Patrick Tuohey explains that the cost of a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport would be passed along to passengers. Higher ticket prices would result and that could cause airlines and travelers to look for alternatives to KCI.
When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife? – Common Core Edition
Loaded questions are a great way of winning an argument. It puts your opponent on the defensive and frames the discussion in a way that makes it almost impossible for him or her to win. Supporters of the Common Core State Standards have used this tactic time and again. They ask, “Why don’t you like rigorous standards?”
Most recently, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education posted a video using this tactic – “What Would You Say to a Critic of Higher Standards?” In the video, a few of Missouri’s teachers of the year answer the question. How can someone argue with them? How can you argue against higher standards?
There is just one problem, I don’t know of anyone who argues against the Common Core State Standards because they are too rigorous. In fact, most arguments against the standards call into question the quality of the standards. Take, for instance, Sandy Stotsky. She was a member of the Common Core validation team and refused to sign off on the standards.
“Everyone was willing to believe that the Common Core standards are ‘rigorous,’ ‘competitive,’ ‘internationally benchmarked,’ and ‘research-based.’ They are not,” Stotsky said.
But according to DESE, it is not possible to question the quality of the standards. What’s more, apparently we are supposed to be in awe of the standards as well. In the video, Robert Becker, the 2010-11 Missouri Teacher of the Year, says, “If you actually sit down and read them, they’re beautiful. There’s no way you could object to them. You could do nothing but admire them.”
Really?
Let’s try it out. Here are a couple of standards:
CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.A.2 Express the length of an object as a whole number of length units, by laying multiple copies of a shorter object (the length unit) end to end; understand that the length measurement of an object is the number of same-size length units that span it with no gaps or overlaps.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.3.3 Ask and answer questions about information from a speaker, offering appropriate elaboration and detail.
Are they beautiful? Do you want to sit back and admire them?
We cannot have a serious discussion about the Common Core until proponents recognize that questions of their “rigor” and their “beauty” are debatable. Reputable scholars disagree on the matter. Instead of asking the loaded question, “Why don’t you like rigorous standards?” Common Core supporters should open up to real dialogue. They could start by asking, “Could the standards be improved?”
Kansas City Republicans’ Absurd Claims
Last Wednesday, FOX 4 News asked us our thoughts about Kansas City refusing to release details on the use of tax dollars to support the city’s bid for the 2016 Republican Convention. It mirrored a similar story that the Kansas City Star published earlier. In both, the Show-Me Institute advocated for transparency. In a city as cash-strapped as Kansas City, voters should be told where their tax dollars are being spent. One would think Republicans would agree.
FOX 4 reporter Macradee Aegerter also asked about the claims of economic development that come from such conventions. I said in the interview that such claims are speculative, the bid committee often employs the economists that make the claims, and that the real impact rarely lives up to the hype. (This segment aired in the 6 p.m. version of the story, which is not yet online.) In the segment, a member of the bid committee claimed that the convention would have an economic impact of $250,000,000. That’s a quarter-billion dollars.
We don’t believe it. (Or, perhaps more delicately, we want to verify those numbers before we believe it.)
Certainly, having such a convention in Kansas City is a good thing, and not just for the money it will bring to the area. As a matter of pride, I would love to see Kansas City host again on the 40th anniversary of our last convention. But the idea that having the convention here amounts to a net gain of $250 million is absurd, and it casts a light on how calculating the economic impact of other items is the economic equivalent of alchemy.
The host committee is likely assuming that without the convention, hotel occupancy would be zero. Spending downtown would be zero. Travel in and out of Kansas City would be zero. Then it still probably over-estimates what will be spent here because of the convention. In reality, a hotel that would have had 70 percent occupancy without the convention may have 95 percent occupancy because of the convention. One can claim the difference as “economic impact” but not all of it. But we won’t know how the committee reached the quarter-billion number until it reveals how it calculated a $250,000,000 impact. (If the committee releases the estimate and it proves to be legitimate economic analysis with a multiplier effect below two, we will gladly admit we are wrong.)
As written in the Daily Beast story about the recent Super Bowl in New Jersey:
So, there’s no economically sound way to predict a Super Bowl’s impact before the event and those that try have been proven wrong again and again. But don’t expect that to stop the cheering from the few with the most to gain. When asked for a more detailed analysis of Super Bowl XLVIII, the host committee demurred, but assured in a statement, “Super Bowl XLVIII is expected to be an economic boom [sic] for the region.”
We’re not asking the committee to reveal anything legitimately embargoed about its bid. We just want to know how the committee arrived at that estimate for the impact should the convention occur in Kansas City. Certainly, Republicans would agree that the sound economic policies they advocate require sound economic assumptions — otherwise, how are they supposed to be any more responsible with taxpayer money?
The Kansas City International Rehab Roller Coaster
The Kansas City Aviation Department often has attempted to justify its plan for a $1.2 billion terminal for Kansas City International Airport (MCI) by claiming that repairing the existing terminals would also be extremely expensive. The logic is that if both options will be expensive, the better option is a new terminal that cuts costs and brings in new revenue. We have often asked how much these repairs would cost and when they would be needed, as any comparative cost analysis requires those two pieces of information.
