Corianna Baier, David Stokes, and Patrick Ishmael join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, a lawsuit filed by Missouri’s AG against The Springfield School District, an update on corporate welfare around the state, and more.
The Kansas City Star Lies in “Parents’ Bill of Rights” Editorial
In an editorial titled “Missouri think tank’s ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’ wants us to subsidize private schools,” the Kansas City Star Editorial Board takes aim at our Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR) transparency proposal, claiming that it is intended to sneak money to private schools and “designed to make angry people angrier.”
Both claims are lies.
I know they’re lies because I authored the proposal, and I know why I wrote it the way I did. At no point does the text of the MPBR reference—sneakily or otherwise—expanding Missouri’s educational choice options beyond its current boundaries. A simple call to our office or my personal cell, which staff at the Star have, would have further disabused the editorial writer of the notion. And if, as the editorial stipulates, people are angry about what is happening in their schools, this proposal intends to be a solution that reduces that anger by . . . solving those problems.
Problem solving! How quaint.
Indeed, finding solutions to public policy problems is central to the mission of the Show-Me Institute, and we pride ourselves on pursuing and advancing those solutions with facts and fair arguments. We believe our words speak for themselves and we invite feedback and criticism of those words, but our standing presumption is that our counterparts in the media and elsewhere have adopted a similar approach in their critiques—an approach that relies on facts and advances those facts through fair argument. The Star’s editorial board missed both of those marks here.
No one is hiding that the Show-Me Institute organizationally supports school choice. We do. But the MPBR is not a school choice proposal, nor is it a call to “subsidize private schools.” Affirming that parents have the right “to choose the existing educational option that works best for their children” is important because many parents and children who qualify for that choice under current law have been denied it in the past. It’s mind-boggling that the Star doesn’t know this.
The Star and I agree that “transparency shouldn’t be limited to public schools.” We’ve been working on mandating government transparency for cities, counties, school districts, local taxing districts, the state, and others for years—transparency ideas taken up not only by the Missouri Treasurer’s office three years ago but also by the legislature with HB 271 just months ago. That we’ve finally gotten to curriculum transparency is, if anything, late. The implication that schools are somehow being targeted in a vacuum for transparency is to have sleepwalked through the last half decade of Missouri policy and politics.
Like a parent might be, I’m not mad at the Star—I’m just disappointed. I assume that Star employees still know how to operate a phone or send electronic mail to ascertain and share facts. That they instead chose to share the false idea that the MPBR would subsidize private schools is disappointing.
After all, it wasn’t the Show-Me Institute trying to make angry people angrier.
How to Make School Boards More Responsive with Michael Hartney
Susan Pendergrass speaks with Michael Hartney.
Michael T. Hartney joined the Boston College political science faculty in fall 2017. Previously he was Assistant Professor of Politics at Lake Forest College. Professor Hartney’s main research and teaching interests include: state and local government, interest groups, and public policy.
A Truly Terrible Idea for West County
The title of this article in the Post-Dispatch says everything one needs to know about the focus of far too many businesses in Missouri: “New Chesterfield music production development eyes legislation to bolster industry.” How do you increase profits? Well, first you need to get special legislation passed.
This new business, which has just opened in West St. Louis County and has already received millions of dollars in state and county tax subsidies, is all set to go with a plan to increase profits. Is it going to focus on customer service? Hiring a better sales team? Increasing business efficiency? Apparently not. It is going to focus right away on hiring lobbyists and getting the Missouri Legislature to pass a new, special state tax incentive program for its industry. From the article (emphasis added):
Gateway Studios in August hired Bardgett and four lobbyists from his firm. Kerr said the company is hoping to win support for an incentive program tailored to the music production industry. Pennsylvania has its own program for the industry, which helps draw production companies and acts to the state.
What Ludwig Von Mises said in 1944 in his famous book Bureaucracy is becoming reality in our state with tax subsides (emphasis again added):
Such executives did not care a whit for the company’s prosperity. They were accustomed to bureaucratic management and they accordingly altered the conduct of the corporation’s business. Why bother about bringing out better and cheaper products if one can rely on support on the part of the government? For them government contracts, more effective tariff protection, and other government favors were the main concern. And they paid for such privileges by contributions to party funds and government propaganda funds and by appointing people sympathetic to the authorities.
