Do Charter Schools Take Districts’ Money? Only If You Think Children, and the Funding That Comes With Them, Are District Property

Posted on by James V. Shuls

*See footnote

How would you respond if you stumbled across a headline that asked, “How much do farmers markets cost Walmart?” It’s a ridiculous question. It presupposes that the customer belongs to Walmart; that any time the individual chooses to buy cucumbers from a local grower or salsa from an aspiring entrepreneur, he or she is “robbing” the dominant grocer. That’s just absurd. Yet this is the standard frame we use when talking about education. We blithely assume that education is wholly different from any other field.

Consider, for example, a recent headline on the Education Writers Association’s website: “How Much Do Charter Schools Cost Districts?” It’s the same question, and it is just as absurd as when talking about groceries. Worse, it is unethical, because it dehumanizes children, reducing them to economic units. In this formulation, neither they nor their parents are individuals with aspirations, endowed with free will and the ability to act in their own self-interest; they are a mere funding stream for public school districts.

This type of headline is all too common. Most people wouldn’t even bat an eye at it. But this isn’t just semantics. It gets at the heart of the way many people view public education.

It is only in education that we presume the customer is the rightful property of a specific supplier and therefore “costs” the supplier when he or she goes somewhere else. Indeed, this is the fundamental problem with the public education system in the United States: We presume the tax dollars that fund a child’s education belong to the public school district and the child belongs in a public school seat.

If, heaven forbid, parents want to use those education funds at a charter school or a private school, they must prove that “choice” works. We demand that school choice programs justify themselves by increasing student achievement on standardized tests, or increasing graduation rates, or fixing decades-old segregation issues. We would never ask the farmers market to prove its tomatoes are bigger and juicier than Walmart’s as a condition of operation.

It doesn’t stop there. A few years ago, one writer went as far as to say, “You are a bad person if you send your children to private school.” You can almost hear Snowball from Animal Farm repeating the mantra, “Four legs good, two legs bad.” It’s us versus them. We treat public education as if it — the system, the school district — were the ultimate good to be served. Just google “school vouchers” and look at the images. The internet is replete with political cartoons that characterize school choice programs as systematically dismantling traditional public schools, brick by brick.

Challenges to this concept are not new. In his 1958 book, Freedom of Choice in Education, Father Virgil Blum wrote that “our educational policy must be philosophically based on the dignity and transcendent value of the individual, on the integrity and freedom of the human person; it must be legally based on the Federal Constitution, recognizing the individual student clothed in all his constitutional rights.” We are no closer to that reality today than we were 60 years ago.

Our commitment to educating every child, regardless of wealth or ability, is a reflection of our highest and noblest ideals. What we do today in our public education system is a feat that was almost unthinkable even 100 years ago. Yet in the process of building that system, we somehow lost our purpose. Instead of the system serving the children, we now insist the children must serve the system.

If we are ever to change this, we must first change how we talk about public education. We can’t presume, as the author of the Education Writers Association piece did, that children and their funding inherently belong to the public school system. Do public school districts have less money when a student goes to a charter school or a private school? Absolutely — as they should. This is what happens in any industry when customers choose to spend their dollars at one place instead of another. More to the point, it is what happens when students leave a district school for any reason.

In the final analysis, we must realize that public education is not about the school system, but the students that it is supposed to serve. They have value. They have worth. They should have choices.

*First posted at the74million.org, found here.

 

Free Your City and the Growth Will Follow

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

One of the difficult things about public policy is convincing policymakers that they really don’t need to “do something” to solve a problem. The unparalleled economic success of the West—along with the unprecedented recent progress in eradicating poverty around the world—is due to unleashing the power of free people trading freely. This is true across continents as well as within cities. According to a study of economic freedom and population growth in the United States: “Simple statistical analysis indicates that metropolitan areas with higher economic freedom tend to have higher per capita incomes and faster population growth, which mirrors such prosperity metrics found in research on nations and states.”

The study found Missouri’s top two cities to be middle of the pack when it comes to economic freedom; of the top 52 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) Kansas City and St. Louis ranked 24th and 22nd respectively. Note that these are measurements of the city and the several counties around them, and so the policies of suburban communities like St. Charles and Johnson County are contributing to the whole.

The freedom index looked at three areas, each with three measures. Below are the three measures for each category, and St. Louis and Kansas City’s ranking in each category:

Government spending (Kansas City ranked 16th, St. Louis 20th)

  • General consumption expenditure by government as a percentage of personal income
  • Transfers and subsidies as a percentage of personal income
  • Insurance and retirement payments as a percentage of personal income

Taxation (Kansas City ranked 30th, St. Louis 20th)

  • Income and payroll tax revenue as a percentage of personal income
  • Sales tax revenue as a percentage of personal income
  • Revenue from property tax and other taxes as a percentage of personal income

Labor market freedom (Kansas City ranked 32nd, St. Louis ranked 33rd)

  • Minimum wage (full-time income as a percentage of per capita income)
  • Government employment as a percentage of total state employment
  • Private union density (private union membership as a percentage of total employment)

All the urban core areas studied likely scored worse than the larger MSA they were in due to higher sales, property and income taxes, lower incomes, greater government employment and the resulting higher costs of public pensions.

