era of social promotion for children who can’t read. Oklahoma’s “Strong Readers Act” provides a roadmap that Missouri should follow.

One of the more controversial aspects of the law relates to third-grade retention. Starting in the 2027–28 school year, students who score below the basic level on the Oklahoma state test (the equivalent of Missouri’s MAP test) and who cannot pass a secondary literacy assessment may be required to repeat the grade. While retention is an unpopular strategy, the bill balances this with a multi-tiered system of support. This means schools will use statewide screenings to identify issues as early as kindergarten, triggering immediate interventions such as small-group tutoring and summer academies. Missouri should adopt a similar mandate. By making retention a real possibility, the law forces the system to pivot toward early intervention.

Unfortunately, Missouri’s attempts at literacy reform have stagnated this legislative session. Despite broad recognition that our reading scores are headed in the wrong direction, Missouri lawmakers are stuck in debates about which test to use, the negative effects of retention, and local control. There are still a few weeks left for them to resolve their differences. They owe it to our students to stop passing them through a failing system and start ensuring that every student is equipped with the reading skills they need to succeed.

The post Oklahoma Is Holding Itself Accountable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed a bill requiring that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) assign A–F letter grades to schools and districts statewide. The bill now heads to the Senate, which is also considering its own version.

The legislation is meant to build on and improve Governor Kehoe’s executive order from January. Unfortunately, it does not improve on the executive order; in fact, the version that emerged from the House is much worse.

The main problem with the House bill is that it has veered off topic. Governor Kehoe’s short and simple executive order mandates letter grades based on academic performance. This is what we need. The House bill adds language that would create new school climate ratings based on surveys of teachers, parents, and students, which would also go on the report card.

This is problematic for three reasons:

Most importantly, it will distract us from academic outcomes. Academics are where our schools are struggling, and until we focus on them, the situation is not going to improve. This is illustrated most easily with data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is widely viewed as providing the most credible test data in the country. Here are charts showing changes over time in Missouri’s national rank on NAEP, in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, since about the turn of the century:

Our 4th-grade reading results are especially bleak—we rank 38th out of the 50 states as of 2024, whereas two decades earlier we ranked in the low twenties. Today, an alarming 42 percent of our 4th graders score Below Basic on NAEP.

Making matters worse, our ranking decline since about 2015 is in the context of generally declining test scores nationwide. Our scores are declining faster than the rest of a declining nation.

Governor Kehoe was correct to focus on academic outcomes, and the focus should stay that way.

Unlike data on academic achievement, which we already collect, survey data for this new school-climate requirement do not exist. It is difficult to develop and implement a high-quality survey with a high response rate. Have our lawmakers considered how we would get these surveys done?

As one of several concrete technical issues, consider the survey response rate. We cannot make parents fill out surveys. So, what if they don’t? What if we end up with schools and districts where fewer than 10 percent of parents fill out a survey (which is very possible)? Are we going to hold a school with a 10-percent parent response rate accountable for negative survey results? If the results look good, are we going to give the school a high rating?

Even if we ignore the first two issues, do we really want to compel DESE to undertake this work? We hear a lot of grumbling around the capitol about how DESE has gotten too big. This is how that happens. Developing and administering surveys to Missouri’s more than 800,000 students and their parents, and 70,000 teachers, across thousands of schools and hundreds of districts would require more administrative expansion. That is far outside the low-cost, straightforward scope of the original report card plan.

Governor Kehoe issued a clear and simple executive order on school and district report cards in January, which properly emphasizes academic performance. The order is fundamentally sound. There’s always room for improvement, but the legislation that came out of the House has moved this effort in the wrong direction. We hope our lawmakers can get it back on track.

The post Legislation on A–F Report Cards for Schools and Districts Has Gone Sideways appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Jefferson City, there have been questions about the balance between academic promotion and social promotion in K–12 schools. In particular, there have been concerns about the effects a third-grade retention policy could have on social settings in schools (such as having 16-year-olds attending middle school).

It is an understandable worry. The movie Billy Madison was made about this very idea. However, in the context of Missouri’s pending retention legislation, House Bill 2872 and Senate Bill 1442, there should not be concern about Adam Sandler remaining in classrooms for years and years.

Under both these bills, a third-grade student can be promoted to fourth grade if they pass the objective reading assessment at the end of third grade or qualify for a good-cause exemption. Amongst those exemptions is one for students who “have already been retained at least once in any of grades kindergarten through grade three.”

This exemption is important to note because it prevents a student from being retained multiple times in early grades. In the existing system, there are already students who have been retained in grades K–3. The potential change would simply be in the number of students who repeat a grade.

House Bill 2872 and Senate Bill 1442 would not create new social problems in schools. Instead, these bills would ensure that more students get the best chance to become confident, capable readers, while maintaining the balance between academic promotion and social promotion that already exists in Missouri’s education system.

The post Third-Grade Retention Will Not Recreate Billy Madison in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to read the full testimony.

The post Senate Bill 1442: Early Literacy Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Senate Bill 895 would continue to strengthen Missouri’s occupational licensing laws. The bill mirrors SB 61 from last session (which nearly reached the governor’s desk), and would establish a form of licensing reciprocity for professionals who were not required to hold a license in their previous state but must obtain one when moving to Missouri.

The Mechanisms and Potential Intent of SB 895

There’s been a recent push in Missouri to join interstate compacts for various professions. While those may make things easier for Missouri’s licensing boards, they primarily help people leaving Missouri to work in other states. This bill focuses on making it easier for people to come here.

Specifically, SB 895 would allow professionals who have been working for three years in states that do not require a license to receive a two-year, nonrenewable, temporary license in that same field when they move to work in Missouri.

Oversight bodies can still charge fees and require that applicants take license-related exams. The goal of this bill does not appear to be reducing licensing requirements, but to allow people who move to Missouri to work during the process of acquiring a license. This is evidenced by a provision that requires the individual to complete Missouri requirements and apply for a permanent license once their temporary license expires.

Currently, unlicensed professionals would need to apply for a permanent license if they were to relocate to Missouri, so SB 895 would certainly improve the status quo. But it also forces us to consider why Missouri requires a license in certain occupations when other states do not.

Considering What Missouri Licenses

With every single occupational license, there are real costs: higher prices for consumers, higher barriers to entry for workers (resulting in fewer providers), reduced innovation, and loss of time and money for licensees. The central question in occupational licensing is whether these costs

are justified by clear and demonstrable benefits to public safety or product quality.

It is not unprecedented for Missouri to require unnecessary and burdensome licenses. For example, our state recently reformed licensing requirements for hair braiders.

Over the past few years, our annual Blueprint has included a section outlining the need for a review of Missouri’s existing occupational licenses. Many licenses are created and then exist for years without scrutiny. Licenses that are found to do more harm than good ought to be eliminated.

SB 895 would be another step toward improving Missouri’s existing licensing regime. However, if individuals are permitted to work in other states without a license, Missouri should carefully evaluate whether a permanent license is truly necessary here. Our state has been a leader in occupational licensing reform, and we should continue that trend.

The post Another Step for Improving Missouri’s Licensing Regime appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Regulations Concerning Autonomous Vehicles: Senate Bill 1050 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Festus is not alone in its debate. Nationwide, there have been significant disputes about whether communities should want data centers in their backyards. While data centers can bring investment to a community, there are concerns about electricity, water usage, and sound.

Of the hundreds of citizens participating in the recent Festus hearing, one gentleman’s comments captured my attention. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

He urged local governments to turn any revenue gain due to the new facility into lower property taxes for the general public. He also said a data center should pay for any increase in utility rates due to the extra energy usage it requires. And, he said, the city should not offer the data center any tax incentives.

I have to wonder—has this gentleman read this article I recently published?

Jokes aside, his comments convey a few key points that I think are important to keep in mind when considering a data center project in a community.

#1: Lower taxes help drive economic growth, so a reliable course of action is to return extra revenue to taxpaying citizens.

New data center revenue ought to be returned to taxpayers through lower tax rates, easing pressure on the entire tax base. Property tax abatements should not be handed out.

