On January 21, 2026, the Show-Me Institute hosted an in-depth discussion on crime and public safety trends in the City of St. Louis at the Knight Center at Washington University. Patrick Tuohey, Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute, was joined by local experts Gabe Gore, St. Louis Circuit Attorney; Janet Lauritsen, Curators’ Distinguished Professor Emerita in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis; and Pernell Witherspoon, Senior Professor of Criminal Justice at Lindenwood University.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Watch: The Public Safety Climate in the City of St Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past five years, the number of crimes committed in St. Louis has decreased, however the city is still widely perceived as dangerous. What are the actual crime statistics, what are their real implications, and what shapes public perception? Our panel of experts will address these questions and more.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain valuable insights, share your perspective, and participate in an informed community conversation on crime and public safety in St. Louis. Two Opportunities to Attend:

Event Details
Wednesday, January 21
The Knight Center at Washington University

Tuesday, February 10
MAC West

Reception at 4:30 p.m., including beverages and light appetizers
Program and Q&A from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Registration
Please register for this complimentary event by emailing events@showmeinstitute.org. Include your name and specify which date you will attend. Walk-ins will not be admitted.

The post Crime and Public Safety in St. Louis: Upcoming Events appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Father of the School Choice Movement with James V. Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why should we care about phonics instruction? Because it works.

There are typically two views when discussing early reading instruction: emphasis on phonics instruction involving daily lessons, and a “balanced literacy” approach which puts an emphasis on understanding meaning (three-cueing method) with occasional phonics sprinkled in. Numerous studies from independent researchers, the National Literacy Institute, and the Congressional-sponsored National Reading Panel have indicated that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective in helping students learn to read than non-systematic (balanced literacy) or no phonics instruction. These results can be seen in schools that implement it, such as in Richmond or in our own backyard at KIPP Victory Academy—whose recent, explicit emphasis on phonics helped it obtain the highest English/language arts growth rate in the entire state from 2018–2021.

So why aren’t all schools using this method? Many teachers believe this approach is incredibly boring and drives the love of reading out of children. Additionally, it is hard for teachers to learn and teach; Missouri’s new phonics training program (LETRS) in Missouri takes 160 hours to complete. Finally, universities are simply not instructing future teachers to use this method effectively, or even hardly at all.

The NCTQ conducted a survey to evaluate which universities are implementing scientifically based reading instruction into their curriculum for future teachers—and the results are concerning. Per the survey, only 25 percent of higher education institutions nationally adequately address all five core components (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) of reading instruction. Missouri is no better, as nearly half of our participating* universities received an F on the NCQT’s report.

*Central Methodist University (F), Hannibal-LaGrange University (F), Lincoln University (B), Lindenwood University (B), Lindenwood University Graduate (D), Missouri Southern State University (F), Missouri Western State University (D), Northwest Missouri State University (F), Southeast Missouri State (F), University of Central Missouri (F), University of Missouri-Kansas City (A), University of Missouri-St. Louis (C), University of Missouri-St. Louis Graduate (C); all other Missouri universities declined to participate

Many universities in Missouri seem to be shying away from a strategy that can help teachers become better reading instructors. The LETRS program was a good start, but that law is primarily about identifying and addressing problems in early childhood reading, along with some additional professional development opportunities for existing teachers. We need Missouri universities to get on board and give teachers all the tools they need to effectively teach kids how to read right from the start.

The post The Science of Reading in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Loyalty oaths” can mean a lot of things, but here I mean “loyalty oath” to be an ideological attestation required for public employment. Want to work at Missouri State? UMSL? UMKC? You might have to toe the DEI line first, even though doing so (1) is prejudicial to applicants, (2) undermines the free inquiry objectives of government colleges and universities by homogenizing professors, and (3) could deny Missouri students the best teachers by biasing hiring toward ideologues rather than experts.

Here’s another example: a University of Central Missouri job listing for a librarian features this remarkable sentence that starts reasonably and spirals from there:

The Cataloging and Metadata Librarian identifies and addresses metadata remediation needs, as well as the adoption of new or updated standards and vocabularies in support of James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ commitment to incorporating social justice into our work, focusing on the James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist efforts.

A math professor listing for Mizzou notes that an applicant who can “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” to their work would be a preferred applicant.

Taxpayers should be paying to “decolonize” math, huh?

Employees of America’s higher education system have long been left of center on average, but taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize this special kind of nonsense. Compelling librarians and math professors to commit to the Left’s preferred politics is viewpoint discrimination that encourages groupthink and creates an academic environment where everyone who’s hired to educate is part of some political in-group. That’s unhealthy if you want an academic environment that challenges biases rather than affirms them.

