School Choice Fails, While Corporate Welfare Succeeds in the Missouri Legislature

Posted on by James V. Shuls

No one enters the legislature saying, “I’m going to be the champion of corporate welfare.” Many, however, do say they want to be a champion for children.

Yet in the 2019 Missouri legislative session, neither the House nor the Senate passed a single school choice bill. Reform for Bryce’s law, which would provide assistance for special needs students to attend private institutions in order to receive specialized instruction, never made it out of committee. A bill to create Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, which would allow school children to pay for tutoring, tuition, or other education services, was filibustered on the Senate floor. And charter school expansion, which would have extended educational opportunities outside of St. Louis and Kansas City, never received a vote on the Senate floor.

Critics said these programs lack accountability, fail to improve outcomes, and take money away from public schools.

At the same time, the legislature pushed through a gigantic corporate welfare bill for General Motors—a bill that would take money away from public schools, has little accountability, and is based on an idea (placating companies with massive subsidies) that has a track record of questionable results.

Why is it that school choice bills have such a tough time passing, while subsidies for big business see such little opposition (except from some of those same school choice supporters)?

The answer is quite simple—organization and power. The education establishment is organized and on message. Through the halls of the capitol, lobbyists for the teacher’s unions, the school administrator’s associations, and the school boards’ association walk in lockstep. They have a clear constituency with concentrated interests. Ask any politician and they will tell you the education lobby is one of the strongest in the state.

And what of the reformers? They seem to be a ragtag bunch, dispersed throughout the state. There is no single group bringing them all together. There is no widespread coalition, just a bunch of individuals who think kids deserve to have educational options.

School choice proponents may never have the kind of power that the education establishment and big business have. That doesn’t mean that legislators shouldn’t do the right thing. If they say they are champions of children, then they should champion children and the policies that give them educational options.

 

KC’s economic development study parroted exactly what the city wanted

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The following commentary also appeared in the Kansas City Star.

Businessman John Wannamaker famously quipped, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.” The same may be true for Kansas City’s economic development incentives, but when the City Council sought to study their effectiveness, the folks who benefit from the current system had their own ideas.

Kansas City leaders have been enriching politically connected private developers through a seeming endless stream of taxpayer incentives. Politicians and developers alike claim the subsidies are necessary to revitalize downtown Kansas City. This is debatable. Though taxpayers have subsidized new restaurants and bars, data from the city’s Regulated Industries Division indicate that the number of liquor licenses and health cards has been flat citywide. Subsidies didn’t create businesses or jobs, they merely moved them. And thanks to generous incentive deals, they moved to areas where they don’t contribute to the tax base.

Likewise, the city has given generous subsidies to companies to build their headquarters here; this includes H&R Block, which, rather than actually adding jobs just moved them from elsewhere in the region. Kansas Citians recently learned the subsidies to hotels are so big and numerous that the market is overbuilt—causing the city’s convention and visitor’s bureau to fret that hotel room rates may crash! Meanwhile, all these subsidies direct money away from a school district in which 90 percent of children qualified to receive free or reduced-price meals.

Worse, none of these subsidies appear to be helping Kansas City’s economy. A recent report from the Brookings Institution ranked Kansas City 78th out of the top 100 metropolitan areas in economic growth—a score that is likely padded by the growth of Johnson County, Kansas.

In the face of public unrest over Kansas City’s subsidy culture, the city council called for a study of incentives and their impact. As reported in the Star, the city awarded the study contract to a trade group sponsored by developers and their lawyers. The resulting study, if one wants to use that term, contained so many methodological lapses that a reader could be forgiven for thinking they were intentional. When the report was presented to the council, it was clear that it did not deliver on its basic purpose: helping policymakers adopt better policy.

From my own investigation into the study process—using the open records law to examine the proposal and bids received, draft reports, and emails—it is clear that the incentive report relied greatly on individuals and organizations with interests in maintaining the current system. One email from a development financier made explicit that the study needed to politically protect the subsidies against the interference of “citizen petitioners.” That note was dutifully passed on from the head of the organization that vets subsidy applications, to the city employee overseeing the study, to the vendor writing it. And when the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce drafted a statement opposing an effort by those same “citizen petitioners” to cap tax-increment financing incentives, they cited the study’s findings. The report seems to have accomplished its mission.

