Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jude Schwalbach, senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, about declining K-12 enrollment nationwide and what it means for the future of open enrollment. They discuss why enrollment dropped in 40 states since the pandemic, how districts have responded to increased competition from charter, private, and homeschooling options, why open enrollment tends to cause far less disruption than critics predict, the case for Missouri to catch up with its neighboring states, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much. Jude Schwalbach, you’re back, I think for the third time, from the Reason Foundation. We appreciate you joining the Show-Me Institute Podcast once again, taking the time.

Jude Schwalbach (00:09):
Yeah, thank you for having me. I’m always excited to join.

Susan Pendergrass (00:26):
We were chatting for a second before we started recording. I talk about open enrollment a lot in Missouri. We don’t have it. In so many places in this country, kids choose where they go to school. They don’t just look at their utility bill, or their parents make this life-or-death real estate decision where they have to look at all the schools before they buy a house so they can pick where they go. Missouri has been really reluctant to let anybody choose a school over being assigned to one. I’ve been saying for some time that we have this phenomenon happening simultaneously: we don’t have as many kids anymore. I’ve talked to demographers on this podcast. We know that birth rates topped out in 2009, kindergarten enrollment topped out in 2013, and graduating high school seniors topped out a year or two ago. It’s a fact you can see all through the pipeline: there are fewer kids. In my mind, that’s going to make open enrollment more attractive, because we’re going to have districts that, for no explainable reason, just don’t have as many kids. Some of our top-performing districts, like Clayton, used to have 2,500 kids and now have 2,000. I keep thinking districts are going to wake up and realize they either have to fire teachers or get in the open enrollment game and actually have faith that they’ll attract students. You recently wrote about this, and that’s why I wanted to bring you on. Tell me what’s going on nationally with these enrollment trends and how you think that impacts this idea of whether kids should be assigned or allowed to pick.

Jude Schwalbach (01:51):
Yeah, so the latest national data we have on K-12 enrollments is from fall 2024. What we see is that in 40 states, K-12 enrollments dropped, by about 1.4 million students between 2019, right before the pandemic, and 2024. However, 10 states did manage to avoid those drops. In two of them, Florida and Utah, enrollments remained flat, they didn’t gain or lose students. The other eight states, places like North Dakota, Delaware, Alabama, and Texas, gained students. They really stand out because they gained students when literally everyone else lost students. They didn’t gain a ton, those eight states together gained around eighty thousand students, but when everyone else is losing and you’re gaining, you look pretty good. There are probably three factors driving this. As you mentioned, there are just fewer kids. The number of births in every single state except Florida

Susan Pendergrass (02:39):
Right.

Jude Schwalbach (02:53):
had dropped between 2014 and 2019, and those are the corresponding kindergarten cohorts five years later, 2019 to 2024. So there are just fewer kids. There’s also migration. There’s plenty of domestic migration occurring. In some states, especially the ones that gained students, they received quite a few new residents from other states. There’s also states, I think it was North Dakota actually, that lost a lot of residents through domestic migration but received a bunch of new residents from abroad, which reversed their general population decline and had them gain students. Presumably those families from abroad brought students with them, which is part of why they’re not losing students.

Susan Pendergrass (03:41):
Mm.

Jude Schwalbach (03:53):
There are various economic factors driving those things. But another component is that satisfaction with public schools is at an all-time low, especially post-pandemic.

Susan Pendergrass (03:50):
Yeah.

Jude Schwalbach (03:53):
Families are starting to choose schools other than public schools at a much higher rate than they used to, because they have more options. There are states with universal private school choice programs now, which ten years ago were just a pipe dream. You could achieve a small, targeted private school choice program, but not much more. Then there are families choosing homeschooling. This has created a much more competitive education marketplace. And it’s not just states with robust private school choice programs where you see increased private school enrollment. Places like California and New York, which have no private school choice, have also seen their private schools increase in popularity in the interim while public enrollment has been declining. So if you’re going to be in this tighter market with fewer students and increased competition from homeschools and private schools, you’re going to want to provide some flexibility within the public system to make it more attractive to families. Flexibility like open enrollment. Sorry, that was a really long answer.

Susan Pendergrass (04:59):
No, I think it’s perfect. It makes me think of the cliche of skating to where the puck is going, rather than where it is right now. I feel like a lot of the pushback from folks is they’re just looking at where the puck is right now. They’re like, well, we’ve got lower teacher-student ratios, fewer kids in every classroom, this is great. Or, bringing in a whole new topic here, the federal tax credit that’s looming for private school choice, where people can donate their tax dollars to a scholarship organization, and you have leadership in the teachers unions telling Democratic governors, you better not do this, because the way we’re going to keep the kids in the public schools is to lock them in. That seems so short-sighted to me, when, like you just said, we can look at the enrollment trends and know that while there are fewer kindergartners today, ten years from now there’s going to be another five to ten percent drop-off in kindergartners. Who are we kidding?