Hiring practices like those required in these “loyalty oaths” could discourage highly qualified subject matter experts from even applying for jobs that have no, or should have no, political or social justice component. Florida is in the process of uprooting this sort of caustic academic culture entirely, dismantling DEI programs in colleges and universities statewide. All other things being equal, are Missouri taxpayers really willing to cede qualified conservative and moderate professors to states like Florida? I don’t think so.

Missouri institutions of higher learning should focus on creating a welcoming environment by treating employees and students as individuals instead of trying to engineer campus-wide groupthink through the way that they hire teachers. Woke loyalty oaths have no business in the state’s hiring documents.

Update: University of Missouri President Mun Choi responded to this post with the following statement:

University of Missouri President on faculty recruiting practices:

The UM System does not have loyalty oaths

——-

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A recent post from the Show-Me Institute references “loyalty oaths” related to faculty hiring at higher education institutions. I want to be very clear — we do not have loyalty oaths of any kind at the University of Missouri System.

We strive to ensure that every UM System university has employees who are committed to an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone. Currently, we have students and scholars from every county in Missouri, all 50 states and more than 50 countries, among them individuals from various walks of life, including from rural and metro areas, military veterans and first-generation students — each with a different point of view.

———–

We hire the best faculty who exemplify the highest standards of teaching and research, and we do not compromise on quality.

The post “Loyalty Oaths” in University Employment Should Be a Non-starter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. James V. Shuls will serve as Director of Research and a Senior Fellow and Elias Tsapelas as Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy

 St. Louis, MO – Dr. James V. Shuls has been named the new director of research and senior fellow and Elias Tsapelas the director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute. Previously, Dr. Shuls held the title of distinguished fellow of education policy at the Institute and Tsapelas was a senior analyst.

“I am honored to serve the Institute in this new role,” Shuls said. “While the opportunity to focus on policy areas beyond education is new to me, the goal remains the same—to provide high-quality research that helps promote free markets and individual liberty for all Missourians.”

“Research is at the center of everything we do at the institute,” Show-Me Institute CEO Brenda Talent said. “James and Elias bring knowledge and experience to their respective roles that will be invaluable as we continue to address the challenges facing our state.”

James V. Shuls is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Arkansas. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Missouri Southern State University and a master’s degree from Missouri State University, both in elementary education. Prior to pursuing his doctorate, James taught first grade and fifth grade in southwest Missouri.

Elias Tsapelas earned his master of arts degree in economics from the University of Missouri in 2016. Before joining the Institute he worked for the State of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development and Office of Administration, Division of Budget & Planning.

Dr. Susan Pendergrass, who previously served as director of research, has returned to the role of director of education policy in order to focus on education research.

Tsapelas is the institute’s first director of state budget and fiscal policy.

Media Contact: Zach Lawhorn

Zach.Lawhorn@ShowMeOpportunity.org

The post Release: Show-Me Institute Names Two New Directors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post We’re Number Four? With James V. Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James V. Shuls is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri St. Louis and a Distinguished Fellow in Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute.

The post SMI Podcast: School Choice Week Update with Dr. James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen Here:

The post SMI Podcast: Trust and the American Economy – Dr. David Rose appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Watch the recorded program here

PROGRAM AGENDA

 Program Open

Dr. Susan Pendergrass – Director of Research and Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute

 The ABCs of school choice: What types of programs exist, how do they work and which states have them?

Dr. Michael Q. McShane – Director of National Research at EdChoice

School choice programs: How are they administered and held accountable?

Jason Bedrick  – Director of Policy at EdChoice

What, if any, Constitutional concerns should be considered?

Rachelle Engen – Educational Choice Fellow at Institute for Justice

How could school choice programs be tailored for Missouri and what would it mean for existing school funding?

Dr. James Shuls – Associate Professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis

Question & Answer Session

Moderated by Dr. Susan Pendergrass

Program Close

Panelist Contact Information

Presenter Slides

Tax Credits, ESAs, and School Choice – Dr. Michael Q. McShane

ESAs and Accountability – Jason Bedrick 

What, if any, constitutional concerns should be considered? – Rachelle Engen

Additional Resources

EdChoice Legislator Training Hub

The ABCs of School Choice

What is an Education Savings Account (ESA)?

Commentary: A crisis of trust

New Poll Shows Missouri’s Educational System in Crisis

SMI Podcast

The post Legislator Training Resource Page – Education Choice in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

School finance policy is a foundational component of public education that directly affects all of Missouri’s students and classrooms.

