In this February 2015 Policy Forum, University of Missouri Law Professor Joshua Hawley discusses the King v. Burwell case which is currently before the Supreme Court of the United States.
School Visit Series: A Charter With a Second Chance
Dorothy Curry and Sue Jarvis had a dream—build a school that helps at-risk children reach their full potential. Their vision came to life in the form of Gordon Parks Elementary, a charter school in Kansas City, Missouri. While most urban charters serve low-income students, Jarvis and Curry wanted to serve the neediest of those children. In its early years, according to current Executive Director Steve Fleming, the majority of the school’s applicants were funneled through Operation Breakthrough, a charity where the founders volunteered.
The organization describes the children it serves:
Over 20% of the children are homeless or near homeless, living in battered women’s or homeless shelter or transitional living programs. Often they sleep on the sofas of friends or relatives, sometimes even living in cars, rundown hotels or abandoned buildings. Many of our children are in foster care or other placements due to abuse, neglect, or other family crises.
Serving one or two children with these types of hardships is difficult enough, but Gordon Parks was serving only children with these hardships. In 2013, the State Board of Education decided that Gordon Parks had to close down. One of the reasons Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) Communications Coordinator Sarah Potter gave in an email to the Missouri Times was, “very low academic performance—in the bottom five percent of the state.”
The school fought back, taking DESE and the state board to court. The judge ruled in favor of Gordon Parks, “saving the school” from closing.
Although Gordon Parks has shown improvement in the past year, there are still challenges to serving the city’s neediest students. A Gordon Parks kindergarten teacher told Kansas City Public Media in January, “They need the structure, they need the individualized instruction, they need the love, they need the care. They need everything that we offer them and more.”
Gordon Parks was given a second chance, but there’s nothing preventing the state from penalizing schools that choose to serve a similar population of children. This is a shame, because schools like Gordon Parks provide a much-needed service.
Fleming said, “There’s some unique challenges that you have in the urban core, but we treat our kids like they’re our kids. We try to help them learn and grow and develop, and try to help them be good citizens. They’re our future.”
Fuel Taxes Back on the Table in Missouri
Recently, two Missouri House Bills (HB 995 and HB 738) proposed to increase fuel taxes in Missouri to fund the state highway system.
The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has been ringing the alarm bell for years about the impending shortfall in the funds necessary to maintain Missouri’s state highway system. With the failure of Amendent 7 last year, MoDOT unveiled its 325 Plan, which shows how the state would prioritize its declining construction budget. While much of the vital portions of state highways could be maintained in the condition they are in today, more than 20,000 miles of state highways would fall into disrepair.
Much of the problem lies in the gradual deterioration of the user-fee funding base of MoDOT, specifically the state fuel tax. The fuel tax last increased in 1996, and Missouri now has the country’s fifth lowest regular gasoline tax and fourth lowest diesel fuel tax.
But now that could change. HB 738 would scrap the cent per mile fuel tax altogether and replace it with a per gallon tax equal to 10.6 percent of the wholesale per gallon price of gasoline, based on regular six-month averages. The result of moving to a percentage calculation is if the fuel price remains low, at say two dollars wholesale, the fuel tax would be about 21 cents a gallon. But at a price of three dollars, the fuel tax would be around 31 cents a gallon. At three dollars a gallon, MoDOT would have an extra $400 million to spend on the state highways over what the 17 cent gas tax currently raises.
HB 738’s method of calculating the fuel tax would, at higher gas prices, essentially wipe out MoDOT’s funding problems in one fell swoop and ensure that as input costs for MoDOT rise (because of higher fuel costs), so does funding. However, it also means that, as pain increases at the pump for the average Missourian, taxation piles on.
In contrast, HB 995 proposes to simply raise the fuel tax by two cents beginning next year. That would raise approximately $78 million in new revenue, 70 percent of which ($55 million) would go to MoDOT (the other 30 percent goes to cities and counties for their transportation needs). Because those funds can be used to match federal dollars on a 4:1 basis, that two cent tax increase could retain $230 million federal transportation dollars.
HB 995, while not immediately solving all of MoDOT’s problems, has its own advantages. The comparatively small increase in the fuel tax gives consumers time to adjust to the changes and would not increase taxation as fuel costs rise. Furthermore, the increase is small enough that it is likely not to trigger the state’s Hancock Amendment, meaning it could pass without going to a public vote. With the addition of tolling the state’s most expensive projects, small increases in the existing fuel tax rate could give MoDOT what it needs.
A fuel tax, unlike sales taxes, is a fair and economically sound way of funding roads. It is good that the legislature is looking into updating its user funding base, although it should also consider whether the response is appropriate to the need.
Mizzou Gets an F on Transparency
As first appearing in the Columbia Daily Tribune:
It seems absurd that a public university would treat the content of its courses as a closely held secret. Unfortunately, the University of Missouri is doing just this by shielding course syllabi from state transparency laws.