Jude Schwalbach (05:58):
Yeah. As that market gets tighter, the funding those students produce is going to become more important to public schools. If you look at California, there’s a report by their Legislative Analyst’s Office that found that districts initially losing students through open enrollment, where students were transferring to other districts with better test scores, or maybe they wanted different academic opportunities like AP classes, those districts reached out to families and said, what can we do to get you to stay? Families said, actually, we don’t want to leave the district, we just want to go to a different school inside our district. Or they said they wanted a language immersion class or something along those lines. The districts responded to families’ frustrations, and not only did some of them stop the bleeding, they actually gained students from other districts because they were doing something good that families wanted. So when you create a more flexible system, you shouldn’t just assume you’re going to lose students. There’s real opportunity to gain students as well.

Susan Pendergrass (07:09):
Yeah, I’ve certainly heard superintendents say it forced them to stop and think about what they offer. What is our mission? What do we offer? When you have a captive enrollment zone, you don’t need to do that. I studied this a long time ago in Massachusetts, and people would say, well, you can’t really prove that districts respond to competition. But I did research on it and talked to superintendents. They said, we moved the date of our orientation so kids would come visit our school first, or we redid parts of the school that parents had been complaining about. There are these little micro-responses, which is to say they realized that this is no longer a guaranteed monopoly. They have to start responding to families. And in the end, everyone kind of wins.

Jude Schwalbach (08:01):
Yeah, another good example that builds on what you were just saying is Minneapolis Public Schools. For the past ten years, their enrollments have been in decline, largely because of competition with charter schools and other public schools in the area. But recently they reversed that ten-year decline and gained new students, because when they were doing school tours, they started following up with parents, saying, we just want to remind you what you thought, and these are the options we offer that other districts nearby don’t.

Susan Pendergrass (08:24):
Yeah. What’d you think?

Jude Schwalbach (08:33):
This is what makes us a unique education option. I think it’s no surprise that families liked that personal touch and started enrolling in Minneapolis Public Schools.

Susan Pendergrass (08:40):
Yeah, we need it. I know you study school finance a lot too. I wonder, in Missouri anyway, certainly within St. Louis County but across Missouri generally, the number of teachers being hired has only continued to increase. There’s this belief that spending on public education should only go one direction, up, regardless of the number of students, and that the number of teachers should only go up. Our state education agency, one of their only five goals is more teacher certifications, more, more, more, as though there’s an ever-expanding pool of students without looking at the reality. Oddly, I just did a podcast on Social Security and they’re doing the same thing. They’re not looking at the reality of the number of workers, they’re just operating on the assumption that there will always be more. Our schools are doing bond referendums to build new schools in Columbia, Missouri, even though the new ones they just opened are under capacity. Their enrollment is down two or three percent and expected to go down more, but

Jude Schwalbach (09:50):
Yeah, I think state policymakers should take steps to encourage districts to be more thoughtful about how they’re using taxpayer dollars. Indiana, where I live, did something a couple of years ago where districts have to prepare for permanent closures if one of their school facilities has lost ten percent or more of its students over a five-year period. It’s basically saying, look, if you’re not able to attract new students, if your local enrollment is declining, we shouldn’t be keeping these facilities open and draining taxpayer dollars. To be fair, this is a really painful decision for communities. No one likes to close schools, no one likes to rearrange staff. But it’s not fair to taxpayers to keep funding and maintaining buildings that are really only educating a small fraction of students. Florida also publishes a report on school facility capacity, but most states don’t even make this information public. A good first step is just making this sort of data available so families and taxpayers, when they get approached about bonds or hear about decisions to hire more staff, can ask, if your enrollment is declining and your buildings are half empty, why are you doing this? This sort of information helps hold district administrators accountable.

Susan Pendergrass (11:13):
Yeah, and the way schools are funded, and have been for at least a hundred years, these are very long-term commitments, because school districts are in the real estate business. They buy the land, build the building, fund it over fifty years rather than leasing, like a lot of charter schools do. They’re in the business of buying land and building buildings. And teachers, that’s a twenty-five or thirty-year commitment too. That’s also hard to adjust down. There are ways to do it, but districts are making these long-term commitments without paying close attention to the trends happening right under their nose. It’s a very odd situation to me, because you can see this coming, and we’re not getting a response out of the system. And to your earlier point about school choice programs taking students, they’re taking the blame. They’re blaming school choice for the fact that they have to close schools when that’s not actually the reason.

Jude Schwalbach (12:15):
Yeah, there’s a really interesting paper, I think published by Thomas Dee from Stanford in the last couple of years, where he looked at why 1.8 million students left the public school system since the pandemic. He looked at increased competition from private school choice, homeschooling, and changing demographics, whether it’s families moving across state lines or lower birth rates. What he found is that he couldn’t explain why one-third of those students exited the public school system. It’s just unexplained. There are demographic factors, there’s increased competition, those certainly matter, but they aren’t the only reasons. We don’t even fully know why some of these students are exiting the public system. But you can’t change the fact that they are.

Susan Pendergrass (13:00):
And you don’t address it by locking the door. They want to close the gate and lock it to stop it, and that to me is the most short-sighted approach.

Jude Schwalbach (13:09):
Yeah, I think locking students within a particular system without allowing them any agency in school selection is really unfair. If states are going to require you to go to school, you should have some agency in what that school is, because education is a really personal experience.

Susan Pendergrass (13:27):
Mm-hmm.

