Recess-Something So Loved, Only Bureaucrats Could Kill It

I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t like recess. As a former elementary school teacher myself, I can tell you that recess is a special time. Kids can run, play, talk with their friends, and just be kids; and teachers can have a few uninterrupted minutes to prepare for the next lesson or take a much-needed bathroom break (When else do they have time?).

Even the research literature is pretty positive about the benefits of recess. For starters, recess increases physical activity, which we know has many positive effects on a child’s health and well-being. Yet, recess is more than simply physical activity. It is a time of unstructured play, which helps children develop socially and emotionally. Moreover, numerous studies have found students are more on-task in the classroom when they have had recess.

With so much love for recess, it is puzzling that Rhode Island lawmakers recently felt compelled to pass legislation requiring 20 minutes of recess a day. Where had recess gone?

In fairness, recess hasn't completely been eradicated from schools. In fact, almost all elementary students in public schools have at least one recess a day. The minutes spent at recess, however, seem to be shrinking—thanks in large part to government policies. In an effort to improve public schools, lawmakers saddle them with rules and regulations.

First, states severely micromanage the calendar of schools. Some states stipulate the start and end dates and the required number of minutes in the school year (in Virginia, the law regulating the starting and ending dates even has an informal name—“The King’s Dominion Law”—after the mega-amusement park that fights to keep kids out of school until after Labor Day). With these regulations in mind, most school funding systems ensure that schools will not go above and beyond the minimum requirements, because they will not get additional dollars to support their efforts. In effect, the state has defined the length of the school year down to the minute.

Second, government agencies have placed an inordinate amount of pressure on schools and students to perform in tested subject areas. Following the infamous A Nation at Risk report of 1983, states began developing accountability systems based on academic learning standards, and schools were assessed via standardized tests. The accountability movement leapt to the national stage with No Child Left Behind in 2001. Tests give us valuable information, but they simply cannot capture everything we care about in education. Moreover, we don’t (and wouldn't want to) test students in every subject. As a result, things like art, music, and recess become “less important” in accountability systems.

With a fixed amount of time in the school year and increased pressures to perform on standardized tests, many school administrators have been motivated to shift instructional time to tested subjects, such as math and English language arts, and reduce minutes for recess.

Fortunately, there is a better way. Rather than build a system of rules and compliance, where we must regulate everything—including recess—we could build a public education system of choice. A system that provides administrators with the power to lead their schools and offers parents the ability to choose would be much more conducive to good decision-making. Just take a look at recess: the average third-grade student in a private school spends roughly 30 more minutes a week at recess than their public school counterparts.

Fewer regulations, more choice, more recess—now that's sound policy.

Welfare Reform: Time to Scrub Our Welfare Rolls

What if we told you that the state is cutting welfare checks to people who are living out of state, incarcerated or even deceased? A new state law has been passed to aid in the removal of ineligible recipients from welfare rolls. There's more work to be done in reforming welfare in Missouri, but this is a step in the right direction. 

Will TDD Funding Skate through Chesterfield?

At 7:00 pm tonight Chesterfield City Hall will be hosting a Council meeting to discuss, among other things, the extension of a 3/8-cent sales tax to help fund a new ice rink. The current transportation development district (TDD) was implemented 10 years ago, and tonight as a sign of public transparency the council is being asked to give a recommendation to the TDD board for or against the use of the TDD to fund something completely new—the ice rink. If I were a member of the Council, there are a few questions that I would like to have answered before making any decision:

1. Is it the city’s place to facilitate funding for a recreational and sports activity center like this? The trend in Missouri of developers asking for financial assistance for private projects merely shows that they are common—not that they are needed. Is the funding of an ice rink the best and highest use of taxpayers’ money? We understand the proponents are presenting the ice rink as a not-for-profit venture. Nonetheless, should Chesterfield ask the TDD board to extend a sales tax (effectively a tax increase) in order to fund an activity that is an easily excludable good—in other words, an activity that can be funded by user fees? Is this proposal highly regressive—does it shift the cost of a special activity away from taxpayers who are better situated to bear the cost, and on to lower-income taxpayers?

2. Why are taxpayers being asked to shoulder over 38% of the development costs for a new ice rink when the ice rink just down the road is being shuttered because it could not make a profit? With the Hardee’s Ice Plex set to shut down next spring and be taken over by Topgolf, what evidence do we have that a new rink down the street would fare any better than its predecessor over the long run? What is the return for taxpayers?

