What Does Common Core Mean For Homeschoolers?

Posted on by Emily Watson

The Common Core State Standards have brought a wave of protests from concerned parents throughout the country, including here in Missouri. States readily adopted these standards without properly investigating what the standards, and everything that comes with them, would mean for their students. Now many states are balking at implementation. Amid the growing debate, one group often overlooked in the conversation is homeschoolers. Many in the homeschool community are still trying to figure out what the new standards mean for them.

Having the ability to customize their child’s curriculum is one of the main reasons parents choose to homeschool. Some worry that the new standards may infringe on their ability to do so.

The creators of the SAT and ACT are already working on aligning their tests to Common Core. Public schools are changing their curriculum to align with the new standards and tests. There is concern that homeschoolers will struggle on the redesigned state and national standardized tests unless they also align their curriculum. This defeats the purpose of homeschooling – to have greater flexibility and autonomy.

The more state standardized tests and college entrance exams align to the Common Core, the more textbook companies will align their curriculum to the Common Core. Over time, this could leave homeschooling parents with fewer and fewer alternatives from which to choose. It is difficult to know what the exact impact will be; what is certain is that the issue is not going away anytime soon. Parents, whether homeschooling or not, should continue to question Common Core and to educate themselves about the standards and their potential effects.

Aerotropolis Revisited

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Many Missouri residents remember the ill-fated effort to create a China Hub at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. The plan, dubbed “Aerotropolis,” envisioned more than $300 million in subsidies for developers and air freight carriers to construct a Midwest hub for exports to China. Analysts at the Show-Me Institute argued that the high subsidies would harm Missouri economically and the supposed benefits to Saint Louis would be illusory. The plan was defeated in 2011, and cargo flights from China to Saint Louis have halted due to a downturn in the international cargo industry. However, like the broom from the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, bits of the chopped-up Aerotropolis legislation are still taking on a life of their own.

The sliver that has come back to life this time is “freight forwarding tax credits.” These tax credits are available to airlines or air freight companies that transport cargo on a direct international flight. Missouri House Bill 1500 (HB 1500) proposes a 40-cent/kg. cargo tax credit for any of those flights leaving a Missouri airport. The proposal calls for eventually allocating $60 million, with a yearly cap of $8 million. The purported purpose of the bill is to encourage foreign trade, presumably by making it cheaper for Missouri products to reach international markets.

However, as of this year, no direct international cargo flights leave Lambert. In addition, the only international passenger flights from Lambert go to resort destinations in Latin America. Whatever demand there is for Missouri exports in Latin America generally, it is unlikely that this demand is in seasonal resort towns such as Cancun and Montego Bay. As HB 1500 only allows tax credits for cargo on direct international flights, there may be few or no companies to take advantage of the proposed tax credit.

So who benefits? One possibility is that this bill is designed to subsidize Brownsville International Air Cargo Inc., which was in negotiations with Lambert for cargo space that could involve freight forwarding to Mexico. Another possibility is that the tax credit will act as another carrot to attract direct international flights to Lambert. Passenger airlines make 5-10 percent of their revenue from “belly cargo” on passenger flights. Making that cargo more profitable could make Lambert more competitive.

While these might seem like enticing goals to some, they are far from promoting Missouri’s foreign trade. The fact is, most cargo hubs in the United States are at either the major air passenger hubs (Los Angeles International Airport, JFK International in New York, etc.) or centers for major shipping companies (Memphis International Airport). Export tax credit or not, Lambert will not become a major air traffic hub when its landing fees are three to four times those of competing airports. Subsidizing a direct flight to Europe or Latin America may bring benefits to a few, but there is little reason the whole state should pay for this.

Like the original Aerotroplis plan, HB 1500 gives tax credits to select industries with only long-shot hopes for significant increases in Missouri exports. Saint Louis could be better off by making the airport, the city, and the state more competitive and economically vibrant, not pinning hopes on tax credit magic.