Jude Schwalbach (13:28):
Maybe you don’t get along well with a particular teacher, or their teaching style isn’t a good fit for you, or maybe you’re being bullied at school. But where you go to school shouldn’t ultimately depend on your parents’ largest financial investment, which is very much constrained by their income. Increasing open enrollment options, where if there’s space available,

Susan Pendergrass (13:45):
Yeah, yeah.

Jude Schwalbach (13:50):
we’re not talking about building new facilities or hiring new teachers to accommodate these students, these are spots that are actually open right now, and allowing students who don’t live in that district or attendance zone to attend that school, I think that’s just a common-sense reform.

Susan Pendergrass (14:05):
Do you think declining enrollment is going to spur that into action more? Is it going to have an impact on whether states like Missouri consider open enrollment?

Jude Schwalbach (14:17):
It seems like it could go either way, honestly. If there’s declining enrollment, that means there are spots available and districts would have an incentive to try to attract new students from other places. But on the flip side, individuals don’t always see the opportunity, they only see the cost, which is, we could lose students. What’s interesting is that when you look at open enrollment programs across the nation, especially the largest ones with the most established data, places like Wisconsin, Colorado, or Florida, you don’t see massive enrollment fluctuations when these programs are launched or even soon afterward. Instead you see small, incremental change, which means districts have plenty of time to adjust. In some cases it could mean they actually reverse course and start gaining students. I know in Missouri there’s a lot of concern in rural areas that they’ll only lose students. But the irony is that if you look at Wisconsin, which also has a lot of school districts, around four hundred, their rural districts actually gained students on net in their most recent open enrollment report. Sure, they lost some students, but they ended up attracting more students from their suburban counterparts. I think rural districts can absolutely compete successfully

Susan Pendergrass (15:22):
Yeah, we have over five hundred.

Jude Schwalbach (15:44):
in a more competitive education marketplace.

Susan Pendergrass (15:47):
We actually just released a report saying exactly what you just said, by my colleague Dr. Cory Koedel, showing that there isn’t a massive, or really much of any, enrollment disruption in the first three or four years after these programs pass, in states that have had them for a long time or even a short time. There really isn’t a disruption in the way that, when a bill gets a committee hearing in Missouri, folks from the school boards association or superintendents association say, oh my god, we won’t be able to keep up, the kids will be coming and going, it’s going to completely throw off our enrollment. But we’ve found there really isn’t a massive disruption. On the one hand, you have a pretty low cost to districts. On the other hand, as you mentioned, there’s a really large benefit possible for an individual family who has a child they have to force onto the bus every day because they dread going to school due to their teacher, bullying, or whatever. It’s a big benefit at the individual level for those families, and the cost is really quite small or very dispersed.

Jude Schwalbach (16:49):
Yeah, one thing I’ll note is that it benefits districts as well. In California there are small rural districts that actively rely on K-12 open enrollment to keep their doors open. One administrator basically said, look, this doesn’t let us hire new staff, we’re not making money off this program, but we aren’t letting staff go either. We’re keeping our doors open and the lights on in our schools. If they didn’t have open enrollment, that would not be happening. They’d have to shut the school or let go of staff. It’s really important to remember this is a real opportunity for districts to gain students.

Susan Pendergrass (17:30):
Yeah. As Cory points out all the time, if you have a fourth grade classroom with ten students and you can add two or three more, your marginal cost is almost zero. You probably already have the textbooks, the computer, the desk is sitting there, it’s literally idle assets. And those three students, even if they don’t bring a lot of money with them depending on how the funding follows the student, that’s a very low marginal cost for some marginal revenue. I think the more districts see it that way, because I don’t think in Missouri that funding for education is going to continue to just go up. We have a tight budget and we know enrollment is going down. That’s going to be a whole new horizon for folks to accept. And partly, similar to the findings across those forty states, we have more old people. We have fewer young people, more old people, and older people are expensive and need a lot of services. So schools and assisted living facilities are going to be competing against each other in a sense, and I think the trend would suggest assisted living wins out because there’s more of those people and fewer children. Some of these trade-offs are going to have to be considered in a way that no one

Jude Schwalbach (18:44):
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (18:48):
seems to want to do. So is open enrollment growing across the country, stagnant, or on the decline?

Jude Schwalbach (18:49):
Yeah, I think that’s certainly correct. Since 2021, eighteen states have strengthened their open enrollment policy in some capacity.

Susan Pendergrass (19:06):
Okay. I know our neighbor Kansas did, right? Oklahoma too, our other neighbor.

Jude Schwalbach (19:10):
Yeah, Kansas did it, Oklahoma too. Several of your neighbors have improved their open enrollment policies.

Susan Pendergrass (19:17):
Well, Oklahoma has complete universal school choice. If you move across our northern border, you can pick public or private. If you move across our western border, you can pick any public school. The big pushback on that was that the highest-quality, most desirable districts would see a rapid influx, and they haven’t. In Oklahoma you can either pick a public school or take a tax credit for private school. Then we have Arkansas as a neighbor, and they’re also universal. We’re kind of getting surrounded by it and we’re just holding out as the last bastion

Jude Schwalbach (19:43):
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (19:51):
of assigned public schools.

Jude Schwalbach (19:52):
Yeah, I think Illinois and Kentucky are about on par with Missouri, but I think their programs are actually slightly better. Not by much, but

Susan Pendergrass (20:03):
We sort of write off Illinois, like, at least we’re not Illinois, but they have a lot of public sector problems. Yeah, we have no open enrollment, very limited charter schools, and a very small scholarship program. So ninety-five percent of our kids are going to their assigned public school with no other option besides virtual.

