Page 440 – Show-Me Institute

Why Not Charter Schools In Normandy?

Posted on June 19, 2014May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

After years of paying taxes in a school district that failed them, the Normandy community deserves quality schools that will address the needs of each individual student. Charter schools will do just that.

Statistics show that charter schools help urban students. One recent study found that charter high school enrollment increased the probability of graduating within five years by 7 to 11 percentage points. Another working paper looked at students six years after being admitted into a charter school. Lottery winners (those who were admitted into the school) scored higher on national math and reading achievement tests than non-lottery winners. The study also found that female lottery winners were 12.1 percent less likely to report unplanned pregnancies.

While there is evidence supporting the implementation of charter schools, the Missouri State School Board voted Monday to give Normandy Schools Collaborative a non-accredited status. Now, it is unclear whether charter schools will be allowed to open due to uncertainties regarding the state’s charter law.

According to the Missouri Charter Public School Association (MCPSA), the following questions must be answered:

1. With a non-accreditation status, could the new Normandy Schools Collaborative Board sponsor, or partner with a current sponsor, establishing a quality charter public school in Normandy?

2. Could an existing accredited school district choose to sponsor, or partner with a current sponsor, establishing a charter public school in Normandy?

Although the answers to these questions are unclear, it is clear that charter schools provide another option to a community that is desperate for choice. I hope for the sake of Normandy parents whose only “choice” is Normandy Schools Collaborative, these questions are answered sooner than later.

The Transfer Program – Curbing The Decade-Long Drop In Enrollment?

Posted on June 19, 2014May 5, 2026 by James V. Shuls

According to data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, enrollment in the Normandy School District has been dropping for years. The district has been losing approximately 122 students per year and has 1,100 fewer students than it did in 2004. That is with the influx of students the district received when it absorbed nearly 600 students from Wellston in 2010.

The Normandy School District has some of the worst academic results in the state. About half of Normandy students fail to graduate high school on time. Among those who do, the prospects are slim. The average ACT score for Normandy students is just 16.8. That is not high enough to gain admittance to most state universities. On top of that, the district’s property tax rate of $6.3974 per $100 of assessed valuation is among the highest in the state. That is $1.50 per $100 higher than the average Saint Louis County school district.

Despite these facts, there seems to be a force strong enough to get 130 students to move into the district – the school transfer law.

As I explained yesterday on the blog, I don’t really believe that all of these families moved into the district simply to take advantage of the program. Normandy Superintendent Ty McNichols seems to believe a slight uptick in occupancy permits proves otherwise.

Let’s just assume for argument’s sake that he is correct. Let’s assume that all 130 students who had not attended Normandy schools in the 2012-13 school year moved into the district simply to transfer to a better school. That would mean that now the families of those 130 students are paying property taxes on their homes or through the rent payments in the Normandy School District. It would mean the transfer program is helping to curb the decade-long trend of families fleeing the Normandy area. These are good things.

The fact that some individuals may be willing to move to take advantage of the transfer program is not an indictment of the program. Rather, it demonstrates how important educational choice is for families.

Thank Obamacare: Buchanan County, Mo., Tops List For Insurance Rate Hikes On Men

Posted on June 18, 2014May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Last year, Forbes published a story about how much insurance rates were expected to rise across the country because of Obamacare. Today, Avik Roy and his crew published their follow-up. The study has bad news for just about everybody, but our own Buchanan County appears to have been hit especially hard by the President’s signature legislation. (Emphasis mine.)

Our new county-by-county analysis was led by Yegeniy Feyman, who compiled the county-based data for 27-year-olds, 40-year-olds, and 64-year-olds, segregated by gender. We were able to obtain data for 3,137 of the United States’ 3,144 counties….

Among men, the county with the greatest increase in insurance prices from 2013 to 2014 was Buchanan County, Missouri, about 45 miles north of Kansas City: 271 percent. Among women, the “winner” was Goodhue County, Minnesota, about an hour southwest of Minneapolis: 200 percent. Overall, the counties of Nevada, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Arkansas haven experienced the largest rate hikes under the law.

Amazingly, that 271 percent figure conceals something else about Buchanan that is just jaw-dropping. If you use Forbes’ national rate navigator, you discover that a 27-year-old man in Buchanan County can expect an individual insurance policy rate increase of — get this — 411 percent.