In 2012, the University of Missouri refused to release course syllabi, which are outlines of the content included in a course of study, to the National Council on Teacher Quality. Under Missouri’s Open Meetings and Records Law (a.k.a. the Sunshine Law), most government records are supposed to be accessible to the public. However, Mizzou took the position that course syllabi are exempt from the Sunshine Law because they are copyrighted.
Unfortunately for open-government advocates, the courts refused to require the University of Missouri to disclose these records. Now it appears that absent a policy change members of the public might be left in the dark about this important aspect of public higher education. Worse still, government agencies that wish to avoid public scrutiny may try to use copyright as an excuse not to produce public documents. The University of Missouri’s refusal to operate in a forthright and transparent manner stands in stark contrast to my experience as a student at the school.
In my undergrad work at Mizzou, I felt like I was a part of an enlightened institution that valued free inquiry, rationality, and open society. I listened to impromptu debates at Speakers Circle, socialized with journalism students excited about making their first sunshine request, and heard lectures from professors on the nature of civil society. My alma mater seemed so committed to the idea of open society that I’m almost surprised that syllabi aren’t already posted online for anyone to see.
Of course, I’m not really surprised. If the University of Missouri allowed the public to see course syllabi, it would invite public scrutiny. In all likelihood, there’s some professor teaching a class at Mizzou this semester that’s full of substandard or inappropriate content. Rather than deal with the inevitable criticism that a transparent institution would invite, the people in charge have decided to shield the university from the state’s transparency laws.
Certainly some of the criticisms of course content would be unwarranted. But does that even matter? A conviction I picked up at Mizzou was that the solution to some bad speech is more good speech and that in an open society the truth will win out in the marketplace of ideas. Public scrutiny is no enemy of free inquiry. On the contrary, I’d argue that scrutiny can help foster it.
The University of Missouri is a government institution. Its operations are paid for in part with tax revenues, and it serves the public. Mizzou should not let fear of criticism and a legal loophole to state transparency laws prevent it from being just as committed to the values of an open society as I remember it being.
John Wright is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.
Ideas for Kansas City Schools: Focus on Teachers
Last night the Show-Me Institute partnered with the Kansas City Federalist Society for a panel discussion on the Future of Education in Kansas City. Panelists included James Shuls of the Show-Me Institute, Doug Thaman of the Missouri Charter Public School Association, Amy Hartsfield of the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) Board of Directors, Andrea Flinders of the American Federation of Teachers, and John Murphy of the Missouri Catholic Conference. The event was well attended, and the discussion lasted two hours; I think everyone would agree that it was educational.
One topic of discussion was pay for teachers. Flinders asserted that Kansas City teachers are paid lower than the state average. She is most likely correct, and there is something we can do to fix it. In previous posts we suggested reforming teacher pay schedules to increase the incentive for teachers to stay on.
But the district actually can pay teachers more if it cuts back on hiring non-teacher personnel. According to my colleague Brittany Wagner,
Over the past 60 years, schools have increased non-teaching personnel positions by 702 percent. [A report] also found the U.S. spends more than double what Korea, Mexico, Finland, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Spain spend on non-teaching staff salaries and benefits.
Recall that upon arriving Superintendent John Covington asserted that the district was too big, and in 2010 KCPS closed 30 buildings and eliminated 1,247 full-time equivalent positions. Doing so freed up a great deal of money. According to Wagner,
One study showed that if non-teaching personnel grew at the same rate as the student population, American public schools would have an additional $24.3 billion annually.
This impacts pensions as well, which is far greater than the immediate cost of this educational bloat on salaries. Show-Me Researcher Michael Rathbone writes,
Non-teaching personnel also accrue pension benefits through the Public Education Employee Retirement System of Missouri (PEERS). According to the PEERS annual report, “PEERS is a mandatory cost-sharing multiple employer retirement system for all public school district employees (except the school districts of St. Louis and Kansas City), employees of the Missouri Association of School Administrators, and community college employees (except St. Louis Community College).” Members of the plan and their employers both contribute to the pension.
Over the last five years, the unfunded liabilities (liabilities minus assets) of this plan have increased by more than $64 million. Pension benefits like PEERS benefits are guaranteed and must be paid out. If PEERS can’t make those payments, taxpayers (i.e., you) will have to.
By spending too much on non-teacher personnel, KCPS is draining resources from both funds to pay teachers in the short term and teacher pension funds in the long term. Cutting back on non-teacher staff—or perhaps just restricting growth—would allow school districts to better meet their financial responsibilities to teachers and to demonstrate a real commitment to the children in the classroom.
Three Labor Agreements Held By Metro
Below are three labor agreements held by the Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District (Metro).
One is an agreement with ATU Division 788 representing van operators for Call-A-Ride. The term of the agreement is February 1, 2013 through January 31, 2017.
