Is This the New Normal?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Oh, for the halcyon days when parents had to sue to get their children access to virtual education in Missouri. Due to the coronavirus, more than 80 percent of K–12 students in the United States became homeschooled in less than a week, including students in more than 400 districts in Missouri.

Schools and districts are grappling with spring standardized testing. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance allowing states to request a waiver for submitting test results this year. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has already changed the Annual Performance Report metric to count attendance as only “reportable,” not “scorable.” There’s plenty more to figure out in this ongoing process.

One thing that gives me confidence is classic American ingenuity. No one saw this coming a year ago, but the ideas to make this new normal livable are rolling in. My colleague, Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, has compiled an excellent list of resources for parents with school-aged children at home for weeks. The College Board is figuring out how AP students can take their spring exams at home. Harvard Business Review has compiled tips for working parents dealing with school closures. Experts on education policy are offering their services pro bono to districts trying to craft a strategy. This is just a small sample of the efforts in the education sphere right now to find the best way to serve children in the midst of a pandemic.

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that we can continue to generate and use these great ideas going forward. There is now absolutely no reason for Missouri school boards to resist alternate learning environments. We can think hard about building standards and accountability systems that are flexible and focus on how much each student is learning, rather than giving points for average daily attendance. We can trust parents to be truly involved in their children’s education. We didn’t expect this pandemic and we don’t know what’s coming next. So let’s use this as an opportunity to build a smarter education system for Missouri students.

Not Your Kids, Not Your Money

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Consider this a public service announcement: Public school districts do not own the children who live within their borders. And they don’t “lose” money when students living within their borders choose something other than their assigned public school. They simply do not educate the child or receive funding for educating them.

Fortunately, the Missouri Senate Government Reform Committee seems to agree. Although it still has a ways to go, Senate Bill 996 has passed out of committee and will hopefully be considered by the full Senate soon. This bill changes the way funding works for full-time virtual education students. Rather than have state funding go to the students’ home school district and then back out to the virtual program, funding would simply go from the state to the virtual program. Makes sense, right?

Of course, the usual opponents showed up to testify against the bill. It was called an attempt to privatize education and make a profit from Missouri students. An opponent of the bill from the Missouri School Boards’ Association asked: “. . . who is making sure these providers are doing right by our students?” Well, that would be the parents of the students who choose full-time virtual education over their assigned public school. Recall that this is not a passive move—students aren’t assigned to full-time virtual schools. Rather, it is an active choice by these parents and students. When someone makes a choice that is outside the mainstream, it is usually a conscious and informed decision to find something that works for them.

For more than 95 percent of the public school students in Missouri, full-time virtual education is the only public option other than their assigned public school. In the two years since the Missouri legislature passed and the governor signed the bill making full-time virtual education possible, there have been numerous examples of bad behavior on the part of public school districts intended to prevent kids from entering full-time virtual programs. Far too many parents have had to lawyer up in order to exercise their legal right to this option for their children.

In 2020, conducting school, business, or personal obligations online is no longer novel or threatening. In fact, there are circumstances that have revealed it as a very necessary approach when in-person communication isn’t possible. Missouri public school districts and their school boards need to realize that the future of public education does not look like the past. Parents want options, and we should be willing to make sure they have them.

Arizona State License Portability Study Highlights Reciprocity Benefits

Posted on by Corianna Baier

As my colleague Patrick Ishmael has written, the Missouri legislature is considering bills on occupational licensing reciprocity. In short, a state that adopts “universal” or “unilateral” licensing reciprocity is one that accepts the licenses of qualified professionals from other states without requiring an extensive, and potentially duplicative, relicensing process of its own. Accepting qualified professionals in this manner expands the pool of providers of these goods and services and puts downward pressure on prices thanks to greater competition. Under present circumstances, such an expansion of supply is not only preferable—it’s necessary to support public health.

States, including Missouri, have adopted other licensing policies, including the establishment of interstate “compacts” and agreements between and among states that provide some reciprocity features, but a recent paper out of Arizona State University’s Center for the Study of Economic Liberty highlights the downfalls of that and other forms of licensing portability. The paper argues that broad-based occupational licensing reciprocity is a better way to “open the broadest avenues to opportunity for the most workers in the shortest amount of time,” and although interstate compacts and multistate licenses increase license portability, they take a lot of work to set up and only provide portability for specific professions within the states that join.