#2: Find innovative solutions for electricity needs.

Last year, a major energy omnibus bill, Senate Bill 4, included a provision that protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” This should help shield average ratepayers from rate hikes to meet this new energy demand, but some burden will likely still fall on them.

While it is a state-level solution, Missouri should explore consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), which would allow new data centers and other large customers to be served by separate, independent grids. This idea could be beneficial for both ratepayers and developers. You can read more about CRE here.

#3: Remember what data center developers are prioritizing, and do not hand out subsidies.

Lastly, the actions of the biggest data center customers have made their priorities clear.

Money does not seem to be a big factor for these enormous developers. They instead seem focused on energy availability, speed to operation, and long-term stability. A clear example of this is Microsoft pouring an enormous amount of money into restarting Three Mile Island for its data centers.

Instead of handing out subsidies, a municipality could evaluate its own permitting rules. Reducing red tape could both accelerate speed to operation and signal that the community is a dependable, long-term location.

Festus will certainly not be the last community to have a heated debate about data center development. Keeping these key principles in mind, however, may help communities have productive debates on this topic.

The post The Data Center Debate Continues in Festus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to explain what was actually at stake in the recent federal government shutdown. They break down the debate over extended Affordable Care Act subsidies, why health insurance costs keep rising, how COVID-era provisions distorted the marketplace, and what Congress may do next.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding the Government Shutdown
06:31 The Debate Over ACA Subsidies
09:10 Impact of the Affordable Care Act
13:24 Proposals for Health Care Reform
17:53 The Future of Health Care Costs

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Well, this is going to be a very timely and interesting conversation with the Show-Me Institute’s own Elias Tsapelas. You are the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy, two things that are front and center right now, but I really wanted to just have you on to talk about a little bit of stuff around the recent government shutdown.

And I just want to say upfront, if I understand this correctly, the federal government can’t pay its bills unless it’s got an approved budget to pay the bills, right? And the fiscal year runs October 1st to September 30th. And if you don’t have a new budget for the next year, you can’t pay your bills. So it’s up to the Senate, the House, and the President to agree on a budget. And this past September, as has happened before, they could not agree, and Democrats were holding out, and that caused the government to shut down. What were Democrats saying they were holding out for?

Elias Tsapelas (00:52)
Well, I guess I should start with just a little caveat that some of what the Democrats were saying they were holding out for was not precisely what was on the table. So no matter what happens, health care premiums are going to be going up, that’s just a fact, because health care costs are up. Health care costs are going up everywhere. Hospitals, Medicaid, we see it everywhere.

Susan Pendergrass (00:56)
You know, fix it up for me. Why?

Elias Tsapelas (01:20)
What they were holding out for were these extended or expanded ACA subsidies, Affordable Care Act subsidies. We’re talking about the marketplace here. This is typically for people making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty limit. For example, a couple of two: 100 percent of the federal poverty limit is about $21,000 per year, 400 percent is about $85,000 per year. That’s roughly the range you’re looking at.

Now, some small employers do purchase plans through the marketplace, but the big piece here is that the ACA provides subsidies for people. And the way it works, essentially, is that people pay a proportion of their income. If your income is 100 percent of the federal poverty limit, you’re going to pay roughly 2 percent of your income. Now, there are extended subsidies that change that calculation. But the point being, the law set out that if you make this amount of money, you’re only going to pay this much on health insurance, and the government is going to subsidize the rest. You are not sensitive to costs at all, because your costs are tied to your income.

Susan Pendergrass (02:54)
So, for example, if you earn $4,000 a month, theoretically, and I don’t know the numbers, the government would say you won’t pay any more than $300 in insurance premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (03:05)
Yep. And so that is a percentage that you pay scaled off how much income you have from that 100 to 400 percent. That is a core piece of how the Affordable Care Act worked, and everyone paid a portion based on the base subsidies.

Now, what the debate was about, or what Democrats were holding out for, was expanded subsidies, which came about during COVID as part of the American Rescue Plan, ARPA. And it did a couple things, but they were subsidies on top of regular subsidies. So this was not, “If this doesn’t happen, everyone is going to be paying unsubsidized plans.” This was an additional type of subsidy. These additional subsidies were set to expire at the end of the year, at the end of December. ARPA gave four years of subsidies.

Susan Pendergrass (04:04)
Because it was COVID related, temporary, and they said, “We’ll cover more of your premium through December 31, 2025.”

Elias Tsapelas (04:14)
Yes, I think part of the calculation was that people were going to like it so much that it would be hard to get rid of. And it’s certainly the case: if these subsidies go away, people will be paying more.

Susan Pendergrass (04:15)
Ahem.

Elias Tsapelas (04:27)
But that is not to say there would be no subsidies at all. These extended subsidies did a couple things. For people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, quick caveat: in Missouri, if you make under 138 percent, you’re on Medicaid, so you don’t pay anything, but in many states without Medicaid expansion, people go on the marketplace. What these expanded subsidies did is: if you made between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, you paid zero percent of your income. You got a plan for free.

You would still have some cost sharing, and the sliding scale up to 400 percent that the normal subsidies used was lowered, so people under regular subsidies who made 400 percent of the federal poverty limit were paying about 10 percent of their income. With the expanded subsidies, you’d only pay 8.5 percent, and the subsidies no longer stopped at 400 percent. They would go all the way up. You would never pay more than 8.5 percent of your income.

Susan Pendergrass (05:30)
Okay.

Elias Tsapelas (05:42)
But typically, people above 400 percent of the federal poverty limit don’t want to buy ACA plans because 8.5 percent of income is expensive. Still, a decent number of people were impacted. It costs a decent amount of money. The Congressional Budget Office says extending these expanded subsidies costs about $350 billion over 10 years. Very expensive. But there are a lot of issues here, which Republicans are pushing back on as they negotiate whether to extend these by the end of the year.

Susan Pendergrass (06:31)
So now we’re in this argument of whether we extend COVID subsidies or not. And like you said, Republicans seemed willing to say maybe a year, or maybe we’ll vote on it in December. Essentially the Democrats didn’t get any of what they asked for, right?

Elias Tsapelas (06:48)
Yeah. A key piece is that when Democrats passed this in ARPA, no Republicans voted for it. There’s a variety of reasons, but a big one is that it exacerbates problems with the Affordable Care Act. People buying health insurance are seeing higher prices, high deductibles, high copays, so people don’t want to buy it. These additional subsidies got more people into the market, but at a very expensive cost. And because people are not cost sensitive, their share is tied to their income, the subsidies scale regardless of what insurance companies charge. That creates unintended effects. There were allegations of fraud. And a larger discussion: if we’re going to spend $350 billion per 10 years, is there not a better way to get healthier people to buy health insurance? Is there a better way to help people?

And the people most impacted are those around 400 percent of the federal poverty limit, not very low income people. Higher income people. And often near retirement folks who aren’t working anymore but aren’t yet on Medicare. They need health insurance, they have health needs, and insurance gets very expensive. That was something the Affordable Care Act tried to deal with. But doubling down on continuously funding this subsidy system is something Republicans didn’t want to do.

Susan Pendergrass (09:10)
Yeah. So we had Brian Blase of Paragon on the podcast, and he absolutely did not want those COVID related subsidies extended. He claimed that the Affordable Care Act caused health related expenses to go up. Do you know how that works?

Elias Tsapelas (09:45)
There are a couple things going on. One big thing Brian talks about is likely enormous fraud from the expanded subsidies. Bloomberg had a good article about what happened in Florida. As soon as the federal government offered zero premium plans for people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, background: Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, so people enroll on the marketplace. What happened is that it became a business for insurance brokers to get people enrolled. Brokers make money off enrollments, and people don’t care if they aren’t paying premiums.

So you had an enormous increase in people supposedly making between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit. Census data suggests far fewer people actually make that income. Tons were getting health insurance for free, and many weren’t using it. You’d expect higher usage. There are reasons to think there was widespread fraud.

