Asleep at the Wheel or Self-Driving Car?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The breathless headline asserting the United States has “wasted” up to $1 billion on charter schools is an eye-catcher. That conclusion comes from a paper released by an advocacy group that claims the U.S. Department of Education has been “asleep at the wheel” in administering the Charter Schools Program.

First, let’s not confuse charter schools with the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP).  The CSP was implemented in 1994 in order to increase the national understanding of charter schools and to expand the number of high-quality charter schools. The CSP awards grants for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools. Some schools that received planning grants were never able to open. According to the notes in the CSP data file, there are a number of reasons that might happen, including not being able to find a building, deciding to combine with another operator, or other typical start-up issues. And some charter schools that received grants and opened were then closed, as the charter school model dictates they would if they have performance or financial issues.

So, of the $12.5 trillion (adjusted for inflation) spent on K-12 public education since 1995, the $4 billion in grants awarded through the CSP accounts for 0.03 percent. And of that, according to the authors of the report, one-fourth, or 0.008 percent, went to schools that either didn’t open or opened and have since closed. Asleep at the wheel! Imagine what’s been spent on traditional public schools that are failing students, but never get closed.

Parental satisfaction and support for charter schools remains extremely high, particularly among younger parents. And the charter school sector is designed for continuous improvement, refining its planning and chartering process so that new charter schools can open strong and those that aren’t working close down. Sounds like more of a self-driving car than one careening off the road to me.

 

IRCs Open the Door to Career Opportunities

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

Imagine you spent much of high school in a career and technical education (CTE) program, mastering the skills you’ll need for the career you plan to pursue after graduation. You get your CTE certificate when you graduate, confident that it’s your ticket to employment in your chosen field. But despite all the work you put in, you can’t get the job you want because your credential isn’t the right one. And to add insult to injury, the right credential—the one that employers are looking for—was there for the taking all along. Had you only realized its importance, you could have earned it in high school along with your CTE certificate.

In many cases, the “right” credential to have coming out of high school is an industry-recognized credential (IRC). You earn it by passing an exam that is designed not by your school, but by a professional trade organization. There’s nothing wrong with earning a CTE certificate from your school; it can reflect a broad competence in the skills required for a given profession. But an IRC indicates mastery of knowledge specifically chosen by employers who have jobs to fill. It only makes sense that schools should encourage students to earn the credential that their potential employers want them to have.

The graphic at the top of this post shows just a few of the career options that can open up for students who earn an IRC. Others include (but aren’t limited to) education, culinary arts, business, graphic design, and hospitality. Fewer than 3 percent of Missouri high school students earned an IRC in 2017. Moreover, out of 27,437 students who completed three or more CTE classes during the 2016–2017 school year, only 8,565 earned IRCs. Employers are bending over backwards to tell us what students need to learn in order to get hired; shouldn’t we listen to them?

Listen to the podcast.

IRC infographic-1.pdf

The Majority of Kansas City Families Choose Their Child’s School

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

The data are in. The families of Kansas City have made their intentions clear by voting with their feet. They want school choice.

Local education gadfly Rebecca Haessig recently broke down the 2018-19 enrollment figures for public schools in Kansas City on her blog Set The Schools Free. According to her number crunching, 12,475 Kansas City students attend charter schools, 3,705 students attend Kansas City Public Schools Signature schools, and 10,582 attend traditional neighborhood schools. That means that 16,180 students out of 26,762 total students attend a school that requires an active choice. That is 60% of all Kansas City students in public schools.

What’s more, this does not even count the thousands of children who attend private schools or the families that move to other school districts in the Kansas City area for better schools. It simply states that within the boundaries of the Kansas City Public Schools, the majority of families actively choose their schools.

This is important for three reasons.

First, school choice is not some fringe movement. Marginalization is a classic political tactic, and one that is frequently used to try and slow down the expansion of school choice. But the numbers don’t lie. School choice is the norm, not the exception.

Second, we need to be all-inclusive when we talk about school choice. Many of the loudest anti-charter school or private school choice voices in Kansas City send their children to schools of choice. These schools often have screening mechanisms that weed out lower performing students, students with discipline problems, or students with uninvolved parents. If these critics are going to complain about various types of school choice, they should be transparent about the fact that they’re using some form of school choice for their own kids.

Third, we have to square these figures with the continued argument that the Kansas City Public Schools are improving. Now, I totally agree with my friend Susan Pendergrass that Missouri is grading schools on a pretty generous curve,  but simply taking the district’s own rhetoric at face value, school choice is obviously not hurting  KCPS given its much touted improvement in APR (Annual Progress Report) scores. They can’t have it both ways. If the school district is improving, like they are arguing, school choice can’t be that big of a problem, because 60% of kids are taking advantage of it!