In the 2017–18 school year, just over $12.5 billion dollars were spent on public education in Missouri. Approximately one-third of this was financed from state coffers via a funding formula that distributes state dollars to each of the 518 school districts in the state. There are still significant cracks in the foundation of the formula that must be addressed. This workshop highlights these problems and provides recommendations for student-centered reforms that promote fairness, transparency, and local autonomy. School finance policy is more than just complex formulas and calculations—it’s a foundational component of public education that directly affects all of Missouri’s students and classrooms.

RSVP HERE: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/76345500447

LOCATION

University of Missouri-St. Louis

Millennium Student Center

Century Room C

1 University Blvd.

Saint Louis, MO 63121

PARKING

Millennium Student Center Garage North at 26 Arnold B Grobman Dr, St. Louis, MO 63121

The post Missouri School Funding Workshop: Location and Parking Details appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

 You have to understand this aspect of defined-benefit pension systems when you consider the recent report, “Unaccountable and Unaffordable,” produced by the American Legislative Exchange Council. They estimate that state-administered pension plans have more than $6 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That is the difference between the amount we’ve promised workers and how much we have in the retirement accounts to pay for those promises. This figure is up $433 billion since 2016. (These figures use a risk-free discount rate.)

 Missouri ranks 31st in total unfunded liabilities with more than $107 billion across the state’s pension plans. This translates to $17,642 per capita. That is, each Missourian would have to pay more than $17,000 to meet the obligations we’ve already promised. Unfortunately, these liabilities look like they will keep growing.

 I don’t want to take away anything that we’ve promised to a public-sector worker, but we need to realize two things. First, pension benefits are not simply a function of how much workers contribute. Second, we must do something about these mounting unfunded liabilities. Either employees and employers must contribute more (which is asking a lot when they already contribute the equivalent of 29 percent of a teacher’s salary), we must hold down benefits, or we must move to a different system. If we don’t, these unfunded liabilities will eventually wreck Missouri’s finances.

 You can check out the full report here.

The post Unfunded Pension Liabilities: Unaccountable and Unaffordable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years, educators and some lawmakers in the state have railed against the legislature for failing to fully fund the foundation formula for K-12 public schools. Last year, one lawmaker said her colleagues “refuse” to fund the formula. While lawmakers could choose to fully fund the formula, they aren’t simply deciding to withhold money without reason. Those dollars have to come from somewhere, which means less funding for other programs.

Indeed, this year lawmakers have passed a budget that increases aid for the foundation formula by $45 million, to a total of $3.4 billion. For the first time since the new formula was enacted in 2006, lawmakers will fully fund the formula.

Did they find that elusive money tree? No, of course not. They simply took the money from somewhere else (and they wisely reinstated a cap to growth of the foundation formula target amount)

One place hit hard by this reallocation of funds was higher education. As a result, higher education administrators are making cuts and laying off staff. (Full disclosure: I am a professor at UMSL which has been negatively impacted by the budget cuts).

State lawmakers have done exactly what you and I do when the budget is tight: shift funds from one thing to another. This will always happen as different administrations prioritize one thing over another. The only way to reduce the need to shift money around is to increase the amount of money available by growing the economy. To do this, policymakers should refer to the Show-Me Institute’s 20 for 2020 policy proposals. We’re far more likely to find new revenue for schools through sensible policy reform than by looking for it on trees.

The post Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees, But We Can Grow the Economy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s not that I’m anti-union—I’m simply anti–bad ideas.

I grew up in a union household.  My dad was a union carpenter until the day he retired.  The union helped secure a good income for him, along with great benefits and a healthy pension. It also provided many wonderful memories for me. I can vividly recall the union picnics where the RC Cola flowed like wine and my brother and I cleaned up at all of the games. 

It wasn’t until later that I realized what a union was or why unions were formed. For my dad and other laborers working on rooftops, in factories, or in situations where working conditions were hazardous, unions provided a means for increasing safety and improving working conditions.  As I sit in my air-conditioned office, I see little in common between my father’s work environment and mine.  Moreover, I see little reason to believe unionization could cure any of the ills we see at UMSL.

It is no secret that times have been rough on our north St. Louis County campus.  Student enrollment is down and state appropriations for operating expenses have yet to rebound to pre-recession levels. These circumstances helped to create a multi-million-dollar budget shortfall that forced university officials to lay off dozens of staff and adjunct faculty members.

My colleagues who wish to organize point to this and a host of other issues as reasons for unionization. They argue that salaries for adjunct instructors are too low, salaries for non–tenure track professors are too low (and such professors don’t get tenure), faculty salaries are too low, and we haven’t been able to hire new faculty for two years because of a hiring freeze.  Regardless of whether these things are true, unionization is hardly the answer. 