Jude Schwalbach (20:23):
Yeah. But to answer your question, I think there’s a real opportunity for open enrollment to continue to grow, especially in states, I think Nevada is a good harbinger of what could be coming. They passed a strong within-district open enrollment policy last year, and that was a bipartisan bill, championed by the governor and Senate leadership that was Democrat. I think part of the reason they wanted to do that was to strengthen their public school system, to ensure that students had a reason to invest in their public schools, especially low-income ones, and one of the ways they wanted to do that was through creating flexibility within the public system.

Susan Pendergrass (21:12):
Yeah.

Jude Schwalbach (21:12):
That was one of the compromises that occurred there. You also see that in Kansas. That was an earlier reform, but also a compromise. That one was passed by increasing funding for public schools, and Republicans got increased flexibility within the public school system for students.

Susan Pendergrass (21:18):
Yeah. I mean, when you poll parents it’s ridiculously popular. Everybody clearly wants to pick.

Jude Schwalbach (21:37):
Yeah, families really want these policies. I think residential assignment works for some people, that’s the form of school choice they like. They like being able to purchase a home in a district and be guaranteed a spot. But if there are extra seats, there should be students who can fill those seats, especially when funding is flexible and portable.

Susan Pendergrass (22:03):
I believe declining enrollment is going to motivate open enrollment. I have a very optimistic view of this: superintendents and school boards are going to wake up and say, our enrollment is declining, the only way we can turn this around is to try to get kids from across the lines. In St. Louis County we have more than a dozen school districts within one county, for reasons that would take a two-hour podcast to explain. It’s very easy for a child to just cross the street and be in a different district, and I feel like districts are going to have a wake-up call and start trying to get those kids from across the street rather than making their parents move. Because it’s going to be that or lay off teachers. You can only keep your teaching staff for a limited amount of time if your enrollment is going down and your schools are staying open.

Jude Schwalbach (22:58):
I think you’re right, Susan. When you look at the NCES projections, which are a little dated at this point, they anticipate losing millions more students by 2031.

Susan Pendergrass (23:08):
Yeah, yeah. So our heyday in Missouri, you could kind of say we had a million students, we had about 952,000 or so. If you wanted to round up, you’d say Missouri has about a million students. Now we have, depending on how you count pre-K and ungraded, somewhere between 830,000 and 850,000. And the NCES projections you just mentioned project that Missouri will be below 800,000, more like 785,000. We can’t even round up to a million anymore. We’re going to be more like 780,000. That’s more than a twenty percent loss, and that’s a lot.

Jude Schwalbach (23:58):
Yeah, enrollment declines aren’t new to the US. This happened in the seventies and eighties, but it took almost two decades for districts to recover their lost enrollment. That’s a long time, and it means you can’t hang on to buildings or staff in that interim when you don’t have the enrollment to justify them.

Susan Pendergrass (24:19):
Yeah, and I think in Missouri, good.

Jude Schwalbach (24:19):
I don’t think they returned to 1970 enrollment levels until 1997, if I remember correctly. There’s the baby bust,

Susan Pendergrass (24:31):
Wow, because the baby boom went through and then there’s a baby bust. But we don’t have a baby boomlet on the other side. There’s no evidence of one right now based on global trends.

Jude Schwalbach (24:39):
Yeah, it was fifteen years later before they even saw that sort of resurgence in births. They didn’t know either, and we don’t know either.

Susan Pendergrass (24:47):
Yeah. Yeah. I like that, that’s hopeful, that’s true. It just frustrates me, because if Missouri wants to hold out as the last residential-assignment state in the era of declining enrollment, I just feel like, there’s a professor from SLU, Ness Sandoval, who talks about Missouri demographics a lot, and he’s not optimistic about where we’re headed. One thing I think we could do to turn it around is throw open the doors on school choice to try to get families to locate here, but we’re kind of doing the opposite. Well, thanks so much. I appreciate you coming on and explaining it. I think it’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we’re going to have to talk about this more as more enrollment numbers come in and we see how folks respond. I’m hopeful that Missouri legislators will get it and will press for it in the 2027 session. We’ll be pressing for it at the Show-Me Institute, but maybe I’ll use all of your data, Jude, and hope they read it and see what’s on the horizon. That would be awesome. Thank you so much, I appreciate it.

Jude Schwalbach (25:47):
That would be great. Thank you, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Declining Student Enrollment and a Growing Opportunity with Jude Schwalbach appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The goal of open enrollment is simple; give families the ability to choose a public school, regardless of where they live. But for the past few years, the Missouri Legislature has considered, and the governor has voiced support for, a limited system in which only students in certain districts would have this option. This creates a patchwork of access. Families in one district may enjoy a range of transfer options, while a family just a few miles away may have none because neighboring districts refuse to participate. True educational freedom requires that all districts be required to take transfer applications, subject to capacity.

Open enrollment that is voluntary for districts is designed to protect school systems, not students. High-performing or in-demand districts can refuse to accept transfer students in order to limit competition and maintain the status quo. Universal open enrollment instead puts the interests of students and families first. It ensures that every Missouri child—regardless of their zip code—has a real chance to attend a school that better fits their educational needs.