The way this study was undertaken should outrage everyone in Kansas City, especially the councilmembers who called for it to be written. The council should retract the study, investigate how it was conducted, and act swiftly to hold individuals and organizations accountable. A new, independent study is needed.

Moreover, the system by which Kansas City awards such subsidies is in need of overhaul. Taxpayer funds should be protected against self-interested developers, attorneys, and consultants, as well as the organizations they fund. Taxpayers have sacrificed too much—and seen too little return—for mere half measures.

The Governor Threatens to Break a Promise

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The last day of the legislative session is here, and news tends to progress quickly, but one of the fastest developing items is the state’s low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program. The governor apparently intends to restart the program, even without reform. While a charitable read is this is the governor’s way of leveraging the legislature into passing a bad bill, it is still galling.

The reason? It would break one of the first promises the governor made when he came into office. To quote the governor from just nine months ago (emphasis mine):

As a member of the Commission, I am committed to considering current federal tax credit applications, but until substantial reforms are enacted, state tax credits will not be issued.

The legislative session ends at 6 p.m., and the governor’s plans for the LIHTC should be clear shortly thereafter. If the legislature passes a bad bill and he signs it, it will have been a farce of a reform, but the onus of that failure will be shared with the legislature. Alternatively, if the governor does restart the program without legislative action, that’s a very, very different scenario.

The program is shuttered. If the program isn’t significantly reformed, it should remain shuttered. At one point, the governor would have found that uncontroversial, but here we are.

 

What’s the Rush to Restore the LIHTC?

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

As this year’s legislative session draws to a close, our lawmakers in Jefferson City are again acting as if any unspent money will burn holes in their pockets. Before passing the largest budget in state history, members of the House of Representatives jumped at the chance to potentially restart Missouri’s low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program. Despite the LITHC’s heavy cost to Missouri taxpayers, many of our elected officials appear content carrying water for special interests as opposed to truly helping the state’s many low-income individuals.

During the debate on the House floor, several legislators discussed the program’s benefits for communities and low-income individuals alike. It bears repeating that individuals can support increasing the supply of affordable housing without supporting the LIHTC. The LIHTC program is notoriously expensive given its low return on investment. One legislator commented that the last year the Missouri program issued credits, the state’s investment of more than $160 million only resulted in around 1,000 low-income developments. When combined with the federal portion of the credit, taxpayers are on average subsidizing each new development to the tune of at least $320,000. If most Missourians wouldn’t spend that amount on their own homes, why should they be expected to subsidize that amount for others?

Additionally, multiple legislators discussed the reform efforts as a way to improve the program’s efficiency. While it was good to hear legislators admit many of the faults of the program outlined in multiple auditor reports, their “reforms” are not enough. If policymakers accept the program is currently ineffective and inefficient, why not consider a different program that could work even better? As I’ve said before, the LIHTC program is far from the only way to improve housing options for Missouri’s low-income population. And even if it was, why wouldn’t lawmakers discuss including a provision that guarantees the program is revisited in future years to ensure newly added reforms offer measurable improvement?

Of course, the best outcome for Missouri taxpayers would be to leave the state’s LIHTC program dormant. This would save more than a billion dollars over a decade. With such little time left remaining this legislative session, why are lawmakers rushing to restart the LIHTC program when there is still a better deal for taxpayers to be made? Every bad idea deserves an endpoint; let this year be the LIHTC’s.

 

CTE in Missouri Is Not Aligned with Needs of Students or Employers

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Missouri students are potentially missing out on thousands of job opportunities because the career and technical education (CTE) programs in our high schools are not properly preparing them. While earning a credential or license can give high school graduates a jump start on college or a career, very few are earning credentials for jobs that pay well or that are in demand.  

During the 2017–18 school year, over 180,000 high schoolers in Missouri took at least one CTE class, but fewer than 28,000 concentrated (taking three or more classes) in any one area. What’s more, fewer than 8,000 students earned an industry-recognized credential (IRC), a signal to employers that the student has mastered some set of skills. Many Missouri students—especially those not interested in going to college—could benefit from earning an IRC and leaving high school career ready. 