More broadly, ACA plans must cover many things people don’t need, which drives up costs. And the marketplace risk pool is heavily made up of sick people, fewer healthy people, which makes insurance expensive.

So the bigger discussion is: how do you get healthier people into the market? How do you offer plans people want? Republicans are taking a stand that doubling down on the ACA model, with subsidies disconnected from costs, won’t work long term.

Susan Pendergrass (13:24)
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but didn’t Senator Thune or somebody suggest just sending people $5,000?

Elias Tsapelas (13:30)
I don’t know if it was exactly that amount, but yes, there have been proposals essentially saying: maybe there will need to be a one year extension of subsidies because new plans start soon and it would be hard to roll out big changes in a month. But some ideas, from Senator Cassidy, Senator Thune, and others, propose approving the same amount of money but sending it directly to people instead of insurance companies. For many people, subsidies are worth over $30,000 a year. If people got $30,000, they might not spend it all on an ACA plan costing that much. They might buy a cheaper plan, use out of pocket spending, or seek non ACA compliant plans. There are ideas: HSAs, short term plans, specialized plans. A key piece is giving the money to people, not insurance companies, so someone has an incentive to reduce costs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:47)
Yeah. Well, the shutdown ended. Nothing really changed, right?

Elias Tsapelas (15:52)
Yeah. Congress will have to work a lot in the last month of the year. I’m a little disappointed. There were almost some very interesting budget related court cases that could have come from the shutdown. One argument was whether the government must fund food stamps, or SNAP, during a shutdown, whether they must give out money not appropriated. Some judges said yes. That raises major questions: can courts tell the executive branch to spend money Congress didn’t appropriate?

Susan Pendergrass (16:54)
I think they were told that they don’t, right, in the end?

Elias Tsapelas (16:59)
The Supreme Court basically said courts needed to wrestle with the issue. It got resolved before a final answer. We don’t know for now. Judges were on different sides. Democrats pushed back noting that in previous budgets, they fought to fund things, but the executive branch simply didn’t spend the money. There’s a lot of interesting stuff: can courts force funding, can the executive disregard congressional appropriations? I’m upset that didn’t get resolved. But the ACA issue is big enough that Congress has its hands full.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
Some folks said that because of the SNAP benefit question, we were just getting to the point where Americans were paying attention to the shutdown and then it ended. And what’s interesting is the amount of misinformation and hard to follow information. I saw headlines about someone’s insurance premiums going from $300 to $2,600. I don’t know if any of that was right, but it got a lot of play.

Elias Tsapelas (18:28)
I don’t think it was covered especially well in terms of what was being argued, because the government shut down far before these subsidies expired. There was a lot of muddying of the waters. Some people thought if subsidies weren’t extended, no one would have subsidies, even though the people most impacted would just go from paying 8.5 percent of income to 10 percent. Not nothing, but not catastrophic.

Health care costs are going up broadly. Medicare enrollees are getting renewal notices. Everything is going up. ARPA was designed to be temporary. If it were supposed to be permanent, Congress could have made it permanent. Whether Democrats thought it would be continued forever or just help temporarily is unclear. But if Congress comes up with something that makes health insurance better, I’m all for it. There are tough decisions. Congress has struggled with ACA reform for a decade.

Susan Pendergrass (20:20)
I think we know the answer to that. At the federal level, when they want to do big splashy things, ARPA, the ACA, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they make expenses short term to reduce the fiscal note, assuming someone will renew them later. Same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They assume future lawmakers will extend them. So it’s not unreasonable that ARPA had temporary provisions assuming they’d get extended. I guess not this time.

Elias Tsapelas (21:12)
People’s health care costs going up is a big issue. People won’t be happy regardless. But returning to issues that should have been addressed when the ACA passed is important. The marketplace is dysfunctional and too expensive. Hopefully Congress finds something better. And I don’t want to minimize issues for people close to retirement. That’s a big issue: people between 55 and 65, not on Medicare yet, often have significant health needs. If you tell a 60 year old who isn’t working that coverage is $40,000 a year, that won’t work.

Susan Pendergrass (21:53)
Yeah. That’s right.

Elias Tsapelas (22:23)
More options will be good. That is an important group that needs to be addressed.

Susan Pendergrass (23:07)
Well, thanks for explaining it so clearly and helping our listeners understand what was actually on the table. It’s a complicated topic, but we’ll watch it unfold over the next year, and hopefully you’ll come back and explain what’s happening as it unfolds.

Elias Tsapelas (23:23)
Hopefully something does happen, so there is something to explain. That would be the best case scenario.

Susan Pendergrass (23:25)
That’s right. All right, well, thanks so much, Elias. Really appreciate it.

Elias Tsapelas (23:31)
Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post What the Government Shutdown Was Really About with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Robert C. Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, about the expansion of school choice and the organization’s work advancing parental freedom in education. They discuss Milton Friedman’s original vision, how states like Florida, Arizona, and Indiana have moved toward universal choice, Missouri’s legal fight over its scholarship program, and how parental demand is reshaping education markets, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Ed Choice and Leadership
01:00 Milton Friedman’s Legacy in Education
02:26 The State of School Choice in America
04:57 Challenges in Missouri’s Education System
07:38 The Importance of Universal School Choice
09:39 The Role of Leadership in Education Reform
11:49 Parental Advocacy and the Future of School Choice
14:15 Market Demand and Private School Growth
16:59 The Evolution of Educational Options
19:49 Redefining Quality in Education
22:18 Civic Values and Shared Experiences in Education
26:05 The Debate on Public vs. Private Education
29:47 Legal Challenges and Advocacy for School Choice

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
So I am actually very excited that you have joined our podcast, Robert Enlow. You are CEO or executive director of EdChoice—which one? President and CEO. How long have you been president and CEO of that organization?

Robert Enlow (00:08)
I’m president and CEO of EdChoice.

Well, that’s a great question, Susan. And thanks for having me, and thanks to Show-Me for all they do. I believe I’ve been president and CEO since 2009, but I joined the organization in 1996. We opened our doors on September 23, 1996, and I was the first guy walking in the door.

Susan Pendergrass (00:31)
And it was originally called the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation.

Robert Enlow (00:34)
Correct, the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, obviously established after Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose. During the last decade of their lives, I got to know them—particularly in the last five years of his life. As a young kid coming from England who had these wild-eyed liberal ideas in some ways, it took me a little while for him and Rose to get to understand me and warm up to me, but they did, and it was an amazing experience getting to watch them work.

Susan Pendergrass (00:40)
And you knew them both. What do you think he would think of what’s going on right now in K–12 education?

Robert Enlow (01:04)
You know, I will tell you what he would say to me every single time we passed a bill in another state. He would say, “Robert, we’re on the right track, but you’ve got a lot more to do.” I think he would be happy that we got to universality of people. I think he would be really pleased with the fact that we’re now at a universe of eligibility. I think he’d be less pleased that we’re still controlling the marketplace and controlling the spigot of funds. So I think he would be saying we’re not getting to a true universal marketplace unless you think about supply and information and funding just as much as you think of everyone choosing. Like in a state like Texas, everyone’s excited—oh my God, everyone gets to choose. Well, not really. It’s a billion-dollar appropriation. That means only maybe 90,000 kids get to choose out of 6 million. So when you think about who can really choose, we’ve got to think about the money. And the same thing is true in Missouri with its $50 million—$75 million tax rate and $50 million appropriation still limits the number of fan futures. Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (02:02)
Like nobody. Tiny, tiny. But we do have an Arizona and a Florida now. I think, you know, I remember a very long time ago working with you on an Arizona voucher that got vetoed by the governor, but now Arizona is essentially universal school choice, and Florida. What I’m seeing most recently that I really love is with their universal school choice and more than half of parents choosing something, the public schools are getting in the game. The public schools are like, okay, spend your scholarship dollars with us, because we’ve been at this a long time. And they’re not seeing it as this us versus them. It’s like, we are all working together to educate our kids. And maybe, you know, we all have a place in this.

