First, open enrollment within and between the city and county districts could increase competition for students between schools and districts. The prospect of losing students, and the funding that comes with them, should spur schools to rethink failed programs and develop new ones to better meet student demand. This does not mean dismantling public schooling as we know it, only dismantling some of the artificial boundaries we’ve created between schools and districts. Our loyalty should be with the students, not the institutions.

To further encourage innovation and creativity amongst teachers and administrators we might consider "Chartering" all public schools. "chartering" does not mean removing public oversight of schools, only giving more power to individual schools to set their own direction. Eliminating some of the bureaucratic red tape inherent in public institutions will make it easier for schools to specialize to meet particular student needs. At this point, all options with any potential for success should be on the table. The steps taken by MO legislators in HB265 are a good start. Hopefully they are but the tip of a very large education reform iceberg.

The post Slowly creeping forward… appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Particularly troublesome are the TIF provisions. This alleged tool for economic growth has been used quite often in STL, most notably in the construction of the new Busch Stadium and the promised Ballpark Village development. This means of spurring growth in struggling parts of the city has been touted as the most important tool cities have for this purpose. However, the policy is not without its critics, and one particular study about the practice in Chicago has called into question the cost-effectiveness of the measure.

I would argue that the best means for a city to spur growth lies not in its ability to hand out tax abatements to specific developers, but rather in its ability to provide an overall fertile business climate. Providing good infrastructure, secure property rights, and strong returns on investment (i.e. lowering the costs of doing business for everyone) encourages balanced and fair competition, whereas TIF projects only serve to spur the further erosion of the barrier between public officials and private interests by encouraging the latter to cozy up to the former in hopes of securing the TIF privelege.

There are two things MO legislators need to do: first, they need to untangle the "Quality Jobs" legislation from everything else, and make sure this program is as strong and effective as it can possibly be. Second, they need to seriously think about the real costs and benefits of TIF spending as relates to MO, the political convenience of such projects aside (I’m not holding my breath on that last point).

On an otherwise unrelated note, big props to my colleague Mr. Stokes on his post regarding gov’t surveillance, particularly those cameras atop every intersection. I’m pretty sure the standard of justice is "innocent until proven guilty." Putting cameras at every intersection undermines this principle and replaces it with the Orwellian maxim that we’re all guilty, and that justice is only a matter of who gets caught. Big Brother is watching…

The post Quality Jobs, Questionable TIFS, and Cameras, Cameras, Cameras appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity. Anyone with specific questions requiring a more candid answer should feel free to contact me here anytime.

The post Really, It’s a Great Experience, I Swear appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a good synopsis of how it all went down, go here. Basically, those politicians who opposed the bill, on whatever grounds, had their projects stripped and the funds redistributed to more politically friendly districts. No political soup for you, conscientious objectors! However, the most egregious example of wasted political capital lies in the still unfavorable appraisal of pro-life groups who so effectively derailed the original plan to drive Missouri’s budding biotech industry. Blunt and Co. claim the bill’s passage as a success, but as the Springfield News-Leader so accurately surmises:

What the state’s universities still need is a commitment from lawmakers that funding levels — including for much needed construction projects — will match the important role our institutions of higher education play in being a driving economic engine in Missouri. What our colleges and universities need is a commitment that Democrats and Republicans from all corners of the state recognize their incredible value. The passage of SB 389 didn’t accomplish that goal. Victory is still out of reach.

Indeed. Missouri has so much potential to be a future leader inthe life sciences, its almost unfathomable that the state’s leaders could be so ineffective as catalysts in realizing that potential. As a recent editorial in the STL P-D proclaimed:

It’s difficult to think of another state in a better position to lead research into bio-energy and agricultural defense. We have some of the nation’s leading research institutions — the Danforth Center, Washington University, St. Louis University and the University of Missouri-Columbia. We have agricultural powerhouses like Monsanto and energy companies like Peabody Coal. And, of course, we sit astride the most productive farmland the world has ever known.

It’s not too late for legislators to set aside money that only could be used if the federal research grants are awarded to Missouri companies and universities.

