Missouri schools could see new performance incentives under emerging proposal

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
December 4, 2025

A possible incentive program for Missouri school districts is beginning to take shape as a group charged with crafting the proposal signed off on the program’s framework Wednesday afternoon.

The Missouri School Modernization Task Force’s performance incentive working group completed its final meeting Wednesday before it presents recommendations to the larger group in January. The three other working groups have at least one more meeting each before their recommendations are finalized and become public.

Providing financial incentives for school districts to improve student achievement is a new concept, with few states using outcome-based funding models. But under an executive order from Gov. Mike Kehoe, Missouri may be poised to give the idea a try.

A memo from the nonprofit Aligned, an education-policy group focused on workforce development, noted that the idea of incentives had “potential” but could be a source of inequity. The brief, written by Aligned’s Kansas Director of Policy and Research Eric Syverson, looked at a program in Arizona that gave additional funding to high-performing schools. 

“Most dollars flowed to already advantaged schools,” he wrote, noting that Arizona lawmakers shut down the program in 2024.

Creating equitable incentives was a key focus of the working group’s meeting Wednesday, as members questioned whether their plan served all students across the state.

The framework the group is pursuing gives extra funding to districts when students reach achievement levels or hit growth targets in the areas of early literacy, middle school math and language arts and college and career readiness. A committee would be formed to articulate precise targets.

The program would be funded through a separate line item in the state budget, with a target funding level of $50 million, according to draft recommendations.

One part of the plan split the panel, though, as members debated whether or not the performance of certain student groups should have higher awards for schools. Kari Monsees, the state education department’s semi-retired finance chief, proposed a larger bonus when English-language learners, low-income students and those in special education reach performance targets. His recommendations were based on the group’s prior meetings, not necessarily the opinions of the state education department.

Chris Vas, a senior director with the Herzog Foundation, questioned why some students’ performance would trigger higher funding than others.

“We are basically telling students that certain students, we care more if they grow than others,” he said. “And that’s where (schools) will put their focus.”

The state gives additional funding for schools to educate students in these groups, Vas said, saying that any additional resources needed should come through the formula that funds schools rather than an incentive program.

Monsees said he worried that removing the boost would hurt districts with a greater population of low-income students and English-language learners.

“It is possible that the weightings (in the formula) are never going to be enough to meet the needs and close those gaps in every case, so having the extra incentive still could provide additional value,” he said.

Michael Podgursky, an economics professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia, said the program could be a source of inequity without the extra funding for dedicated student groups. Eliminating this piece would cause “a disproportionate share of the bonus funding will go to wealthier school districts,” he said.

The group based its model off of Tennessee’s outcome-based incentives, which doubles financial incentives when economically disadvantaged students hit performance targets.

Tennessee is in its third year with its current funding model, including the performance incentives. Monsees spoke to Tennessee’s education finance officer, who said the state has seen growth in achievement but also had numerous factors leading to this improvement.

“Not a lot of states have done this type of incentive type work, so we’d be among a small number that would be heading down this path,” Monsees said. “There is going to be a lot to be learned, both by our own state and by continuing to study others.”

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].

Attorneys battle over future of taxpayer-funded private school vouchers in Missouri

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
November 25, 2025

The question of whether the use of state funds for private education helps or harms taxpayers was central to day one of arguments on Monday in a trial that will determine the fate of Missouri’s voucher program.

The Missouri National Education Association is challenging the state’s $50 million appropriation to MOScholars, a program overseen by the State Treasurer’s Office that provides scholarships for largely private and parochial schools. The teacher’s union is seeking to bar the treasurer from using any more of the appropriation, of which $38 million has already been spent.

“Defendants ask this court to close one eye, ignore portions of the MOScholar Act and the Missouri Constitution,” Loretta Haggard, the teacher’s union’s attorney, wrote in her pretrial brief. “And render a ruling promoting a policy that they seem to like — public dollars for private school vouchers.”

But the state says the use of state funds doesn’t harm MNEA or its members.

“This is a case about a lawful appropriation that helps millions of Missouri families secure a valuable education for their child,” Assistant Attorney General Peter Donahue told the judge Monday. “It harms no one.”

Donahue asked Cole County Circuit Court Judge Brian Stumpe to dismiss the case at the start of his arguments, citing a lack of standing and a mischaracterization of the MOScholars law.

“(The law) allows for the program to be funded by tax credit donations,” Donahue said. “It does not in any way restrict the funding to tax credits alone.”

The motion was denied. 

Parents intervene in Missouri voucher lawsuit with help from Herzog Foundation leader

Haggard called the law that created MOScholars a “tax-credit statute” — one revolving around tax-deductible donations and devoid of any mention of direct state appropriations.

“The MOScholars act does not ever mention the appropriation of general revenue,” she said. “There is no ambiguity in the MOScholars Act.”

The change from a program solely funded through tax-deductible donations to one that also pulls general revenue has altered its framework, Haggard argued. The treasurer’s office had to create a new dashboard online for parents to see the status of scholarships funded through general revenue, and a new process of invoicing started in August.