Robert Enlow (02:30)
That’s right. So people ask me all the time, Susan, they’re like, well, when will you work with the opponents of school choice, or when will you work with public schools? I’m like, we’ll work with public schools when there truly is a level playing field for all families to be able to choose. Now we actually see there are three aspects to that that we care about, right? All families can choose, right? They can choose all the options, and they can choose with all available dollars. We see five states that have that criteria now: Florida, Arizona, West Virginia, and now New Hampshire. Arkansas—Arkansas. So Arkansas, yeah, Arkansas, Arizona, the A’s; W’s—West Virginia; Florida; and New Hampshire. And what’s really interesting about that, if you look over time—we do this thing called the EdChoice Share, which is what we really care about: how many people are choosing all the options that they want. Florida and Arizona are the top two. And it’s really amazing to see what’s happened in Florida.

Susan Pendergrass (03:16)
Arkansas.

Robert Enlow (03:39)
—people, of families going to traditional assigned public schools. Now, even in that, they are choosing by buying a house, right? So that’s gone from 86.2% in 2001–2002 to now, today, just 51.8%. About half. Isn’t that crazy?

Susan Pendergrass (03:46)
Sure, sure, sure. About half. And I will tell you from my experience in Missouri, that sort of reality—where almost every kid just goes to their assigned public school, whatever’s on the utility bill, that’s where you go to school and you have no other options—is still assumed to be almost universal. In fact, it is in Missouri, because we only have charter schools as punishment. We have that tiny little scholarship program. You can go to a full-time virtual, which isn’t for everyone. So essentially, you see the address on the utility bill is where you go to school. And I just think that it’s been really hard to sort of break through that mindset and let folks know, like in Florida, only half of parents are doing that. And probably, like you said, a sizable percentage of that half decided where to live based on what school their kids would go to. So they are, in a sense, exercising some choice. And I just wonder, when you have two states in the same nation that are so completely divergent, where does that lead us to? So Missouri’s kind of surrounded.

Robert Enlow (04:57)
Well, it’s—yeah, so Missouri is surrounded, and where it leads you to is a couple of things. It leads you to a metric of in-migration. In Indiana, one of the things I get asked a lot is, you know, what’s the success metric for your state? And I say the number of people migrating to our state because they have educational options. Right. So we are a state of educational options on your border, almost, and everyone can choose. Right. And it’s a big deal, and it’s why we’ve had more and more families. You’re ranked in our study 28th out of 51. And you really have not seen a change. Well, I mean, you still have 80.3% in traditional schools, but what you’ve done is you’ve allowed magnet schools to grow and you’ve had some charter school—your charter school growth has been—let’s take a look. You’ve actually had a decent—

Susan Pendergrass (05:32)
That seems high, to be honest. Yeah, but I can tell you our charter schools are punishments. They’re only in Kansas City and St. Louis, only in non-accredited districts. So right now there might be a charter school in the works in a fully accredited district—in Columbia 93—and people in Columbia 93 are freaking out about a charter school opening. This is how sort of, like, behind the curve we are. They’re freaking out that a charter school might open, and they’re arguing we don’t need it. And I will say—I want to get to the lawsuit against our scholarship program. We have a very strong, what I sort of call the—

Robert Enlow (05:52)
Yeah, that’s great.

Susan Pendergrass (06:16)
—educational establishment in Jefferson City. That is the teacher union leadership, the Association of School Boards, and the Association of Superintendents. Because we have 520 districts, there’s a lot of superintendents and a lot of school boards, and they will show up to a hearing to make sure that parents don’t get to choose where their kids go to school.

Robert Enlow (06:35)
Yeah, so this is one of the reasons why, in 2016, when the Milton Friedman Foundation changed its name to EdChoice, we focused on universality. Because I think we realized that the fights for school choice—where they’re fighting to make sure that children can escape from bad schools—is the wrong message. The message is that all families need to have some freedom to choose what works best for them. And that should be across all income levels. Why are we okay with giving billionaires access to gated, segregated public schools, but freak out when we give them the options to choose private schools? Moreover, you can’t continue to ask Republican legislators to vote for something that they’re going to get killed for in their district. Right. And so one of the key points of universality has been being able to say, we need you to support choice so that constituents of yours can get an opportunity. So in your state, one of the challenges has been: how do we get eligibility to where it’s supposed to be universal? And you’ve done your—yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (07:38)
Funding, funding. I mean, we had tiny funding up until this $50 million. The only scholarship dollars we had were fundraised from individual and corporate donors. So getting that money together has been a real challenge, and I think we got to $15 to $20 million finally. And ironically—I don’t know, you may not know this because it’s very in the weeds—but when that ESA program, when that scholarship program passed, we agreed—the legislature agreed—that any district that lost a student to the scholarship program could continue to count them for five years. So this year they’re asking for $30 million to cover the kids who took the scholarship. Thirty million dollars is going to go to public schools for the kids who took the scholarships, but they don’t want the scholarship program to get $50 million. And I just think the irony kills me.

Robert Enlow (08:25)
Well, hold on—just, I think—so this hold-harmless thing, let me just ask a question. I think Show-Me then should put in a bill like this: if they want to be held harmless when a student leaves, then anytime a child moves from one public school to another public school, they should hold that other public school to account. Public schools are getting—they’re the ones where families are moving the most, right? So aren’t other public schools in Missouri taking more money from other public schools than any kind of choice or charter program?

Susan Pendergrass (08:42)
That’s right. Yeah, and God forbid that we’re sending kids to Indiana for your in-migration, right? Like, when kids leave, somehow we should—and we do have these crazy hold-harmless policies that you guys have analyzed—but I feel like it’s starting to feel like we have sort of two different worlds. If you raise your kids in Florida or Arizona or Arkansas, when they get to be four or five years old, then good news: you get to sit down and look at your options and look at your kid and look at where you work, what might fit your schedule, and you can pick from a number of things. If you live in Missouri, you cannot. And I just think that’s gonna start to diverge.

Robert Enlow (09:25)
So here’s what I’m going to say about that. I agree with you. And there is a divergence happening, particularly in the states in America that have broad choices—and I don’t just mean private school; I mean charter and all of that. But once you get a taste of choice—we have really believed this over time—once you start to get a taste of choice, and if you make it broad enough and open enough, parents begin to start utilizing that option; they learn over time. And so it didn’t happen overnight that Florida went from 90% to 51%. It happened over 20 years as choice grew and became more eligible. So, you know, key point is you in Missouri now have a program. It now has some public funds attached to it. And the goal is to get that utilized as much and as broadly as possible in every district. I say this all the time: one of the reasons why Indiana’s Choice Program is so defensible is—we love our charter schools—but charter schools, I think, are in 30 districts and 30 legislative districts. Private schools are in every single legislative district in the state, and all of them take choice dollars. And so you have a built-in constituency of support. We now have 110,000 families using choice out of our million kids. And so it’s amazing, the growth. It didn’t start off that way. It started off with 3,500. Right. And so you see the growth of choice over time. And as long as your legislatures are willing to move forward, then you’re going to continue to see that change. And no amount of union hacking and no amount of school board association—because they’re ultimately disconnected with what the parents want. And that’s particularly true after COVID, because there’s a ton of micro schools and a ton of—Milton Friedman used to say, you know you’re ready for a free market when there’s the presence of an underground market. And there’s a huge underground market for education happening all over Missouri right now in the form of micro schools and pods. Parents are wanting to move. And as the legislature starts giving them access to public funds, you’ll see growth over time.