The question is whether they want to invest in the future, or run from it.

At this stage of the game, "run from it" seems to be the preferred strategy. But where exactly are we running to? Straight into the arms of whatever is most politically expedient, apparently. That means pet projects for the legislators willing to play "follow the leader" with Gov. Blunt, elmination of the most universally beneficial provisions at the behest of special interests, and the perpetual disappointment of those sincerely trying to help Missouri before they help themselves.

The post MOHELA Money II: Biotech Boogaloo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More water, pesticides and land are being used to grow corn for ethanol, raising environmental concerns. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, which, when blended with gasoline, gets fewer miles per gallon than gasoline alone.

The federal government continues to hand out an extravagant 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy for domestic ethanol while slapping a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, such as that made from sugar cane in Brazil.

The first paragraph presents an efficiency problem: corn-based ethanol is simply not cost-effective. While ethanol does burn cleaner than conventional gasoline, there are other hidden externalities, such as the water issues discussed in this STL P-D article and the rising costs of feed for animal stock, which in turn drives up the price for associated goods like meat and dairy products. The second paragraph demonstrates how the gov’t, eyes aglow with the political possibilities inherent in helping agribusiness, only serves to exacerbate this inefficiency. If politicians were really concerned about cheap, independant, clean energy, we’d eliminate both the subsidies for the domestic stuff and the tariffs on the imported stuff.

The Brazilians are old pros at the ethanol game, and it’s likely we could benefit from their expertise. Furthermore, let’s not forget basic economics and the gains from trade. If the Brazilians make cheaper ethanol that we can, and we can in turn provide some good or service better than they, then it’s in both our best interests to trade. The KC Star sums up this notion nicely:

Congress should eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol, and reduce or eliminate the federal subsidy for domestic ethanol. Both moves would be positive blows for free markets, making it easier to evaluate the true costs of corn-based ethanol.

It seems a little foolish to be dumping millions of tax-payer dollars into a largely unproven technology. Rather, we should wait for the unfettered decisions of a free market to determine the best alternative to imported gasoline, and then, maybe, look to gov’t to facilitate the transition. As stated in the STL Post-Dispatch:

As the United States — like many other countries of the world — hastens to find ways to curb its dependence on oil, we must make sure we don’t trade one set of environmental, political and economic problems for another.

I couldn’t agree more.

The post The market, not gov’t meddling, should decide the fate of ethanol appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Vouchers provide more choice for K-12 parents and students. Privately funded schools at all levels educate many of our citizens who otherwise would have to be taught at public expense. To provide partial public subsidies for students otherwise trapped in poor public schools is a cost-effective way to enhance options for many who otherwise could not choose.

There are two key notions in this qoute that should be addresses, the first being cost-effectiveness.  County schools, and even some private schools, generally spend less per pupil than the city district. According to DESE, Saint Louis Public Schools have a current average expenditure of $11, 402 per pupil. As a comparison, my district, Mehlville R-IX, spent an average of $7,144 per pupil in 2006, while the state of Missouri, on average, spent about $8,221 per pupil in 2006 (DESE-MO, 2007). As a rough estimate, if the city is required to pay tuition, plus transportation costs?say an extra $1000 per pupil, per year? they would still save money by essentially contracting out to the county district. Whatever money is left over after this transaction would presumably be sunk back into the city, thereby increasing the per-pupil funds available to the district.

The second issue for consideration is one of equity; more affluent families already have school choice in the form of private schools, or simply moving to a better public district. In either case, an option exists for one class of citizens that does not exist for another, that other class having the most to gain from such choices, and the least to lose from whatever damage such choice might cause to their already failing local district. As the Tribune asserts:

Vouchers won’t be a panacea, but having that option in failing school districts represents progress, and it won’t destroy public education. How could anyone be against providing alternatives in a district like St. Louis?

Indeed. The time for change is now. Saint Louis has the opportunity to try something new and relatively groundbreaking, rather than constantly being a half-hearted follower of national trends. Hopefully the entrenched political interests will see it the same way, and do whats best for the students rather than themselves. But I won’t be holding my breath.