Missouri needs a universal open enrollment system that is clear and easy for families to understand. Parents should know they have the right to apply to any public school with available space, and districts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who gets access. This type of system has worked in states such as Florida and Wisconsin, where universal open enrollment has provided thousands of students with better options and driven improvement in both receiving and sending districts. Our neighbors, Nebraska and Kansas, have recently launched some of the strongest universal open enrollment programs in the United States.

Voluntary open enrollment systems create confusion, inconsistency, and frustration. Families must navigate district-by-district rules, and many discover they cannot transfer simply because another district chooses to “opt out.” In 2026, Missouri lawmakers have the opportunity to enact a universal open enrollment policy that truly empowers parents instead of protecting districts. Shouldn’t open enrollment be designed for all Missouri families and not just some?

The post Why Missouri Needs Universal Open Enrollment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The single program started in Wisconsin in 1996 has grown to 75 school choice programs in 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And in just the last few years, 10 states have implemented universal school choice programs in which all or nearly all children in the state are eligible. These states are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama and Louisiana will be joining the list next year.

When the one million private school choice students are added to the 3.7 million charter school students the result is that one in five children in the United States is receiving a publicly funded education outside of traditional public schools. What was once considered controversial has become mainstream.

The post A Milestone Reached appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri continues to be a holdout on bringing school choice to its 850,000 students. Families have a very limited ability to choose a public school in another district—it usually means having to pay tuition, and suburban and rural charter schools continue to be blocked. Missouri law allows charter schools in any district, but if the district is fully accredited then it must be sponsored by the district school board. This should not be a big deal. Over half of all charter schools nationally are sponsored by district school boards.

It’s surprising that there isn’t a suburban district in Missouri (I’m looking at you, Columbia) with a visionary school board that sees the benefit of bringing in a high-performing charter school to make the district more attractive. No school board has taken advantage of the national Charter School Program that provides planning and implementation seed money to those who want to open a charter school. Most districts in Missouri are experiencing declining enrollment. And yet no district has converted an existing shrinking school to a charter school in order to bring in enrollment from neighboring districts.

Missouri is the Show Me state, and dozens of other states have shown us what works. Why aren’t we doing anything about it?

The post And Then There Was One appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

First, how could this benefit students?

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

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

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

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

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

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

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

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

The post Learning From Wisconsin with Will Flanders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 253 is one of the open enrollment bills filed this session and it allows Missouri families to choose a public school other than the one assigned to them based on their address. They can choose a school within their home district or in a different district, provided that the school has an open seat for them. While this bill has many shortcomings, it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, unlike the open enrollment laws in 23 other states, HB 253 lets districts opt out of accepting nonresident students. And while many districts may decide to opt out initially, I’m hopeful that as Missourians get used to trusting parents, most districts will see the benefit of working to attract students. Given that every public school district in St. Louis has experienced declining enrollment in the last few years, those that sit this out will do so at their folly.

The bill was amended so that districts can limit the number of transfers out to three percent of the prior year’s enrollment. This is a nice financial guardrail, districts can use the highest of the last four year’s enrollment for state funding anyway. This gives them several years before they feel any financial pain from exiting students.

Minnesota has had a mandatory open enrollment law since 1989. Remember 1989? George H.W. Bush was sworn in as president and Rain Man won best picture. This is not a new idea. The scary and paradoxical scenario laid out by opponents of the bill that our beloved rural high schools that are the hearts of their communities will also experience heavy student losses hasn’t happened in Minnesota or Wisconsin or Ohio or any other state that has had open enrollment for decades.

When the tanned and rested legislature returns it will be up to the Senate to make open enrollment a reality for Missouri families. I look forward to seeing it happen.

The post To the Beach! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once upon a time (in 2008), Missouri had the lowest electricity prices in the Midwest at 6.84 cents per kilowatt hour, while our friends in Illinois paid the highest electricity prices in the region at 9.26 cents per kilowatt hour. (The Midwest is defined as Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri.) Now, as of data from 2019 (the most recent data available), Illinoisans pay less than Missourians do (9.56 cents versus 9.68 cents) and have the second-lowest electricity prices in the Midwest, while Missouri’s electricity prices rose to the middle of the pack in the Midwest.

Moreover, when taking inflation into account, Illinois’ real electric prices decreased 13 percent, while Missouri’s increased by 19 percent—the third-fastest increase in the country between 2008 and 2019.

What gives?

The largest difference between electricity markets in Missouri and Illinois is that Illinois allows customers to choose between competing electric service providers, whereas Missouri still operates on a century-old monopoly model. In Illinois, customers have more than 150 electric service providers to choose from. Options for plans include fixed-rate, variable pricing, prepaid, or green energy plans. The pressures of competition ensure that electric providers operate more efficiently and are more responsive to customers.

In contrast, Missourians, wherever they live, have only one choice for an electric service provider—their government-sanctioned and regulated monopoly. Because there’s no competition, monopoly utilities don’t have an incentive to increase efficiency and don’t fear losing any business.

As the electricity price data above show, one of these systems has been working better, and it’s not Missouri’s. Lower electric prices mean households have more money left over for other needs. It also creates a more attractive environment for businesses. Missouri lawmakers can learn something from Illinois—pursuing competitive reforms to Missouri’s electricity market could be worthwhile.