Susan Pendergrass (11:22)
And we’ve got some parent advocacy groups that have appeared on the scene, like Activate Missouri. And I know, like in Florida, there were some very loud parent groups that influenced elections because they wanted school choice. And I do believe that parents are going to be the ones that sort of drive the change in Missouri. But you guys in Indiana also had very strong leadership. You had Governor Mitch Daniels—like, you had very strong leadership. We’ve had a bit of a vacuum in that regard in Missouri. Our new governor supports the idea of school choice. I’m not sure that he’s willing to put his political capital on the line for it in the way that you guys—

Robert Enlow (11:57)
Yeah, so there’s a lot of feeling out there now—oh my God, if I get a governor, it’ll be a savior, right? And look, governors are super important and they are critical for getting it over the line. Mitch Daniels was critical to take this movement in the country to the next step. Prior to Mitch Daniels, we’d sort of seen the failure of a voucher program in Florida—Jeb Bush’s voucher program—and so we’d gone to this tax-credit scholarship model, right? And Mitch said, no, we’re going to do something big, statewide and large. And when he did that, he sort of opened the floodgates for a bunch of states. So that was really important. Governor Pence was supportive. But the governors after that haven’t been, like, massively out in front driving stuff. They’ve not not signed it when it comes to their table, but they haven’t been out there leading the way. Having a Speaker of the House like Representative Todd Huston—by the way, it’s amazing. So having leadership roles is critically important. I can’t say enough for someone like Speaker Huston. So, you know, it’s important to have a governor, but it’s super important to have leadership in the House and Senate.

Susan Pendergrass (13:05)
Yeah, you must, because I know you have the third-grade non-retention for kids who are behind in reading. I know that you guys are out in front on the—really the first really meaty—federal waiver request that the Secretary of Education has been asking for states to send in their waiver requests. And Indiana’s is certainly the most robust. You’re going back to letter grades for your schools. I mean, you’re not just doing choice. You guys are seemingly moving on a lot of fronts in education in a way that will make it very attractive to families. And I try to make this point all the time in Missouri: families are gonna leave and businesses are gonna leave because we have all of these second-generation choosers, right? So kids who chose their school are having kids, and they expect to choose their school.

Robert Enlow (13:47)
Look, the idea of customer choice is embedded into anyone who’s under 30, right? And so when they begin to realize that’s going to be true in education, they’re going to be like, why am I getting this one-size-fits-all system that doesn’t actually fit either my values or my safety or what I think of academic quality—or what if I want something more hybrid? I mean, the reality is that families under 30 now—they’re not having kids; we have a baby bust here—but those under 30 are definitely saying, “I want more choice and customization.”

Susan Pendergrass (14:15)
Yeah, and as you know, you have multiple kids, I have multiple kids—they’re not even all the same. So what works for one might not work for all of them within a family. Now, another argument that we get in Missouri, in terms of the need for private school choice, is we don’t have enough—you know, we don’t have very many private schools, and most rural districts don’t have any. And we are seeing some research emerge that the private school market responds in these scholarship programs, right?

Robert Enlow (14:38)
I love hearing this, Susan, and I’m sorry if I am frustrated by that question. I don’t think you ever, ever ask—no one in the world ever asked—and I know this is not comparing education with this product—but no one in the world ever asked Lay’s Potato Chips how many bags of Fritos they need. They figure that out based on customer and market demand. This idea that somehow private schools don’t exist—of course they exist to market demand.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45)
Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah.

Robert Enlow (15:06)
When it comes and when it’s free and when it’s open. Let me give you an example. In Indiana, when we first started our program in 2010, it was like, “There’s not enough private school spaces. There’s not enough private school spaces.” Okay, so we did a survey of all the private schools. We got all the private schools to get together on how many spaces they had. They had 22,000 available spaces. We went through district and grade. Great. And then when we expanded it in 2013, the governor says, “We need to know how many spaces there are going to be.” All right, we’ll do another survey—since no one believes that markets respond, right? Well, we did a whole other survey. How many spaces do you think there were? Twenty-two thousand. Exactly. My point is—like 20 or 22,000, right? This concept of “Oh, we don’t know if there’s enough supply.” Look, markets will respond so long as markets are free to respond. So one of the biggest challenges right now going forward is—look, try to—

Susan Pendergrass (15:41)
I don’t—

Robert Enlow (16:01)
School choice—or private school choice, or educational choice—can do one of three things: fill seats in existing schools, build new seats in existing schools, or build new schools, right? Now, the way we’ve run private schooling in America is we’re only doing one and two. We’re filling seats in existing. And just remember, private schools in the last 25 years lost 10% market share total, right? So there’s a ton of spaces. There’s a ton of spaces in private schools all over America, right? So if you think you lost 10% of—

Susan Pendergrass (16:20)
That’s right. Closed. A lot of schools closed. Ahem.

Robert Enlow (16:30)
—five million, right? Or whatever the number is. You have plenty of spaces out there in private currently. Now we need to grow those spaces and grow the different types of models. That’s going to require legislators to be a bit more willing to take some risk around the types of schools that they allow to be, quote-unquote, “accredited,” right? So you need to allow micro schools. You need to allow new entrants into the marketplace. And the more you do that, the faster it will grow. But there are slots out there. And what we’re really finding from the emerging research is that private schools are growing faster in rural areas—like in Florida—and they’re actually growing. I mean, Susan, you did this research for us about Florida and Arizona, so why don’t you tell us how fast they’re growing?

Susan Pendergrass (17:07)
Right. Well, they’re growing in Arizona. What I will say that comes out of that research is parents don’t really care what the label is on the bill. They are calling a lot of things “schools” now, right, that you might not have called schools before. And you guys survey parents—you do your monthly surveys. Schooling in America—what’s it called? What’s your monthly survey? Yeah. You’ve been doing it since COVID.

Robert Enlow (17:27)
It’s called Morning Consult—sorry, Schooling in America polling.

Susan Pendergrass (17:32)
And what I think is one of the most interesting findings is that consistently, now that COVID’s way in the rearview, parents want their kids to go to school two or three days a week. More parents want their kids home a couple days and in school a couple days than want five days in school or five days at home. People sort of want this—they like this sort of flexibility thing. And what I think we’re seeing is a growth in, like you said, micro schools, hybrid schools, homeschool co-ops where I am homeschooling a couple days, then a couple days my child is going somewhere to be part of group activities. And parents are doing online coding schools, and that’s a school to them, right? It’s an online situation where their kids are learning to code, and they’re calling it a school. So, yeah, the definition of what is a private school—the fact that it’s not a nonprofit provider, that it’s a private provider and they’re providing all sorts of different things—is really getting blurry. I think that that is a definite finding. And where that’s allowed to thrive, like Arizona, where you have this massive ESA program, and Florida—that’s where you’re seeing parents are only limited by what they can think up, right?

Robert Enlow (18:39)
So how much growth was there in Arizona and Florida? You saw it. Tell me how much there was.

Susan Pendergrass (18:44)
In the number of private schools? Well, I will say this: private school data is messy. And in most states, it looks like they’re declining. Florida and Arizona are two of the states where you can say for sure—outside the error ranges—they have more private schools now than they did 10 years ago. And that is the exception to the rest of the country. You can say for sure California and New York have fewer private schools than they did 10 years ago.

Robert Enlow (18:45)
Yeah. I love you, Reese Richard.

Susan Pendergrass (19:08)
And the nation as a whole has fewer private schools. But in Florida and Arizona, you’re seeing the opposite direction—and Ohio. So the market is responding, but it might not be, you know, a full-on brick-and-mortar cafeteria-gym-library private school. It might be something that doesn’t look exactly like that. And to a parent, it’s a school. And that’s what I think we’re seeing. And I know that in Florida, parents are combining scholarship programs to have their child see a paraprofessional and get some specialized equipment if they have a disability, and be part of a group activity. And I think that is one of the most exciting things that’s happening—these really interesting, expansive, curated experiences that parents are putting together.

Robert Enlow (19:49)
Yeah, you saw in one year a growth of 150—think—private schools or private options in Arizona in just one year. So it’s not like the market won’t respond.

Susan Pendergrass (19:56)
Yeah. And more of them are accessing online schools than they used to. Right—Stanford has a school, BYU has a school. If you can access these online schools, they don’t have to be in-state. That’s because the parents are deciding where the money goes. But in Missouri, Missouri has accredited Missouri virtual schools, and that’s where you have to enroll your child. But when you let the parents and word of mouth—say, you know, “Hey, I’ve got a great foreign language school”—word of mouth works. Then I think you definitely see a massive expansion of what parents are accessing through these programs. And I can only imagine, based on Milton Friedman’s—what, 1955? 57? 55—premise on this, that achievement should go up. I mean, I know that this isn’t the thing that we are focused on, but it should.