It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who famously said, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” The facts on school choice in Kansas City are clear and deserve to be acknowledged.

 

Missouri Should Be Measuring Intergenerational Poverty, but How We Do It Matters

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Recently, legislation was introduced that would require a study by the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) to measure intergenerational poverty. Under this bill, DSS would determine “how many recipients of benefits or services…are the children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of individuals who also received such benefits or services.”

Distinguishing between short-term and long-term poverty could be a wise move, but how valuable would a single snapshot be in describing a multi-generational problem? Not very. While Missouri should know who is receiving entitlements and for how long, there is a better way to collect that information than what is being proposed.

Utah’s Intergenerational Poverty Initiative is now in its seventh year and has five years of data that allows the state to more accurately measure intergenerational poverty and the success of its various anti-poverty efforts. It also has a data dashboard that shows current data and the trends in intergenerational poverty since 2014. Unfortunately, similarly precise information is unavailable for Missouri, although there are ways to approximate the extent of cyclical poverty in our state.

For example, in my recent essays, “Intergenerational Poverty in Missouri” and “Creating Pathways for Self-Sufficiency,” I estimated the scope of intergenerational poverty in Missouri with a combination of U.S. Census data and economic mobility data. Such extrapolation gives us a general picture of intergenerational poverty in Missouri, but detailed and up-to-date data would be that much more helpful for policymaking purposes.

The years of data Utah has is important for establishing trends, measuring the effectiveness of programs, and having the ability to direct resources to where they could do the most good—in other words, making the most out of the state’s anti-poverty spending. It is doubtful any of that could be accomplished by the singular study that would be commissioned by this bill.

If Missouri’s policymakers are serious about addressing intergenerational poverty and making wise use of welfare expenditures, they should consider a longer-term initiative like Utah’s. As I explain in my essays, intergenerational poverty harms not just those trapped in poverty, but also the rest of the state via costly welfare spending and slower growth.  Ongoing data collection could be well worth the investment if Missouri would use that information to effectively and efficiently move people up and out of poverty. 

 

What Can Millennials Teach Us about School Choice?

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

Charged with unreasonably loving avocado toast and ”killing” the diamond industry, millennials hear many complaints about choices they make every day. But one thing millennials have not killed is school choice. A recent panel of millennials hosted at a South by Southwest conference expanded on what a fall 2018 genforward survey found: Millennials support school choice.

In the survey, millennials were defined as adults aged 18-34 and the surveyed group was a nationally representative sample. The survey found majority support for voucher opportunities (67 to 84 percent among racial and ethnic groups), described as government funding for private school tuition for low-income students. Charter schools also received majority support, from 54 to 67 percent among racial and ethnic groups. As the millennial generation will soon make up the largest population in the electorate, their preferences are important.

Let’s face it; choices permeate daily life at every turn. On items ranging from transportation (drive or rideshare?), eating (go out or app delivery?), and products (trusted brand or monthly subscription?), people are accustomed to making a choice. Millennials have grown up in an age where their preferences are the driving force of their choices. In any instance of choice, you must evaluate your needs and priorities and then find something, a good or a service, to fulfill those needs. In this way, choices regarding education are no different.

In the case of education, the needs of students may be safety, college preparation, community service, career training, individualized teaching, or many other characteristics. All are good things, but not every school can focus on everything. A system of educational freedom and school choice would allow parents to choose a school where their needs are most met. In order for students to flourish, families should be equipped to respond to their child’s educational needs with choice. Millennial support for school choice should be taken as a sign that they are serious about education serving students well.

As it turns out, millennials may be the best generation so far to ask, “does this option or that option best serve my needs?” This question doesn’t lose its importance outside the realm of restaurants and transportation but its relevance and importance actually increase when it comes to education—the stakes are much higher.

 

Don’t Charter Schools Hurt Public Schools?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Without a doubt, the question that I get most often about charter schools is, “But don’t they hurt the public schools?” Setting aside the fact that charter schools are public schools, the short answer is charter public schools don’t hurt traditional public schools any more than other factors that can affect enrollment. But they may challenge them.

The assertion seems to be that all children who live within the borders of a public school district are the property of that school district, unless their parents can pay to opt them out. If free public charter schools become available and parents choose them, then they’re rejecting, and thereby hurting, their local school district.

When a parent chooses to send a child to a charter school, the state funding that would have been sent to the public school district where that student lives is sent, instead, to the charter school the parent has chosen. Federal funding, such as that for low-income students or students with disabilities, also, theoretically, follows the student. Some, but not all, of the local funding may go with the student. The same is true whether the student chooses a charter school, moves to another school district, or moves to another state. The local public school district is no longer tasked with educating the student, so they no longer get the money to do so.