Audio Recording Of Legislative Hearings Should Be Standard Operating Procedure At Missouri Capitol

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

This weekend, longtime statehouse reporter Phill Brooks penned a commentary for the Columbia Tribune examining the history of broadcasting the proceedings of the Missouri Legislature. I commend to you the whole piece, but I think Brooks intends to leave us with a warning that we should not take the unintended consequences of recording legislative proceedings for granted — not only the potential of legislators hamming it up for the camera, but also the concerns about the potential for lobbyist pressure if every official move of our representatives is documented. I appreciate those concerns; after all, we want our legislators focused on their job of legislating well, not putting on a performance.

However, I think one section of Brooks’ piece deserves to be highlighted for why erring on the side of recording should be preferred to erring on the side of what are really the political concerns of our legislators.

It is difficult to realize how different the Senate was some four decades ago.

The chamber even banned taking notes in the visitors’ gallery overlooking the chamber. A couple of senators said they didn’t want lobbyists using their quotes against them. The note-taking ban was dropped when it was exposed by a newspaper story that made the chamber look silly.

The “note-taking ban” was news to me, and it’s appalling that the Senate chamber at some point in its history felt that such a rule was appropriate. Thankfully, both the House and the Senate now livecast their floor debates online. As someone who is rarely in Jefferson City, that service is invaluable not only to my work but also to all Missourians. If legislators are concerned that constituents might hear what they said at a public hearing . . . well, they better get used to that idea, because that’s the whole point of a public hearing.

Likewise, requiring that House and Senate committee hearings to be broadcast in the same way as when the full House and Senate are in session — or, alternatively, recorded and made available online afterward — should be a no-brainer when it comes to promoting transparency in government. It’s why I think the audio recording of the legislature’s public hearings should be on this year’s reform agenda. Missourians with full-time jobs across the state deserve to be able to hear the committee debates that, these days, are only accessible to “note-taking” Jefferson City lobbyists.

Let the sunshine in.

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles On Privatization

Posted on by Darin Morley

There are numerous ways that Missouri communities can benefit from privatization. David Stokes documented examples from across the state to help inform both decision makers and the public about the options available (read the case study). He also interviewed Ferguson Mayor James Knowles about that city’s use of privatization:

 If you enjoy these highlights from his interview, please watch the full interview.

Missouri Privatization Documents

Posted on by David Stokes

The Show-Me Institute has released a comprehensive project about privatization efforts in Missouri. This project documents the wide variety of ways in which counties, cities, and towns can engage the private sector to provide many public services. We also discuss the many public service areas where privatization is appropriate and potentially beneficial, along with the areas it is not. The study provides city officials, administrators, and interested citizens with examples of where, how, and why privatization can be expanded in their communities. The documents made available here are part of that effort.

Government privatization refers to the practice of providing what are commonly considered public services via the private sector. In these cases, the public service is provided either directly by a private firm (or multiple private firms), or indirectly through private firm management of government-owned operations (i.e., outsourcing). There are numerous ways private management of government operations can be arranged. Privatization, when done properly, can increase efficiency and expertise, provide additional services to the public, and decrease costs for taxpayers.

In 2003, the Missouri Legislature created a subcommittee on Competition and Privatization that issued a final report in December 2004. The subcommittee’s work was promising, and its goals were inspiring. Unfortunately, the final results of the project were ultimately disappointing and few of its recommendations were implemented. However, there are valuable parts to the report that document how Missouri has used private entities for many information technology (IT), data entry, and other service-related state government needs. For the first time, that report is available online at Showmesunshine.org.

We also have included several examples of contracts and proposal requests between local governments and private sector partners. If there are local officials in Missouri who wish to look further into privatization but do not know the legal requirements, we hope that these examples of existing contracts and proposals can be of assistance. These contracts include examples from the City of Saint Louis, Kansas City, Cameron, Jackson County, Chillicothe, and Wentzville.

Other documents we have made available online here include:

  • A 2007 memorandum from the City of Florissant documenting how it used the funds from the 2002 sale of its municipal water utility.
  • A 2004 memorandum from Milwaukee County, Wis., detailing that county’s privatization efforts from 1995 to 2004.
  • A 2004 report from Stephen Witte with the Missouri Legislative Academy on the issues regarding toll roads in Missouri.
  • A 1996 report from the Missouri Council on Efficient Operations discussing various ways to make state government more effective.