Robert Enlow (20:36)
Yep, 1955.

Susan Pendergrass (20:46)
I’ve always said, like, if 25% of Missouri eighth graders are proficient in math, I don’t think 75% of Missouri parents, if they were given control over it, would just accept the fact that their kid didn’t learn math.

Robert Enlow (20:56)
So one of the challenges I think we have with that is: what do we determine to be quality, and how do we measure that, right? I’m one of the few that think that the standards movements of the 1980s did more harm to K–12 education than good.

Susan Pendergrass (21:02)
Yeah, that’s a big question. Tell me why.

Robert Enlow (21:14)
Because I think the standardization to such a point—which then meant you had to have state tests aligned to that standardization, which then meant you had to create very rigid scope and sequencing for teachers—it really did, in a way, de-professionalize the teaching industry and make it a widget industry. And so, as a result, I think we’ve lost this ability to educate, and we’ve created this desire to—

Susan Pendergrass (21:17)
—teach to it.

Robert Enlow (21:43)
—to inculcate in terms of how to get them to do a test. I’m not a big fan of state tests. I think they get gamed all the time and changed all the time. I’m not a huge fan of state standards. I think you can have standards, but align them to something else. We had the Iowa Test of Basic Skills growing up, and that was a fine test, and we could do the same. So we, for example, are believers in testing choice and think we should allow families to do that. So when you look at quality—

Susan Pendergrass (22:10)
You mean pick a test—allow them to pick a test? And how would you hold any schools accountable, or would you? Would you do the Ashley Berner or the British approach? What would you do?

Robert Enlow (22:13)
Yeah, they should all be taking tests if they want. I think—no, look, first of all, I think parents hold schools accountable. We’re learning that from Arizona, right? By the time they close a charter school in Arizona, there’s like 12 parents in it, right? So, I mean, parents know quality. But you’ve got to remember, parents are choosing for different reasons. I think about this all the time. I had a son who had special needs, and I didn’t want to send him to the local public school because it was going to be bad for him, in my opinion. He wasn’t going to be served. So I went and did a whole bunch of searching around, and I picked a school that was 15th on the I-STEP for third-grade results—that was Indiana—versus the other school that was seventh, right? Why did I do that? Well, I did it because I thought he’d have a safer environment, he’d have a more moral environment—an environment with my values—and it was cheap enough for me, and it was good enough. So, parents make decisions based on a whole host of factors, and I think it’s silly for us to think that they don’t. The other thing is: what do we mean by quality is a big deal. I am not a fan of saying quality is only a test score. I think quality is much more than that. I don’t know about your kids, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
That’s a great question. But do test scores matter?

Robert Enlow (23:43)
I’m not sure I’d say—they matter insofar as you inform parents how kids are doing relative to others. I think it’s important that families know that. I’m a big fan of the one thing I do like about the British system—just ranking all the schools. That’s what they do: they take a test and everyone gets put on a league table. I love that concept. Everyone gets on a league table, and you can say, “Oh, you’re going to a school that’s 100 out of 200. Well, you’re mid-table. Why aren’t you going to a school that’s 85 or 60,” or something like that? So I think it’s really important to just put it on a table, because I think keeping up with the Joneses is actually a valuable part of society. But think about—

Susan Pendergrass (24:01)
We do that at the Show-Me Institute. For Missouri schools, we do rank all the schools. But one more question—just to push back on that a little bit, but not exactly that. One thing that we’re seeing, or that I’ve seen in these scholarship programs, is that kids are potentially—we’re growing the number of kids who are not having shared experiences with their peers. And by that, I mean probably going to have a lot fewer kids playing the trumpet or playing the cello.

Robert Enlow (24:10)
No.

Susan Pendergrass (24:28)
Because when you go to middle school and you say, “I’m going to take band,” and then they’re like, “Let’s pick an instrument,” right? That is kind of hokey, but that was what a lot of us did. And now you have parents who are simply having their child go to guitar lessons or piano lessons because that’s what their kid wants to play. And you’re not going to have kids hauling their flute home on the bus. And that’s kind of a shared experience. Also, things like the weird PE classes I had to take, like square dancing or, I don’t know, bowling. You know, we’re going to lose some of that from a civic point of view. We’re going to lose lots of the shared experience, and kids are going to have these algorithm-driven or curated experiences. What do you think?

Robert Enlow (25:06)
Okay, comrade. Let me just say, okay, comrade. I can’t believe I just heard an apologist for school buses, right? I mean, everyone get on a bus with a snotty—listen, common cultural experiences happen by common cultural things, not by being in the same place at the same time. This idea that schools are the locus of all of our common cultural experiences is part of the problem we have in education. So in Arizona—

Susan Pendergrass (25:08)
Come on, come on, what do you think? You have to ride the school bus?

Robert Enlow (25:35)
Yeah. Yes, yes. There are tons and tons of common cultural experiences right now. The fastest-growing type of tutor is music and physical instruction, right? Are they not taking classes together? Are they not working together with other kids? They’re just not working with other kids in a common—in a socialist—environment of a school bus or in a school, right? This idea that acculturation and socialization happen only inside of a K–12 school building strikes me as very socialistic.

Susan Pendergrass (26:05)
I hear it. I hear it a lot from the—air quotes—other side. I hear that they are the great equalizing institution: traditional K–12 public schools.

Robert Enlow (26:13)
Okay, if that were the case—if that were the case—why is the data extremely clear in voucher programs and choice programs that the civic values of kids in choice programs who attend private schools are far greater than the civic values and virtues of those who attend traditional public schools? I say this all the time: if you go to the GLSEN survey—the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network survey of kids and their issues in dealing with being gay—Which school system is the worst on gay kids? They get dead. Based on the data that they bring out, public schools have significantly higher rates of abuse of gay kids. Right? How tolerant is that? Now, what ends up happening is they hear about it more in religious schools—they hear about being gay—but they’re not bullied. So you actually ask yourself this question: Do you want your gay kid bullied, or do you want them to hear about it more?

Susan Pendergrass (26:42)
I’m guessing you’re going to say traditional public schools.

Robert Enlow (27:06)
These are legitimate questions to ask. And by the way, we’re not doing well with this at all in any school system. But this idea of civic virtue coming from a homogenized institution strikes me as naive at best—particularly since, if you think those schools don’t teach values, you’re wrong. They absolutely teach values. And then they teach values based on their school assignment, which is based on where they live. And if you don’t think neighborhoods produce value and values, then you’re wrong. Anyone who knows me knows that I rail against suburbia all the time—it’s just part of who I am. Gated, segregated communities really bother me. It bothers me. These ideas of living in enclaves piss me off, because I don’t think that’s what America is supposed to be about. But that ends up what’s happening in schooling, right? And what private schooling and choice does is it breaks that apart. How are you getting more civic tolerance—how are you getting more integration—in private schooling than you are in public schools? Whenever I hear, “Public schools are the center and locus of our community shared experience,” I actually cringe and start worrying about what they’re teaching.

Susan Pendergrass (28:13)
Yeah, I also saw a comment the other day on a Signal chat I’m on that charter schools are part of the right-wing conservative agenda to kill public education, which just makes me crazy, because charter schools by and large serve poor kids of color, and there’s nothing to do with the—there’s no right-wing conservative agenda there. And I know a lot of parents who would very much disagree with that. But that is the perception that’s out there—that you guys, with your school choice and your vouchers—and I know that you guys did a whole market test on the word “voucher,” which I think is brilliant, because no matter what the program is, folks on the left call it a voucher scheme. There’s a “scheme,” and that it’s killing public education, and then we won’t have a civic-minded, you know, equal electorate, basically.

