Action Civics: Teaching Students to Become Activists (Part 1 of 3)

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Jurassic Park was a tremendous movie for a number of reasons. I remember sitting on the edge of my seat as I watched the suspenseful scene where the cup of water jostled as the T-Rex approached. What I didn’t pick up on as a 12-year-old in that Wehrenberg theatre were the important ethical questions raised by Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum): “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Yet, somehow, all these years later, I see this important ethical dilemma cropping up in important ways. No, I’m not referring to the idiots doing crazy things on Youtube or TikTok. I am talking about the increasingly popular method for teaching civics instruction—action civics.

As the sub-headline of Catherine Gewertz 2019 Education Week article states, “Through ‘action civics’ lessons, students become activists in their communities.” As Gewertz notes, “The name of this instructional model—’action civics’—signals its mission: not only to teach students how their government works but to harness that knowledge to launch them into collective action on issues they care about.”

This post is the first of three related to the topic of action civics. It is prompted, in part, by a recently released report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In their report, Thomas Lindsay and Lucy Meckler lay out important reasons for concern regarding action civics. They note:

In the course of this examination, we will come to see that, in the final count, the debate over Action Civics presents two contrasting views of democracy. Action Civics stems from a communitarian, participatory view of democracy, which finds its roots in Rousseau’s concept of the “general will.” At its philosophic roots, this agenda tends to distrust the checks on popular will offered by the representative democracy crafted by our founders and enshrined in the Constitution.

As this blog series will make clear, the proponents of action civics are clear in their intent—they hope to produce students who are more inclined toward activism. Importantly, the goal is not just to address social ills, but to address them through government action.

Many teachers throughout the country and within Missouri may have adopted an action civics pedagogy for teaching students because of the rich platitudes offered by its supporters. They may agree that students learn better by doing rather than by “sitting and getting” as is often common in social studies classrooms. The problem here, as I have alluded to in my intro, is that proponents of action civics and the teachers that implement this strategy in their classrooms were so concerned with whether they could teach students in this way that they did not stop to think whether they should.

Asking students to “become activists in their communities” or to advocate for collective government action before laying a foundation of understanding regarding political philosophy (including that of federalism and limited government) is a recipe for disaster. It leads to the types of outcomes we currently see in our political landscape where the very people advocating for the rights of one group are quick to trample on the rights of others. It drives students to see their actions as right and noble and those who oppose them as cruel and mean spirited.

Despite what proponents of action civics might say, it is not the duty of public schools to launch activists. Rather, it is the duty of public school teachers to help students understand this great American experiment in self-government. It is their duty to teach students about our institutions and their roles, as presented in our founding documents and the writings of the founding fathers. Furthermore, it is the duty of teachers to help students understand that people today have different views on the role of government and on the best policy solutions to the problems we face. If your goal is solely to create activists (and activists of a particular kind), you might skip some of these essential lessons.

Entrepreneurs, Not Governments, Solve Uncertainty

Posted on by Jacob Dowell

In these times of economic uncertainty and shortages, it’s easy to forget what makes an economy run. Many turn to the government when things get difficult. But government solutions aren’t conducive to lasting economic prosperity. It’s especially important right now to remember that private-sector actors are key—in particular entrepreneurs.

First, what is an entrepreneur? Some define an entrepreneur as someone who starts a new business. But this doesn’t capture the whole picture. Entrepreneurship is an ongoing process by which individuals attempt to forecast what consumers will want in the future and then organize production to satisfy those demands.

This might sound bland, but it’s immensely important. Without people thinking about what consumers might want, nothing will get done—our economy will just be a lump of raw materials, tools, and factories. Entrepreneurs are the men and women that act now to create value for consumers in an uncertain future.

The key point here is that entrepreneurs are acting in the face of uncertainty. Entrepreneurs that consistently make profits prove themselves capable of forecasting the constantly changing demands of consumers.

