Billboards, Moving Vans, and School Choice

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Wait, what? One of the largest local school districts in St. Louis is buying billboards, sending mailers, and making videos to convince parents to move there because they overbuilt and have a bunch of empty seats? Imagine billboards saying, “Move to Chesterfield . . . because the Chesterfield Mall has lots of empty storefronts!” Or, “Move to the City of St. Louis—we built too many houses!”

A system that allows parents to exercise school choice only if they move is inefficient at best. That said, parents with means learn the rules quickly and willingly blend their real estate and education decisions together. So, it’s unlikely that Hazelwood has some secret gems in its education portfolio that parents have yet to discover. Hazelwood built schools based on real estate trends that didn’t materialize. Hazelwood property owners are paying for schools with empty seats.

It’s time to break the connection between real estate and education. Parents should be free to choose a school that is a good fit for their child without moving. Schools should appeal to parents for what they offer—and if it works well for enough parents, the seats will be filled.

Luckily, we can shop at the Chesterfield Mall (or what’s left of it) and enjoy the restaurants and entertainment in the city without moving. And both of those activities pale in comparison to a child’s only shot at getting an education.

 

ACT Scores Show Students Aren’t Ready for College

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

Taking the ACT or the SAT has become an important rite of passage on the path to college for most students. These tests are critical to the future of a huge number of students, so states should care how their students perform on them. Unfortunately, recent test results aren’t anything to brag about.

A few weeks ago, ACT released Missouri’s 2018 graduating class state report. It reports that a dismal 22 percent of the class of 2018 graduates were college-ready in English, math, reading and science. The test results from the last three years provide a some insight into how well our students are prepared for life after high school.

The graduating classes of 2016, 2017, and 2018 had 100 percent test participation because of DESE’s three-year plan to supply the ACT to all high school juniors. Before the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) provided the ACT to every student, information about test results only applied to the approximately 77 percent of the 2015 class (page 3). It shouldn’t be surprising that average scores declined with the addition of a large group of participants who otherwise wouldn’t have taken the exam. Previously, some students would decline to take the test for financial reasons, but for others it was because they knew they weren’t prepared for such a test, or because they had no intention of going to college and therefore didn’t see any reason to take it. As a group, such students might reasonably be expected to score lower than students who looked at a high ACT score as an important asset in trying to get into a good college and who had the resources to prepare for the exam. But just because the decrease in overall scores can be explained doesn’t mean it should be excused. The ACT still measures readiness for life after high school, and seeing low scores—even from those who don’t plan on going to college—should concern all Missourians.

DESE stated the class of 2018 was the final year of the state provided ACT tests. But the three years of results revealed that when all of our students are tested, there are more students than we originally thought whom high schools are not preparing. Now that we’ve seen the real scope of the problem, will DESE acknowledge the issue or try to sweep it under the rug by celebrating when test scores inevitably go back up next year?

Missouri ACT score breakdown

College Readiness Benchmark scores

 

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Posted on by Brenda Talent

On November 19, the Missouri State Board of Education met in a closed session to determine who would be selected as the state’s next commissioner of education. It was high time to do so. In a tumultuous session almost a year ago, the board removed the last commissioner, Dr. Margie Vandeven, and struggled to agree on the process for finding a new one. Lack of Senate confirmation led to the withdrawal of five members appointed by the former Governor, and it wasn’t until last summer that the Board even had enough members for a quorum. An interim commissioner has been filling the office.

In September, the reconstituted board announced that it was conducting a search to find a new commissioner. Like many, we hoped that the state would hire someone with a fresh vision and a vigorous approach to reform who would be determined to improve the performance of schools in Missouri.

The need for new leadership is undeniable.

When Dr. Vandeven was named commissioner of education back in 2014, the state’s education system had an ambitious goal: to have Missouri’s students performing among the best in the nation— “Top 10 by 2020.” Needless to say, that goal was never achieved. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” Missouri ranked 31st in 8th grade math in 2007 among the 50 states. Fast forward to 2017, and our ranking in the same subject and grade was 32nd.

During this same time, Missouri has had a revolving door of state standardized tests for students. According to a study published in Education Next¸ Missouri was the only state in the nation to actually lower proficiency standards between 2009 and 2017. Every other state is demanding more from their schools, while we’re asking for less. Why are we okay with that?

Not surprisingly, the Top 10 by 2020 goal has been quietly dropped. We have lost (at least) a decade in improving student outcomes, and we have no North Star.

During Dr. Vandeven’s tenure, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) began the process of revising the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP), the system used to accredit school districts. Today, out of 527 public school districts, not a single one is unaccredited and just six are provisionally accredited. DESE technically only accredits districts, not individual schools. Yet when the St. Louis Public School District became fully accredited, every school was given an enormous banner to hang outside with the school name and “Fully Accredited!” on it. What’s a parent to think?

There are far too many schools in Missouri with rates of proficiency in the single digits. DESE touts a high school graduation rate of nearly 90 percent, and then reports that fewer than 43 percent of graduates are college- or career-ready. Doesn’t every student deserve to have at least one high-quality option for their education?

