Can We Have Meaningful Dialogue on Pension Reform?

Posted on by James V. Shuls

I recently published an op-ed about a curious incident that occurred in September. Out of nowhere, superintendents and educators throughout the state began sounding the alarm about a survey I was allegedly conducting with Mike McShane. The problem, as I wrote in the op-ed, was that the survey was conducted five years ago.

When you write an op-ed, you are often constrained by word count. Newspapers have limited space and often like guest editorials under 600 or 700 words. This means I couldn’t say all the things I wanted to say. In my op-ed, I focused on critical thinking and media literacy. Here, I would like to talk about civility and meaningful dialogue.

I have been writing for the Show-Me Institute for nearly a decade. I began writing about pensions early on. In all that time, I have been invited to debate or discuss ideas with Missouri’s educators exactly zero times. Instead, educators and the leadership of their organizations have attempted to shut down debate. They do this overtly, as in when they send out legislative alerts or emails from superintendents warning teachers to not take my survey, and they do this covertly with the language they use.

Instead of having a debate on the issues of pension reform or even school choice, they suggest I and the Show-Me Institute are enemies who want to “dismantle” the pension system and that we are “privatizers” who want to destroy public education. It’s smart really if the goal is to stifle debate. When you set someone up as your enemy who is out to destroy you, you have little incentive to engage them in a meaningful dialogue.

Dismissing our rivals by name calling and refusing to engage, however, is terrible if you believe the best way to the truth is by discussing and debating ideas.

Like it or not, there are some important policy discussions that we should wrestle with when it comes to Missouri’s teacher pension systems. What should we do about the three separate systems that place St. Louis and Kansas City at a competitive disadvantage? Should we be concerned about the large unfunded liabilities of these systems? Should we care that the systems are designed in a way that favors wealthy school districts and increases inequity?

We cannot have those conversations when one side simply wants to shut down the discussion.

I believe we should engage with the best arguments of our opponents. And I am more than willing to engage with any group of educators who would like to seriously discuss these issues.

Is the Purpose of Education to Prepare Students for Jobs?

Posted on by James V. Shuls

What is the purpose of public education? If you agree with Missouri Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe, you’d say the purpose is vocational—to prepare students for the workforce. At a recent event with the Moberly Area Chamber of Commerce, Kehoe praised the local school district for implementing fabrication labs in elementary and middle schools. As reported by the Moberly Monitor, Kehoe claimed, “Workforce development begins in grade school . . . We’ve got to get really good at career counseling, find out where their heart is and let them follow it.”

Let’s forget the last part of that statement, which suggests that the job of adults is to find out where a student’s “heart is and let them follow it.” I might argue that the job of the adult is to steer children into a worthwhile pursuit, understanding that our passions can often lead us astray. Nevertheless, that is not the point I want to make here. The point is, Kehoe is promoting a very specific educational philosophy . . . and it is an educational philosophy that not everyone holds.

Noted professor and philosopher, Mortimer J. Adler, whom William F. Buckley described as “unquestionably the single most prolific educator in America” during the introduction to his 1970 Firing Line appearance, wrote in 1951, “Vocational training is learning for the sake of earning.” On the other hand, Adler also said “School is a place of learning for the sake of learning, not for the sake of earning.” Adler promoted what we call the “liberal” view of schooling. This view, not to be confused with the modern political conception, suggests that the purpose of schooling is to cultivate those skills which are common and necessary for the development of all people. The liberal arts are, according to Adler, “nothing but the skills of learning itself—the skills of reading, writing, speaking, listening, observing, calculating, and measuring.”

Many agree with Adler’s view of the purpose of education:

The aim of education is to cultivate the individual’s capacities for mental growth and moral development; to help him acquire the intellectual and moral virtues required for a good human life, spent publicly in political action or service and privately in noble or honorable use of free time for the creative pursuits of leisure, among which continued learning throughout life is preeminent.

But this view is in contrast with Kehoe’s vision. Learning how to use fabrication tools is itself a useful vocational skill; it is not, however, a universal skill that leads to continuous self-improvement in areas beyond the skill itself. It is vocational, not liberal.

While the lieutenant governor praised the vocational programs in Moberly, the liberal programs do not appear to be going as well. In 2021, little more than one third of students in the Moberly school districts scored proficient or advanced on the state’s language arts exam and fewer than one third did in math. The average ACT score for Moberly students was 18.5, well below state and national averages.

So what do we do about this as a society? We have two very different, competing ideas for what our public schools should be doing. One suggests the purpose, as early as elementary school, is to prepare students for the workforce. The other suggests the purpose of schools is to inculcate those skills and dispositions that lead to a lifetime of learning.

We have two options. We can, as we have done throughout history, allow the ideas to battle it out in the public sphere where the winner takes all by setting the philosophy down in state statutes, standards, and testing regimes that control local public schools. Or we can allow individuals broader access to the schools that align with their vision of a quality education via school choice programs.