A better alternative to our current system is the one we propose: broad-based licensing reciprocity. As the ASU paper explains:

Unlike compacts, universal licensing reciprocity can: 

  1. be broad-based and cover a wide range of workers; and, 
  2. encourage competition between states in terms of the requirements to obtain a license — or even whether a state should mandate an occupational license at all. 

Broad-based licensing reciprocity is a better route for portability reform as it avoids the pitfalls of our current system and enhances economic opportunity and competition. Hopefully the continued research in favor of licensing reciprocity will lead to favorable legislation that increases opportunities for workers.

Charter Schools Can Help More Students Get to College

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

Charter schools in Missouri have demonstrated the ability to outperform traditional public schools, and yet it is nearly impossible to open a charter school in most parts of the state. This comes at the cost of potentially higher academic achievement and college attendance for Missouri students. A new study on the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP)—a charter school network that operates schools across the country—found that students enrolled in KIPP middle schools are more likely to eventually attend college than those who don’t.

The study examined 13 KIPP middle schools that had more applicants than seats available, so researchers were able to track the kids who got into the KIPP schools and those that didn’t. The groups of students are comparable because they all applied to KIPP schools, and thus have similar qualities like motivation and parental support. The results show that students enrolled in KIPP middle schools were 13 percent more likely to enroll in a 4–year college than students who did not. The study states that “the impact of attending a KIPP school would be almost large enough to erase the nationwide racial disparity in college enrollment rates.”

Nationally, KIPP has 242 schools and serves more than 100,000 students. St. Louis currently has six KIPP schools, including two middle schools and a high school. Kansas City has just two, including one middle school. There are so many more disadvantaged students outside of St. Louis and Kansas City who could benefit from a high-performing charter school like a KIPP school. Under Missouri’s current charter school laws, only the three percent of Missouri students in the St. Louis City or Kansas City school districts even have the option to apply for lottery admissions to KIPP schools. Charter school expansion could bring effective schools to students all over the state, giving students in urban and rural areas access to quality education.

In Crisis, Supply-Side Healthcare Reforms Are Even More Important

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

By far the most important news story of 2020 has been the coronavirus, and for obvious reasons; it has the potential to affect every person on the planet, and accordingly, we all should be taking appropriate precautions to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Recent news of the first coronavirus patients in the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas hammer those points home. At the same time, it’s becoming increasingly clear from other countries’ experiences that good long-term healthcare policy is also terribly important, and among the most important policies for reformers to consider is promoting a flexible supply of healthcare goods and services.

Healthcare supply is an especially important issue in China. Ground zero for the pandemic, China had already long been beset by shortages of healthcare professionals, largely thanks to the surprisingly low pay and status of the health care professions in that country. Despite this, China has (as far as we can tell) mitigated this problem by shifting the supply of health care professionals from other areas into the Wuhan region. (Emphasis mine)

Sometimes it takes a crisis to highlight what’s wrong with a medical system. In China, however, the coronavirus hasn’t uncovered any surprises. Instead, it’s thrown a spotlight on problems that have festered for decades, including the lack of a primary care system, and — most critically — a shortage of qualified medical personnel. Although reform efforts have been underway for years, the situation in Wuhan is a stark reminder of how far China must go to meet the minimal medical standards expected by its fast-growing middle class. . . .

For now, China can treat Wuhan’s shortage of doctors as a health crisis and mobilize qualified personnel from across China to work in the city. Indeed, 6,000 medical workers from across China have either arrived in the Wuhan area or will soon, and they will alleviate much of the pressure building up in hospital corridors. But they’ll stay only as long as the immediate crisis requires. When they leave, Wuhan — like most Chinese cities — will be left scrambling to find enough doctors to treat a long-term health-care crisis.

Meanwhile Italy, which has also been hard hit by the virus, has also been dealing with a shortage of doctors and facilities for many years. That shortage has only been accentuated by the severe pressure the coronavirus has placed on the Italian healthcare system in recent weeks:

“We have a health-care system in southern regions, especially south of Naples, where we actually have very few facilities,” said Prisco Piscitelli, an epidemiologist and vice president of the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine. Their ability to cope may be “even worse with the increased number of occupied beds in hospitals and intensive-care units.”

Hospital berths are only part of the answer. Italy is also suffering from a shortage of doctors. As many as 1,500 leave the country every year after finishing their specialization, according to doctors’ association Fnomceo.