Robert Enlow (28:39)
Yep. Can we start to redefine—and I have to redefine—look, I am a huge believer in public education. I want an educated public. I want kids to be educated. I want those—because I think society is benefited. That is a very different thing from running a system of common schools that was built off the backs of a potentially bigoted idea in the 1840s, right? I think there’s a different conversation. I think government-run, district-run schools, while a reality, are different than public education. Kids are educated to the public interest if they go to a school or learning environment where they get educated. And so that’s why Milton Friedman’s original idea—separate the public financing of education from the government running a school.

Susan Pendergrass (29:47)
Well, it’s a brilliant idea, and I appreciate you coming to argue with me about it. That’s great. I could go on, but I’m going to let it go at that. I appreciate that you guys—I didn’t really get into it—but that you’re an intervenor in the Missouri case. Clearly you believe that more Missouri families should have access to this. The parents who are the defendants basically have a sibling that they would like to join the program that one of their kids is in. And I suspect that—

Robert Enlow (29:51)
I love arguing with you. You’re one of my dearest, oldest friends. There’s very few people like you, right?

Susan Pendergrass (30:17)
I think we’re going to be successful. We had one successful ruling so far where the program gets to continue.

Robert Enlow (30:22)
Yeah, we’re the intervenors. Choice Legal Advocates is the intervenor in Missouri National Education Association et al. versus State of Missouri. So we are intervening on behalf of parents. Currently, the district court denied a temporary injunction, so they allowed the program to continue. We’re excited by that. We’re strongly positive that we think it’s a good sign for us and that we should end up on the right side of this. You know, I’m just shocked that the unions continue to be on the wrong side of parents all the time.

Susan Pendergrass (30:49)
They sure do. All right. Well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate you taking the time to join us on the podcast.

Robert Enlow (30:54)
Thanks for having me, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post From Milton Friedman to Modern School Choice with Robert Enlow appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The largest of these, the Independence School District near Kansas City, will soon hold a public vote on whether to retain its four-day schedule after a judge ruled that the voter-approval requirement in state law is constitutional and must be enforced.

As for the upcoming vote, I expect the 4dsw to be approved. Crystal City recently saw its citizens vote 86.7% in favor of keeping their 4dsw—a result that makes sense, as those who already use the model are typically its strongest supporters. However, the strongest opponents of the 4dsw are those who do not believe that they can provide childcare on the fifth weekday. Even in districts that overwhelmingly vote in favor of a 4dsw, individual families may face real difficulties adjusting.

I believe recent events highlight a broader point: school choice could help relieve some of the tension surrounding the 4dsw by giving parents more options.

Senate Bill 727 and the Four-Day School Week

Senate Bill 727 was an omnibus education bill passed in 2024. One of its provisions requires that districts located wholly or partially in a county with a charter form of government or in a city with more than 30,000 inhabitants hold a public vote for adopting or retaining a 4dsw. As Independence’s recent lawsuit indicated, this only applies to 87 Missouri school districts.

If the goal of this provision was to give Missouri parents a voice on a significant decision, it was fair to ask why the 4dsw would be put to vote in some districts but not others. The recent court ruling clarified that lawmakers had a rational basis for the distinction, citing evidence that suburban and urban districts are more likely to experience negative effects on academics, crime, and childcare access than rural districts. Nevertheless, there remains a need to address the problems that arise when a family’s schedule no longer aligns with its school.

School Choice Can Help

Expanding open enrollment and Missouri’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program could give families the flexibility they need. Open enrollment would allow families to transfer students to districts that best fit their needs, whether that’s a 4dsw district or one with a traditional five-day school week.

This approach enjoys broad support. In 2023, the Show-Me Institute surveyed 1,200 Missouri parents statewide and asked what options should be available if a district moves from a five-day to a four-day schedule. Two thirds of parents supported allowing transfers to another district, while majorities also favored providing vouchers for private school attendance.

Figure 1: Policy Options for Students in 4dsw Districts

“If a school district moves from a five-day to a four-day school week, parents should be given the option to . . . (1) transfer their children to another school district . . . (2) use a voucher for their children to attend private school.”

Support for both options crossed party lines. Among self-identified Republicans, 67 percent supported interdistrict choice and 57 percent supported vouchers. Among self-identified Democrats, 71 percent supported interdistrict choice and 62 percent supported vouchers.

As Missouri continues to debate the 4dsw and how to manage its use, expanding school choice remains the best way to reduce tension and ensure every family has workable options.

Want to Learn More?

My colleague James Shuls and I wrote a series of papers that tackle different questions relating to the 4dsw.

Evidence Based? A Systematic Literature Review of the Four-Day School Week?

Five for Me: A Survey of Missourians Regarding the Four-Day School Week

Longer Days and Fewer Total Hours: Examining the Four-Day School Week in Missouri

The post Four-Day School Week Votes and School Choice in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of Missouri’s four largest cities—Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, and Columbia—Springfield will soon be the only one without charter schools. Charter schools are already thriving in Kansas City, and St. Louis and thanks to recent legislation Columbia will have its first charter schools up and running as early as 2026.

Springfield is missing out.

Charter schools are public schools that are exempt from some of the rules and regulations that apply to traditional public schools. In most Missouri counties, including Greene County, charter schools are not allowed to operate unless they are sponsored by the local school board—a requirement that effectively bans them. Senate Bill 727, signed into law in 2024, changed this requirement in Boone County, where Columbia is located. We need similar legislation in Greene County.

Why? There are several reasons—including that charter schools are popular with families—but the most important reason is that charter schools are more effective than traditional public schools. Academic studies consistently show students who attend charter schools outperform their peers in traditional public schools on state exams and are more likely to attend college. In some cases, the performance differences are substantial. A recent national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that charter schools deliver additional academic growth equivalent to 6 extra days of instruction in math each year, and 16 extra days in reading, compared to traditional public schools. This same study shows that Missouri has some of the most effective charter schools in the country.

Charter school impacts are largest in areas where the local neighborhood schools are underperforming. Does Springfield have any low-performing neighborhood schools? Unfortunately, it sure does. At Westport Elementary School in 2024, only 24 percent of 5th-graders scored proficient or higher on the state English Language Arts test, and in math the number was just 14 percent. At Parkview High School, only 16 percent of students who took the Algebra I end-of-course exam scored proficient or above.

Now imagine your child is zoned for one of these schools and unless you move—perhaps not in your budget—this is where he or she will be required to attend. Charter schools give families in this situation new hope. Many charter operators intentionally open schools in neighborhoods where the traditional public schools are the worst—their mission is to provide educational opportunities in these communities that are not otherwise available. In many cities, the top charter schools have long waitlists.

If we want more Springfield children to have access to highly effective schools, permitting charter schools to operate in Greene County is one of the simplest ways to do it.

How can we make this happen? Following Boone County’s playbook, we need a champion for charter schools in the state legislature who will prioritize this issue in the upcoming legislative session. For Boone County, that champion was Caleb Rowden, a longtime charter advocate. Education legislation in Jefferson City is increasingly “omnibus” style, which means multiple different education policies are bundled into one bill. Rowden made sure that permitting charter schools to operate in Boone County, without the requirement that they be sponsored by the local school board, was part of the 2024 omnibus bill.

Will someone step up in a similar manner for Greene County? I sure hope so.

Charter schools are public schools, their students are public school students, and their teachers are public school teachers. They cannot charge tuition, they’re secular, and they’re open to all students (they must admit students by lottery if the number of applicants is greater than the number of available spots). We know charter schools work and that they’re popular with families.

Every year that passes without charter schools operating in Greene County is a missed opportunity for Springfield’s children.

The post Springfield Needs Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute policy analyst Avery Frank about his new report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future. They discuss why electricity demand is rising again, why major companies are turning back to nuclear, and how Missouri can position itself to benefit. From data centers and AI to regulatory hurdles and smart policy steps like a state nuclear advisory council, Avery explains how Missouri could play a leading role in America’s nuclear resurgence.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Resurgence of Nuclear Energy
03:37 Challenges and Historical Context
07:30 Missouri’s Nuclear Potential
12:06 Future of Nuclear Energy and Policy
16:09 Conclusion and Future Outlook

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
This morning we’re joined on the podcast by Avery Frank, policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute. You’ve got a paper out, and I’m really looking forward to talking to you about it because I have a lot of questions. You’ve done a lot of research and analysis around nuclear energy, and I see a lot in the media these days about the resurgence of nuclear energy.