Unionization doubles-down on rigid policies that will not work, and it stifles the type of creativity we need.  It would create more bureaucracy through collective-bargaining processes and stifle the entrepreneurial spirit by locking individuals into rigid pay structures. This system will not help us, because faculty members and adjuncts are not widgets; we are not interchangeable.  The various members who make up the faculty and adjunct ranks at the university are unique professionals with varying skill sets.  We are professionals and our individual interests can hardly be represented by a single bargaining entity.

Don’t get me wrong: we do need to rally together as faculty—we need to rally in support of innovation. We need to organize in favor of creativity and efficiency.  The problems we face at UMSL are not unique.  Throughout the country institutions of higher learning are experiencing the same crisis.  While we complain about our salaries, college tuition costs continue to rise faster than costs for medical care. Meanwhile, technology is creating competitors we never dreamed of.  We cannot continue to do business the same way and expect the same—let alone better—results. 

Despite the challenges we face, many great things are happening at UMSL.  The campus itself is being rejuvenated with new buildings at every corner. The new Recreation and Wellness Center is top notch.  The Science Learning Building and Anheuser-Bush Hall will provide wonderful learning opportunities, and the new Optometry Patient Care Center will allow us to serve our community better than ever before. 

All of this construction has brought new life to campus. Our challenge is to do the same thing for our programs.  Unionization can’t do that, but we can. 

The post Unionization-the Wrong Solution for UMSL Faculty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Over $440 million in road, bridge, and parking garage investments. That’s right, asphalt to drive and park your car on. (Most curious are improvements to Interstates 64 and 70.)
• $3.4 billion in renovations and expansions of established institutions like Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University, Saint Louis University, and the University of Missouri–St. Louis—investments that likely would have occurred with MetroLink or without.
• Another $785 million from government agencies and publicly funded sources—not the privately funded, mixed-use development rail advocates promise.
• CMT even associates another transit project—the $51 million Loop Trolley—with MetroLink.

Who, besides those ideologically wedded to rail, would think MetroLink is primarily responsible for these projects?

The chart below shows other developments that CMT associates with MetroLink. Even charitably assuming a causal link between rail investments and development, much of the economic activity CMT cites is tangentially related—at best—to MetroLink. So, be wary of claims about the economic payoff from rail investments. If MetroLink was so good at driving development, its advocates wouldn’t have to cast such a wide net for evidence of its success.

The post Has MetroLink Spurred Development? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some may look at this not as an indictment of our pension plans, but on how “little” we spend on higher education. Indeed, a few months ago, I sat in a meeting trying to figure out how the College of Education at the University of Missouri–St. Louis could cut costs. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has reported, the university is facing a serious budget crunch. While I examined the figures with a group of colleagues, one professor suggested that the real problem was declining state aid for higher education.

But let’s say we want to spend more on higher education. Where does that money come from? It doesn’t get created out of thin air. Given Missouri’s anemic economic growth, the available pie of state funds isn’t getting any larger. Any new funds for education will likely come either from another program or from taxpayers. The same can be said of rising pension costs. As we spend more on pensions, we will either have to cut back on funding to higher education and other services or we will have to take more from taxpayers. There is no magic third option; someone has to pay the piper.

As the Show-me Institute has highlighted many times, Missouri’s pension plans are a “looming crisis.” In a 2015 Show-Me Institute Policy Study, Andrew Biggs wrote:

Using standard actuarial valuation, Missouri plans are, on average, 78 percent funded and unfunded liabilities are slightly below $17 billion. Using a fair market approach, funding ratios lie between 41 and 52 percent and unfunded liabilities total from $57 to $89 billion.

In other words, our current obligations far surpass how much we have set aside in pension funds.

Unless Missouri changes how we structure our pension systems, we can expect our obligations to pension funds to grow. This will continue to put pressure on the state budget and will continue to divert spending from other government programs, such as higher education.

The post Missouri Spends More on Employee Retirement Costs than Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I remember my first visit to “the Mills” shortly after it opened in 2003. The 1.2 million square foot building was bustling with people. The line for Panda Express was more like that of an amusement park ride than a mall food counter.

Today, only 77 percent of the mall is occupied (the average occupancy rate for malls is 92%). “Ghost town” is the best way to describe what I saw during my visit last November. The stores I once frequented as a teen were gone—replaced by metal bars and “for rent” signs.

You could look at the decline of the Mills Mall as a sign of the times—malls are out, online shopping is in. In fact, survey data supports this conclusion. In 2014, 34% of Americans said they did more than half of their shopping online—a 99% increase from the 2006 shopping season.