3. How does the voting process work for this TDD? Is it true that, if the TDD board votes in favor of the proposal, only residents in a few select subdivisions will be allowed to vote on extending the sales tax? Is it equitable for just a few Chesterfield residents to make such a determination when the sales tax impacts everyone who makes retail purchases in Chesterfield Valley?

4. Can we make an educated decision on this proposal with the information currently available? The proposal is asking for $10 million in public funds to be put toward the development of a $26-million facility. These numbers seem excessive for a program (TDDs) designed for the renovation of transportation-related infrastructure (unless there will be a street hockey program). Of course, the TDD may be much broader than that—which raises other questions. Hopefully, more details regarding the specific use of public funds and the precise benefits to the public at large will be disclosed. Otherwise, one is left to wonder about the decision-making process and its transparency. If I were on the council, I would keep in mind that the money being spent in the first instance belongs to the taxpayers.

 

 

If You Give a Developer a Subsidy

One of my favorite books as a child was If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.  “If you give a mouse a cookie,” the story begins, “he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.”  Before long the mouse receives a haircut, a nap complete with a bedtime story, and more. The lesson I took away was to be wary of open-ended gift giving.

A similar story has been taking place in the St. Louis area during recent years.   After threatening to locate its headquarters in downtown St. Louis back in 2008, Centene was given a $22 million cookie from Clayton.  Now it’s back for a $100 million glass of milk.

Currently headquartered in downtown Clayton, the healthcare giant is proposing a $772 million expansion along Forsyth Blvd.  Construction would include office space that Centene could use for its own employees or lease out to other businesses.   The expansion may benefit the city, but between Centene’s success, their reasons for expanding, and Clayton’s thriving downtown, it’s hard to justify asking taxpayers to contribute.

Centene is a rapidly growing enterprise.  In 2015 the company added 4,800 jobs nationwide and revenue grew 35% from $15.7 billion to $21.3 billion.  This fact alone shouldn’t deter incentives, but when we combine this fact with Clayton’s developmental success there isn’t much of an argument for the proposed property tax abatement.  Supporters of tax breaks argue they should be used if an area would otherwise lack investment, but in an area as affluent as Clayton potential investors have not been hard to come by. 

But if subsidies aren’t offered to the Fortune 500 company, isn’t it possible that it will pack its bags and move somewhere else?  It’s possible, but not probable.  Centene has spent millions acquiring land parcels along Forsyth over the past four years, so expansion has been on the horizon for a while.  What is much more likely is that without subsidies the expansion will not be quite as large, and perhaps it shouldn’t be.

Centene houses around 1,000 employees in Clayton and leases roughly half its office space to other companies.  The new plan is modeled on the same structure and would be large enough for 2,000 Centene employees and office space that the company could then lease out to increase its revenue.  There’s nothing wrong with a business diversifying its income portfolio, but the red flag should go up when this opportunity is only available with the help of taxpayer money. 

Tax breaks have become ingrained in our development culture, and they have created an unfair environment where some companies gain competitive advantages over others.  It does our community little good to continue this trend, and Clayton should decide if giving away a full glass of milk would benefit anyone.

Two Must-Read Missouri Pension Pieces

If you haven’t already, please read my colleague Mike McShane’s piece, “Teacher pensions have a math problem.” Mike does a terrific job of outlining the major problems with defined-benefit pension systems, particularly teacher pensions in Missouri. Then, I want you to read Dale Singer’s piece, “COLA fizzles: Retired Missouri teachers won’t get pension increase in 2017,” on St. Louis Public Radio’s website.

Mike gives you the context and outlines the underlying problems. Dale illustrates these problems by simply reporting on the current state of the Public School System of Missouri (PSRS).

Like most pension systems, PSRS assumes a relatively high rate of return—until recently, 8%—on its investments. Realizing they were probably being too optimistic (or maybe they read a few Show-Me Institute reports), they lowered their assumption to 7.5%. That simple change means the system needs more money to meet it current obligations to retirees.  On top of that, retirees are living longer—which increases the pension plans obligations—and actual investment returns are not hitting their targets.

As Mike said, “pension plans have a math problem.” To combat the problem, they either need more money or they need to reduce obligations.  To do this, they only have two mechanisms under their control. They can increase the contribution rates for teachers—who already pay 14.5% into the system, as do their school districts—or they can hold down payments to retirees by not providing a cost of living adjustment (COLA). Neither of these are long-term solutions for addressing the mounting unfunded liabilities.