The post Vouchers for SLPS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

require all public institutions of higher education to report how they are safeguarding the free exchange of ideas on campus

Or so says an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune. The article concerns a report from MSU regarding the school’s Social Work program. Accordign to the Tribune:

The future of the School of Social Work at Missouri State University is in doubt after an external review of the program found a “dysfunctional and hostile” environment where faculty colleagues are disrespectful to one another and students fear voicing their opinions.

MO legislators contend that this kind of disfunction within one of the state’s largest universities will be prevented by an "intellectual diversity" law, because such a measure would force faculty and staff to accept and express any and all ideas while not advocating any one idea specifically. This sounds all sweet and nice, and in the interest of promoting "diversity," but the fact of the matter is this: while its your right to believe whatever you wish, in the world of academia, some ideas carry more weight than others. Honest professors advocating the best ideas on their academic merits is largely how the enterprise of human knowledge moves forward; not by giving equal voice to unequal theories in the interest of protecting someone else’s sacred cows. With that in mind, students and professors alike should be free to challenge the bases and conclusions of those theories, and to advance their own theories and beliefs for the rigors of serious academic discourse to validate.

Further demonstrating the frivolity of this bill is an article in the Springfield News-Leader showing the effectiveness of the University in policing its own. This is proof positive that our best and brightest, working honestly and openly in the marketplace of ideas, is the best garauntee against intellectual dishonesty and close-minded demagoguery. No legislation is needed to augment the marketplace of ideas.

The post ID Bill unnecessary, MSU debacle demonstrates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The issue here, like in so many of our debates about education, is one of choice. Those living in the city, but paying to attend a private or parochial school, or educating their children at home, or who have, like so many have done already, simply moved out of the city, already have the luxury of school choice. It is an unfortunate reality that school choice is, as of now, directly related to the income of the parents.  While I’m all about expanding choice to those who don’t have it, expanding choice for those who already have it seems a little egregious, and more the product of greed or selfishness than any particular concern for those unfortunate souls stuck in the failed district.

Those who can afford to opt out of the city schools don’t need any more help from the city or state. If they are so concerned about their tax money going to fund somebody else’s kid’s education, then they should excercise their school choice privelege and move to a county with a public school they approve of. Meanwhile, those without such luxury should be given the opportunity to leave the district, via state or city funding. Choice works, and we should strive to provide it for those who can’t afford it independantly.

The post More SLPS Drama appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St Louis has made huge progress in attracting a new generation of young professionals to its downtown area, building new business developments and installing new infrastructure. The fiasco in its schools puts all that in jeopardy.

Attracting young professionals is hard enough for any city; I know because I am such a young professional (I use that term quite loosely), and am constantly encouraged by friends living elsewhere to leave this humble midwestern town for some place, well, a little more hip. But regardless of how "hip" St. Louis may be, whatever young professionals it does manage to attract won’t stick around if they can’t get a decent education for their children. Instead, those young professionals will do what generations of young Saint Louis professionals have done before them: LEAVE. Go to the suburbs, or the exurbs, or some other state. Convincing those young professionals to stay in St. Louis and invest in its education infrastructure could help bring SLPS out of purgatory. Unfortunately, no sane person will invest in a poorly managed and possibly corrupt system. As the Economist notes:

The district, which in the past five years has turned a $52m surplus into a $24.5m deficit, has already closed schools, cut services and squeezed spending hard. But as its critics point out, the elected school board still found plenty of money for junkets and public relations.

Hopefully the state takeover will lead to some positive change, and produce a school district that those young professionals will at least be willing to take a chance on. Nothing less than the future prosperity of this once world class city depends on it.

The post SLPS in The Economist appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The NSA, President Bush, and the other intel agencies argue that attaining this private communications information is crucial to preventing another terrorist attack, and that the process of “data mining” has worked to catch terrorists and prevent such an attack by finding terrorist cells based on their communication patterns. They further assert that such “wiretapping” actions are justified under the Patriot Act and the broad authority granted the president as commander-in-chief to prosecute the ongoing “war on terror” in whatever manor he finds most suitable.