Number one, why does nuclear energy seem to be back, bigger and better than ever? And secondly—well, I’ll start with that. Why is nuclear energy back in the news so much?

Avery Frank (00:34)

Nuclear power surged in the United States during the Cold War. Electricity demand was soaring—it kept going up and up. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and powerful. Just in Missouri, we have one nuclear power plant and it supplies 14% of the entire state’s electricity. So when you need a lot of electricity, nuclear power is something you can turn to.

Since 2007, electricity demand has pretty much flatlined as we’ve become more efficient. But with data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric manufacturing, electricity demand is back on the rise, looking similar to Cold War–era growth. Just data centers by themselves are supposed to go from 3% of U.S. electricity demand today to 8–12% by 2030. That’s a huge jump.

Susan Pendergrass (01:56)
Well, if it’s so great, why did it go away? I remember Three Mile Island, and I saw the movie about Chernobyl. When it gets bad, it gets really bad. Why did nuclear go away so hard if it’s such a great, clean, reliable source of energy?

Avery Frank (02:26)
I’d say it went away for three key reasons: public fear, regulation, and regulatory attitude. Most of the time, public fear from events like Three Mile Island drove increased regulation.

Two key events stand out. First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) *correction* in 1970. That was a huge blow for the nuclear industry. Construction costs went up 25% and projects took two years longer. Then came Three Mile Island in 1979. It was mitigated by safeguards, but public fear skyrocketed. Costs afterwards were three times higher and construction took twice as long. That was the big turning point.

Susan Pendergrass (03:54)
Then if it’s that expensive, why is it coming back?

Avery Frank (04:14)
Companies are turning to nuclear out of desperation. They need a lot of power, as I mentioned with data centers, but they also have clean climate pledges. They can’t really do it with solar or wind. They’re kind of backed into a corner.

Susan Pendergrass (04:20)
Why not solar or wind?

Avery Frank (04:39)
Solar and wind are intermittent resources. Nuclear plants run consistently. Data centers can’t have outages—you need steady, reliable power. That’s what nuclear does best.

Susan Pendergrass (05:08)
Does it generate a lot of nuclear waste?

Avery Frank (05:15)
In the U.S. we use a once-through cycle. We refine uranium, put it in a plant, then seal it up forever. Other countries like France and Japan recycle their fuel. About 96% of spent fuel is still reusable, but the U.S. stopped recycling in the 1970s. If we restarted, we could reduce waste significantly, which already isn’t that large to begin with.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09)
So what could Missouri be doing right now to take advantage of this moment?

Avery Frank (06:32)
Timing is key. Missouri already has advantages: intellectual capital, infrastructure, the Missouri University Research Reactor, and Missouri S&T producing top nuclear engineers. We also have retiring coal plants that could be retrofitted into advanced nuclear plants, cutting costs by up to 35%.

Federal reforms like the ADVANCE Act are making things easier, but Missouri could act too. For example, we could form a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee did, to identify strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations. That’s attracted significant investment there.

Susan Pendergrass (08:14)
What about public-private partnerships?

Avery Frank (08:37)
That’s a great point. We believe the free market can play a big role, just like it did in space travel. One idea is Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE), where private developers build small modular reactors for large customers like data centers on their own dime, outside the regulated grid. That takes the burden off ratepayers while meeting rising demand.

Susan Pendergrass (10:26)
Because I assume energy demand forecasts keep being revised up, right?

Avery Frank (11:03)
Exactly, and they’re hard to predict. What if AI suddenly uses less power? Then Missouri could be stuck with excess nuclear capacity. Letting the free market take some of that risk makes sense.

Susan Pendergrass (11:39)
What about the last Missouri legislative session?

Avery Frank (12:06)
Senate Bill 4 passed. It was a big utility bill that allowed “construction work in progress,” meaning utilities can charge ratepayers during construction, not just when a plant comes online. It’s unclear if it applies to nuclear, but it could. I’ve suggested treating it more like a bond, so consumers who shoulder the risk also see some reward, like lower rates or refunds.

Susan Pendergrass (13:44)
Any other signs that Missouri welcomes nuclear investment?

Avery Frank (13:47)
Yes. I attended the Missouri Nuclear Energy Summit in Columbia. Governor Kehoe was there and said we need to develop nuclear at business speed, not bureaucratic speed. That shows real resolve. Legislators are supportive too. Missouri has the advantages and infrastructure—we just need the right regulatory environment.

If Missouri created a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee, it could attract significant investment and expertise. Energy availability is now one of the top factors for companies deciding where to locate. If Missouri can offer abundant, reliable, clean energy, we’ll be far more competitive.

Susan Pendergrass (16:20)
That’s awesome. You have a paper out on this, available at showmeinstitute.org. Thanks for coming on and explaining it to us.

Avery Frank (16:32)
Awesome, thank you for the interview, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new state law creates three types of counties with different rules for property taxes and assessments: five percent counties (75 total counties), zero percent counties (22), and unaffected counties (17). For more details on the differences among these counties, go here.

There are many reasons why these substantial changes to the system are bad. The first one, which I wrote about previously, is that property taxes are generally the least harmful tax for economic growth. So, if you want to create a tax system that encourages greater economic opportunity for all Missourians, the property tax is the last tax you should focus on.

This post is about the absurdity of putting Jackson County in the unaffected category. Jackson County is home to most of Kansas City and is the second-largest county in Missouri. It has had by far the worst administration of assessment and tax collection in recent years of any Missouri county. This is like a patient going to the doctor with a bad left knee and the hospital deciding to amputate their right arm. You made everything worse but didn’t address the main problem that started it all.

The solution to Jackson County’s issues is not to simply make it a zero percent or five percent county. That would cause serious problems over time, which we will eventually see in the other zero and five percent counties in Missouri if the law is upheld in court. What you need in Jackson County is first and foremost better administration. If 113 counties can generally make the assessment and tax process work without being sued by the state tax commission and one cannot, then the problem is with the one county, not with the overall process. Electing the Jackson County Assessor (instead of the assessor being appointed), which will be voted on soon, would be a good start. From a tax bill perspective, ending the rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City 33 School District is a vital change. The main reason bills increase so much in that part of Kansas City is because that district does not have to roll rates back at all, unlike every other taxing body in Missouri. Major reforms were needed in Jackson County, but instead in the special session we got bad legislation that did nothing for the taxpayers there. That’s not a win for anyone.

Future posts will discuss the potential constitutional problems with this bill, the harmful effects of favoring current homeowners over future homeowners, and a discussion of Charles Tiebout and his theories. For more information, please see my testimony from the special session, these policy studies on this issue of property taxes and assessments, and related commentaries.

The post Why the New Property Tax Rules in Missouri Are Bad, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On June 10, 2025, David Stokes, director of municipal policy at the Show-Me Institute, testified before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee to express concerns about the property tax provisions included in a special session bill.

Stokes warned that the proposed property tax caps, added on the Senate floor without a public hearing, are constitutionally questionable, economically harmful, and likely to trigger long-term unintended consequences. He argued that freezing or severely limiting property taxes in certain counties will increase pressure on other revenue sources, such as sales taxes and state income taxes, and lead to greater use of tax districts like TDDs and CIDs. He also raised concerns about fairness and uniformity, noting that identical homes could be taxed at dramatically different rates simply based on how long someone has lived there.

Read his submitted testimony here: https://bit.ly/4kXtdII
See the recording of the full hearing here: https://house.mo.gov/MediaCenter.aspx

The post Testimony of David Stokes Before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee June 10, 2025 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to read testimony on the Show-Me Sports Investment Act.

Click here to read testimony on Senate Bill 3 and property tax adjustments.

Watch Patrick Tuohey’s Testimony

Watch David Stokes’ Testimony

The post Testimony: The Show-Me Sports Investment Act and Senate Bill 3 on Property Tax Adjustments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.