Thankfully the worst of the coronavirus hasn’t hit the United States yet, and hopefully the disease will be brought under control before it reaches Spanish flu epidemic levels. Whatever the outcome, the experiences of China and Italy reemphasize the threat posed by uneven and inadequate healthcare supply, both in terms of medical professionals and medical facilities. The consequences of government intervention in the United States and in Missouri that exacerbates these shortages—whether by blocking interstate licensing reciprocity or erecting barriers to new healthcare facilities—will be borne by patients, even under non-crisis circumstances.

Reformers should continue to focus on bringing supply-side reforms into law because not only will such reforms help the public during periods of healthcare normalcy, but they will also help the public when a healthcare crisis is upon us.

What’s Really Happening with Medicaid Enrollment?

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

It’s been nearly a year since I first wrote about Missouri’s falling Medicaid enrollment, and questions remain. There are now roughly 100,000 fewer children enrolled in our state’s Medicaid program than there were at the beginning of 2018, although child enrollment has stayed relatively consistent over the past six months. In Jefferson City, there is still a fundamental disagreement about what caused the drop and what, if anything, the government should do in response. As policymakers begin considering legislation to tackle the issue, it’s important to look at what’s being said and separate the facts from fiction.

What we know:

  • Medicaid eligibility criteria in Missouri are far more lenient for children than for adults – Individuals under eighteen years old qualify for Medicaid based on their family’s total income. Those whose parents make less than 150 percent ($38,625 for a family of four) of the federal poverty level (FPL) can enroll in the traditional Medicaid program. And those whose families earn between 150 and 300 percent ($38,625–$77,250 for a family of four) of the FPL can enroll in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The care available to individuals in both groups is identical, but those who are in the first receive the coverage free while those in the second group are asked to pay a monthly premium. While CHIP and Medicaid are separate programs, both groups are typically included in total Medicaid enrollment numbers.
  • Federal law requires at least yearly income verification for Medicaid enrollees – Since people qualify for the program based on income, the federal government requires states to check whether enrollees are still eligible to receive services at least once per year. Nearly six months ago, it was revealed that Missouri’s Medicaid agency had stopped performing annual income verifications from 2014 through 2017. Missouri resumed verification at the beginning of 2018. However, some claim that the administrative burden required to verify eligibility is too high.
  • The drop in enrollment is concentrated among Missouri’s children – Today, there are roughly 520,000 children enrolled in Missouri’s Medicaid program, but only about 25,000 of them are enrolled in CHIP. The majority of the enrollment drop has been among children in families making less than 150 percent of the FPL, but there has been a slight increase in CHIP enrollment. There are limitations to what net enrollment figures can tell us. The enrollment figures do not show how many people came off the rolls, how many came on, or why anyone’s enrollment status changed.

What we don’t know:

  • Whether the state adequately advises eligible beneficiaries on how to maintain their coverage – The decline in enrollment began once Missouri’s Medicaid agency restarted its annual verifications at the beginning of 2018 with the help of a new automated system. With the rollout of the new system, Medicaid recipients began receiving letters in the mail informing them they would need to verify their incomes and the process required to do so. Some contend that the state did not do enough to ensure each recipient received and understood the letter. Nonetheless, coverage may be canceled within 30 days absent verification in order to remain compliant with federal law.
  • How many children would still be eligible for the Medicaid program they were previously enrolled in – Some claim that many of the children removed from the Medicaid rolls were probably still eligible for coverage. The key distinction is that many might be eligible for coverage, but likely only eligible for CHIP. As mentioned previously, CHIP requires monthly premiums; traditional Medicaid is free. Without hearing from parents, should the state really enroll people who were previously receiving free coverage into a plan that requires monthly payments? The reality is that we do not know how many children removed from the rolls could have remained in the traditional Medicaid program.
  • Why the children have not re-enrolled – Eventually, some parents of kids who lost coverage must have realized their kids were still eligible. So why didn’t these parents re-enroll their children? It seems the most likely answer is that many found out their children were now only eligible for CHIP instead of Medicaid, and simply chose another option instead of enrolling in CHIP. If parents find out they must pay a premium for coverage, and they are eligible for private insurance through the individual marketplace or through their employer, it would make sense that they might not opt for Medicaid coverage.

Falling Medicaid enrollment in Missouri is certainly an important topic, but it is also a complicated one. The issue isn’t whether children should have health coverage or not, but rather how the state should administer its Medicaid program to ensure optimal care for recipients while making the best use of taxpayer dollars. Policymakers should be sure they have all the facts before acting.

