The School Choice Segregation Myth

Posted on by Emily Stahly

It’s time to put to bed a nasty myth about school choice (exemplified in this letter from American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten) and segregation that resurfaced this summer. According to the research, there is no evidence that private school vouchers make segregation in schools worse. In fact, according to a Cato Institute review of the literature most studies indicate that voucher programs help facilitate racial integration. 

Cory Deangelis of Cato reviewed the eight existing studies on school choice and integration that were conducted using rigorous, empirical research methods. Seven showed that school choice programs were associated with statistically significant progress toward racial integration (the other yielded results that were statistically neutral). These studies looked at voucher programs in Cleveland, Louisiana, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C.

Attempting to revive long-debunked claims doesn’t help kids get a better education. With clear research on school choice and segregation, discussions of school choice should focus on what will improve schools for all kids. 

Is There Really a Teacher Shortage?

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

A recent Washington Post article making the rounds on social media claims that there are widespread teacher shortages across the country. This argument is not new. It seems like nearly every year around back-to-school time we hear that schools are struggling to find teachers, and that it’s all because of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, the Common Core, Republican governors, a lack of respect, or whatever trendy topic is central in the education policy zeitgeist.

Let’s cut through all of that. America has been on a teacher (and other school staff) hiring bonanza for decades. Ben Scafidi of Kennesaw State University has shown that while the total student population in American public schools grew by 100% from 1950 to 2009, the number of teachers grew by 243 percent and administrators and other staff grew by a whopping 709 percent. If that’s not enough, Mike Antonucci wrote earlier this week that since 2008, the American student population has remained essentially stagnant while the number of teachers has grown by 12.4%. He quotes noted researcher Richard Ingersoll stating that the “ballooning” teacher workforce is financial “ticking time bomb.”

Is struggling to keep up rates of teacher growth far outpacing student growth really the same as a “shortage?” I don’t think so.

Since at least the 1950s, America has prioritized reducing class sizes. Pursuing that policy has had consequences. It has meant hiring a lot more teachers, and, generally, paying them less. In other words, the public school system requires more and more teachers each year and has less to offer them. We shouldn’t be surprised when public schools struggle to fill teaching positions. Focusing less on class size reduction and more on hiring the best possible teachers that we can (and paying them accordingly) could help.

How we pay teachers matters as well. It similarly should not surprise us that we see schools struggling to find math and science teachers. Because we pay all teachers equally though step-and-lane pay scales, those who can make more money outside of schools (like those with backgrounds in math and science) are forced to take a financial hit when they decide to become a teacher. Allowing for pay variations that take into account the labor market demands for different skill sets is one way we might attract more math and science teachers.

Herbert Stein’s law states that trends that can’t continue, won’t. Continuing to expand the teaching workforce and compensating them through pay schemes out of the 1920s is not going to get us the teaching workforce our children need. Call it whatever you want, but it isn’t good for kids.

Charter School Students Thriving in New York

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Students at the Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City put up some incredible test scores this past year: 95 percent passed the state’s math test, and 84 percent passed the reading test. This is compared to 38 percent passing in math and 41 percent in English in the New York City school district.

Contrary to myths pushed by charter school opponents, Success Academy does not “cherry-pick” or “skim” its student population; about 95 percent of Success Academy’s students are children of color and are from low-income families.

Here in Missouri, we would be wise to take a closer look at what schools like Success Academy are doing to help low-income and minority students thrive. In fact, last November the Show-Me Institute invited Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academy, to speak at the Show-Me Institute. You can watch her lecture here. 

President’s Visit to Springfield Sets Stage for Tax Reform Fights

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

On Wednesday President Donald Trump visited Springfield, Mo., and delivered a speech on tax policy that, by most accounts, was basically what was expected. The assumption had been that the President would advance a general vision on reforming the federal corporate and individual income taxes, with an emphasis on the former. The President did make clear that he wanted corporate income taxes reduced by about half — a reduction that would move the U.S. from its station in the rareified air of practically punitive corporate over-taxation to being one of the most competitive countries in the world to set up a business. He was more vague on individual income tax reforms.

You can find video of the speech here. While the President’s talk was about federal taxation, I hope that his visit to Missouri will also renew the needed discussion for tax reform at the state and local levels as well. Indeed, 2018 could be a big year for tax reform nationally and in Missouri. Let’s hope.

Evidence from Across the Country: Economic Development Subsidies Don’t Work

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The Los Angeles Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Michael Hiltzik published a piece that observes exactly what we at The Show-Me Institute have been saying for years: economic development subsidies, “often are an unnecessary bonus to companies that already have made a site location decision based on more important factors.” Think of Burns & McDonnell, whose development partner already owned the land adjacent to their existing world headquarters when they sought subsidies to build a new HQ.

Hiltzik even quotes urban economist Richard Florida, whose call to cater to “creative class” millennials was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by Kansas City and Saint Louis politicians. Florida later recanted.

Hiltzik doesn’t pull any punches and ends his column with a repudiation of film tax credits, which Missouri wisely ended in 2013. The whole column is worth reading.

Could Illinois Be Missouri’s Role Model for School Choice?

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Few would have guessed that Illinois would see private school choice before Missouri, but it might happen—and soon.

Illinois may adopt a tax-credit scholarship program this week as part of broader education funding reform. According to early reports, the program would be capped at $75 million in partial tax credits for those who donate towards private school scholarships.

While the plan still has to pass, there are some important lessons here for Missouri: Tax-credit scholarships can be bipartisan and they can help cash-strapped states. In fact, Mike McShane and Marty Lueken found that a tax-credit scholarship program potentially could save the state of Missouri up to $18 million per year. 

About All Those Airport Surveys

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Polling indicates that building a new single terminal at Kansas City International Airport is unpopular, yet we seem inundated with surveys that purport to show that opinions are changing. It’s tough to say, because we don’t necessarily know if the information is trustworthy. What we do know, however, is not comforting.

In opinion survey research, the number of people surveyed is less important than randomness. A survey of 2,000 people who themselves decided to complete an online questionnaire, for example, may be less valuable than a survey of 200 people who were contacted at random. Without adequate randomization, survey results may over-represent the views of a group of passionate partisans.

Unscientific survey data—data lacking adequate randomization—has played a big role in the debate about whether or not to build a new single terminal at MCI. Some of it is due to passionate partisans; some of it is due to questionable reporting. Much if not all of it creates the sense that building a new terminal is more popular than it is.

Consider some questionable reporting. The Kansas City Business Journal published a front-page piece indicating that the average TSA wait time at MCI was 29 minutes. Anyone who has flown from Kansas City would be suspicious of that figure, and other average wait times should have suggested to reporters that the data was problematic. (Jacksonville and Phoenix airports both listed an average TSA wait time of zero!). Kevin Koster, who served on the Mayor’s Airport Terminal Advisory Group, was skeptical, and he followed up with his own research (see here and here). In short, the TSA reports that MCI’s actual average wait time was 3.63 minutes. The discrepancy is due to the fact that the Business Journal data came from a website in which travelers report their own wait times without any independent verification. The Business Journal basically relied on an online survey that has little or no scientific validity—perhaps travelers whose wait times were uncharacteristically long were overrepresented among the website’s respondents.

Even some of the other, likely scientifically valid polling that has been reported fails to meet the ethical standards set by the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (AAPOR) because it does not disclose all the questions asked.

Then there is the Aviation Department’s own online survey. At the City Council’s August 10 Business Session, department officials provided an overview of their presentations to groups across Kansas City about the need for a new terminal. After their presentation (which included a long discussion of the Aviation Department’s own scientifically invalid survey of session attendees), Councilman Jermaine Reed offered a startling admission [starts 19:26],

I can tell you that every time I fly I certainly try to get on the survey and make sure I mark everything bad about the airport. I don’t say anything good. I put no, no, one, one, zero, zero. What can we improve? Everything.  In my comments so … I shouldn’t probably tell you that. If you see the comments it is probably me.

Proponents for a new terminal are aware of public misgivings. Sadly, rather than having the serious and legitimate concerns of skeptics addressed, we have seen favoritism, secrecy, and now questionable polling that creates the misleading impression that the public is on board with their plans. Kansas City deserves better. 

Bevy of Laws Come into Effect Today

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

It’s August 28th, and for policy nerds — and especially taxpayers — this is an important day. Today is the day that most of the bills passed in the regular session are becoming law, which depending on your perspective and depending on the legislation, could be a great or terrible thing. Missourinet has an excellent rundown of some of the higher profile bills now in effect, and Marshall Griffin also has another excellent summary, with links, at the St. Louis Public Radio website. Check them both out to get a flavor of what is changing.

Have questions or comments about any of these legislative items? Leave them in the comments below. 

Airport Proposals Fly while the Public Feels Grounded

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Both Kansas City and Saint Louis are considering major changes to each of their biggest public assets: their airports. While the circumstances of each project are different, the inclination of some officials to avoid public scrutiny may sink both efforts. Regardless of the merits of any proposal, the process must remain open and transparent to taxpayers.

In Kansas City, the effort to spend $1.2 billion on a new single terminal has been limping along for years. Beset from the beginning by self-inflicted wounds from Aviation Department leadership and an aversion to open discussion (Mayor James recently tried to require elected officials to sign non-disclosure agreements about competing bids), the effort now appears to be racing toward a November election. Voter support is in no way assured.

In Saint Louis, a consortium of business interests and former city officials are moving forward with a privatization effort that has yet to be the subject of much public discussion. While free-market solutions are a worthwhile consideration for many public services, market decisions are only as good as the information available.

Why the secrecy over matters that are obviously of great public interest? If Kansas City and Saint Louis are developing good plans for managing, developing, or privatizing their airports, their leaders should be confident that they can defend the plans in the marketplace of ideas. If the plans are flawed, isn’t it better to expose the problems while there is still time to make adjustments?

One thing is certain. The longer deliberations are kept secret, the more the inference will grow that the officials leading the efforts have something to hide. It makes for an inauspicious start for what will, eventually and inevitably, become campaigns for public approval.

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