Another is an agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Locals 2 and 309 representing employees classified as sign worker, facilities electrician, signal electrician Metrolink, and traction power electrician Metrolink. The term of the agreement is March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2018.
The final agreement is with the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Division 788 representing all the employees of the agency except Line and Power Sections, watchmen, office and clerical employees, and supervisory employees. The term of agreement was October 1, 2005, through June 30, 2009.
Why Cities Are Bad at Bargaining With Sports Teams
Don’t look now, but there’s a land rush for the Los Angeles pro football market. Saint Louisans will already be familiar with Stan Kroenke’s plan to move the Rams to a stadium in Inglewood. But now the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, unhappy that their localities are not coughing up public funds for new stadiums, are also publicizing a plan to move to L.A.
Three teams will not be playing in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, but it allows all three franchises to simultaneously frighten local politicians into spending public dollars on a stadium. From an owner like Stan Kroenke’s point of view, it’s a win-win scenario. If the NFL allows him to move the Rams, his team will instantly gain $1.5 to $2.5 billion in value. And if he can’t (or never wanted to), Missouri has already planned to fund half the costs of a new stadium without any negotiation at all.
For Missourians, local officials have essentially locked residents into two possibilities: 1) approve around $400 million in public dollars for a new stadium, or 2) lose the Rams. Of course, the Rams might move regardless and Kroenke might demand more than $400 million to stay, but that’s what comes from committing the state to half the costs as the opening offer.
This situation is a perfect example of how poorly local officials fare when they bargain for taxpayers against billionaire-owned sports franchises. Where Stan Kroenke can credibly appear ready to leave the Saint Louis market without firm public subsidies, local officials declare how necessary the Rams are to the state. While Kroenke can strengthen his position and fail to negotiate, local officials need to be seen as trying their hardest to make sure Saint Louis is an “NFL city,” even when that means negotiating against themselves.
In essence, Stan Kroenke can look at this like a business negotiation. But local politicians are not spending their own money and have to be concerned about portraying an image of effectiveness and bolstering civic pride, making them poor bargaining agents for regional economies.
Even when there is no threat of a team leaving a lucrative market, pro teams can still reap public subsidies by threatening to move to different municipalities in the metro area. While it might not hurt the Chicago regional economy one bit if the Bears played in Rosemont (a nearby suburb), it would hurt the city’s tax revenue as recreation dollars flow to a different part of the region. Whether the team’s option is moving across the country or the county, pro franchises almost always have the best alternative to a negotiated agreement vis-à-vis local governments.
The best bargaining tool local officials can have is a skeptical voter base that understands that pro franchises do not create economic development or urban regeneration. Residents can vote against public dollars for entertainment venues. That constrains the local officials and sends a clear message to the NFL that Saint Louis is a great sports market, not a great mark.
Lackluster Outlook for Saint Louis in 2015
The PNC Financial Services Group provides economic forecasts for those areas in which it has a significant business footprint. The Saint Louis area is one of those areas. While the PNC forecast for 2015 covers several measures, let’s focus on jobs and income.
The economists at PNC predict that the unemployment rate in Saint Louis will continue its slow decline, falling to a little over 6 percent by year’s end (see accompanying chart). Even so, job growth in services is expected to slow as the year progresses, and manufacturing jobs are not expected to show much change over 2015. According to its regional outlook, when comparing potential job growth from the trough of the recession through 2015 across a number of Midwest metropolitan areas, PNC ranks Saint Louis well behind such cities as Indianapolis, Chicago, and Milwaukee.
The PNC report, which provided both charts shown here, also predicts that while household income will continue its post-recession recovery, improvement will be slow. As shown in the chart, PNC predicts that median household income in Saint Louis will increase from about $54,000 to approximately $56,000 between the end of 2013 and the end of 2015. This is less than a 2 percent annual rate of increase. As noted in the PNC report, “Income growth in St. Louis still lacks the job market support necessary to break out to a much stronger pace.”
Are Virtual Charter Schools Right for Missouri?
In 1999, 11 charter schools opened in Saint Louis and Kansas City. That same year, the Disney Channel released the millennial cult-classic Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century. “Grounded” on earth, Zenon communicates with her interstellar best friend with a handheld video device (what foresight!). While the technology in 2015 mirrors what Disney imagined, charter education in Missouri is still “so ’90s.”
This may be because virtual charter schools are not yet allowed to operate in the Show-Me State. Legislation has been introduced this session that attempts to expand virtual charter education opportunities. Online charters already exist in more than 30 states.
Virtual charter schools could provide an alternative for public school students and homeschool families outside of Saint Louis and Kansas City. The creation of a virtual school network also could create new employment opportunities for educators.
Traditional brick and mortar education may work for most students, but for children who require an alternate learning environment, 21st-century charter schools may be the answer.