The post Want Better Electricity Prices? Be More Like Illinois appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Governor’s statement matches the sentiment of previous writings by my colleague, Patrick Ishmael. The costs for our state’s Medicaid program are too high and are continuing to grow. It would fiscally irresponsible to consider adding more people to the program until our policymakers can get a handle on the program’s biggest cost-drivers. Missouri is not alone in the struggle to contain growing health care costs, but that is not a reason to sit idly by as scarce state revenues continue to be diverted from other priorities. With that in mind, our policymakers should consider looking outside Missouri for potential solutions.

Several other states that have declined to expand Medicaid have submitted proposals to the federal government for initiatives that would help contain costs. Two of those proposals, Wisconsin’s and Florida’s, were recently approved and offer policy ideas that could benefit Missouri.

Wisconsin is the first non-expansion state for which a work requirement proposal was approved. Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have written about the potential benefits of work requirements in Missouri. Unfortunately, Missouri’s lawmakers considered but were unable to pass work requirement legislation in 2018. With the federal government indicating new willingness to accept such proposals, perhaps this issue could serve as a starting point for Medicaid cost containment and reform discussions in 2019.

Florida’s proposal allows the state to reduce its retroactive eligibility requirement for non-pregnant adults from 90 to 30 days. Currently, Medicaid programs cover the medical costs of beneficiaries up to three months prior to their application to the program, provided the individual was deemed to have been eligible during that period. And while the existence of that coverage may seem surprising, the reduction of that retroactive window could actually be beneficial to applicant, the idea being that a shorter period of retroactive eligibility incentivizes beneficiaries to apply as soon as possible when they get sick and believe they are eligible. Florida officials also believe the policy will encourage the maintenance of coverage, even when participants are healthy. On top of that, it is estimated the policy change could save up to $98 million annually, though it is unclear at this point how those savings estimates would translate to Missouri.

Both policies have the potential to save the state tax dollars, but neither of them should be expected to fully address the growth in Medicaid costs. Nevertheless, lawmakers shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. There are certainly other possible avenues for reform that could help address the “failing system,” but these already-federally-approved initiatives may be the easiest place to start.

The post Opportunities for Medicaid Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While it may be true that Missouri’s 2-year and 4-year colleges have room for improvement, business leaders should not overlook the potential to shape high school education to better meet their needs. In particular, the flexibility of the charter school model and ability to focus on career and technical education (CTE) should appeal to businesses and students throughout the state.

Bucking the traditional high school model, Robert Schwartz with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains that charter schools could “be co-designed by charter leaders in collaboration with regional employers and community college leaders. This would ensure that its programs were focused on preparing young people for careers in high-growth, high-demand industry sectors like IT, health care, and public services.”

In Fresno, California, a career technical education charter school—the product of coordinated effort by community and business leaders and the Fresno County Superintendent—is opening this fall. Not only does the charter high school’s curriculum align with what industry leaders want, but students can also take college courses at a local community college. In Wisconsin, the Green Bay Area Public School District received a grant from the state department of education to open an innovation charter school that would prepare at-risk students for high-tech jobs.

There is no good reason why similar opportunities are not available to Missouri’s students. Even now, industry leaders could work with local school districts to open a CTE charter school. Better yet, Missouri could allow charter schools to expand throughout the state and authorize universities to sponsor charter schools anywhere, not just in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Instead of just concentrating on higher education or writing off charter schools as only for urban areas, business leaders should seriously consider the role charter schools could play in developing a more skilled workforce.

The post If Business Owners Want a More Skilled Workforce, They Shouldn’t Forget about Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to Reid Wilson at The Hill,

The incentive package passed by Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature, during a special session last August, will offer the company $1.5 billion to offset payroll costs and another $1.35 billion for capital expenditures. The state will give Foxconn $150 million in sales tax exemptions on construction materials, and it plans to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on road improvements near the new factory.

The town of Mount Pleasant, where the factory will be located, will offer $763 million to help pay for the project, and Racine County gave the company $50 million to acquire the land.

In total, Wisconsin, Racine County and Mount Pleasant gave the company nearly $4.8 billion in tax breaks, incentives and taxpayer dollars for improvements. If Foxconn delivers all 13,000 jobs it has promised, that works out to about $370,000 per job.

This is reminiscent of a similar deal for Carrier manufacturing plant for Indiana, of which my colleague Patrick Ishmael wrote in 2016,

I certainly hope the Carrier “deal” doesn’t presage future deals the President Elect will be cutting over the next four years. The reason is straightforward. In return for not following through on its threat to move, Carrier will receive $700,000 per year from the state of Indiana, for at least 10 years. If that kind of cronyistic deal sounds familiar to you, it should; the Carrier agreement is like many of the “deals” to “save or create jobs” that have been made, and that we have criticized for years, here in Missouri.

Across the country, those hungry for increased economic activity seem to understand that taxes are too high to spur development. Whether it is Foxconn in Wisconsin, Carrier in Indiana, Boeing in Missouri, or Amazon everywhere, legislatures are bending over backwards to give special treatment to those they deem worthy. Better public policy demands that government stop picking winners and instead lower taxes for everyone.