A recent report from ExcelinEd shows that there are thousands of well-paying jobs that could be readily accessible to Missouri’s high schoolers if they were earning the right credentials. According to the report, Missouri met only one out of five indicators of a quality CTE program.

To put in perspective what kind of opportunities students are missing out on, let’s take a look at careers in just two industries. In 2018, some 617 students in Missouri earned an Automotive Service Excellence Certification. But there were over 3,600 job postings requiring that credential, and these jobs paid over $15 an hour last year. The unmet demand is also apparent in digital designing. There were over 3,300 job postings for Adobe Certified Associate and Adobe Certified Expert credentials each—again, these jobs pay at least $15 an hour—yet there were only 146 Missouri high school students who earned an Associate credential, and none received the Expert credential. Perhaps not enough students are interested in these careers to meet the demand, but are they even aware of these opportunities?

One way to improve awareness and options for students is through teacher bonus pay. If CTE teachers have skin in the game—for instance, $50 for every student of theirs who earns an IRC—they would have an incentive to get more students that could excel in a particular field working towards earning an IRC. Florida has such a program and students there earned over 140,000 credentials during the 2016–17 school year. Overall, one in six Florida high school students earned a credential, compared to just one in twenty high school students in Missouri.

Like many states, Missouri has a workforce problem. But with some simple changes, which other states have implemented successfully, we could increase the number of students earning credentials, while aligning those credentials to the job market. Good information paired with the right incentives can help move Missouri’s CTE in the right direction. 

Course Access is Finally Available

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

After almost a year of waiting, course access for Missouri students is finally in sight. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has published a list of approved education providers and classes students can take through the Missouri online course access program. In May 2018, the legislature passed course access for Missouri students and the governor signed it into law. Now, students can take classes online that would otherwise be unavailable at their school.

The combined course list shows courses available on a wide range of topics including foreign language, different types of science and even audio and visual production classes. Some of the classes are even available at the AP (Advanced Placement) level. The education providers include Mizzou, K-12, Edison Learning, and others.

Show-Me Institute analysts have written extensively about the need for course access in Missouri, and seeing it signed into law was exciting. Although DESE did not produce the list of approved providers and courses as promised at the end of 2018, we’re glad to see that it is finally available on the Missouri Course Access and Virtual School Program (MOCAP) website.  

The law also requires districts to inform parents and students about MOCAP, but not all districts are compliant yet. For example, the North Kansas City School District has a MOCAP page on its website, but the Adair County R-I School District does not. As DESE is implementing course access, districts should be informing their students about the opportunity.

Not every student has access to opportunities like AP or foreign language classes in their home district. Now, students should be able to take the classes they need to build their future without being constrained by the offerings of their local school district. As the 2019-2020 school year approaches, we look forward to seeing students enroll in MOCAP classes as they customize their education and prepare for the future.

 

2,532nd Best

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Two college towns, about 300 miles apart. Both are proud to have their state’s flagship university. In addition to their college students, there are undoubtedly professors and other campus staff with students in the local school district. But Fayetteville, AR, can also boast about having the seventh-best high school in the country (according to the U.S. News & World Report rankings released last week), while Columbia, MO, will have to settle for the 2,532nd best.

At Haas Hall Academy, a charter public high school in Fayetteville, 100 percent of the students took at least one AP exam, and 95 percent received a passing score on the exam that could be translated to college credit. At Rock Bridge Senior High in Columbia, just 44 percent of students took an AP exam and only 38 percent received a passing score. A high school in a college town with fewer than half of their students enrolling in college-level coursework. Hmmm.

Are the students in Fayetteville smarter than the students in Columbia? I don’t think so. Here’s the difference: Arkansas doesn’t use charter schools as punishment like Missouri does. They have charter schools in urban, suburban and rural settings. Missouri only has charter schools in two failed urban districts.

I’m sure that Haas Hall Academy offers a challenging curriculum that isn’t a good fit for every student. But students are welcome to take on that challenge, if they so choose. Students in Columbia are stuck in a public-school system designed in the early part of the last century—draw a circle around a school and everyone in that circle has to go to said school. I’m completely convinced that if a school like Haas Hall Academy opened in Columbia, it would end up with a waiting list like the one in Fayetteville. Too bad Missouri legislators won’t allow it.

 

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