Now we can see why entrepreneurs are so vital in today’s economy. Taking action in the face of uncertainty is precisely what entrepreneurs do. So who could be better qualified to meet our changing needs in these very uncertain times?

And we do, in fact, see entrepreneurs adapting and expanding their services for the needs of health-conscious consumers. As my colleague Corianna Baier noted in a recent post:

Most stores now have curbside or delivery options, gyms and restaurants are moving things outdoors, and socially-distanced concerts are the latest form of entertainment. There is also plenty of innovation in education, with pods facilitating or replacing virtual learning.

However, entrepreneurs need the freedom to innovate and act on their ideas. The immense number of regulations in Missouri hinders their ability to adapt to our needs. The more Missouri dictates what can be done in education, restaurants, and public meeting places, the less freedom entrepreneurs have to provide for our needs.

Missouri faces a difficult challenge. The COVID-19 crisis has changed our behavior and the goods and services we need. Entrepreneurs have already adapted to these changes and will continue to innovate in order to provide for our needs. Shouldn’t we celebrate these men and women and allow them the freedom to serve us in this uncertain economy?

The Burden of Special Taxing Districts

Posted on by Corianna Baier

I recently wrote about Chesterfield’s plans to hike taxes during a pandemic. It looks like more tax increases could be coming, but this time in the form of a sales tax. A plan released last week to develop $84 million worth of projects on Delmar Boulevard also includes a request for a special taxing district that would raise sales taxes in the area. More special taxing districts and higher sales tax is a bad idea in general, but it’s an especially bad idea during a pandemic.

Since moving to Missouri, I’ve (reluctantly) become accustomed to high sales tax rates that vary from city to city, and even from street to street. Special taxing districts, political subdivisions that can impose taxes, are often to blame for these high sales tax rates, as they add additional taxes on top of state, county, and city taxes. As we work through this economic downturn, many will feel the burden of these high sales taxes.

The chart below shows the highest general sales tax rates in select cities according to Missouri’s Department of Revenue. As you can see, general sales taxes can get pretty high all over the state, peaking at 11.679% in several areas of St. Louis City (specific sales taxes, such as hotel room rates, can get even higher). Even in places with smaller populations like Joplin, there are enough special taxing districts to push sales tax rates up to nearly double digits.

With little oversight and a flawed implementation system, special taxing districts have taken over Missouri. While these districts have been a growing problem for years, the poor state of the economy underscores how little we can afford more special taxing districts right now. Isn’t it time for Missouri to stop taking money out of the pockets of regular citizens and giving it away to wealthy developers?

Funding Roads by Miles Traveled—There’s an App for That

Posted on by Jakob Puckett

Yesterday’s post explored odometer reporting as an imperfect but straightforward way to replace fuel taxes with a funding mechanism that tied road usage more closely to the amount a driver pays. However, the most accurate way to know how many in-state miles someone drives is to track their vehicles. Several states have initiated road-usage-charge programs that offer drivers the option of using GPS-equipped vehicle plug-in devices, or even an app, to record their mileage.

Recording mileage via GPS tracking has some advantages over the odometer-reading method I described in yesterday’s post. For one thing, the GPS method would allow out-of-state miles to be excluded. Additionally, as some roads—such as urban freeways and interstates—are more expensive to build and maintain than typical roads, drivers could pay different rates for using different roads.

However, this type of mileage recording raises privacy concerns. How do these programs work in states that have tried it?

The longest-running and best-established program to date is in Oregon. Drivers who voluntarily participate in the OReGO program can pay a per-mile fee for driving and have any fuel taxes reimbursed. Drivers have several options of how to track those miles, such as paying for a block of miles in advance, odometer readings, or using GPS technology to record miles driven. If drivers choose the latter option, a third-party provider places a GPS-equipped plug-in device in their car, and the device uses vehicle data to determine in-state miles driven and fuel consumption. In order to protect drivers’ privacy, Oregon state law mandates that only the total weekly miles driven may be reported to the Department of Transportation. Personal data not delivered to the Department of Transportation is encrypted and destroyed on a set schedule, in accordance with Department of Transportation policy and OReGO program requirements laid down legislatively. This information cannot be sold or traded without the driver’s express consent.