The issue here is efficacy. If the procedure of “data mining” works, and the associated right to privacy being surrendered is made up for with real added security and effectiveness against terrorists, and the information being gathered is being used solely for that purpose, then it’s reasonable to surrender some privacy right in exchange for that security. Commissioner Steve Gaw sums it up nicely:

“We have tried to be sensitive on not delving into issues that could cause a security issue,” Gaw said. “At the same time, if we give up rights and freedom in order to be secure, what have we gained? And what have we lost?”

Our friends over that the Cato Institute have published an interesting paper calling into question the very efficacy of “data mining,” or the systematic combing through of billions of bits of information for communications patterns likely to be attributable to terrorist activities. They essentially argue that the process is flawed, largely ineffective, and that the benefits it conveys are not worth the tradeoff in security gains. I am no expert on anything, much less computer science or national security, but I do know that I’m not a terrorist,  nor is there any reason for the gov’t to assume that I am. Until they have probable cause to believe otherwise, my phone records should remain nobody’s business but my own. If my telephone company has circumvented that right to privacy I deserve to know, and will most assuredly switch to another provider more respectful of my civil liberties.

The post Data Mining: Security Measure or Privacy Invasion? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, as a remnant of court-mandated desegregation efforts originating in the early 1980s, the state of Missouri has a program enabling students in SLPS to transfer out of their neighborhood school and into a participating county school. The state pays the transportation costs and the receiving district’s average per pupil cost for the student, and the city school gets to keep the funding it would have otherwise spent on the transferring student. The program was originally intended to racially integrate previously homogenous districts, but has had a far more profound ecomomic effect on the city and state.

An excellent paper on the cost of highschool dropouts to the state demonstrates the fact that every student that doesn’t graduate represents significant economic costs to the state, costs much higher than the actual cost of education. The students who participate in the transfer program are roughly twice as likely to graduate from highschool as those who remain in the program. The long term economic costs to the state resulting from the lost tax revenue, lost economic activity, higher safety net costs, and higher incarceration rates associated with those dropouts far outweigh the short term costs of financing the program.

Citizens and politicians outside of St. Louis will surely balk at the idea of spending more state money on the failing SLPS, but the economic effects associated with the district’s failure to educate it’s students will be shared by the whole state. With that in mind, it is in the best interest of all Missourians to insure the continuation of this valuable and effective choice program, and let as many kids as so desire escape from their failing school.

The post Riding the bus to the county, and a stronger MO appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The disparity between the two cities couldn’t be more stark in this light. Though education in KC certainly has its problems, it at least seems to be making progress, whereas the situation in St. Louis seems locked in a perpetual downward spiral. The difference is in the willingness and ability of KC to try new things, like expanded charter and magnet schools; whereas St. Louis prefers to stay the same misguided course in fear of change.

As I noted in a recent post, charter schools are not a cure-all for the many problems faced by our public school system. However, any measure that gives parents an option beyond their local failing public school is a step in the right direction. Mayor Slay seems to at least recognize this point, as he has asked for the authority to authorize and hold accountable new charter schools in the St. Louis area. As a lifelong St. Louisan, it pains me greatly to say this, but St. Louis and mayor Slay would do well to follow KC’s example and expand its charter school program, enabling city residents to choose an education for their children beyond their failing, unaccredited public school.

The post Charter schools and state takeovers; a tale of two cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

"The amazing thing, if you listen to the hearing and the testimony," is that "there’s widespread agreement that we need to do this. This is about changing the health-care system to focus on patient needs, to focus on wellness, prevention and be patient-centric. That’s not a Republican issue. That’s not a Democratic issue. That’s a Missouri issue."

The idea is pretty simple: keep track electronically of a patient’s past medical history, current ongoing treatments, potential future problems, etc., and make those records accessible to any doctor in the state treating that patient. This will ensure a continuity and consistency in treatment, making it easier for doctors to anticipate and react to problems quicker, catching and preventing illness earlier while its easier to manage. 

