A Lower, Consistent Tuition For School Transfers Is Possible Without The Legislature

Many have lamented that the inter-district transfer law, which allows students to transfer from unaccredited public school districts to nearby accredited districts, may bankrupt failing districts. Normandy and Riverview Gardens, the two unaccredited districts currently allowing students to transfer, are already seeing financial hardship, and reports indicate that Normandy could be bankrupt by the end of the school year. This has occurred because the districts are paying tuition rates that are often in excess of what the districts spend on their own students. This has led some to clamor for a set tuition rate.

In a recent position paper by the Cooperating School Districts of Greater St. Louis, area school superintendents stated, “If transfers are made between school districts then a regional tuition rate should be determined.” The interesting thing is that nothing is stopping area school districts from charging a lower tuition rate now. Each district, with a vote of its school board, could decide to set a lower, consistent tuition rate. To date, none of them have. Instead, school leaders are asking for more state government action.

This is the very problem that plagues our society in so many regards; instead of taking initiative and fixing a problem ourselves, we allow or we seek greater government involvement.

The next time you hear a school leader complain about the transfer situation and how it may bankrupt unaccredited schools, ask him or her what his or her district is doing to help. Are these leaders taking action locally, or are they requesting a solution from Jefferson City?

It’s Not A Celebration When You Engage In Poor Tax Policy

Kansas City leaders held a news conference to claim credit for cutting taxes, which is great except that they didn’t actually cut taxes. Yes, they eliminated some taxes, but the total tax effect was more than offset by increases in other taxes.

Here’s the kicker, though. What voters eliminated, strongly urged on by city officials who proposed it, were good taxes. What is a good tax? It is a tax that raises necessary money, is easy to collect and enforce, and does this without affecting normal economic behavior (“sin” taxes are an obvious exception to the last part.) Economists of all stripes are nearly unanimous that taxes based on land values are the premier way to fund government (especially local governments). So, what did Kansas City do as the only city in Missouri authorized to impose a land tax?

They got rid of it.

Here is the silliest part of the press conference statement:

[…] said elimination of the three small property taxes also makes the city treasurer’s tax collections easier and more efficient to administer because the city doesn’t have to calculate the small levies and each owner’s boulevard front footage.

But calculating the “small levy” is no more complicated than adding a column onto a spreadsheet. Nothing more. And the front footage totals were calculated years ago and rarely change. (Although this post is more about lamenting the loss of the land tax than the frontage tax.)

Missouri requires a reassessment system every two years for a number of tax purposes. Doing a land tax as part of that is, in fact, extremely simple.

For complicated reasons I don’t need to explain here (and don’t even fully know because we have never been able to find the court file that upheld the land tax decades ago), Kansas City is unlikely to be able to reimpose the land tax now. That is unfortunate. Raising the land tax instead of adding a new sales tax would have been the better move for long-term growth in Kansas City.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/12/19/4702761/kc-residents-get-stocking-stuffer.html#storylink=cpy

Nursing Better Health Care In Missouri

Imagine being a working mother in rural Missouri with a sick child. He needs medical attention but there are no doctors available within 50 miles. This situation is not a stretch: many rural Missourians struggle to find nearby medical care. While nearly 40 percent of Missourians live in rural areas, less than 20 percent of the state’s primary care physicians practice in rural areas. There is a simple solution, one that Iowa employs: Give certified nurse practitioners more autonomy.

Nurse practitioners are one type of “advanced practice registered nurses” (APRNs) who have national certification and post-graduate education. Their training well equips them to deal with primary care concerns, which generally includes most basic health issues. Indeed, numerous studies have found that nurse practitioners provide similar quality of care as physicians.

Unfortunately, Missourians are not able to take full advantage of nurse practitioners. Missouri has more limitations than most other states. A recent report named Missouri the 44th most restrictive state for nurse practitioners. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow APRNs to practice without any physician oversight. Missouri, however, requires an APRN to work with a physician in a “collaborative practice arrangement.”

Collaborative practice arrangements exist on the theory that physician oversight is necessary to ensure quality care. However, the data has not shown that to be true. In fact, many studies show that even when nurse practitioners work independently, their patients do just as well as if doctors had treated them.