It’s certainly true that digital retailers like Amazon have disrupted the shopping industry, but the decline of the Mills Mall signals more than just the need for mall rats to find a new place to hang out. The failure of the Mills exemplifies why governments shouldn’t use tax increment financing (TIF) as a mechanism for economic development.

TIF is a method of attracting businesses to blighted communities through government subsidies. In 2003, an $18.5 million TIF in conjunction with a $34 million transportation district helped fund the mall’s development. In a 2006 Primer on TIF, UMSL professor Kenneth Thomas pointed out a few problems with this instance of TIF use.

• The building of the Mills Mall displaced sales tax revenue from Northwest Plaza in St. Ann, a shopping complex nearby.
• The project was environmentally harmful—the mall and surrounding road system was constructed on top of a wetland.
• The median income in the community was $52,656—hardly blighted.

Hazelwood’s Economic Developer David Cox told the St. Louis Business Journal, “If the developers could have looked into a crystal ball, they probably would have built it smaller.”

But that underscores another problem with funding large development projects like the Mills—crystal balls don’t exist.

The construction of the Mills Mall had promised 3,000 new jobs. Only half that number was realized.

The Mills Mall points to a serious need for TIF reform in Missouri. Malls may, indeed, be on their way out. Inappropriate uses of TIF should follow suit.

The post St. Louis Mills Auctioned Off for 6 Percent of Its Original Cost appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Default Rates among Missouri Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But even in an aspiring liberal utopia like Columbia, the consequences of overbearing government are still very real. Enter the IRS, two weeks ago.

Graduate students employed by the University of Missouri will have a harder time paying for health insurance after the university told students Friday it is taking away subsidies that help with premium costs.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies Leona Rubin said the change is the result of a recent IRS interpretation of a section of the Affordable Care Act. The law, which requires adults to have health insurance or face tax penalties, “prohibits businesses from providing employees subsidies specifically for the purpose of purchasing health insurance from individual market plans,” the university said in a letter sent to students Friday.

The IRS, Rubin said, considers the university’s student health insurance plan from Aetna to be an “individual market plan.” Because of the IRS classification, the university cannot give graduate students with assistantships a subsidy to help with health insurance costs, Rubin said.

According to Rubin, the University “could be fined $36,500 per student per year” if it continues its health insurance subsidy program…which makes it even more strange that the University apparently restored the subsidies in question last week.

It remains to be seen whether the threatened fine noted by the associate vice chancellor was a paper tiger meant to provide cover for cost cutting on Mizzou’s part or if that enormous fine is still actually on the horizon. The University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL), which took similar action in stopping insurance subsidies of its own, is sticking by its original decision to end its program. And it’s part of a national trend, thanks to Obamacare and the IRS. Keep in mind: while Mizzou has reversed its decision, the IRS certainly hasn’t changed its interpretation.

There’s a sad irony involved here, of course, when a university community generally supportive of big government is itself undermined by big government. And there’s lots to criticize: the credibility gap facing Mizzou’s administration, the timing of the announcement, the threatened walk-out by the graduate students, and so on.

But one of the most disturbing elements of this story is how disruptive Obamacare has been to a health care practice that, by most accounts, was working just fine, and the swift manner in which unaccountable federal bureaucrats were able to upend it nationwide. That a law passed 5 years ago is still changing without legislation is great cause for concern—not only for our health care, but for our democracy, as well. This is a teachable moment, but there’s no telling whether Missouri’s universities will learn from it.

The post IRS Obamacare Ruling Buffets Some Missouri Graduate Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here in the Show-Me State, we have a similar taxpayer-subsidized labor studies program associated with UMKC, the Institute for Labor Studies. According to the Institute’s mission statement, “the aim of The Institute for Labor Studies is to serve the educational needs of organized labor.” This mission may seem relatively innocuous; however, events put on by the Institute include symposia with slogans like “Revolutionary Organizing” and “Agitate! Educate! Organize!”

Moreover, there’s this story about an activist-led class at UMSL where instructors were recorded advocating violence, physical intimidation, and industrial sabotage as legitimate tactics to be used during labor negotiations. The instructors at the UMSL class are the same folks behind the Institute for Labor Studies at UMKC.

While I do not know whether UMKC’s Institute for Labor Studies engages in overt political activity, the events and speakers listed on their website suggest an ideologically driven mission. Ideology and political activism are fine, but the public should not be forced to pay for it.

The post Washington Legislature Defunds Lobbying Group Paid for With Tax Dollars appeared first on Show-Me Institute.