The process is not in state law or in the existing agreements with EAOs, she said. The change is “not written anywhere” apart from an emergency rule the state treasurer filed in July.

The rule adds a provision stating the “treasurer shall provide the certified (educational assistance organizations) the anticipated budget authority for the program year.”

Previously, the organizations reported their anticipated donations to the treasurer. But now, with the bulk of the funding coming from state appropriations, the number of scholarships leans on the will of lawmakers instead of organizations’ fundraising.

Haggard also points to the usage of the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Fund, which is described in state law as “for marketing and administrative expenses or the costs incurred in administering the scholarship program, whichever is less.” The treasurer’s fund descriptions on the state website also bear this definition.

That fund now is the vehicle to receive general revenue and then distribute it to schools.

“The MOScholars statute creates no authority for the state to transfer general revenue into the (Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) Fund for scholarships,” Haggard said.

Donahue argued Monday that the statute lacks clear restrictions on general revenue being used for the program. And where there is ambiguity, case precedent presumes that a law is constitutional, he said.

“All they can point to is silence, simply statutory silence,” Donahue said. “It says nowhere that general revenue cannot be added to the structures of tax credits.”

 Donahue also pointed to another part of the law that specifies “monies in the fund shall be used solely by the state treasurer for the purposes of (this section).”

“(The law) says the fund is for the purpose of the MOScholars program,” Donahue said. “The purpose of the Missouri scholars program is to issue scholarships. Full stop.”

Before Stumpe can consider whether state law authorizes MOScholars to use general revenue, he first must determine whether MNEA and its plaintiffs have standing to challenge the appropriation.

MNEA says it has standing as an association, citing members’ opposition to public funding for private and religious schools. Haggard offered excerpts from the association’s 2025 representative assembly resolution as evidence, which Donahue objected to.

Although the state admitted to the document as true and accurate in pretrial filings, Donahue said it was irrelevant.

Haggard said the exhibit was intended to show that “members care about the issues in this lawsuit.”

“I would hate to get to the end of this case and not have shown that the trial is of interest to MNEA’s members,” she said.

Stumpe denied the exhibit. He is considering whether MNEA President Rebeka McIntosh, who is a plaintiff, can be presented as a witness.

McIntosh and MNEA Regional Director Kimberly Duvall also claim individual and taxpayer standing. The impact on taxpayers should be “assumed,” Haggard said, pointing to case precedent.

“All of the discussion of standing is a red herring,” she said.

Donahue said there was “no evidence of any concrete injury.”

“They lack any kind of standing, whether it be individual, associational or taxpayer standing,” he said.

MNEA concluded its arguments Monday. The case is scheduled to conclude Tuesday.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].

Lawsuits challenge ‘deceptive’ summaries for Missouri public education ballot measures

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
August 29, 2025

Two initiative petition campaigns seeking constitutional protections for public education are suing Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins alleging he crafted “deceptive and prejudicial” summaries that will appear on the ballot.

One campaign, called “the Missouri Right to Education Initiative,” hopes to amend the state constitution to declare education a “fundamental right.”

The other, filed by an attorney with the public education law firm EdCounsel, would amend the constitution to prohibit public funding of nonpublic schools except for when it benefits disabled students. It also would label new charter schools as nonpublic.

Both believe Hoskins’ summaries were written to deceive voters and sink their chances on the ballot next year.

“It is so far away from what we proposed that it really seems like they went to great lengths to try to bring something into the conversation that is not part of this amendment,” Spencer Toder, treasurer of the Missouri Right to Education Initiative, told The Independent.

Hoskins’ office did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to declaring education a “fundamental right,” Toder’s  proposed amendment would require state lawmakers to maintain “adequate, thorough and uniform high quality free public schools.”

The summary from the Secretary of State’s Office describes the initiative as an attempt to dismantle the state’s private-school voucher program. It specifically says the initiative petition would “eliminate existing state scholarship programs that provide direct aid to students with disabilities and low-income families” and “prevent the State from supporting educational choices other than free public schools.”

Toder says the petition doesn’t touch the state’s private school scholarship program, MOScholars.

“Our intent is not to get involved in the voucher dialog. It is to ensure that no matter if vouchers exist, it doesn’t come at the expense of public school students’ quality of education,” he said. “All (the amendment) says is that the students have a guaranteed right to a quality public education.”

The second initiative petition does train its sights on MOScholars.

“We’re watching the statewide elected officials from Missouri slowly dismantle public schools, this public school system that Missourians have built,” Duane Martin, a public education attorney who filed the initiative petition, told The Independent.

Hoskins’ summary describes the proposed amendment as “eliminating existing programs that provide direct aid to students with special education needs.” 

“It did not look to me like they had carefully read the initiative petition because some of what they summarized is the exact opposite of the language of the initiative petition itself,” Martin said.

Both campaigns are hoping to get on the ballot in 2026 and are in the early stages of organizing.

“I’m optimistic that a judge will look at this and see that some of the false statements that are made by the Secretary of State’s office can be corrected pretty readily,” Martin said.

Both Martin and Toder said they have not had contact with the Secretary of State’s Office other than receiving their petitions’ certification letters and serving the office with the lawsuit.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected].