If Business Owners Want a More Skilled Workforce, They Shouldn’t Forget about Charter Schools

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Last week in Columbia, business and education stakeholders expressed their concerns over the preparedness of Missouri’s future workers. As part of an initiative called Talent for Tomorrow, a task force will present recommendations intended to “align the education system with workforce needs,” the primary focus being on higher education.

While it may be true that Missouri’s 2-year and 4-year colleges have room for improvement, business leaders should not overlook the potential to shape high school education to better meet their needs. In particular, the flexibility of the charter school model and ability to focus on career and technical education (CTE) should appeal to businesses and students throughout the state.

Bucking the traditional high school model, Robert Schwartz with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains that charter schools could “be co-designed by charter leaders in collaboration with regional employers and community college leaders. This would ensure that its programs were focused on preparing young people for careers in high-growth, high-demand industry sectors like IT, health care, and public services.”

In Fresno, California, a career technical education charter school—the product of coordinated effort by community and business leaders and the Fresno County Superintendent—is opening this fall. Not only does the charter high school’s curriculum align with what industry leaders want, but students can also take college courses at a local community college. In Wisconsin, the Green Bay Area Public School District received a grant from the state department of education to open an innovation charter school that would prepare at-risk students for high-tech jobs.

There is no good reason why similar opportunities are not available to Missouri’s students. Even now, industry leaders could work with local school districts to open a CTE charter school. Better yet, Missouri could allow charter schools to expand throughout the state and authorize universities to sponsor charter schools anywhere, not just in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Instead of just concentrating on higher education or writing off charter schools as only for urban areas, business leaders should seriously consider the role charter schools could play in developing a more skilled workforce.

Teachers’ Union Recruitment Thrives on Fear

Posted on by James V. Shuls

As a 19-year old college student studying to be an elementary school teacher, I was given a heavy dose of fear. Not the kind of fear that challenges you to think about whether you have chosen the right career path. Nor the kind that challenges you to rise to the occasion. No. I was given the kind of fear that says you must join a union.

I was, after all, a male entering elementary school teaching. There was a chance that I’d give a child a hug or have them sit on my lap and someone would leap to the wrong conclusion. Before I knew it, I’d be falsely charged with some crime. Or, heaven forbid, a student would get hurt while under my supervision and I’d be sued for negligence. Still more likely was that I could be discriminated against, harassed, or targeted by a reckless administrator. Whatever the situation, the message was clear—I needed to join a union for the protection it offered. A union, I was told, would watch out for my interests; it would have my back.

My professors, whom I believe were well intentioned and likely just following the advice they had received, prodded and pushed me to join a student chapter. So, I did. Having spoken with many teachers over the years, I’m fairly confident this is the number one recruitment strategy of teachers’ unions in the state. If I was ever told that a union would help me grow professionally or become a better teacher, it was only an afterthought.

When I began teaching first grade in southwest Missouri, I went from student membership to a full-fledged membership. Over the next two years, however, I began to realize that my beliefs were not in line with the union’s agenda. I supported limited government, individual responsibility, and free-markets. The union, I discovered, did not.

At the same time, I also began to realize that the fear that led me to join a union was based on erroneous information. Lawsuits against teachers are not that common. In a 2009 article in the Journal of School Leadership, Diane Holben, Perry Zirkel, and Grace Caskie noted, “Empirical research on school litigation frequency suggests a decreasing, rather than increasing, basis for fear of litigation, contrary to the common conception.” The likelihood of a teacher getting sued independent of the school is miniscule, and the school district wins these cases nearly 90 percent of the time. Even if I was worried about lawsuits, I found I could get liability insurance through other means. The union wasn’t the only option for watching my back.

Fortunately, I was a public-school teacher in Missouri, where I had the right to work without joining a union. This meant I could not be compelled to join the union or forced to pay dues to support collective bargaining. It also meant that I did not have to financially support causes that violated my conscience. All workers should be so lucky.

Socialism: The Slouching Beast on our Campuses

Posted on by Christine Talent

Socialism has come a long way since 1917. Socialist regimes ruled half the world—at a terrible cost—during the Cold War. Then, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, socialism fell like a rocket crashing back to earth. Yes, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries were still ruled by socialists, but, in general, socialism appeared to be a dying ideology.

To be sure, there were different degrees of socialism. The totalitarian socialism of Mao and the Soviet Union killed people, ruined economies, and snuffed out freedoms critical to both political and personal life. The democratic socialism common in the West, softer and therefore less destructive, merely specialized in overregulating the private economy and extreme redistribution of wealth.

But even in the West, socialism manifestly failed. The democratic socialism of Great Britain reduced that country from a leading economic power to the “sick man of Europe,” and was firmly rejected by British voters during the Thatcher years.

Unfortunately, socialism has come slouching back onto our college campuses, settling itself comfortably among the students. A 2015 Reason-Rupe poll showed that 58 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds viewed socialism favorably. By contrast, only 28 percent of seniors ages 65 and above were favorable toward socialism. Several other polls say the same thing: A majority of young adults support socialism, and in fact prefer it to capitalism.

To older adults, this fact probably seems disturbing and inexplicable. How could anyone support a philosophy that has spawned evils ranging from economic stagnation to mass killing? Speaking as a 21-year-old college student, I believe that the explanation boils down to two things—discontent and ignorance. Most of today’s college students grew up during the Great Recession. They are graduating with large debts and, for many, bleak prospects for employment. They feel cheated, and believe that something is deeply wrong with our current system. Since that system is capitalist, they see socialism as an alternative.

At the same time, however, most young adults misunderstand socialism. In one study only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as a government-managed economy. And who can blame them for their ignorance, considering what they’ve learned—or haven’t learned—in the classroom? In my experience, professors may not espouse socialism, but they seldom challenge its tenets. Most of my history classes in college have focused on the many ways America has victimized the poor and downtrodden. Professors equated capitalism with imperialism while failing to even mention the evils committed by totalitarian socialist countries or the economic destructiveness of democratic socialism. One of my professors dismissed the atrocities committed under Mao Zedong’s regime by saying, “While there were certainly many failures with Mao’s reign, during his rule China’s literacy rate went up, as did migration to cities.”

“Failures”—that is how my professor referred to the 45 million who starved to death under Mao.

I believe this same indifference to truth is what turned so many college students into enthusiastic supporters of Bernie Sanders during the last presidential campaign, giving him more youth votes in the primary than Clinton and Trump combined. While Sanders is no totalitarian, he certainly supports the same democratic socialism that emaciated Britain in the postwar years. Students loved the promises he made (free college, free healthcare, and forgiveness of debt) and were perfectly willing to believe that big and benevolent government could make almost anything “free” simply by raising taxes on the very rich.

It should be said that this support for socialism isn’t necessarily permanent. Studies find that support for socialism drops after college and goes down as people earn higher salaries. Young people aren’t stupid; they are just young, and some economic truths cannot be truly appreciated until experienced.

Of course, some college students don’t make it easier for themselves. Many refuse to listen to conservative voices and cannot stand correction—or argument. Nothing strengthens a lie quite like an echo chamber, so the lie of socialism has grown into a powerful force on campus that threatens competing (and worthier) ideas. Yes, most students are just young and will outgrow their revolutionary fervor. But right now, students are being cheated out of the best opportunity most will ever have to test competing political and economic ideas against one another. And until our colleges have the courage to break through the echo chamber, students will get—at best—only half the education they’re paying for.

Please, Just Give Us All a Break

Posted on by Graham Renz

It almost isn’t funny anymore; actually, it hasn’t been funny for a long time. The roll out of the Delmar Loop Trolley line has been, for at least the 6th time now, delayed. The project, originally slated to operate in 2016, was threatened by the Federal Transit Administration and has hit other snags too.

Trolley officials “hope” their project will be up and running within the next month or two.

It feels as if I’ve written or said this more times than the project has actually been delayed, but: it’s hard to see the Loop Trolley as anything besides a policy disaster. Not only is there little evidence that the Trolley will accomplish all that its proponents promise, like increased transit-oriented development, but its leadership has rolled things out so poorly that it seems hard for the public to take the project seriously at all (see Exhibit A). It’s also hugely over-budget.

So, at this point, what do we do? How can we, or policymakers, try to make the current, regrettable situation any better? My suggestion is this: Spare us all the misery and simply admit you’ve got no clue when the Trolley will be up and running. Maybe you (Loop Trolley officials) have an idea of when it will be up and running, and maybe this time that idea is based on reliable information—who knows? Even so, the public has been toyed with so much that the best thing to do—the least damaging, that is—is to just say, “We don’t know when the Trolley will be up and running.”

As an academic and researcher, I’ve learned that sometimes (a lot of the time, actually) you need to admit that you just don’t know the answer to a question. Sometimes you can do far more damage by providing an answer that you’re unsure of than admitting you just don’t know the answer. Officials involved with the Loop Trolley project should, more than many others, understand this point.

Wisconsin’s Foxconn Deal is Bad Public Policy

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

President Trump is heralding the news that a Taiwanese high-tech manufacturer is building a factory in Wisconsin. For him, it suggests that his successful deal-making is reaping rewards for Americans and reviving our manufacturing industry. But the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers is significant.

According to Reid Wilson at The Hill,

The incentive package passed by Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature, during a special session last August, will offer the company $1.5 billion to offset payroll costs and another $1.35 billion for capital expenditures. The state will give Foxconn $150 million in sales tax exemptions on construction materials, and it plans to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on road improvements near the new factory.

The town of Mount Pleasant, where the factory will be located, will offer $763 million to help pay for the project, and Racine County gave the company $50 million to acquire the land.

In total, Wisconsin, Racine County and Mount Pleasant gave the company nearly $4.8 billion in tax breaks, incentives and taxpayer dollars for improvements. If Foxconn delivers all 13,000 jobs it has promised, that works out to about $370,000 per job.

This is reminiscent of a similar deal for Carrier manufacturing plant for Indiana, of which my colleague Patrick Ishmael wrote in 2016,

I certainly hope the Carrier “deal” doesn’t presage future deals the President Elect will be cutting over the next four years. The reason is straightforward. In return for not following through on its threat to move, Carrier will receive $700,000 per year from the state of Indiana, for at least 10 years. If that kind of cronyistic deal sounds familiar to you, it should; the Carrier agreement is like many of the “deals” to “save or create jobs” that have been made, and that we have criticized for years, here in Missouri.

Across the country, those hungry for increased economic activity seem to understand that taxes are too high to spur development. Whether it is Foxconn in Wisconsin, Carrier in Indiana, Boeing in Missouri, or Amazon everywhere, legislatures are bending over backwards to give special treatment to those they deem worthy. Better public policy demands that government stop picking winners and instead lower taxes for everyone.

Right to Work Commentary Misses the Point

Posted on by James V. Shuls

A recent op-ed in the Columbia Missourian calls Right to Work “an attack on our entire community.” If Missouri passes Right to Work, the author warns, we will see “a negative ripple effect on their communities financially, politically, socially and spiritually.”

And over the past few months in Missouri we’ve seen claims like this made repeatedly in anti–Right to Work advertisements. Show-Me Institute chief economist Joe Haslag recently wrote about one such ad that claimed that in Oklahoma, passage of Right to Work caused wages to fall while simultaneously encouraging businesses to leave the state. That just doesn’t make any sense!

Suffice it to say, I’m used to seeing this type of over-the-top claim in opposition to Right to Work, so I wasn’t surprised by most of the arguments in the Columbia Missourian piece. That is, until I got to the part where the author argued against Right to Work because it would make it harder for unions to engage in political activity. She writes, “weaker unions mean less organized ability to advocate for social justice issues and progressive campaigns.” That’s exactly the point! Conservatives, libertarians, and many other Missourians do not want to be forced to support “progressive campaigns” and policies they don’t agree with. That’s why they want out.

As stated in the Show-Me Institute’s 2018 Blueprint, “Right to work ends forced unionism and lets workers decide whether joining a union best serves their interests.” The economic arguments for and against Right to Work are important, but the fundamental issue here is worker freedom. Should someone be forced to support causes they disagree with as a condition of being employed? The answer seems obvious.

Could This Be a Win for Parents?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The debates have only just begun, and they’re sure to be loud and contentious. But one result of the confirmation of President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court could be more options for parents when it comes to their child’s education.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has not had the opportunity to rule on many education cases, as there is only one school district in the DC Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. However, he has written essays and amicus briefs on school choice cases. He clearly supports the notion that religious schools and institutions should be able to receive state funding provided that “the funding was pursuant to a neutral program that, among other things, included religious and nonreligious institutions alike.”

Like many states, Missouri has a Blaine amendment in its Constitution. These amendments, originally intended to discriminate against the waves of Catholic immigrants coming from Europe, are used as cover to prevent parents from spending their children’s state education dollars anywhere other than their assigned public school. (For more on Blaine amendments and some additional thoughts on the Kavanaugh nomination, see my colleague Mike McShane’s recent Forbes piece here.) Ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case in 2017 that focused on a Missouri church-affiliated preschool’s access to public grant money for playground resurfacing. While the court found in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, the finding was narrow and Missouri’s Blaine Amendment still stands.

Judge Kavanaugh has spoken approvingly of Justice William Rehnquist and the impact that his writings on the Establishment Clause had on Trinity Lutheran and other cases. He was also part of the defense team when Governor Jeb Bush was sued over the Florida voucher program. It will be interesting to see how this son of a public school teacher contributes to court decisions on education, particularly those that involve private school choice.

School choice will likely take a back seat to other issues in this confirmation process. As Missourians consider a Constitutional Convention in 2022, however, we may be faced with either ditching our Blaine Amendment ourselves or having it done for us.

Who Do These Florida Parents Think They Are?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Florida parents are just fancy people who think their kids are special and need a customized education that’s tailored to their children’s needs. Missouri parents, on the other hand, are okay with their kids being ordinary and getting an off-the-shelf education at their neighborhood school like they themselves did when they were young.

Does anyone really believe that? Of course not. Which is why I’m always surprised that Missouri parents don’t demand access to educational programs like those that choice-rich states like Florida offer.

Last year, nearly half of all Florida parents chose something other than their child’s assigned public school. And they have a wide range of options, both public and private. One of their newest programs gives parents of public school students who are struggling to learn to read $500 per year to use on tutoring. The nearly $10 million price tag for this program could have gone to grow reading budgets in districts, but the folks in Tallahassee operate from a place that the folks in Jefferson City do not. According to the chairman of their House Education Committee, “The parent is the most influential person in the child’s life.”

And guess what? While Missouri’s scores on the Nation’s Report Card have been flat for the last decade, Florida’s have shown improvement across the board. We’re seeing similar results in other vibrant education market places. How long are Missouri parents—especially those who can’t afford to spend a sizeable chunk of the family budget on private-school tuition—willing to wait to have some say over how their children are educated?

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