The tax subsidies this particular business has already received are bad enough. The idea that a special Missouri state tax incentive would be created to benefit one particular business in Missouri is appalling. There is no evidence that supports the idea that subsidy-focused economic development plans are successful, especially in a growing, thriving area like Chesterfield. Economic development officials and politicians cannot predict the future, and their choices are often based on political favoritism. Furthermore, chasing subsidies often leads businesses to make sub-optimal choices, such as locating in a less productive place to qualify for tax money, or focusing resources on lobbying instead of business improvement (the latter of which, unfortunately, does pay off far too often).
There has been progress made on some fronts in this fight, but creating a new incentive program just because an exciting and hip new business asks for it would be a terrible step backward.
Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights
Introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights
Too often, local officials have resisted oversight of Missouri public schools and districts. School bureaucrats from across the state have pushed back against Sunshine requests filed by the public, including many from the Show-Me Curricula Project, and now lawsuits are flying. I’ve heard stories from concerned parents and teachers about their treatment by school officials and their fears of persecution for speaking up about controversial issues.
This is not how parents and taxpayers should be treated by our public education system. Enough is enough.
In an effort to put the power of schooling back in the hands of the public that funds it, today I am introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR).
The MPBR emphasizes two objectives—transparency and accountability—and sets out reforms that would allow taxpayers and parents to see exactly how their schools and districts are operating and what they are teaching. Titularly highlighting parents’ role in the education of Missouri kids, the MPBR is geared toward promoting good, responsive governance in taxpayer-supported schools and school districts. Certainly, many of these reforms could be just as easily applied to other local governments like cities and counties—and eventually should.
But the taxpaying public should have an unambiguous right to see what’s being taught to their kids, how schools are performing, and how money is being spent. Taxpayers and parents should be able to use every tool available to them to ensure Missouri kids can have a productive educational career and life. For that to happen, taxpayers and parents must have oversight of the educational bodies in our state.
As I’ve written before, the privilege of taxing comes with a duty of forthrightness and responsibility. Denying that forthrightness and responsibility is to entertain the idea that government rules the people and not the other way around. The MPBR seeks to proclaim unequivocally where power in our system resides—with the people—and to emphasize that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable preconditions to accessing tax dollars.
Stay tuned in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we go into greater depth on this initiative.
We’ve only just begun.
Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights
The parents of Missouri’s children have a fundamental right to participate in and direct the education of their children. In order to effectuate and protect those rights, the state hereby adopts an approach that affirms “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to ensure parents can see, understand and trust representations made by state and local education officials about their children’s education and equips parents with the tools to make informed choices to educate their children especially if, in their judgment, the unique needs of their children are not being met.
Those rights include but are not limited to:
- the right to transparent access to school and school district curricula and lesson plans, made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
- Curricula shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the beginning of a semester’s classes.
- Because they are often formulated up to the date of instruction, lesson plans shall be available to the public no later than 30 days after the date such course materials were taught. Parents nonetheless have the right to request such materials directly from teachers prior to that time.
- The right to instructional material includes the right to transparent access to school and school district faculty and staff training materials, also made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on a website hosted by the state.
- the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
- the percentage of all students scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
- the percentage of students in each reportable subgroup, including race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English language learners, scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
- the Growth score in English/language arts (ELA), measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 through 8
- the Growth score in math, measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 thru 8
- the right to transparent access to school and school district financial information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
- transactional data similar to that produced from an accounts payable report, and if practicable rendered in a manner similar to the existing Show-Me Checkbook website maintained by the Treasurer’s Office.
- the district’s latest financial statements filed with the state.
- the right to transparent access to contract negotiations between the district and labor groups with whom the district is considering entering into labor agreement (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) including access to all materials used in negotiation and all finalized documents that describe the legal obligations of parties pursuant to an agreement. Such documents shall be available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
- the right to choose existing educational choice options provided by law that best suit the learning needs of their children.