The Show-Me Institute’s privatization project is dedicated to expanding the use of privatization in Missouri state and local governments. That effort is ongoing. Missourians can use this information to monitor state government and their local governments as a way to encourage privatization efforts when possible. We also hope the documents listed here will assist local government officials who may be considering privatization efforts. Being active in government and monitoring its services can be difficult. This tool makes it a little easier.

 


Contracts and proposal requests between local governments and private sector partners:

 


An Open Letter To Streetcar Supporters

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

At the recent meeting of the Kansas City Save the Trolley Trail, supporters of an expanded streetcar system dismissed assertions from the Show-Me Institute, which are backed by research, that construction of fixed rail does not drive economic development. This is important because it appears that economic development is the raison d’être for the streetcar. One Kansas City City Councilmember told the Kansas City Business Journal:

“The stated goal of this project is economic development. That’s the dominant goal,” [Russ] Johnson said. “The dominant goal is not to have a lot of people ride it. The dominant goal is to develop the city.”

During remarks at the meeting, supporters, including Kansas City Mayor Sly James, presented as evidence of economic development the construction that has already taken place downtown. However, this employs a logical fallacy — post hoc ergo propter hoc. Municipalities often claim credit for development simply because it occurred after their policies were enacted, but it is disingenuous.

Below is an incomplete list of studies that demonstrate that economic development is not a result of fixed rail. We encourage everyone to read these, and we encourage streetcar supporters to provide contrary evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

  • “The Great Streetcar Conspiracy,” Cato Institute, June 2012. Randal O’Toole has written extensively about the topic. If one questions this research because it comes from the libertarian Cato Institute, there are plenty of other sources.

  • The Atlantic Cities published an article which makes clear that evidence for economic development due to streetcars is lacking. The author writes:

But while the Portland streetcar was the anchor or at least the featured element of this growth, it wasn’t responsible for this boom by itself. Rather, it was part of a broader development plan in which zoning, public-private investment, street upgrades, and other renewal efforts also played considerable roles.

The literature regarding empirical measurement of actual changes in economic activity, such as changes in retail sales, visitors, or job growth, is almost nonexistent for streetcars. Indeed, this lack of empirical data was cited by many of the streetcar system survey respondents described in this report.

The same report also addressed the notion that streetcars attract the creative class:

Although occasionally the literature forecasting economic benefits for proposed streetcar systems posits that streetcars will attract more “creatives” to the area, this idea cannot be substantiated.

Taken together with earlier evidence that the social costs of rapid transit are higher than those for buses, the results suggest that it may be difficult to justify rapid rail investment on the basis of a benefit-cost analysis. In the absence of local economic development around stations, the benefits of rail are limited to those that might occur at the regional level. Future work should seek to quantify these benefits.

. . . the increase in property values and economic development are subsidized benefits and may not be greater than the subsidy costs. Both citizens and local officials should have an understanding of the costs of light-rail transit relative to the potential benefits. Given the size of costs relative to the benefits, the creation of light-rail transit systems or the expansion of existing systems in American cities may be difficult to justify.

Indeed, building commercial-grade rail lines through 100-plus-year-old neighborhoods is difficult to justify. Study after study indicates no support for the city’s “dominant goal” of economic development. If streetcar boosters are aware of research that supports the claim that streetcars themselves — and not the tax-subsidized construction that goes with them — results in economic growth, we are eager to learn of it. Presumably, everyone else cited here would welcome seeing the research as well.

Super Bowl Lessons For Kansas City Transit

Posted on by Joseph Miller

With Clay Chastain’s partial victory in the Missouri Supreme Court this week, his plan for a 24-mile light-rail system for Kansas City may come back under consideration. We have written many times that Kansas City would be better off without light rail. It is prohibitively expensive, carries few commuters in cities with low-population densities, and is inflexible to changing demand. For an example of this inflexibility, look no further than the aftermath of the Super Bowl.