School choice programs allow schools that focus on vocational preparation to flourish alongside schools that focus on the liberal arts. These programs allow for minority voices, which may otherwise get shut out in the pugilistic, winner-take-all system, to have an opportunity for the schools they desire.

As someone who tends to subscribe to Adler’s view of education, I wish I could make everyone see the world the way I do. I wish people would realize, as Adler suggests, “Training in the liberal arts is indispensable to making free men out of children. It prepares them for the uses of freedom—the proper employment of free time and the exercise of political power. It prepares them for leisure and for citizenship.” Alas, I don’t have those powers of persuasion. So, in the meantime, I’ll settle for a school choice system that allows such schools to flourish.

The Fireman’s Union Never Stops Never Stopping

Posted on by David Stokes

In the comedy film “Popstar,” Andy Samberg plays a naïve popstar who can’t accept the reality of his recent musical failures. Because of that naivety, he keeps trying to become a star again despite the odds, with predictable movie success at the end. Overall, it’s a funny movie worth watching.

Less funny are the continuing efforts by the St. Louis City fireman’s union to return to the extremely generous and biased-against-taxpayers pension system of the past. After years of political fighting, the Slay administration successfully revised the fireman’s pension system in 2012. The new plan put control of the fireman’s pension under a board of city appointees— under the old system, the pension was run by the fire department and the union itself. What was wrong with the old system? Well, nobody was watching out for the taxpayer’s interests, and they are the ones who paid for everything.

Ever since those changes were made, the union has been “never stopping” in its efforts to get the old system back. How generous was the old system? Well, the former director of the fireman’s pension system, Vicky Grass (who was subsequently elected to the board of aldermen), received a cash payout of $579,000 when she retired in 2015, on top of her monthly $4,870 monthly pension. That’s $579,000 in taxpayer dollars! What did Ms. Grass think of the changes to the new system?

“The new system is not as good as the one we had,” Grass said.

Well, I would think not if you were enjoying the benefits of the old system.

But the city and taxpayers are not being exploited by the union now, and firemen are still receiving the fair benefits and pension that we all agree they deserve. How much money has city government been able to save with the pension reform? This article from 2015 documents the savings the city experienced shortly after making the pension changes:

The city pays when there is a shortfall. In 2013, the city pumped $20 million into the system. Pension reforms have since reduced the city’s liability. Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said the city paid $1 million into the system in 2015. And it’s not expected to pay anything in 2016.

Mayor Krewson vetoed the attempt last year to change the pension system back to the old system, and hopefully Mayor Jones will do the same if it comes to that. Honestly, it should not come to that at all, but this is a classic example of a special interest group carrying outsized influence with elected officials—in this case, members of the board of aldermen the union helped put into office in the first place. Controlling pension costs for public employee unions is a key responsibility of local government. The City of St. Louis deserves credit for the reforms it made, and those reforms need to be kept in place.

The School Choice Wave, Fire District Recalls and Saving Federalism

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Zach Lawhorn is joined by David Stokes, James Shuls, and Elias Tsapelas to discuss midterm election outcomes, the school choice wave, and how federal spending affects Missouri’s budget.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

How Commute Times Impact School Choice with Josh Cowen

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Joshua Cowen.

Joshua Cowen is a Professor of Education Policy at Michigan State University. His current research focuses on teacher quality, student and teacher mobility, and evaluations of state and local education programs.

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

A Cut Below: Lessons from the History of Barber Licensure

Posted on by Avery Frank

As someone who disdains unnecessary government regulation and also desperately needs a haircut, I conveniently stumbled upon Daniel Smith’s “The Itch & Razor War”. His working paper recounts the origins of occupational licensing for barbers in the United States. Smith shows that occupational licensing is often promoted as a safety measure but quickly becomes a formidable barrier to entry supported by those already in the profession.

In the Progressive Era of the United States (the late 1890s to the late 1910s), an increasing number of “barber’s itch” (a contagious skin infection spread by using unclean razors) outbreaks led to the creation of barber licensures to ensure the implementation of sanitation efforts to prevent the spread of this ailment. One health column from that time noted that “90 percent of the justification for licensure was Barber’s Itch.”

It didn’t take long for the justification for regulation to evolve as motivations became increasingly self-interested. Unionized barbers began advocating for regulations in order to bar discount barbers from driving down prices. Lobbying included restricting barbers from working on Sunday (which affected discount barbers who worked part-time on the weekends), not allowing some barbers to offer free shoeshines with their haircut, and unique to Missouri, requiring “conversational ability.”

Most of us enjoy a barber who can carry on a conversation, but is this something that needs to be regulated by the state? It seems silly, but we still see the remnants of this type of requirement today where barbers in training have to spend 10 hours on “professional image” and another 10 hours of training on “salesmanship and shop management.”