- the right to request to opt their children out of the classroom for any presentation of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
- the right to control their children’s likeness in district materials, subject to exceptions like court orders.
- the right to control their children’s health and identifying markers, including but not limited to the right to opt out of health measures not required by state order or statute.
Failure by a school or school district to abide by these rights and expectations could subject the school or school district to financial penalties by the state and administrative penalties affecting the privileges afforded districts under state law.
Download a Copy of the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights
Douglas Murray: Reflections on the Revolution in America
Douglas Murray is a best-selling author, an award-winning political commentator, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He has written books on neoconservatism, terrorism and national security, freedom of speech, and the rise of woke culture and identity politics. His upcoming book, The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason, explores why in recent history it has become acceptable to discuss the flaws and crimes of Western culture, but celebrating the West’s contributions is condemned as hate speech.
Presentation recorded on November 10, 2021, in St. Louis, Missouri at an event presented by Show-Me Institute, Show-Me Opportunity, National Review Institute, and NewsTalkSTL.
Regulatory Capture in Cosmetology Licensing Boards
I’ve previously written about the regulatory capture of occupational licensing boards, citing Missouri’s cosmetology board as an example. It seems I’m not the only one to recognize this problem. The Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at Arizona State University recently released a report that indexes and ranks the regulatory capture of each state’s cosmetology board—Missouri ranked 14th.
Regulatory capture occurs when special interests gain control of regulatory agencies governing their own industries—regulators making the rules for themselves. You may think that a captured licensing board would have lenient regulations (who wants to subject themselves to strict rules?) but it’s much more common to see stricter rules with a captured licensing board. This is because the licensed board members directly benefit from punishing competitors and making it harder for newcomers to enter the market.
According to the report, cosmetology is licensed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Cosmetology boards typically consist of members who currently hold a license (incumbent members), members who represent cosmetology schools, and members of the public. Boards that are dominated by members who currently hold a license are more captured than boards dominated by members of the public. Missouri’s cosmetology license board has 11 members: 7 incumbent members, 2 school owners or instructors, and 2 public members. It’s clear where the balance of power is on the Missouri board.
Regulatory capture is one reason lawmakers should implement a five-year sunset provision on occupational licenses and licensing boards. With this provision, legislators would review each board every five years, and legislators could implement changes to fix problems (such as regulatory capture).
Unfortunately, regulatory capture doesn’t only affect those in (or who want to be in) the industry. Limiting competition lowers the supply of cosmetologists and raises the cost of your haircut. Everyone loses—except those already holding the occupational license, of course.
Virginia and the State of Education Reform with Andrew J. Rotherham
Land Bank History Unsurprisingly Repeats Itself
The Kansas City land bank was supposed to be better than the St. Louis version. Policymakers were supposed to have learned from some of the lessons of the failures in St. Louis. The Kansas City land bank was supposed to have created a more responsive and user-friendly process. It didn’t.
Despite some attempts to aggressively put public properties back into private hands (which is the ostensible goal of a land bank), recent investigations of the Kansas City land bank have found an entity chock full of conflicts of interest, property hoarding, and operational failures. This may not come as a surprise to our longtime readers—Institute analysts have done extensive research on the failures of the St. Louis land bank. The St. Louis land bank accumulated and held numerous properties, often rejecting attempts by people to purchase them.
The supposed purpose of a land bank is to rapidly get property back into the ownership of private individuals. The leaders of Kansas City’s land bank made promises for programs to achieve that. But investigations by Kansas City-area reporters seem to indicate that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
It is not in the interest of bureaucracy to actually solve the problem it is created to address. That puts the people who work there out of a job. The natural interest of bureaucracy is to expand its influence and power. You don’t do that by keeping your agency small and making it smaller by getting rid of the very thing you’re managing. This is an important insight from public choice economics.
So, to no one’s surprise, it seems the flaws that have permeated the St. Louis land bank have become embedded in the Kansas City land bank. Those flaws will almost certainly emerge in the St. Joseph land bank, which was unfortunately created a few years ago. Springfield city officials, who want a land bank, should keep these repeated failures in mind and reconsider whether a land bank is truly needed.