The irony of municipal public policy is that cities are filled with the doyens of “do something.” They argue that cities must increase taxes here and there to fund programs that do this and that to solve real and imagined problems. But the real success is not in top-down command-and-control economies but rather in open and free economies where the people are free to earn and invest. It’s true of nations and it’s true of cities.

 

Moving School Board Elections On-Cycle is Good for Democracy

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

This week, the Missouri House Education Committee debated a bill that would move school board elections to the November general election date. Right now, many school districts elect their board members in April.

As this pithily-titled piece from the Brookings Institution argues, moving elections on-cycle will both drive up turnout and minimize the effect of organized interest groups. As the author writes:

By exploiting the occasional episode in which a change in state law forced localities to move their elections “on cycle,” [UC Berkeley Political Scientist Sarah] Anzia is able to provide some pretty rigorous causal evidence that off-cycle elections decrease voter turnout and equip organized interests (e.g. teachers unions) to obtain more favorable policy outcomes. Anzia’s findings mesh nicely with other work done by University of Pennsylvania Political Scientist, Marc Meredith, who found that when school boards are given the authority to choose election dates for raising revenue (e.g. bond elections) boards will “manipulate” the timing of elections in predictable ways to ensure an electorate that is most favorable to increased school spending.

That is why I was so surprised when the Missouri School Boards Association announced that it “strongly opposed” the bill. Why would that be? Why would the organization that represents school boards want to drive down turnout in the elections that elect them? I guess they’ll have to answer that one.

A common argument for keeping elections off-cycle is that it somehow keeps politics out of education. That is simply wrong. Schools are a huge state and municipal expenditure and are tasked with imparting skills and knowledge onto the next generation of citizens. Every day, we hand over our state’s most precious resource, its children, to schools. We live in a diverse state where different people have different views about what that education should look like. Any system that we devise to try and manage that will be political.

If education is going to be political, the best thing that we can do is try and make sure that as many of our fellow citizens as possible have the opportunity to make their views known. Moving elections on-cycle allows that to happen.

 

Transparency Measure Passes State House; Attention Moves to Senate

Posted on by Philip Oehlerking

If municipalities can levy taxes, then taxpayers should be able to see exactly how that money is being spent. That principle is now one step closer to becoming law.

Following last week’s successful perfection vote, the bill requiring cities to submit their spending records to the state cleared another hurdle by being voted out of the Missouri House this morning. The reform is now on its way to the Senate. The bill will help bring transparency to municipal spending, an aspect of government that is the focus of the Show-Me Checkbook Project.

Kudos to the leaders of the House for getting this bipartisan legislation out of the chamber! We’ll keep you posted on the bill’s progress as it works its way through the Senate.

 

Is St. Louis Successful?

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

What makes a successful city? Recently, the Show-Me Institute, in collaboration with the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, sponsored an academic research seminar to explore that question. The event featured presentations from prominent researchers and thought-provoking discussions among attendees representing over forty different universities and think tanks across the country.

So how should cities measure success? Typically, city success is characterized by periods of sustained growth, whether that growth is in population or employment. Booming local economies bring businesses to an area, and those businesses bring more people to a region who can then contribute to the same economy. The idea seems simple, but not every city is going to have a booming economy. So what can struggling cities do to turn things around and grow their economy?

Figuring out how to attract new residents and businesses is something cities of all sizes across the country struggle with. Aaron Renn, of the Manhattan Institute, argued that cities should take steps to harness their unique characteristics and build a more desirable brand. Gary Ritter, of St. Louis University, explained that quality schools are essential to the recruitment of businesses and their employee’s families, but also help adequately train the workforce for the emerging jobs in that city’s economy. Howard Wall, of the Hammond Institute at Lindenwood University, asserted that rapid population growth for cities over an extended period of time is rare and quite difficult, and that perhaps St. Louis’s success has been hampered by its previous growth.   

Eileen Norcross, of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discussed some of her research surrounding the rise and fall of historically successful cities. She found ultimate success for older cities was tied to how it responded to the decline of the local manufacturing sector.  Despite her assertion that regulatory and institutional environments are more important for prospective businesses, many of these cities spent incredible sums of tax payer dollars to lure businesses without otherwise addressing the business environment. In the end, those moves hurt the city’s long-term financial health without providing the desired opportunity for future economic growth.

While there doesn’t appear to be a silver bullet for city success, the seminar provided a variety of ideas for research and reform, including occupational licensing, regulatory changes, and tax policy.

