Arizona is Pushing Universal Licensing? Yes Please!

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

If you’re licensed to fix hair, or fix plumbing, or fix ankles in another state, it’s sort of silly that Missouri would start with the presumption that you can’t fix those things in our state, too. Missouri has made positive strides on licensing in the past, but there’s plenty more that could, and should, be done.

And that’s why it was exciting to see Arizona take a big step toward that ultimate policy goal of greater licensure reciprocity, by putting forward “universal licensing” legislation. From the Reason write-up:

A bill introduced Monday in the Arizona General Assembly would allow anyone with an occupational license from a different state to automatically qualify for the same license in Arizona without having to retake classes and pass tests again—though they would have to pay a fee to the state board that administers the license, and would have to demonstrate that they were in good standing with the licensing authorities in their previous state. So-called “universal licensing recognition” would make it easier for licensed workers to move to Arizona and would do away with time-consuming and expensive requirements for license-holders who want to move across state lines…

Arizona already recognizes licenses from beyond its own borders for military families, and the new bill would extend that same privilege to other workers.

Last month the bill passed out of the Arizona House on a bipartisan vote, and it’s now before the Arizona Senate for further consideration.

The Arizona bill could go further in its reforms than it currently does. First, the bill’s provisions apply to “a person who establishes residence in [Arizona]”; incidental contact by an out-of-state practitioner, as might happen in a telemedicine context, isn’t enough to enjoy the licensing relief of the bill. Second, the bill still allows Arizona regulators to impose some financial and examination burdens on these workers, so time will tell whether the regulatory state in Arizona will be defanged here, or whether in practice these licensing boards will just get more creative in enacting barriers to professional entry.

Arizona’s bill is an incremental reform, but as increments go, it would be a pretty sizable chunk of better policy. It will be interesting to see if the bill becomes law, and if it does, how many states follow suit shortly thereafter. Missouri policymakers should keep a close eye on this legislation. It isn’t perfect, as I’ve noted, but it could be a good starting point for truly universal and reciprocal licensure reform.

 

Kansas City’s Pre-K Bait and Switch

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

On the April ballot, Kansas Citians are being asked to vote on a three-eighth cent sales tax to fund a universal pre-K program. But the benefits being promised to Kansas City voters are not from the type of program Kansas Citians are being offered. Proponents may be promising voters a Lamborghini, but their car lot is filled with mopeds.

Supporters for the value of pre-K point to a single preschool program, the HighScope Perry program in Ypsilanti, Michigan that ran from 1958 to 1962. The participants had been tracked over 40 years and the resulting data provide much of the basis for what supporters claim is the benefit of pre-K.

The Mid America Regional Council (MARC), which will administer the Kansas City pre-K program if approved by voters, claims in its 2018 “Status of Children and Families” report that (page 45):

Research shows that every dollar invested in early childhood education saves up to $13 in future social costs, leading to lower crime rates, fewer adults on public assistance, fewer teen pregnancies, and a stronger, more prepared workforce.

Mayor Sly James’s pre-K Implementation Plan for pre-K similarly claims (page 44):

. . . the public benefits accrued over time from children who attended HighScope Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at a rate of 13 to one.

These returns seem too good to be true. And they are. The 13-to-one return comes from a single study of the HighScope Perry plan published in 2005, which claimed:

For the general public, higher tax revenues, lower criminal justice system expenditures, and lower welfare payments easily outweigh program costs; they repay $12.90 for every $1 invested. However, program gains come mainly from reduced crime by males.

The HighScope Perry study was of 123 “low-income African-American children who were assessed to be at high risk of school failure.” Only 58 were randomly assigned “to a program group that received a high-quality preschool program at ages 3 and 4.” The high-quality program included:

  • Two school years of preschool running October through May;
  • A center-based program for 2.5 hours per day with “4 teachers for 20 to 25 children”;
  • Home visiting for 1.5 hours per week; and
  • Group meetings of parents.

Only 39 of the participants in this study were male (see footnote 3 here). In other words, Mayor James and MARC want voters to believe that a small-scale, intensive two-year education program conducted with 39 high-risk boys can be extrapolated to the more than 6,000 children in Kansas City.

Even other proponents of pre-K are more restrained in calculating possible returns. Economist and Nobel laureate James Heckman wrote in a 2017 research summary of that same HighScope Perry program (emphasis added):

Every dollar spent on high quality, birth-to-five programs for disadvantaged children delivers a 13% per annum return on investment. These economically significant returns account for the welfare costs of taxation to finance the program and survive a battery of sensitivity analyses.

As I pointed out in a recent American Public Square panel discussion about pre-K in Kansas City, the program Kansas City voters are being asked to support is nothing like the HighScope Perry program Heckman analyzed. The plan being put before voters does not have anywhere near the 5 or 6 to 1 ratio of child to teacher, will not include home visits, will not be two years, and will not spend as much per child as HighScope Perry did.

A recent blog post discussed the unimpressive findings on pre-K programs such as Head Start that more closely resemble what Kansas Citians are being offered. But using HighScope Perry’s results to pitch pre-K for all in Kansas City is nothing short of a bait and switch.

 

 

Pre-K in Kansas City Likely Won’t Deliver on Its Promises

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

In a recent post, I pointed out that the pre-K program being presented to Kansas City voters is significantly different than the programs whose results they point to. We very likely won’t see the 13-to-one dollar return on investment for pre-K claimed by Mayor James and the Mid America Regional Council (MARC). We probably won’t even see the 13 percent annual return projected by economist James Heckman. The research on programs like the one being proposed in Kansas City—such as Head Start and the Tennessee state volunteer pre-K program—suggests these programs are large, expensive, and absolute failures.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched the Head Start program in 1965. It was expanded in 1981 and now has a $9 billion budget. Operated in Kansas City since 2005 by MARC, the program works to provide:

Comprehensive, high-quality birth-through-five early education services that facilitate healthy development including physical and social/emotional development and prepare children for school success.

Is it working? No. According to HHS’s own 2012 report, “after the initially realized cognitive benefits for the Head Start children, these gains were quickly made up by children in the non-Head Start group.” The report indicates this finding is similar to other studies published between 1995 and 2010. 

A 2013 story in The Washington Post is a pretty even-handed write up of the value of pre-K. The author points out that extrapolating findings from the HighScope Perry study (an influential pre-k study of a small group of children in Michigan) to larger populations like Kansas City’s is highly questionable. In discussing the fade out of any initial Head Start benefit, the author wrote:

Some Head Start supporters, like Danielle Ewen, formerly of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), argue that this says more about K-12, and that what’s likely happening is that poor quality public schools are actually reversing Head Start’s gains.

If this is the case, children in the Kansas City Public School District can expect to see no long-term benefit whatsoever. Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution points not only to research on Head Start, but to large scale pre-K programs such as the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K (TVPK) program. In those follow-up studies, children in the control group soon outperformed those who received the preschool benefit.

Using the state test data and the full randomized sample, the evaluators report negative impacts for reading, math, and science scores at the end of third grade for children assigned to TVPK. The negative impacts on math and science are statistically significant and substantive: children randomly assigned as preschoolers to TVPK had lost ground to their peers who had randomly not been offered admission to the pre-K program.

Whitehurst revisits this in a 2018 paper in which he writes:

Unabashed enthusiasts for increased investments in state pre-K need to confront the evidence that it does not enhance student achievement meaningfully, if at all. It may, of course, have positive impacts on other outcomes, although these have not yet been demonstrated. It is time for policymakers and advocates to consider and test potentially more powerful forms of investment in better futures for children.

As we wrote in a previous post, policymakers in Kansas City may not be interested in confronting such evidence. This is especially true of Whitehurst’s observation that direct aid to families, such as the earned income tax credit (EITC), “produced substantially larger gains in children’s school achievement per dollar of expenditure than a year of preschool, participation in Head Start, or class size reduction in the early grades.” 

Designing public policy is not easy. Neither is delivering effective education on a large scale. But we need to rise to the challenge of both. As it stands, the proposal of pre-K in Kansas City is unlikely to lead to significant long-term benefits for the children involved, especially if they matriculate into underperforming K-12 schools. A program with questionable efficacy that taxes the very low-income families it is meant to help seems, on balance, to make this plan more harm than help.

 

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.

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