These restrictions limit the amount of care nurse practitioners can provide in Missouri. Physicians can only collaborate with three APRNs, and the doctor must regularly review a portion of the APRN’s charts — even if she has been practicing for years. The arrangements also curtail when the nurse practitioner can provide care, as the physician must be immediately available via electronic communication. Until recently, collaborating physicians also had to be within 50 miles of rural APRNs. While legislation this year loosened that requirement, collaborative practice arrangements still prevent nurses from practicing to the full extent of their training.

Nurse practitioners provide high-quality care, which makes expanding their role in Missouri obvious. The main issue for many in rural areas is having access to any care. It is not a question of doctors versus nurses, but health care versus no care. Additionally, nurse practitioners tend to move to states where there are fewer limitations. If Missouri continues to over-regulate its nurse practitioners, many rural Missourians will not have health care.

One-fifth of Missourians live in rural areas without sufficient access to primary care providers, but a solution is available. The collaborative practice arrangement rules for nurse practitioners are not protecting Missourians; instead, they are preventing affordable health care. Whether it is a mother with a sick child or a 60-year-old man seeking care, nurse practitioners are competent providers. Missouri should consider eliminating the unnecessary restrictions that help keep access to quality care from more than a million Missourians.

Caitlin Hartsell, J.D., M.P.H., was a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

Kansas City’s Ghost Of Streetcars Yet To Come

Just as with the airport, another ghost of Christmas Future is visiting Kansas City, this time regarding streetcars. According to The Wall Street Journal:

A Cincinnati streetcar project, embroiled in controversy in recent years over cost overruns and management, faces an uncertain future after Tuesday’s election ushered in a new mayor who vowed to halt the project that has tied up $148 million of city funds.

Mayor-elect John Cranley, a Democrat who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility that included stopping the project, won about 58% of the votes tallied, according to unofficial results from the Hamilton County Board of Elections. He beat out current Vice-Mayor Roxanne Qualls, also a Democrat, who supported the project.

Since then, things have become more, well, political. The Associated Press reports that the outgoing city council is trying to erect roadblocks to keep the new council from exercising its power to stop the project.

How long will it be before Kansas City, awash with cost overruns and mismanagement, regrets forcing the streetcar on taxpayers in “the single-most undemocratic election in Kansas City since the Pendergast era?” When Ebeneezer Scrooge looked upon the headstone that the third ghost showed to him, he proclaimed:

“Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me.”

Let’s hope Kansas City’s leaders depart from the current course, lest we find ourselves in Cincinnati’s position.

Terminal Shopping In Kansas City

During the Christmas season, some shoppers may be tempted to take advantage of holiday deals to upgrade their home entertainment systems with a new T.V. or surround sound speakers. However, despite the impulse to go on a spending spree, most people think twice and prioritize needs over wants. What is common sense for most people is good advice for Kansas City as it considers spending $1.2 billion on building a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport (KCI).

Unfortunately for the people of Kansas City, they do not have nearly as many choices in new airport terminals as they do for a new television. The Kansas City Aviation Department has presented the city and its residents with a $1.2 billion single-terminal plan, the only alternative being to remain with the current three-terminal design that needs expensive repairs in the future. The federal government is unlikely to provide much aid to Kansas City for the new terminal, meaning that the Aviation Department will have to take on significant debt to pay for the project. Although Aviation Department officials claim that only the airport and its creditors will be repaying the bonds, that is only half the story. The airport must repay its debt with increased costs to airlines and passengers. Higher costs for airlines may result in reduced airline service or higher ticket prices. Higher fees for parking already are built into the new terminal plan. Furthermore, if Kansas City’s airport were to encounter difficulty repaying the bonds, does anyone think the city could or would stand by and let the airport default? With the price tag in mind, it is important for Kansas City residents to know what a new terminal will and will not provide.

The new terminal is not designed to increase flight capacity or gates. The proposed terminal will start with approximately 36 gates compared to the current 62. The airport does not use all the gates it has now, and by the Aviation Department’s own estimates, flight volume will increase at less than 1 percent per year. If anything, the new airport terminal plan calls for downsizing and consolidating operations, not increasing capacity or making Kansas City a hub airport.

So, if the new terminal is not designed to accommodate more flights, why build it? The Aviation Department claims that benefits include centralized security lines, more places to buy goods and services inside security, reduced maintenance costs, and new de-icing pads for the runways. The Aviation Department adds that the current terminal is structurally obsolete, and requires extensive repairs if it remains in use.