 Give these two pieces a read. I think they make it pretty clear that it is time for a change. 

 

Not This Again

As I scrolled through my twitter feed this morning, a tweet from NPR jumped out at me:

All I could think was, here we go again.

If you’ve followed education policy for any length of time this routine looks familiar. Researchers or policymakers visit some other country that performs better than we do on international assessments and then come back with the secret sauce that makes them do so well. The recommendations are so anodyne that that anyone with a passing knowledge of the education system will probably agree with them. The policy flavor of the month (national education standards, universal pre-K, etc.) is usually highlighted. Rinse and repeat.

For a while we were told to emulate Shanghai—until we learned that Shanghai systematically excludes disadvantaged students from its testing pool to juice its scores. Then it was Finland, at least until Finland’s scores dropped precipitously on the very test that ushered in its rise to prominence.

Here is the problem with this approach, and why it never actually yields the information we’re looking for: it violates the basic precepts of research design. If you want to know if a certain policy affects an outcome, you develop a hypothesis and test it. You follow children that are subject to the policy and children that aren’t—doing your best to make sure all other aspects of the two groups’ educational environments are identical—and you see what happens. If the children who were subject to the policy do better than those who weren’t, then you have reason to believe that the policy caused the improvement.

“Do what the best schools do” research does the exact opposite of that. It sees a result it likes and then tries to work backwards to the cause without isolating other variables that might also explain the outcome. That is not how science works. Are there places, for example, that do the very things that Finland or Shanghai or any of these other countries do that don’t meet with success?  Are there countries meeting with success that don’t do these things? As I’ve written before, the Netherlands is a very high-performing country that is marked by an incredible degree of school choice. So why does a universal voucher system always seem to be missing from the list of recommendations? In short, we have no idea whether the policies these folks advocate are really behind these countries’ successes.

I don’t want to say there’s nothing we can learn from other states or other countries about how to improve education here at home. However, if we are going to make claims that one policy or another causes a particular outcome, we need to back those claims up with research done the proper way. 

Evergreen Clauses: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Back on January 1, 2011, the Monarch Fire Protection District (MFPD) and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 2665 entered into a 3-year collective bargaining agreement.  Five and a half years later the original contract lives on, and a recent court ruling indicates that for those seeking reform, the devil is in the details.

The conflict between the district and the union lies in a short paragraph of the agreement that reads:

“The Agreement shall remain in effect during good faith negotiations and shall continue to remain in full force and effect until such time as a new Agreement is agreed upon”

In other words, until both parties agree on new provisions, the original contract stands.  The Circuit Court of Saint Louis County recently rejected the MFPD’s appeal against the contract’s perpetuity by saying that as long as both parties engage in ‘good faith negotiations’ then the agreement has a termination date and is legally sound.  Of course, if the parties can’t come to terms on something new, then that termination date will always be right around the corner.

Perpetual contracts such as this (nicknamed “evergreen clauses”) can create a situation where elected officials are powerless to change salaries and benefits captured in a union contract unless the union agrees to the change.  Where we would be today if U.S. legislation had been frozen centuries ago and couldn’t change regardless of who we elected into office?

Feeding Clayton’s Healthcare Giant

On Monday Clayton City Hall found itself filled to the brim with citizens hoping to attend a public hearing regarding the $147 million potential subsidy for Centene.  Upon arrival, I—along with dozens of others—was turned away due to a lack of space. It seems the massive development is raising eyebrows, and rightfully so. 

For those unfamiliar with the proposed project, Centene is seeking public subsidies to assist in the expansion of its headquarters in downtown Clayton.  The total expansion’s costs are estimated at $771.8, million and Clayco (the project’s developer) expects roughly a fifth of that to be covered through public subsidies. 

Centene’s proposal says it will bring 2,000 jobs to the area and that part of the new expansion will be leased out to third parties, as is occurring at the current headquarters.  It’s somewhat unsettling that the healthcare giant is leasing out roughly half of its current headquarters’ office space while at the same time claiming that expansions are necessary to house 2,000 new employees, and it seems that the company has no intention of changing this pattern. 

With Centene planning to lease office space, we should ask if subsidization is proper for this kind of business venture.  Why should tax dollars pay for leasing space that will simply bring more revenue back to Centene?  It’s a bad bargain, both for citizens and for competing lessors who would lack the competitive advantage of subsidization. 

If Centene wishes to move further into the leasing game, they certainly have the right to do so—on their own dime.  But it’s hard to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for a profitable investment in such a prime place for development.

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