Utah’s Road Usage Charge program operates similarly, although it is only for electric vehicle drivers. The program’s voluntary participants can pre-select their privacy settings, and a transponder run by a third-party service provider is installed in the vehicle. The third-party system sends monthly total miles driven to the Department of Transportation without disclosing additional data unless tied to a criminal investigation.

Several other states are exploring variants of these programs. Delaware and other east coast states are exploring mileage-based user fees in a series of pilots. California also conducted a road-usage charge pilot program, but legislators have not decided whether to continue the program.

It is also important to note what GPS technology does and does not do. GPS satellites do not necessarily track cars (or phones, etc.) that have receivers. It is the GPS receiver itself, whether in a cell phone or transponder, that tracks its own position in relation to a satellite. But unless the receiver is equipped with reporting capability, the device’s location is not shared with the satellite.

Protecting drivers’ privacy is a serious concern, and reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers. Further, while it offers the potential for the most accurate measuring of a driver’s miles logged, a GPS-based option must continue to be one of several options for reporting miles. In the next post, I’ll talk about a third method of pairing funding for road maintenance with miles driven.

Think Miles, Not Gallons, to Fund Missouri’s Roads

Posted on by Jakob Puckett

Yesterday I discussed how the increasing popularity of electric vehicles (EVs) has exposed flaws in Missouri’s system of funding road and highway maintenance. Fuel taxes and registration fees are inadequate proxies for the damage these vehicles do to our roads, highways, and bridges. As more EVs hit the road, the problem will only worsen. But what ways are there to connect the fees drivers pay with the actual damage they do rather than the amount and type of fuel their vehicles consume?

A more accurate proxy for a road-damage fee would seem to be one based on the number of miles a vehicle is actually driven and the weight of that vehicle. How could such a system be implemented?

One of the simplest ways to assess how much someone has driven is by taking an odometer reading.

There are several ways this could be done. Drivers could self-report their odometer readings either as part of the annual registration process or at any other established time. Alternatively, a recording device could be plugged into the diagnostics port of most vehicles to measure the miles driven. This is the method employed by several states that have initiated road usage charge programs. As drivers pay for the miles driven, they are then reimbursed for the gas taxes they paid to travel those miles.

Recording miles traveled through odometer readings poses no threat to driver privacy, as even when a device is used to record mileage it does not track the vehicle’s movement.

There are a couple disadvantages to calculating miles traveled through odometer readings. This method could be impractical and arguably unfair for people who frequently drive out of state, as they would be charged for those miles too. In addition, many older cars don’t have a diagnostic port, and thus wouldn’t be able to accommodate a device used to track their miles.

Reading odometers is straightforward and raises no privacy issues; for those who don’t do much driving out of state, it has a lot of advantages. In the next post I’ll discuss one of the more controversial methods of measuring miles driven.

Belt-tightening Time in Public Education

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

A version of this commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Make no mistake—people across Missouri are losing their jobs, and state income tax revenue is going to decline as a result. The timing of Missouri’s fiscal year may obscure the crisis to some extent this year, but next year will be tough. Public school districts are going to take a hit. Education is one of the very few areas of the Missouri budget that can be cut, and it will be. School districts and the legislature should be planning now.

But before we get to what districts should be doing, we need to acknowledge that we won’t have firm numbers on how many students are being educated by each district for several years. For per-student funding purposes, Missouri law allows districts to use their current enrollment or the enrollment from either of the two previous years to calculate state public education spending. Obviously, districts will want to use the highest possible number. But this year in particular students are moving around—opting for microschools, private schools, or homeschooling. There is some evidence that enrollment in the MOCAP public virtual education program is way up. At some point, we need to figure out where every student is being educated this year. It may be hard to take attendance on Zoom, but legislators cannot make informed decisions about the public education budget without solid enrollment numbers.