The post Wisconsin’s Foxconn Deal is Bad Public Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Right to work.

Right to work ends forced unionism and lets workers decide whether joining a union best serves their interests. This means that being a member of a union cannot be a requirement for employment, and gives employees the final decision about whether they want to give money to a union that may or may not have their best interests at heart.

In 2017, Missouri passed Right to Work, but in 2018, the state will hold a referendum on that law.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

THE OPPORTUNITY: If the state’s Right to Work law is put into full effect, Missouri will join the majority of American states that already have right to work laws, finally placing Missouri employers and employees on a level playing field with other states.

KEY POINTS

• Missouri will be better able compete with neighboring right-to-work states in attracting businesses.
• Existing unions will be more responsive to the concerns of members, thanks to the credible threat of members leaving the organization.
• Employees will have greater control over their representation in negotiations with their employer.
• Employers will have greater flexibility in managing their businesses and making their operations more successful.
• Private employers are the focus, but similar laws in the public sector, like paycheck protection, should be pursued by policymakers as well.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Op-Ed: Rise of the Roosevelt Law: Is Reform in Government Unions Coming to Missouri?

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

The post 2018 Blueprint: Right to Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Regular public union recertification elections.

Regular public union elections would give workers the right to elect union representation to fixed terms. Regular elections would help keep union actions in line with worker interests and lead to competition among unions. It would also help prevent backlash from union leadership in response to decertification petitions.1

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Currently, Wisconsin and Iowa require regular public union elections.

THE OPPORTUNITY: The Commonwealth Foundation recently gave Missouri a letter grade of ‘D’ regarding its public labor laws. Show-Me Institute research indicates that regular union elections need not be prohibitively expensive and offer a way to ensure that unions serve workers—not the other way around.

KEY POINTS

• Public workers in Missouri should have the right to choose who represents them.
• Regular elections would make unions more accountable to those they represent, just as regular government elections pressure politicians to be accountable to voters.
• Regular elections can be held at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Essay: The Low Cost of Labor Reform

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

The post 2018 Blueprint: Public Union Recertification appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, Missouri is falling behind in that race. Like Missouri, Wisconsin’s prevailing wage reforms are still being debated today, but earlier this March PLA reforms passed out of the Wisconsin assembly and on to Governor Scott Walker. Our think tank colleague in Wisconsin, the MacIver Institute, has a video account of the debate.

For those familiar with the discussion so far in Missouri, the terms of Wisconsin’s PLA debate will sound familiar.

The bill’s supporters say it will encourage more construction firms to bid on projects, leading to taxpayer savings. Opponents say it is part of a continued effort to weaken labor unions and would put worker safety and wages at risk.

“We’re saying let the market decide, let employers decide,” [Rep. Rob] Hutton told reporters before the vote. “This is really just to clarify and get the government out of the business of determining whether a project labor agreement is necessary.”

The benefit of moving away from PLAs is twofold. The first is the benefit to taxpayers being able to spend less and get more for their money, as PLAs tend to push up the cost of public construction. But the second is nearly as important: to ensure that contractors, union and not, are treated on equal footing when they bid these public projects.

Fortunately and in furtherance of both ends, a version of PLA reform is moving its way through the Missouri House after passage in the state Senate. Chances seem very good that PLA reform will happen this year, and paired with a prevailing wage reform that just passed out of the House, reform in construction labor appears to be on the way in our state. Missouri may not beat Wisconsin to the post on these reforms, but so long as the state gets there by session’s end, it’s all the same to us. Nonetheless, vigilance remains necessary, especially given the legislative drag being experienced in the upper chamber; we’ll keep you updated.

The post Wisconsin Passes Project Labor Agreement Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Also coursing through the state House and Senate, however, are two important measures that would protect government employees as well. My former colleague John Wright wrote at length about the substance of the first measure, dealing with recertification votes and transparency in government unions. That basket of reforms will likely also include common-sense financial transparency requirements for government unions as well, consistent with disclosures private unions already file. Taken in total, that worker empowerment proposal is a game changer on its own.

The second measure, Paycheck Protection, also deserves attention from good governance supporters. Rather than forcing workers to opt out of a union, Paycheck Protection flips the presumption by allowing employees to opt-in to a union instead. It’s sort of like a mini-recertification vote; if an employee wants the union to represent her, she can confirm her support and continue the representation, or do nothing and keep her money. Either way, it’s the employee that’s empowered, not organized labor.

This year’s government union reform proposals are superior to versions that were proposed in previous years, in no small part because they don’t carve the rights of first responders from the bill. Why those rights have been carved away in the past is a subject of debate, but dealing strictly with the policy itself, passing a government reform bill that doesn’t protect first responders would be disappointing. First responders should be able to see what their union is spending money on, to keep or drop a union that represents them, and to retain or give the money in their paychecks that may currently underwrite a union’s activities. That this year’s law includes these workers deserves praise. I never understood why first responders would be deserving of fewer rights.

If these reforms are enacted, Missouri workers will have a lot to be excited about in the months and years ahead.

The post First Responders Have Rights, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But RTW isn’t the only labor reform where states are scrambling to beat their peers to the finish line. Indeed, states are also looking to reform their project labor agreement (PLA) laws, which circumscribe who can work on some public projects, and their prevailing wage laws, which can affect the price taxpayers pay for public projects.