 

Welcome to the Club, New Mexico!

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

After years of positive reforms that seek to improve one of the lowest performing school systems in the nation, New Mexico’s newly elected leadership has decided to turn back the clock. Letter grades that were easy for parents to understand will be replaced with “text labels” that aren’t. Schools will now be rated as Targeted Support School, Comprehensive Support School, More Rigorous Intervention School, New Mexico Spotlight School, and Traditional Support School. Guess which one’s best? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The answer is New Mexico Spotlight School—because that makes so much sense to parents.

And guess who also eschews letter grades for schools? Missouri. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) recently released the list of Targeted Schools (pretty bad) and Comprehensive Schools (the worst of the worst). Seemingly, this is to be compliant with the federal law to release the list of the lowest five percent of schools in the state in terms of performance, although neither list quite matched that mandate in numbers.

As I converted the PDF lists of Targeted and Comprehensive Schools to an Excel file that I could use (meaning merged with performance and demographic data), I kept having to remind myself which list had 64 schools and which had 323. Targeted and Comprehensive don’t carry much meaning to me. At least these 387 schools got some sort of label. The other 2,200 or so purposefully aren’t “labeled.” Rather, they get a score between 0 and 100 that reflects the number of possible points that a school received (with tons of extra credit points available) divided by their possible points. Parents in the state have been trained to look for the number 70, because that’s the threshold for accreditation.

So, which Missouri schools are doing well and which are doing poorly? Maybe ask your neighbor or the parents on the sideline at this weekend’s soccer game. They probably have some sense of what “most” people think are the “good” schools and which ones to avoid. They may be right, they may be wrong. I don’t recommend turning to DESE to figure it out.   

 

Municipal Checkbook Legislation Perfected in the House

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The movement toward greater spending transparency in Missouri local government reached a milestone this week. A law requiring cities to submit spending records to the state was perfected in the Missouri House of Representatives—the furthest such legislation has gone to date. Perfection means that the bill, as amended, has been finalized by the entire chamber. Clearing a “perfection” vote is important because it often approximates whether a bill has enough support in the chamber for passage. My colleague Philip Oehlerking and I have been big proponents of ensuring that the public has access to this information, and the perfection of this bill is an important step in that direction.

And to be clear, the movement of this bill is part of a larger spending transparency reform arc. Last year the state began publishing its own spending online in a more digestible format, and legislation passed in 2018 now requires school districts to publicize similar spending details of their own. We’ll keep you posted on where the municipal spending bill goes, and whether cities will have to join other government units in Missouri in sharing their spending with the public. Such a requirement is long overdue.

If government can spend your money, they should be able to tell you where they spent it. And if they can’t, or won’t? That’s a problem.

 

Should Taxpayers Pay $10 Million To Reduce Streetcar Waiting Times?

Posted on by Kelvey Vander Hart

Is reducing the time someone spends waiting on a streetcar worth a $10 million-dollar price tag? The Kansas City Streetcar Authority certainly thinks so—they just spent taxpayer money on two additional streetcars, each costing $5 million.

These additional streetcars will be added to the current fleet of four that travels the two-mile loop from Union Station to the River Market. While the fleet currently has four streetcars, only three are usually in use; the remaining streetcar is brought out only during busy occasions. The two streetcars that were just ordered would increase the normal number in use from three to four.

Mike Hurd, the marketing director for the Downtown Council of Kansas City, explained the purchase:

We have so many times of the year that we have big events going and the current rotation of streetcars really is not enough to handle the demand. So being able to add streetcars and still being able to keep the service free is just fantastic.

Hurd’s comments need a correction. While the streetcar may not charge a fee to riders, it is not a free service—it is paid for by taxpayers. Instead of receiving funds from a small user fee, the Kansas City streetcar is funded by special taxing in an area called a transportation development district (TDD). Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have written frequently about these districts, and previously explained how a TDD is created.

The taxing rates within this TDD are not going up to pay for these new streetcars. Instead, the official position is that the KC Streetcar Authority will be using existing funds saved  from previously received TDD income. This raises a question: If the Authority is able to save more than $10 million dollars from this TDD, doesn’t that indicate that the district tax rate is higher than needed to fund normal operations?

Additionally, no data has been released to confirm wait times will be significantly reduced by adding two new streetcars to the fleet. If the goal is to add an extra streetcar to the daily rotation and hold two back for special events, why not test the idea by running the current fleet of four streetcars on a daily basis and measuring the results? It appears Kansas City officials are touting an untested solution to a potentially nonexistent problem, and using taxpayer dollars to bring it to life.

If there really are $10 million dollars in excess funds, maybe the Streetcar Authority should lower the tax rates in the TDD. Instead, residents are being asked to pay for expensive additions to an already expensive scheme. Is that really a good idea?

 

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