This is “affordable”? How can any politician tell his or her constituents with a straight face that Obamacare is working, or that we need to help the Feds implement this disaster in Missouri? Missouri needs market-based insurance reforms, not Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion. Our people deserve better than this raw deal.

Supply, Demand, And The Minimum Wage

Posted on June 18, 2014May 5, 2026 by Michael Rathbone

Early last week, Lindenwood University Professor and Show-Me Institute Fellow Howard Wall debated the merits of raising the minimum wage on St. Louis Public Radio. It was an interesting discussion, but one thing stuck out for me. In the debate, Chris Sommers, who co-owns Pi Pizza and is in favor of raising the minimum wage, stated that (at 5:37), “We raised the wage in order to also attract better people.” This was said in the context of Pi raising the wages its pays its employees.

This is interesting because Pi raised its wages voluntarily. It didn’t need the government to mandate a hike in pay, it chose to do it because it made sense from a business perspective. That is how it is supposed to be. In fact, that is what businesses do. They pay their workers a competitive rate commensurate with the value that these employees generate for the business. If they pay their employees too little, other businesses can offer these workers a higher rate and they will leave. Sommers mentioned his workers moving to another business because it offered a 25-cent increase in hourly wages (at 4:30). This is the market working.

Take what happened in North Dakota as an example. Because businesses were so desperate for workers, even fast food establishments had to significantly increase what they would pay their employees. For example, Taco John’s, a local area fast food restaurant, had to offer new employees $15 an hour salaries in order to get them to work there.

I want to help the poor do better, but there are betters options available than raising the minimum wage, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. This would ensure the benefits would go to the people who really need them, the working poor.

Missouri State Board Of Education Robs Students Of Educational Opportunities

Posted on June 18, 2014May 5, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Larcenist is a strong word to call someone, but that is exactly what Missouri Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14) called parents attempting to secure a good education for their children. The senator, who has otherwise been good on the transfer issue, was referring to parents who moved into the Normandy School District to take advantage of the transfer program, which allowed them to send their children to better schools outside the district. “I think it’s educational larceny for people to move into a community from another community just so they can attend another school,” Chappelle-Nadal said.

The Missouri State Board of Education seems to agree. Earlier this week, the board voted to revoke the transfer right of any individual who was not enrolled in the Normandy School District the year before the transfer law went into effect. Now, more than 130 students who benefited from transferring to higher-performing schools have had that right stripped away.

Among the list of bad decisions the state board has made recently, this is among the worst.

First, I find it highly unlikely that 130 students moved into the district with the intent purpose of taking advantage of the transfer program. Most likely, many already lived in the district, but paid to send their children to private schools or they relocated for various other reasons. This was the case for Diane McCrary and Connie Holtrop. You can read their story in this excellent piece by Elisa Crouch.

Nevertheless, let’s imagine that some families did move to the Normandy School District simply to take advantage of the transfer program. They did not violate any law. They simply made a decision to put their kids into better schools.

Now these families have had that opportunity stripped away because it was good for the district’s bottom line. If any educational larceny has occurred, it took place when the State Board of Education robbed these students of the opportunity to attend good schools.

Show-Me Now! No More Tangles For Hair Braiders?

Posted on June 18, 2014May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

David Stokes, the Show-Me Institute Director of Local Government Policy, talks about the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit challenging Missouri’s onerous licensing requirements for African-style hair braiders.

Hairbrained Licensing Of Hair Braiders

Posted on June 17, 2014May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed suit in federal court in Saint Louis to overturn Missouri’s awful licensing system for women who wish to perform African-style hair braiding. Why is this particular licensing rule so objectionable? Because, while there are many other unnecessary occupational licensing regulations in Missouri, at least the others usually require you to do things that at least relate to your future professions. With African-style hair braiding, the required cosmetology coursework, training, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with hair braiding. It would be like requiring dog walkers to get an electrician license before they can walk dogs. It simply makes no sense.

Watch a clip from today’s press conference about the issue, and check out some of the Show-Me Institute’s prior work. I applaud IJ for taking up this cause in Missouri. More importantly, I applaud the two plaintiffs, Tameka Stigers and Joba Niang, for standing up for their chance to pursue their dream of owning their own business without unnecessary government interference.