It’s true that districts with declining enrollment may struggle to downsize, at least quickly. The same is true whether parents are choosing to move out of the district or whether they turn to charter schools. But the solution isn’t to prevent kids from choosing charter schools because the district can’t afford it, any more than it would be reasonable to prevent parents from moving out of the district.

Public school districts have some options when faced with the loss of students to charter schools. They can consider it a challenge and do what’s needed to bring parents back. They can collaborate with the charter school to better serve the needs of all students. They can move away from long-term fixed expenses to a nimbler way of doing business, similar to how many charter schools finance their buildings. Or they can complain that the world’s not fair.

All students are guaranteed a free public education by the state, and the power over that funding should be in the hands of parents, rather than locked into a public school district. And defenders of the status quo should stop calling for protected status for schools that parents don’t choose.

Missouri to End Debtors Prisons

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Working in public policy rarely allows for complete, unadulterated wins. But the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v Richey was a pleasant exception. In a unanimous decision, the Court overruled previous courts, writing:

While persons are legally responsible for the costs of their board bills under section 221.070, if such responsibilities fall delinquent, the debts cannot be taxed as court costs and the failure to pay that debt cannot result in another incarceration.

We previously wrote about the plight of “pay to stay” debtors prisons. In short, courts were locking people up for not adequately paying the fees associated with their previous incarceration, triggering an awful cycle. The Show-Me Institute joined in filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of George Richey. We are grateful to Mr. Richey, among others, who chose to challenge this practice. We look forward to more victories in our search for sensible criminal justice reforms.

 

Baltimores on the Missouri?

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

At a recent conference on municipal policy, I had the opportunity to reflect on Baltimore, Maryland. Certainly Charm City has had its challenges in recent years. But there is a lot Missouri policymakers can learn from Baltimore. Specifically, what not to do.

Baltimore’s population has been steadily declining in the past few years. It stands at about 610,000 today—down from 620,000 in 2010 and 650,000 in 2000—and its height of 950,000 people in 1950. Like Kansas City and St. Louis, it has struggled with a high homicide rates, coming in second behind St. Louis in 2017 and ahead of fifth-ranked Kansas City. Like Kansas City’s moniker ‘Killa City,’ Baltimore’s homicide rate earned it the nickname ‘Bodymore, Murderland.’ Baltimore students are some of the worst served in the country.

No one can accuse Baltimore of doing nothing to reverse its fortunes. In fact, Baltimore seems to have done everything that developers and urban planners recommend. Consider the following amenities paid for in part with city and state subsidies:

  • Power Plant Live! entertainment district (developed by Baltimore-based The Cordish Companies, developers of Kansas City Power & Light District and St. Louis Ballpark Village)
  • Rail transit such as the Baltimore Metro and LightRail Link
  • A downtown baseball stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards
  • The National Aquarium
  • The Baltimore Convention Center, first renovated in 1996 and now considering another renovation and expansion; the convention center is connected by rail to . . .
  • Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), including recent renovations and new concourses
  • Baltimore even has a waterfront development!

These are developments that would make any recent Kansas City or St. Louis mayor salivate. And yet none would want to turn their cities into Baltimore. Why?

Maybe it is because we all understand—whether we admit it or not—that cities need to get the basics right. Cities should prioritize basic infrastructure, public safety, and tax policy done well before they splurge on expensive baubles. Kansas City and St. Louis do not yet have the basics right, and nothing should distract us from fixing it.

 

Pay to Play in Education

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

While Missourians clutch their pearls and are scandalized to find out that people with the means to simply pay for college admission do just that, they readily accept that it’s the way K-12 education works here. As Derrell Bradford of 50CAN rightly pointed out, pay to play in K-12 education is done through mortgages, rather than photoshopping pictures of athletes.

I’ve had numerous conversations with parents of young children in St. Louis County who are trying to figure out where and how to buy a house before their child enters kindergarten. And it matters. A 1,900 square foot home with three bedrooms and two bathrooms built in 1990 will cost $240,000 in Florissant, while a similar home would cost $389,900 in Frontenac. Sure, schools aren’t the only difference between the two communities, but they’re certainly factored into that $150,000 premium.

I don’t think I even need to convince anyone of this point—parents who can will pay more money for the same house to get their kids into a school they want. Parents who don’t have the money to do that are stuck. The idea of celebrities buying a spot at USC shocks us in a way that a family scraping together the money to move to a smaller house because it’s in Webster Groves doesn’t.

The quality of a child’s education shouldn’t be connected to the real estate industry. Every parent, regardless of their background or their neighborhood, should have access to an array of choices when it comes to their child’s education.

 

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