In the meantime, districts need to up their fiscal game, and here are a few suggestions:

  • Reduce administrative costs. According to the most recent federal data (from the 2016–2017 school year), Missouri spent almost $350 million on district administrators, school boards, and their support staff. It may be time to reconsider having 520 school districts in a state with 114 counties.
  • Consider how noninstructional services are provided. Could transportation or food services costs be reduced through competitive contracting? Could districts work together to share resources?
  • Reconsider collective bargaining agreements and employee benefits. Step-and-ladder pay schedules, coupled with expensive pension obligations, make it very difficult for districts to reduce expenditures when their revenue declines. Salaries and promotions should be flexible, and retirement plans should be transportable 401(k) accounts.
  • Delay or forego capital projects. These projects commit funds for the long term and reduce flexibility during economic downturns.

The state legislature could be doing its part as well. The current Missouri school funding formula has too many outdated “hold harmless” clauses that distort the distribution of state public education funds and, in some cases, send state funds to wealthy districts that would not normally qualify. According to the Forward through Ferguson “Still Separate, Still Unequal” project, in 2017–18, almost half of the 29 school districts in St. Louis County received hold harmless funding, including $578 in state funding per student in Ladue and $562 per student in Clayton. In addition, nearly half of the school districts in the state use property values from 15 years ago to figure out how much their local contribution of public education dollars should be, regardless of how property values have risen or fallen. That needs to change.

Finally, this year has made it clear that it’s time for public education funding to follow the child. Missouri parents who in the past gave little thought to school choice are discovering what it means to have no choice but a bad choice, and those who can afford to do so are taking matters into their own hands. Parents across the state are paying for tutors, pod coaches, private school tuition, and childcare. Meanwhile, their children are still being counted in the enrollment numbers of the schools they attended last year. It is only fair to give all parents access to a portion of their state education funding so they can spend it on options that work for their children. In several other states, governors have used stimulus funds to give parents quick access to scholarships to pay for these much-needed options. Missouri should do the same and make such scholarships a permanent option going forward.

The storm that was 2020 is going to linger for a few years, and policymakers in Missouri should be taking steps right now to weather it.

Electric Vehicles and the (Almost) Free-Rider Problem

Posted on by Jakob Puckett

Electric vehicles (EVs) are gaining popularity thanks to their fuel economy, but in Missouri they offer their owners another benefit—one that comes at the expense of other drivers. EV drivers contribute significantly less to road maintenance than drivers of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Road upkeep in Missouri is paid for primarily by federal and state fuel taxes, and to a lesser degree by vehicle registration fees. Here’s what the average Missouri ICE-car driver pays in taxes and fees:

  • Between Missouri’s state gasoline tax (17.4 cents/gallon) and the federal gas tax (18.4 cents/gallon), drivers pay 35.8 cents in taxes per gallon.
  • The average Missouri motorist drives roughly 17,400 miles per year, and (as of 2018) the average fuel economy of all cars on the road was about 25 miles per gallon.
  • So: 17,400 / 25 = 696 gallons of gas used.
  • 696 ×35 = $249.11. The average driver pays this amount each year in gas taxes to help maintain the roads they drive on.

EV drivers don’t buy gas, so they don’t pay a gas tax. However, EVs still cause wear and tear on the roads, so shouldn’t their owners pay their fair share to keep those roads maintained?

Missouri policymakers seem to have recognized the imbalance, which is why EV drivers pay $75 per year in registration fees, which are put toward maintaining the roads. This fee is between 1.5 and 4 times higher than registration fees for ICE vehicles (depending on taxable horsepower), but still not close to the average of nearly $250 per year in gas taxes that ICE vehicle drivers pay.