The Appalling Lede Buried in Prison Guard Labor “Dispute” Story

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

For the past few months, a fascinating labor dispute has been developing down in Jefferson City. Starting in December, the state ended automatic dues deductions for the Missouri Corrections Officers Association (MCOA, or MOCOA) more than a year after the technical expiration of the union’s contract with the state. Late last month, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch provided an update on the situation, revealing that the union was on the verge of closing completely as result of a drop in dues payments by corrections officers.

But starting in paragraph four, a massive story—with greater implications than a simple story of institutional failure—begins to emerge. The reason the union is going “out of business” isn’t just because it’s short on money; it’s because over 95% of the employees were choosing not to pay the MCOA for its representation. (Emphasis mine)

In December, Parson’s Office of Administration announced it would end dues withholding for 5,500 employees who oversee some of the state’s most dangerous rapists, murderers and drug dealers.

The administration said it ended payroll deduction because the union’s contract had expired. It was not clear, however, why the decision came in December because the contract had expired in September.

But as of Friday, the effect of that decision was clear: Just 209 of those workers are paying dues to the union, despite attempts by the MCOA to convince guards to continue paying.

That’s an extraordinary figure. Months after it became clear the government wouldn’t be withholding dues for the union, fewer than 4 percent of the covered employees chose to continue funding the organization. That so many of these workers have decided not to renew their union memberships makes the implied, potentially decades-long wrong committed against these employees all the more extraordinary.

How much money was redirected to a union that apparently didn’t have the support of its members? How much money is being redirected to other unions right now that don’t have the support of their membership?

Whether it’s a statewide union or a local union, government workers should have a regular opportunity to opt into paying union dues—or to simply keep their money. It’s appalling that the MCOA was able to survive so long without the apparent support of its members, and it’s broadly concerning for all other public union members for whom the government remains a union dues collector.

 

The Latest Episode of the Show-Me Institute Podcast

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

On the latest episode of The Show-Me Institute Podcast, Dr. Susan Pendergrass is joined by Cato’s Neal McCluskey. They discuss student debt forgiveness, the difference between the experience of touring a U.S. university campus and a U.K. campus, and try to determine if having a water park at your college is worth the spike in tuition.  

 

Good Riddance to Bad Policy

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The Joplin Globe recently reported that Joplin’s disaster recovery tax-increment financing (TIF) district is being closed after eight years, and any funds therein will be paid out to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. This is good news in that the district could have lasted up to 23 years; instead, it was shuttered after only 8 years. The fact remains that the TIF district should have never been created in the first place.

Joplin’s city council created the TIF district following the devastating tornado that hit Joplin in 2011. As I detailed in my 2017 case study:

While Joplin was certainly blighted, the speed with which the city was rebuilt—and the overwhelming amount of private, unsubsidized capital that was used to do so—give the lie to the claim made by Wallace Bajjali in Joplin, and other developers around Missouri, that capital just won’t move without taxpayer subsidies. In this case, the developer never delivered on promises, leaving the redevelopment corporation to just buy and sell land while the real work of redevelopment was done by individual homeowners and private companies.

What makes the Joplin experience different from most others is that for whatever reason, the partners in the development firm had a falling out. The company vacated its offices and none of its grand TIF plans were realized. This allowed us a rare opportunity to examine the rebuilding in the absence of subsidized TIF activity. When a TIF plan results in new construction, the plan itself is typically credited with the result. But in Joplin, the reconstruction was just the result of individuals and businesses rebuilding on their own.

That rebuilding was impressive, and TIF subsidized development did not play a significant role (just over $20 million was collected by the TIF district from its creation to closure, compared to more than $2 billion in insurance claims). As I observed in the 2017, this is what Joplin had accomplished a mere six years after the tornado:

Joplin has been rebuilding itself—largely from the proceeds of insurance claims that the but-for test never considered! Not only has Joplin recaptured all lost assessed property value and then some, but the city claims that the population was higher in 2015 than it was in 2010 before the tornado.

We know from study after study after study that TIF is ineffective at spurring business growth or job creation. Instead, TIF frequently just lines the pockets of developers with taxpayer cash—often for doing what there were going to do anyway. If there were any doubt of this, one need only look to the people of Joplin, who rebuilt without TIF and in a quarter of the time promised by the TIF plan.

It is long past time that Missouri legislators rein in the use and abuse of economic development incentives such as TIF. Municipal policymakers are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from important public projects and for no appreciable gain.

 

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