While most Missouri residents are aware that the Seahawks defeated the Broncos in the big game, they might not know that transportation enthusiasts had dubbed this year’s game the first “mass transit Super Bowl.” The New York metropolitan area is the nation’s densest, with extensive rail and bus networks. Organizers encouraged almost 100,000 fans to take public transportation, either rail or bus, to reach the game. Indeed, this is the type of event where mass transit systems should be most effective: moving a large crowd of predictable size to and from a centralized location.

However, things did not go as planned. As fans left the game, thousands packed into the Secaucus train station, where people waited up to 45 minutes for hot, crowded train cars. Some passengers reportedly required medical attention. It took hours, and scrambling 50 buses to the site, to clear out the jam.

What went wrong? Despite actively promoting the use of mass transit to get to the Super Bowl, organizers underestimated the number who would use the trains by a factor of three. Trains are a relatively inflexible form of transit; it takes a long while to bring extra capacity to an area with a sudden, unexpected spike in demand.

There are lessons Kansas City should take from the Super Bowl in planning the city’s future transit priorities:

First, planning for transit is fraught with pitfalls. Organizers of the Super Bowl had a set population and pre-sold tickets, only to massively underestimate those who would take rail transit. In the same way, no one can be sure of the future traveling habits of Kansas City residents or the city’s growth pattern.

Second, buses are flexible, trains are not. To alleviate the jam after the Super Bowl, New Jersey brought on 50 extra buses. New Jersey could not suddenly bring a whole set of trains to the Super Bowl when a problem arose. They could not build a new station to spread out the crowd. If Kansas City builds light rail and the population shifts or there is economic growth in an area where there is no rail service, there is little the city can do but eat its losses and build a new line. But if the city focuses on Bus Rapid Transit, it could shift resources to meet new demand.

On The Airline Industry, Don’t Trust The Airlines, Just Listen To A Consultant

Posted on by Joseph Miller

The Kansas City Star recently published an article airing the views of a consultant group, Frasca & Associates. Frasca attacked the airlines’ critical view of the proposed $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Despite getting more ink than the airlines’ representative received, all the points the consultant made were irrelevant or shortsighted.

First, the consultant criticized the airlines’ statement that the airline industry has experienced considerable stress since 2001 and would attempt to use their limited resources where they make the most profit. The consultant claimed that, “In fact, the airlines are now experiencing record profits.” This point is shortsighted. Airlines have managed profitability in the last couple of years. However, in the last two decades, the airlines lost so much money that Warren Buffett joked, “If a capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk back in the early 1900s, he should have shot Orville Wright.” The airlines only reached this profitability after massive consolidation, keeping just the most profitable flights, and closing airport hubs. Airlines, especially MCI’s largest carrier, Southwest, have learned their lesson and will likely remain cost-conscious in the future.

Second, the consultant objected to the airlines’ view that terminals do not create demand. They stated:

…a new or expanded terminal can address certain deficiencies and open up new air service opportunities…For example, the lack of international gate capacity…

This point is strange, as the consultant admits that growth in international travel at MCI is essentially flat (0.7 percent growth) and will remain so. But, according to the consultant, Kansas City can be like Pittsburgh, which has a flight to Paris. Unfortunately, Pittsburgh had to pay $9 million in subsidies for that honor, so maybe Kansas City does not want be like Pittsburgh. As Southwest officials stated, MCI has adequate capacity and its price competitiveness means more service. Compared to non-hub peer airports, MCI has more non-stop destinations.

Third, consultants disagreed with the airlines about the importance of landing costs for airlines. They stated:

In general, airport costs (i.e., terminal rents and landing fees) comprise roughly 3 to 6 percent of an airline’s total costs.

The consultants claim that fuel is most important to airlines and operation costs can decrease at a more efficient, new site. However, this is irrelevant. If a new terminal is built that makes MCI more expensive to operate out of, the airport could certainly lose flights. Perhaps the consultants at Frasca & Associates should call Southwest officials and tell them that 3-6 percent of their costs don’t matter and they should not have refused to sign a lease agreement with Sacramento International Airport after that airport’s costs increased.

The consultants make several other points that are equally not insightful. Perhaps it need only be pointed out that airlines understand the aviation industry. The airlines also decide where their airplanes actually go, making their viewpoint on why they choose specific airports especially important.

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