It would be churlish to place the entire blame for this state of affairs on Dr. Vandeven, or any single official. Education is a complex process, educational bureaucracies are notoriously hard to change, and education in Missouri has been troubled for a long time.

But for precisely those reasons, we need to face the truth: Doing the same thing but expecting different results won’t work. During Dr. Vandeven’s tenure as commissioner, DESE made no real effort to provide parents useful information about how well our schools and districts were serving students. And DESE has stood firmly against any form of school choice for parents outside of Kansas City or St. Louis, regardless of how well (or poorly) students are being served by their assigned public school.

It is clearly time for a fresh look and a new approach at DESE. And yet last Wednesday, the board announced that the search for a commissioner was over, and that the new commissioner of education would be . . . the former commissioner of education, Dr. Vandeven.

We’ll have more to say about education in Missouri—a lot more—as state government prepares for the Legislature to reconvene in January. But for now, this much is clear:

If the members of the board, and the Governor who appointed them, had been trying to send the signal that they were satisfied with the status quo in Missouri; that they were throwing in the towel on real reform in the public schools and real options for Missouri families; that they were more interested in not making waves with the educational establishment than in making the lives of our children brighter—they made exactly the right choice.

 

Have You Got a Permit for that Trolley?

Posted on by Frank Catanzaro

After years of delays and rising costs, the $51 million-dollar Loop Trolley finally opened to the public on Friday. However, passengers who were aboard the Trolley for its maiden voyage didn’t get quite the ride they expected.

One obstacle would have been difficult to predict. A two-car accident along the trolley’s route escalated into a shooting, and in the ensuing investigation police tape blocked the trolley’s path.

The other, longer-term problem involves not police tape but red tape, and should have been recognized and addressed long ago. The 2.2-mile vintage trolley line, which is supposed to transport passengers to and from the Delmar Loop, is only taking them halfway because of a dispute between the Trolley company and University City. According to Gregory Rose, U City’s city manager, the trolley enterprise hasn’t met the conditions required for the permit needed to operate there. U City will be off-limits to the trolley until (1) a $300,000 insurance bond is provided for cleanup efforts if the Trolley fails; and (2) a potentially dangerous electric pole along the route is removed. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the company has been aware of these issues for years. Which raises the question: Why weren’t these problems addressed earlier?

Since its inception nearly a decade ago, the Trolley has been plagued by construction delays and rising costs. It may even be responsible for the closure of numerous business, some of which had been in the Delmar Loop for decades.

Perhaps worst of all is that even if everything had gone smoothly for the trolley, there is little evidence that streetcars spur economic development. Considering the time and money that have been spent, and the revenue lost to local businesses during the construction, we’re long past the point of wondering whether the trolley was a worthwhile investment. The only question now is whether policymakers in St. Louis can learn from their mistakes.

Spring 2019 Internships

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

The Show-Me Institute is pleased to offer internship opportunities for Spring 2019.

  • Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates. 
  • Spring internships will last approximately four months. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but each intern is expected to work at least 10 weeks.  No internship shall start prior to January 14. Spring internships will end on or before May 3, 2019.
  • Spring interns can work a full-time schedule (9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with one hour for lunch), or arrange for a part-time schedule to accommodate class schedules. 
  • Interns will be involved in virtually all aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
  • Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, assisting with social media, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletter articles, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks will also be required.
  • A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
  • Communication and development internships are also available. If interested, please state this in your application.
  • Internships are offered in both the St. Louis and Kansas City offices.
  • Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit an application (see link below) and the requested supporting materials no later than Friday, December 7, 2018. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. We will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision no later than Monday, January 7, 2019.

KCI Airlines Links New Terminal Costs with . . . Service

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

How many times have proponents of a new terminal at KCI told us that the costs of enplanements do not bear on ticket prices? The answer is every time. The goal might be to assure voters that nothing was going to change, and that they could confidently vote themselves a free airport.

The argument about ticket prices is so misleading that it could seem to be intentionally so. Consider this: Airlines pay rent to airports that is measured in terms of cost per enplanement (CPE)—in other words, per person boarding the plane. In 2016, Lynn Horsley wrote in The Kansas City Star,

In 2015, based on an industry measurement, the cost of operating KCI was $6.70 per enplaned (departing) passenger. With a $970 million improvement project, which is the estimated cost of a new terminal, that cost per passenger boarding would bump up to about $9.00 in 2015 dollars.

Since that story, the cost of the new terminal has more than doubled that $970 figure. Will the new CPE really be $18 or over? This chart of the top 50 airports ranked by CPE suggests that an $18 CPE would make Kansas City International the 7th most expensive airport in the country. This is the higher cost that Allegiant and Spirit Airlines say they cannot bear. According to the Star:

Matt Klein, senior vice president and chief commercial officer for Spirit, said in his letter that Kansas City’s aging airport should be updated and is “not befitting of a major U.S. city.”

“However, we believe the current investment proposal is simply … too costly for smaller new entrant carriers to bear and still deliver the value that we deliver to the community in terms of low airfares,” Klein said.

Allegiant’s vice president of airports and government affairs, Keith Hansen, wrote to reiterate the airline’s support for the project, but said larger airlines were expecting smaller airlines to shoulder an unreasonably large portion of the costs of operating the airport.

“Given that the terms for the new airport rates and charges agreement remain unknown and considering the larger carriers continue to reject equitable cost allocation, Allegiant cannot support the terminal development program at this time,” Hansen said.

So . . . if KCI is too expensive for these low-cost airlines, they may just stop serving Kansas City altogether. Less competition at KCI will mean higher fares, higher parking fees, and so on to cover the monstrous amount of debt that a $2 billion airport terminal requires. And if it is too expensive for the remaining airlines, they may also stop serving KCI. Who makes the bond payments then?

Taking on such a large amount of debt to build a new single-terminal airport includes a significant amount of risk—not just for the airlines and bond holders, but for the airport and the city itself. Giving taxpayers the impression that all of this is free is irresponsible and suggests a lack of candor from policymakers.

Is This Really the Least Bad Deal to Build a Soccer Stadium?

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

My colleague Graham Renz wrote often about how the 2017 proposal for St. Louis taxpayers to subsidize a soccer stadium was a bad idea. Renz debunked claims that the tax would only be borne by soccer attendees and that the stadium itself was a good deal for taxpayers. Thankfully, voters defeated the measure.

Now St. Louis faces a different proposal on building a soccer stadium. The exact details remain unknown, but according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it requires:

  • $30 million in state tax credits
  • A 3 percent sales tax on purchases at the stadium to back bonds for construction
  • A full tax exemption on construction materials used to build the stadium
  • A 50 percent break on ticket taxes

Danny Wicentowski at the Riverfront Times makes the Show-Me Institute’s point for us:

But the fact that this plan even exists should put to rest what critics considered the central deception of the 2017 push: That public money was the only way to get a professional sports team to consider St. Louis.

Indeed, the 2017 ownership group, helmed by [project partner David] Peacock, repeatedly emphasized that public buy-in was the only path forward, and maintained that $60 million in public funds were absolutely necessary to satisfy the league. The league’s commissioner, Don Garber, added to the pressure, remarking on a conference call that a public vote on the monetary outlay would represent a “referendum” on whether the city really wanted a team.

It may very well be the case that the deal before taxpayers now is better than the deal that was placed before them in 2017. It certainly seems so. But the new proposal still seeks public participation to the tune of tens of millions of dollars that will not go to the city and the state.

Maybe this is the best deal Missourians can get. But then we were told the same thing back in 2017, weren’t we?

Were the #NewKCI Construction Cost Numbers Ever Real?

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Last Thursday on the Kansas City Public Television program Ruckus, panelist Jim Heeter dropped the following bomb about the large increase in the cost of a new single terminal for Kansas City International Airport [start at 21:07],

A lot of us who looked at that [cost] issue closely at the time that voters approved [it] fully expected this. We expected it was going to be a bigger project than was approved at the time, so in that sense it is not a surprise.

When Ruckus host Mike Shanin pointed out that no one in the pro-airport campaign made this point at the time of the vote, Heeter added [start at 21:21],

I think the city needs to step forward and talk candidly with the public about these kinds of issues because there is a growing perceptional issue; that’s really important.

Heeter is no ordinary pundit. He is a former member of the Kansas City Council and a former president of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. In 2017, Heeter consulted for Jones Lang LaSalle, one of the four finalists to build the new KCI terminal. Heeter is the embodiment of the city establishment. He has held high-level positions both as a public official and with private sector entities at the heart of plans for the new terminal. If he “fully expected” that costs would increase, it strains credulity to think he was the only one.

Yet days before the 2017 election, Heeter appeared on Ruckus and toasted the “fact-based campaign“ for a new KCI terminal. Heeter then cited the Kansas City Star editorial board’s call to “give the voters the facts they need to give an informed decision.”

The voters were not given the facts in 2017. The Show-Me Institute and others made this very clear at the time. The Star, heralded by Heeter as wanting the facts, themselves misreported the facts in their editorial endorsements. And Heeter himself, who then said that voters had been given all the facts, concedes now that he and others knew the numbers were, in fact, not factual.

The costs associated with a new terminal have been suspect since 2014, when Airport Terminal Advisory Group co-chairman David Fowler said, “Any dollar amount placed on any alternative is almost pretty random.“ It remains “pretty random” four years later. The people of Kansas City are right to be skeptical of their civic and political leaders on this issue; the latter have forfeited their credibility.

Public Employee Pensions in Missouri: A Looming Crisis

Posted on by Andrew G. Biggs

The Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) has seen its funding health decline in recent years even as the required government contributions to the plan have increased. Policymakers are searching for ways to reform public employee pensions to control costs and mitigate risks to government budgets while at the same time maintaining retirement programs that serve retirees.

 

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