While it appears that a simple fix for this problem would be to raise the EV licensing fee to $250, that wouldn’t be fair either. EV drivers would then pay the same amount for road maintenance whether they drive 5,000 or 25,000 miles per year.

So Missouri’s two systems for collecting taxes to fund road maintenance are troubled: a per-gallon gas tax that doesn’t apply to EV drivers, and a flat annual registration fee that doesn’t connect road usage to the amount paid to maintain the roads. Neither system is fair, and the cost of sticking with them is only going to get higher as more people drive EVs.

Tomorrow I’ll explore ways that mileage-based fees could help Missouri fund its road and highway system in a way that is fairer to all drivers.

Why Everyone Should Care About Economics

Posted on by Jacob Dowell

We hear a lot about the economy today. Numbers related to employment, investments, and output get tossed around regularly. But how many people really understand economics well enough to know what it all means?

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

This quote by Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus, Human Action, is a plea to the common citizen to learn economics. At first glance, it might seem exaggerated. Is economics really relevant to everybody and everything? And is it really the essence of civilization?

In fact, it is. As Mises argues elsewhere in the book, society is simply the cooperative interaction of different individuals. But how does this cooperative interaction come to be? Human nature is selfish, so why don’t we just fight each other to get the things we want?

The answer, according to Mises, is the division of labor. By specializing in tasks and exchanging goods, each individual actually benefits more in the long run than if they were to fight each other. Division of labor is cooperation. This is the foundation of economics. It’s also the foundation of civilization.

However, the fact that the division of labor is more productive is not, in itself, sufficient for cooperation to take place. Each individual must also recognize this fact. Without understanding the benefits of cooperation, individuals would give in to their short-term instinct of plunder. Thankfully, humans are rational beings and eventually realized that cooperation and exchange are better than barbarism.

However, cooperation through the division of labor—the foundation of civilization—is constantly under attack by socialists who want to dismantle the market system. This market system based on property rights is nothing but the extension of the division of labor and exchange.

This is why Mises makes his plea for everyone to learn economics. If people lose this insight about the benefits of cooperation and give into short-term instincts for plunder and control, our society would suffer greatly.

Mises summed it up nicely in Human Action:

Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.” Giving into rhetoric without examining economics yourself is “tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s domination.

Don’t let the political winds sway you. Don’t let ideas go unchallenged. Learn economics yourself. The teachings of Ludwig von Mises are a great place to start.

Free Markets in the Wake of the Pandemic

Posted on by Corianna Baier

The pandemic has disrupted our daily lives and changed our day-to-day activities. Who would have thought we could do so many things without leaving the safety (and comfort) of our homes? Though the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a lot of economic turmoil, some free-market innovations have helped us weather the storm.

Many restaurants have ditched multi-use menus in favor of QR codes that allow you to access menus on your phone. Some even have dine-in customers order using new apps on their phones to reduce interactions between guests and staff. Most stores now have curbside or delivery options, gyms and restaurants are moving things outdoors, and socially-distanced concerts are the latest form of entertainment. There is also plenty of innovation in education, with pods facilitating or replacing virtual learning.

Not only are established businesses pivoting their operations, but new businesses are popping up to fill new demands created by the pandemic. According to the Census Bureau, business applications were up 77.4 percent in the third quarter of 2020 compared to the second quarter. Our new circumstances have created room for entrepreneurship; companies are making masks, creating fun backyards, or installing home-office setups.

There is no centralized, one-size-fits-all way for a business to survive a pandemic and economic shutdown, and there shouldn’t be. This is where the free market plays a vital role; businesses can experiment to find out what works best for them, and that could be totally different from the business next door. Unfortunately, not every business will make it through this economic downturn, but the freedom to innovate will help some survive. While we all try to get through these tough times, we can thank the free market for giving us these new options to enjoy (from a safe distance).

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