Though public safety and “barber’s itch” were the impetus for licensing barbers, today only 5.5 percent of the required 2,000 hours for the Missouri barber’s apprenticeship relate to sanitation and sterilization procedures.

The fact is licensing creates an incentive for incumbents in an industry to use these licenses to drive down the number of competitors. This is often known as regulatory capture.

Smith’s analysis found that occupational licensing led to a 45% increase in haircut prices and a 55% increase in shaving prices, but there was no evidence that barber’s itch declined. This aligns with a Florida State meta-analysis, which observes that only 16 percent of occupational licensing studies show a positive relationship between product quality and licensing.

Today we rarely worry about barber’s itch, yet we require even more laborious licensing requirements. Policymakers should review these requirements for all professions to ensure the licensure process is providing a legitimate, beneficial service and not just helping pad the wallets of those already in the profession.

As Student Enrollment Drops, the Number of Teachers Rises

Posted on by James V. Shuls

I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately to the findings of Missouri’s blue ribbon commission. In my last post, I lamented the fact that the commission used a very poorly designed survey in an attempt to answer the question, “How do we attract and retain more teachers?”

One glaring problem I see in the report is a complete lack of thought to almost anything besides compensation. Don’t get me wrong, compensation matters, and the commission is absolutely right to consider compensation. But if you are going to examine why there are reported teacher shortages, you ought to do a better job looking for causes or kinks in the teacher pipeline. Simply surveying existing teachers about whether they’d like more money (they would) will not help us answer the most pressing questions.

What are the causes of our current teacher shortage? They are certainly varied. But one thing the commission never seemed to consider was the current hiring practices of school districts.

From 2011 to 2021, enrollment in Missouri public schools dropped by nearly 30,000 students. The largest drop was post-COVID, with the state losing over 20,000 students in that year alone. Nevertheless, the trend is clearly downward.

It would make sense, given that total enrollment in the state has been decreasing, to see a similar decline in the number of teachers. Fewer students, fewer teachers needed. But instead, we see the opposite happening. As enrollment drops, the state continues to add to the number of teachers. In the table below, I present the number of full-time equivalent teachers (FTE). From 2011 to 2021—the same period that the state lost 30,000 students—the state added 2,475 FTE teachers. As the state dropped 20,000 students from the rolls, it only lost 10 FTE teachers. This brings the ratio down from 13.2 students per FTE teacher in 2011 to 12.3 in 2021.

If we looked at non-teaching staff and administration, we’d likely see similar trends. Indeed, Economist Ben Scafidi found exactly this when he looked at the data from 1992 to 2015. During that time period, Missouri student enrollment increased 9% while teachers increased 28% and all other staff increased 24%. Hiring seems to be uncorrelated with trends in student enrollment.

Why didn’t the commission consider this? Why wasn’t someone willing to ask the question, “Why are we increasing the number of teachers when the number of students is dropping?”

If you want to understand the teacher shortage, this is pretty important information.

Fright Night in Missouri Comes Early

Posted on by Avery Frank

Reviewing the recent release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an ideal way to get into the spirit of Halloween. The falloff in student performance is enough to make your skin crawl; to take one example–the NAEP report features a six-point drop in Missouri fourth-grade mathematics and five-point drop in fourth-grade reading.

 Show-Me Institute writers have discussed this report in greater detail in previous posts, but here I want to draw attention to comments made by the Commissioner of Education.

In response to the release of these aforementioned test scores, the commissioner released two quotes:

  1. “The results serve as another indicator that high-quality instruction matters.”
  2. “It’s clear that the pandemic had an impact on student learning and that there is work to do. We must use this information, alongside state and local metrics, to continue accelerating post-pandemic learning with improved systems and processes to meet the needs of each student.”

I don’t disagree with the first statement, but what does it say about the quality of Missouri’s teachers? Is the commissioner suggesting that the teachers are to blame for the drop in test scores? And if so, what exactly does the commissioner propose to do about it?

How about this for starters: If high-quality instruction matters so much (and it does), maybe Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) should reconsider its policy of tying teacher salaries solely to experience and degree acquisition rather than student performance.

As to the second point: yes, the pandemic, or at least the response to the pandemic, did have an impact. Closing schools for months at a time does tend to impair the progress of our students. And yes, there is more work to do . . . but is there nothing more concrete to suggest than “improved systems and processes”? How about turning a critical eye toward DESE’s policy of blanket accreditation and the restrictions on open enrollment and school choice?

The response of our Department of Education to these test results tells us everything we need to know about why Missouri students are lagging behind their peers. Leadership is about a lot more than stating the obvious and then offering anodyne generalities as an excuse for doing nothing. Leadership is about taking real action, even if it means ruffling the feathers of entrenched interests.

What’s really horrifying about the NAEP results is that DESE clearly has no plans to do anything about them.

If Missouri education were a horror movie, we’d say that it’s time for the hero to stop looking outside for monsters to slay.

The calls are coming from inside the house.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging