A New Year’s Resolution for Education Reform

A new year and a new legislative session are upon us, and with them, most likely the same old debates over school funding. A new study from EdChoice, however, could help reshape conversations in Missouri by showing that in general, people greatly underestimate how much we spend on education.

So just how much do we spend per student each year? This survey found that only 11 percent of people selected the correct range of $8,000 to $12,000. In fact, the national average is a little over $11,000, while Missouri spent on average $10,899 per student for the 2016–2017 school year.

Nevertheless, 31 percent of respondents thought America spends less than $4,000 on each student every year, while 29 percent did not know or did not want to answer.

Then the survey asked if people thought we spend too much or too little on education. For this question, however, half of the respondents were given the actual spending figure and half were not. Here are the results: 

Respondents were asked if current levels of spending on education are too high, too low, or about right.
  Too high About right Too low Don’t know/did not answer
Split A: Without information 11% 28% 54% 7%
Split B: With information 19% 32% 38% 11%

Source: EdChoice, “2017: Schooling in America.”

When presented with the real numbers, the proportion of those who think spending is “too low” fell significantly. So when people say that our schools are underfunded, it seems that many base their opinion on estimates of actual spending that are too low.

Too often, our debates over education policy get hung up over funding even though many of us lack a clear picture of how much we are spending now, let alone how much should be spent. If we want to accomplish meaningful education reform in 2018, resolving to have informed discussions about spending would be a good place to start.

What’s in a Name?

A prefiled bill that is only 49 words long may go a long way to deter politicians from spending public funds on personal legacy projects.

House Bill 1235 simply adds the following language to Missouri statutes:

No state land or building shall be designated in honor of an individual unless such person has been deceased for more than two years. This section shall not apply if money is donated to a state entity in exchange for the right to name state land or buildings.

If former U.S. Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond wants to give his own money to Missouri to build a bridge, or former Governor Jay Nixon wants to reach into his own pocket to build a state park, that’s fine. But spending taxpayer dollars is different, and rewarding individual politicians for doing their official duties by naming public assets after them—at least  while they’re still alive—seems a questionable practice at best.

In fact, why not extend the same restriction on all political subdivisions. To me, Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard is just . . . tacky. Shouldn’t  taxpayers  be confident that those who spend their money are not seeking fame and self-aggrandizement? House Bill 1235 helps get us there.

This is a revised version of the original post.

In Arkansas, 80,000 Ineligible Medicaid Recipients Removed from Rolls

Since as far back as 2015, we have talked about the idea of performing regular audits of the state’s Medicaid rolls. The purpose of such audits is several-fold: not only to ensure that taxpayer money is going to qualified beneficiaries and to detect malfeasance, but above all else to ensure that the state’s limited resources are making it to the most vulnerable members of our society. 

Arkansas has an auditing program similar to the one we’ve talked about, and it appears the state just turned up a lot of ineligible beneficiaries.

Nearly one-third of those cases involved people who did not report changes of address as required by the state. More than 25,000 people were removed from the program because they were receiving public benefits from more than one state. [Emphasis mine]

DHS says more than 16,000 people were removed because of unreported employment. Others were removed from the program because they were eligible for Medicare, while another 4,100 cases involved inmates who still had Medicaid coverage.

In all, about 80,000 Arkansans ineligible for Medicaid were removed from the program’s rolls. 

As we’ve noted before, there are lots of non-nefarious reasons that someone may be on Medicaid but ineligible for it, including unfamiliarity with its rules and regular fluctuations in their own income. But whatever the reason for that ineligibility, the more efficiently the state can steward funds and direct them to needy beneficiaries who actually qualify for the program, the better the results will be for the program, its beneficiaries, and the taxpayers who fund those benefits.

Patrick Tuohey Discusses Airport-and Sidewalks-on KCPT’s Ruckus

On Thursday, December 21, the Show-Me Institute’s Patrick Tuohey appeared on KCPT’s Ruckus to discuss the latest twist in the Kansas City International Airport plan, the Kansas gubernatorial race and the controversial push to privatize sidewalks in Westport which has set up a debate over public safety and civil rights.

Brenda Talent Discusses Saint Louis County Budget on KETC’s Donnybrook

On December 21, Show-Me Institute CEO Brenda Talent appeared on Saint Louis Public Television’s Donnybrook to discuss cuts to Saint Louis County’s budget, the selection process for a new Saint Louis City police chief, state government transparency, a complete smoking ban in Saint Louis County, and other state and local issues. 

More Research on Food Deserts

I’ve written here before, skeptically, of the plans to address the so-called food desert on Kansas City’s East Side. Specifically, the plan to spend millions of dollars to subsidize a SunFresh grocery store is unwarranted and a waste of taxpayer funds. I’ve documented research that shows that nutritional inequality is not a function of distance from a grocery store. New research is bearing this out.

A study released this month from the National Bureau of Economic Research examines food inequality with an eye toward quantifying the impact of grocery store location. The paper concludes:

We find that equalizing supply would close the gap in healthy eating between low- and high-income households by less than ten percent. After separating out supply variation, the descriptive correlations in our final section show that education and nutrition knowledge predict healthy grocery demand and explain non-negligible shares of the relationship between income and healthy grocery demand. For a policymaker who wants to help low-income families to eat more healthfully, the analyses in this paper suggest that improving health education—if possible through effective interventions—might be more effective than efforts to improve local supply.

There are several nonprofit organizations in Kansas City working to address the issues of nutrition in the urban core, including Rollin’ Grocer and Kanbe’s Markets. If there is a market for healthy food, these efficient, private efforts are much more likely to succeed than a single, multi-million-dollar box store.

City leaders may get to point to a new, revived grocery store and shopping center as a result of their political largesse. But a subsidized grocery store won’t create much new interest in eating healthy—it is more likely to merely draw traffic away from other businesses that contribute to the local tax base.  It will also consume public funds that would otherwise go to support infrastructure and, ironically, education. If food deserts are real, they are psychological, not geographical. A taxpayer-funded Sun Fresh won’t do much but get in the way.

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