The question before Kansas City residents is whether the benefits of the new terminal plan justify both the high cost of the project and the demolition of an airport that many residents find convenient. Those residents may be on to something, as J.D. Power & Associates rated KCI highest in passenger satisfaction among medium-sized airports in 2010. They may decide, like Southwest Airline’s Executive Vice President Ron Ricks, that the new terminal plan’s only rationale is “to provide more customer-service amenities” and that if a replacement is necessary, “We’re confident we could come up with something for the community at a much lower cost than what’s being presented here.” Residents may decide it just does not add up, and keep on shopping, if the Aviation Department will allow them the opportunity.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

Kansas City School Board Member Resigns … Twice?

The Kansas City School District not only struggles to run schools, but also struggles to run the school board. On Dec. 18, the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) Board voted to accept the resignation of member Kyleen Carroll. This was the second time it did so; the first was on Sept. 25.

Carroll’s term would have ended April 2014. According to Missouri statute (RSMo 162.492.7), “Vacancies which occur on the school board… shall be filled by special election if such vacancy happens more than six months prior to the time of holding an election…” Carroll’s resignation was accepted on Sept. 25 with more than six months remaining. (In fact, it was tendered much earlier and appeared online Sept. 7.) It took an additional two weeks for Board Chairman Airick West to notify state authorities per state law, finally doing so on Oct. 11. On Oct. 22, the Missouri State Board of Education approved a special election to fill the vacancy.

In a Nov. 1 letter to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), KCMSD attorney Ray Sousley attempted to explain the confusion:

The last day for a candidate to be qualified to be on the November, 2013 ballot was August 27, 2013, and the ballot had to be certified on August 29, 2013. Because those dates had been missed when the verbal resignation was given, I think there was a misconception by the Board that we would not need to hold an election…

He continues by saying the district wants to avoid a costly election. But DESE doesn’t buy any of it. On Nov. 18, DESE certified the election in accordance with state law — a special election is to be held.

What about Sousley’s statement that the school board didn’t understand a special election was necessary? It is empirically untrue. The podcast of the Sept. 25 meeting includes the following discussion about Carroll’s resignation and replacement:

Board Member Marisol Montero: “So after–if it gets accepted, which I’m sure it will, the letter goes to the school board of education and then from there are we having a special election to replace the term that Ms. Carroll has left, six months?”
Board Chairman Airick West: “That is up to the determination of the state board as to the statute. We’ll accept this and send them a letter. If they determine that is within the parameters of state statute… they will make the determination.”

The Board knew exactly what was required, but they dragged their feet to avoid following state law. Now they think they can just re-vote and avoid a special election altogether. But not everyone will go along. Montero voted ‘no’ on Dec. 18 to this proposed do-over, expressing concern about the possibility of violating state law.

The KCMSD is one of the wealthiest in Missouri. It is ambitious, wanting to expand into pre-kindergarten care. But it also is failing to improve meaningful academic standards for accreditation and, apparently, struggling with managing the day-to-day legal requirements of the board.

The Ghost Of Airport Terminals Yet To Come

When the Kansas City International (MCI) Airport Advisory group begins it public meetings in Johnson County, Kan., early next year, the Aviation Department will continue its pitch for a new $1.2 billion terminal. The Aviation Department will denigrate the current state of MCI, as it did in the “fact-finding” tour given to the Airport Advisory group. The department also will likely downplay the immense debt that the new terminal will demand and that debt’s impact on MCI’s finances and competitiveness. The Show-Me Institute has written why the Aviation Department is mistaken in downplaying these aspects, but now comes a very similar example: Sacramento International Airport.

Perhaps to make up for stealing the Kings, Sacramento has decided to show Kansas City the pitfalls of expensive airport terminals. Sacramento opened a new $1 billion terminal in 2011. Like Kansas City, Sacramento wanted to attract more airlines and passengers with a state-of-the-art facility. Like the Kansas City experience, the terminal:

…drew rave reviews from local business leaders and politicians…the project was criticized by airline executives, including those at Southwest, as too big and too expensive for their needs.

Despite the criticisms, the Sacramento County Airport System decided to build anyway. This gave the airport a high debt load and made it one of the most expensive medium-sized airports in the nation, a dubious honor that will belong to Kansas City if its new terminal plan takes flight.