And as in Missouri, the policy pairing of PLAs and prevailing wage has hit the top of the reform list in Wisconsin.

Prevailing wage requirements and project labor agreements would be prohibited under a proposal in Wisconsin’s 2017-19 biennial executive budget and tandem legislation speeding through the state legislature.

Gov. Scott Walker (R), already recognized for his tough stands against organized labor, included a single sentence in his 644-page budget proposal Feb. 8. The language repeals the state’s prevailing wage requirements and bans “any unit of government in the state from requiring or considering the use or lack of use of a project labor agreement by a contractor as a condition of bidding on a public works project.”

The state legislature could beat Walker to the punch under separate bills that would prohibit state and local units of government from requiring project labor agreements as part of public works programs. The Senate passed its version of the PLA bill, Senate Bill 3, by a vote of 19-13 on Feb. 8. The Assembly’s Committee on Labor approved nearly identical legislation, Assembly Bill 24, on a party-line vote Feb. 9.

The post The Race is On: Wisconsin Pushes to End Project Labor Agreements and Prevailing Wage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The irony is that a straightforward reading of the Takings Clause should actually protect individual employees from having their paychecks bitten into without consent. These lawsuits use the reverse argument—requiring the Court to believe that the paychecks of employees are fundamentally union property to begin with, and that nonunion employees are “taking” money away from them by withholding their support.

In the past the Supreme Court has found that "unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of non-member employees," so the odds of success in these lawsuits do not appear high. But even if the law wasn't in favor of the rights of individual workers, the idea that unions have a constitutional right to the paychecks of laborers who reject them seems not only undemocratic but also, frankly, immoral.

Workers – whether union members and not – deserve better than that.

The post Unions’ Orwellian “Takings Clause” Argument appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Far from it. Of the 77 U.S. cities that KPMG ranked (which was not exhaustive of all major metros), Saint Louis ranked 45th and Kansas City ranked 46th. Among the cities cheaper than Saint Louis (and Kansas City) are regional competitors like Nashville, Omaha, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Worse yet, Saint Louis was more expensive than all 18 Southeastern cities KPMG looked at, from Atlanta to New Orleans.

So where did the Post-Dispatch get a top ten ranking for Saint Louis? If we only consider regions with populations greater than two million (of which KPMG ranked 31), Saint Louis is the 9th cheapest. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Saint Louis should pat itself on back for being cheaper than New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, when it has higher costs for businesses than Nashville, Memphis, and just about every other regional competitor. But if we do decide to use population as criteria, it seems more justified to look at metros with populations similar to those of Saint Louis and Kansas City (between two and three million residents). When we do that, Saint Louis is 7th and Kansas City is 8th out of 14 such cities. That seems awfully middling.

That’s probably why, if one reads the study that the Post-Dispatch reports on, they’ll find that it does not claim that Saint Louis is among the most competitive cities in the country. KPMG didn’t even break down cities by population in the study, choosing instead to do so by region.  The Post-Dispatch story (while citing the study) is actually based on an ancillary KPMG press release, which lauds Cincinnati, and is careful to note context.

Titling an article “St. Louis among most cost-competitive cities for business, report says” when the report in question says no such thing is a questionable decision for a newspaper of record. But this is not just a problem with the headline. The article itself is equally misleading, and it was not a headline writer who placed this story front and center on the Post-Dispatch’s website less than a week before a vote on multiple tax issues (where the city’s business climate is an issue). 

The post Report: Saint Louis, Kansas City *Not* Among Most Cost-Friendly Cities for Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a new paper, Juliet Squire, Kelly Robson, and Andy Smarick look all the way back to the 1890s to track private schooling’s long rise to its peak in the mid-1960s and its decline to today. The trend line is shown in the graph above.

In recent years, numerous states have passed private school choice programs that have helped turn these trends around, at least locally. But even the growth in school choice programs has not been enough to stanch the decline. 

Into that context jump Squire et al, documenting a new phenomenon called “Private School Management Organizations” (PSMOs). Much like Charter management organizations like KIPP or Green Dot work to help organize and supervise networks of charter schools, PSMOs like Wisconsin’s HOPE Christian Schools  or Memphis’s Jubilee Schools  work to help organize and supervise networks of private schools. These groups are organized around one of two major goals. Some are designed to shore up the finances and management of existing private schools and help put them on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Others are designed to help open and expand new private schools.

Charter management organizations have been extremely successful in spreading charter schooling nationwide. KIPP schools, for example, started in Houston in 1994 with only 47 students in one school.  They now educate over 70,000 students in 183 schools in 20 states and the District of Columbia.  It would be wonderful if private schools could learn from them.

Kansas City has the Strong City Schools and St. Louis has the ACCESS Academies, which are kind of proto-PSMOs, but private school leaders across the state could look to the examples Squire et al highlight and the lessons from nascent efforts to see how such organizations might help students looking for a private education in Missouri.

I worry that when the happy day comes that Missouri passes a school choice program, so many private schools will have closed that the options available to students will be limited.  Clearly, help is needed to keep private schools alive until more sustainable support, in the form of vouchers, tax credit scholarships, or education savings accounts, arrive.  PSMOs are one path to achieving that.

The post Private School Pioneers in Kansas City and St. Louis? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.