The potential for savings is great, as most diseases, especially cancer, are most easily treated at their earliest stages, eliminating the need for more expensive and risky treatments later in the course of the illness. It will also enable doctors to more effectively collaborate in treating the same patient, avoiding problems with overlapping or conflicting treatments. As described by Sen. Shields:

"Every day you see the elderly person come in with a bag full of prescription drugs in a Ziplock. There may be 12 drugs in there, and three of them interact with each other, and then they wonder why they’re sick," he said.

Electronic records will be an excellent way of overcoming these difficulties, saving patients and taxpayers money by eliminating the need for treatment of side effects from prescription drug-related complications.

With the cost of healthcare in America spiraling out of control, and more and more Americans finding themselves without coverage, something must be done to bring costs down and make care more affordable for everyone. Keeping healthcare systems at the technological forefront by combining Information technologies with medical technologies will help achieve this.

The post IT + Healthcare = Money Saved appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1) Charter schools are just another step towards public funding of private (religious) schools

2) Charter schools are poorly run, ineffectual, and potentially corruptable.

3) Mayor Slay is part of some deeper, more devious plot to undermine SLPS and institute some undisclosed master plan of a nefarious nature.

The first two objections may very well prove to be true, but we won’t know until we try. Nonetheless, these kinds of problems are exactly what careful public policy debate is intended to overcome. So, instead of listing objections and deciding a priori that Charter schools are a dead end, perhaps we should try and find ways to preserve the positive aspects of charter schools, like the choices they create for parents and students, and mininmize these potential negative factors. As for that third objection, well, I don’t really trust politicians either…

I can understand the strong feelings people may have towards the democratic values embodied in public schooling, but any fool can see that the system is broken and that it is time for something different. Charter schools may be part of this, and Mayoral involvement, as a recent SMI Study suggested, is crucial. However, by limiting debate to charter v. SLPS schools, we’re essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. At this point, all options should be on the table, and we shouldn’t let conspiracy theories get in the way of doing what’s best for kids.

The post Charter School Confusion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Way back in 2006, before the min. wage increase, SMI released a study explaining why a min. wage increase might be bad for both concerned parties. Though the study mainly focused on the non-tipped wage of $6.50/hr, the same arguments hold for tipped workers: higher min. wages means less businesses able to pay that wage, which means more people without jobs. Furthermore, as an article in the Joplin Globe explained, min. wage hikes can have other unintended affects:

Mike Wiggins, owner of Continental Catering and Granny Shaffer’s restaurants in Joplin and Webb City, said Blunt’s declaration might cost tipped employees more than it benefits them. He said a higher income bracket, for instance, might make some ineligible for state medical services and day-care assistance.

While everyone can appreciate a little extra on their paycheck, that little bit extra can have an overall negative net affect. Inevitably, some waitpersons who now have jobs will find themselves in the unemployment line along with some of their former employers who, under the new requirements, could no longer afford to compete.

The post Minimum Wage provides minimum advantages appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new list has received somewhat mixed reviews: Republicans are mostly for it, Democrats are mostly against it. I’m a little miffed, as I thought the proposal was originally about creating jobs in a growing industry with great promise. Now, however, that part of the bill has been largely eliminated, and replaced with more mundane projects. I’m also curious about what happened to that assessment by that private firm that found the deal could seriously undermine MOHELA’s financial health and ability to continue providing loans to Missouri students. This assessment drew attention to pending federal changes to the Higher Education Act, due to sunset this summer. It seems a little hasty to push this controversial proposal too hard when we don’t know how the federal law might change or how those changes might impact Missouri and MOHELA.

Without the long term, lucrative jobs the biotech measures would have created, I’m not sure what Missouri has to gain, beyond the obvious brownie points politicians stand to score in districts receiving the funds. Capital improvement projects are great, but only to the extent that students can afford to attend those schools and utilitize those improvements. With the ever-increasing cost of higher education in this state and others, I’m not sure this is the best way to spend our money at this time. Ultimately we need to be careful, and should at least wait until the federal government does its job before moving forward with any proposal.