The hopes that a state-of-the-art terminal would attract more passengers to Sacramento’s airport have not materialized. Passenger traffic fell from 2011 to 2012. But because of the increased debt, the airport had to increase landing fees. Airlines’ concerns, especially those of Southwest, over the increased expense of using the airport has led to an impasse over a new airline lease agreement.

The inability to increase airline service and need to make significant payments has put the airport into a financial bind. In April, Sacramento’s airport executive was replaced and his successor was given “marching orders to improve airport finances.” As the Sacramento Bee reported this week:

Faced with declining passenger levels and high debt, Sacramento International Airport officials say they plan to cut airport system costs by 15 percent over the next 18 months.

While that will save the airport about $14 million, the airport’s management claims that it must further increase parking fees and work with a developer to build a new airport hotel.

The managers of Sacramento International Airport made a $1 billion mistake. Their experience shows that, even with large airports, debt payments and competitiveness still matter. Just as in Kansas City, Sacramento officials downplayed critics like Southwest and took on significant debt to build a new terminal when cheaper options would have sufficed. Sacramento County Supervisor Jimmie Yee said of the airport’s new terminal, “What’s done is done…” But it is not done in Kansas City.

Not yet.

How Choice Changes The Transfer Dynamic In Kansas City

Kansas-City-Missouri-Downtown_at_Twighlight

The recent Missouri Supreme Court decision, which upheld the state’s inter-district school transfer law, has many in Kansas City on the edge of their seats. They have watched the events unfold in Saint Louis, where the two unaccredited districts, Normandy and Riverview Gardens, have already begun allowing students to transfer. Some are worried the law will bankrupt the Kansas City School District as it may do in the two Saint Louis districts. There is, however, good reason to believe student transfers may impact Kansas City much differently than it has Normandy and Riverview Gardens. That reason is school choice.

Students in Normandy and Riverview Gardens do not have access to charter schools or magnet schools. Until they were allowed to transfer, the only options they had were to move or to pay for private schools. In Kansas City, however, there are charter schools and magnet schools. In fact, more than a third of all public school students are already in a charter school (9,692 in 2013). Because so many Kansas City students are already in schools of choice, it seems unlikely that the percentage of students transferring will be as high as the 25 percent in Normandy and Riverview Gardens.

Nevertheless, the district may actually be better off if charter students decide to transfer. As I have written before, Kansas City spends more than most of the surrounding districts and could come out on top financially. Currently, charter school funds follow the child to his or her school through the district — to the tune of $12,482 per pupil. The average per-pupil expenditure in the 11 nearby districts highlighted in my last post is just $10,075, a difference of $2,407. That is $2,407 per student that the district could pocket, less transportation costs, if a charter student decides to transfer.

The existing prevalence of school choice in Kansas City will most likely make the impact of student transfers minimal in comparison to the experiences at Normandy and Riverview Gardens. If school leaders in Kansas City and the surrounding areas handle the situation well, this expansion of school choice could actually benefit the districts and the students.

Springfield News-Leader Does A Nice Job Editing…NOT!

Newspaper1

“Not” is such an important word. Consider the following sentence without the word “not”:

“Officer, I have [not] been drinking.”

We can all see the importance of “not.” That is why it is particularly unnerving that the Springfield News-Leader removed “not” in a key sentence in a recent op-ed that I penned.

Here is the passage:

Jonathan Shorman’s piece in the News-Leader reported that the Show-Me Institute requested funds to conduct research on these pension systems, “but has already determined the conclusions it plans to reach.” But that is [not] the case.

As you can see, the word “not” is integral in the meaning of my reply. With it, I’m denying Shorman’s claim; without it, I’m verifying the claim.

I hope the News-Leader’s error was poor editing, not malice. However, this is not the first time I have noticed, shall we say, inattention to detail. In the past year, the newspaper ran my photo with a byline that said I was running for Nixa School Board, which I did in 2006.

Whatever the reason for the mistake, I think it is important that Missourians have a chance to read my op-ed without the News-Leaders edits. You can do so by visiting the Show-Me Institute website.

For more information about problems with Missouri’s teacher pension systems, I suggest you also read “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul’s Defined Benefit Pension” and “Salary Spiking Boosts Pensions, But Cripples Taxpayers.”

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