Power Play In Southeast Missouri

Posted on June 16, 2014May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Ameren is one of the state’s largest electrical utilities. Noranda is an aluminum company in Southeast Missouri that, due to the nature of making aluminum, uses an enormous amount of electricity. This is a tricky post to write because it is certainly complicated stuff and I don’t have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering like my father-in-law does. Noranda and Ameren have several cases before the Public Service Commission (PSC) that are being considered. In an effort to simplify things, it all basically comes down to two issues:

1) Claims that Ameren has been overcharging its customers from what the PSC allows it to receive in profits, and

2) Demands for mandated lower rates for Noranda itself, the state’s largest electricity consumer.

As to claim No. 1, if that is correct, then the PSC will take appropriate action. While rates themselves don’t directly compare to returns, in fairness to Ameren, the most recent annual electricity rate survey just showed Saint Louis as having the second-lowest residential electricity rates in the survey (which included much, but not all, of the country). The same survey showed Ameren having among the lowest commercial rates as well. So, while it may be possible to over-earn while charging comparatively very low rates, Ameren is hardly holding its customers (at least its Saint Louis customers) over the barrel.

As for Noranda’s demands for even lower rates, they already pay the lowest rates in the state. Furthermore, the Missouri General Assembly has already given Noranda the unique right to shop for electrical providers, unlike any other person or business in the state. I don’t begrudge Noranda any of this. As the largest user, I understand why their bulk discount is so high. Also, while I may want to give more customers the same right to shop that Noranda has, I certainly don’t want to take that option away from them.

That said, there has to be a limit on having the state solve Noranda’s electrical cost issues. If they can’t negotiate an even better deal from Ameren, Noranda does have the right to switch providers. Indeed, that is how they switched to Ameren in the first place. That is more than enough special treatment from the state.

Noranda’s efforts to curb its power costs goes back years. Noranda used to purchase electrical power from the rural cooperative by its smelter. But with the help of a law passed solely for its benefit by the Missouri General Assembly, Noranda was allowed to switch electricity providers. As of 2005, it has purchased electricity from Ameren at a cheaper rate than the cooperative had offered.

It is the role of the PSC to regulate private utilities, but it is not the role of the PSC to fix Noranda’s bottom line. We all want Noranda to successfully continue operating in Missouri, but it is not the role of state government to aggressively interfere in an attempt to guarantee that.

User Fees Are A Better Way To Fund State Roads

Posted on June 16, 2014May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

In his latest Kansas City Star column, Dave Helling argues that it might be correct that everyone should pay for Missouri’s highways and bi-ways, not just the people using the roads. His argument is that we all benefit in some way, therefore, all of us should pay.

This argument is doubly flawed. First, in a user-pay system, the individual who doesn’t drive still pays for the road through the cost of the products he or she buys. This is factored in as companies have to take into account the cost of gas used to ship their goods; that cost varies based on the amount of highway required to move that good. Paying for the highway through user fees places a large direct cost on shipping companies and frequent drivers (who benefit greatly) and a tiny cost on those who do not drive but purchase shipped goods. Additionally, by paying for the shipped good based on its actual transport costs, user fees promote long-term economic prosperity because they encourage local products and efficient supply chains.

Second, all goods, services, and factors of production have indirect benefits. Take the example of a sandwich shop. Sure, those who eat the sandwiches benefit the most from the shop, but we all benefit from the new employment, the productivity of well-fed customers, and neighborhoods with vibrant businesses. So why make shop customers pay? Missouri could open sandwich shops, give the food away, and support the stores with general taxes.

The logical conclusion here is a planned economy, which Helling and others making this argument would not support. But placing aside the polemics, there are good economic reasons that disconnecting the user of a good from the cost of that good is bad policy. Governments will have no way of ascertaining the economically efficient supply of highways for drivers (much less indirect benefits), likely resulting in a highway system that is simultaneously wasteful and inefficient. The lack of user fees on driving will subsidize the activity, leading to more waste and negative externalities such as congestion, more urban sprawl, and ultimately higher costs for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).

Some goods and services (police, public parks) that the government provides may require general taxes for support. However, where possible, it is both fair and economically efficient for users to pay. That is the basis for Missouri’s state road spending right now. To change this model away from user fees will unfairly subsidize heavy road users and damage Missouri’s economy in the long run.

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.