The post MOHELA Deal Is Like Girl Scout Cookies for Politicians appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While requiring professors to leave their political affiliations at the door is vital to preserving academic integrity, requiring institutions to monitor the "intellectual diversity" of classrooms would only serve to obstruct the principles of free inquiry and expression upon which higher education is founded. The key to intellectual diversity in classrooms and institutions lies in permitting dissenting views to be heard, and treating those views on their academic merit. That does not mean requiring professors to fully air both sides of a controversial issue, nor does it mean permitting those professors to evaluate student performance based on their adherence to that professor’s beliefs. What it means is that professors and students should be allowed to freely challenge one another’s beliefs and assumptions on academic grounds with no recourse to grades or other performance evaluations. This will insure intellectual diversity in our universities, without undermining the concepts of free inquiry and expression that have made our Missouri schools great in the first place.

The post Free inquiry, not legislation, should insure intellectual diversity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state of Missouri, despite being offered a bridge that would be essentially free, continues to stall the project for reasons largely undefined. A recent article by Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan attempts to shed some light on the situation, arguing that:

"It’s easy to see why Gov. Matt Blunt would be excited about a private toll bridge. Privatize whatever you can. It’s a philosophy that can carry a guy a long way in Republican circles these days. But what about the other Missouri officials? Why would they support such a plan? After all, most of them have spouted off about regionalism for years. Now they want to stick it to the people of Illinois. They’re probably frightened. Rahn is autonomous. He answers to nobody. If officials go against Rahn, he can retaliate. No projects in their jurisdictions."

While Mr. McClellan’s ad hominem attack against Gov. Blunt and privatization is a little silly, he’s right about petty Missouri politics once again derailing what would otherwise be an excellent joint project for the two states, with significant benefits for both at little cost to Missouri. The state and particularly the city of St. Louis will be forever doomed to mediocrity if it can’t leave the amatuerish politics behind for a while and focus on what’s truly good for its citizens, the selfish concerns of it’s politicians be damned.

The post Finding a Bridge over Troubled Waters appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

"The Economic Development Department credits the program with creating 12,438 jobs in Missouri in less than two years."

These are quality jobs that pay living wages, the kind of jobs Missouri so desparately needs. The proposal would increase the spending on these tax credits from 12 to 24 million, and extend the life of the program an additional ten years to 2028 from 2018. This program benefits businesses by allowing them to keep the withholding taxes from their employees paychecks. A recent amendment to the program would prohibit businesses knowingly employing illegal immigrants from receiving the credits. This change has drawn some fire because it would allegedly offer a financial incentive for businesses to discriminate against Missouri workers who, despite being here legally, might nonetheless look and sound like illegal aliens. This objection is rubbish.

The proposal, as is, does nothing to punish those who are already employing an illegal workforce, and as such would not adversly affect those businesses.  Rather, it offers a positive incentive for those companies to employ legal workers and to pay them well. The key phrase here is "knowingly employing illegals." Those companies who hired a worker and reasonably believed that person to be here legally would not be punished if that worker later turned out to in fact be illegal. This approach to managing the state’s economy-offering positive incentives for desired behaviors without directly meddling in the labor market-is exactly what is needed for a healthy balance between the concerns of Missouri’s businesses and Missouri’s legal workers. On those grounds, the "Quality Jobs Act" should be renewed and expanded with great vigor.

The post “Quality Jobs” is quality policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

– Cable providers would be prohibited from withholding services based on race or income. Within three years of providing service, cable firms would have to devote at least 25 percent of their services to households that earn less than $35,000.

– Municipalities would be able to require cable operators to designate up to three channels for public, educational or governmental use.

– Municipalities also would be able to collect a fee, no more than 5 percent of gross revenue, from cable providers. Providers would be able to pass this tax onto customers.

So municipalities still get some say in how their citizens receive their cable services, but without creating the artificial barriers to entry found under our current system that stifle competition and drive up prices. Furthermore, the new plan would encourage the laying of broadband and other kinds of communication infrastructure that benefits industries and consumers well beyond mere cable service. In all, this bill proposes changes that will be beneficial to Missouri consumers.

The post Hurray for Cable Franchise Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.