Perhaps in an overeager attempt to answer our questions, the Aviation Department has produced a plethora of cost estimates. In July, keeping the existing terminals supposedly was going to cost about $600 million, with little explanation of those costs. We questioned that number, stating:
KCAD has yet to release an independent analysis of the supposed $600 million improvement costs. But if history is any guide, it is inflating costs. The last renovation of MCI’s terminals took place from 2000 to 2004, and cost the airport $183.4 million . . . The Aviation Department should explain why the new renovation would cost more than double the adjusted expense of the last.
Aside from criticizing the cost estimate, we also pointed out that it is unclear when these repairs are required.
However, by September of 2013, the price estimate of the airport increased, with a range from $645 million to $785 million. Again, we questioned the estimates, stating:
. . . as of a presentation on Sept. 10, the Aviation Department now claims the cost will be between $645 million and $785 million. A cursory inspection of these estimates prompts many questions, as the itemized repair costs are much larger than those for identical or similar items in the new terminal plan’s budget.
Again, there was no time estimate for these needed repairs.
In the last week, those estimates took a nosedive. The Aviation Department now claims that the repair costs are actually between $365 million and $460 million, a 43 percent decrease in the estimate. The department also stated those figures could be lower by a third if one of the terminals is mothballed. Of course, the estimate still prompts questions, like why the repairs to the central utility cost 25 percent more in the repair estimate than in the new terminal plan. The Aviation Department actually put a timeline on these repairs this time, to be completed in 2020. They also began discussing alternatives, such as a structure that centralizes security between the existing terminals.
The debate about the new terminal plan has already been underway for months. An Airport Terminal Advisory Group has met numerous times to make a recommendation to the Kansas City City Council. But with these new estimates, everyone will need to reconsider the cost of the new terminal plan. Moreover, the lack of consistency and transparency in the Aviation Department’s repair estimates mean no one can trust that these estimates are accurate or final.
James Shuls on Common Core State Standards
James Shuls, Ph.D., explains that educational excellence follows from schools empowered to innovate and parents empowered to choose.
Announcing New Case Study: Live Free and Learn
Over the course of the past year, I have spoken and written a lot about tax credit scholarships. When I do, I am often bombarded with questions. “Who would be eligible?” “How would this work?” “How much are the scholarships worth?” The questions go on and on. My response often is, “It depends.” Tax credit scholarship programs can be, and have been, designed in many different ways. Still, the Show-Me Institute wanted to give some concrete examples for Missourians to consider and to help answer some of the questions or concerns about tax credit scholarships. Therefore, we commissioned three case studies about tax credit scholarship programs in other states by some top experts. We will be releasing these case studies over the next few weeks.
Today, we are pleased to announce the release of “Live Free And Learn: A Case Study Of New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program,” by Jason Bedrick. Bedrick is a policy analyst at Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Previously, he served as a legislator in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a small state with the “fourth-largest English-speaking legislative body in the world.” After his time in office, he was instrumental in the passage of the Granite State’s tax credit scholarship program.
His paper describes the particulars of the New Hampshire scholarship program. It also provides data from the first survey of scholarship recipients. The survey indicates that most of the scholarship recipients were from low-income families. The tax credit scholarship allowed many students to attend private schools that they would not have been able to afford without the support that the program offered.
As you might imagine, parents who received a scholarship for their child tended to be very satisfied. In fact, “All of the scholarship recipients who attended a public school in the previous year reported greater satisfaction with their current school” (p. 19).
I encourage you to take a look at “Live Free And Learn.” And stay tuned for our next two tax credit scholarship case studies.
Current Teacher Pension Systems Impose A “Tariff” On Labor
As first appearing in TeacherPensions.org on 25 Feb, 2014, and Education Next on 26 Feb, 2014:
In Missouri, students in unaccredited school districts can now choose to enroll in neighboring accredited school districts. Some students who have elected to leave their struggling school now find themselves riding a bus for more than two hours a day. This has led many to question the school transfer idea and look for alternative solutions. Some have begun to ask, “What if instead of busing students from failing school districts to accredited ones, we bused great teachers from accredited schools into the failing districts?” It is an idea that has won a fair amount of attention.
Last November, the Cooperating School Districts of Greater St. Louis pitched the idea of providing high-quality teachers as instructional coaches in struggling schools. A similar idea was raised by CEE-Trust, the consulting firm that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education hired to address problems in the Kansas City School District. The CEE-Trust proposal called on accredited school districts “to play a significant role in helping [unaccredited] systems improve.” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch heaped praise on this idea, calling it among the “more promising ideas.”
However, there is one easily overlooked obstacle standing in the way of turning this localized version of a teacher peace corps into a reality in Missouri’s two biggest cities: the incompatibility of different pension systems.
With the exception of Saint Louis and Kansas City, which have autonomous pension systems, all of Missouri’s school districts are part of the Public School Retirement System (PSRS). If a teacher moves from PSRS to one of the city plans, he or she will incur a significant loss in pension wealth. Koedel, Ni, Podgursky, and Xiang, economists at the University of Missouri and authors of a recent report from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, put it this way:
Consider two teachers who work thirty-year careers in the profession. The first teacher works all of her thirty years in a single plan. The second teacher works fifteen years in one plan and then fifteen years in another. Because of the way pension wealth accrues in these plans, the latter teacher will have less than half the pension wealth of the former teacher at age fifty-five.
Though this may sound like a Missouri problem, it has bearing nationwide. As the Kauffman report notes, Missouri’s separate pension systems are “a microcosm of larger national issues concerning teacher pension systems—particularly the ability of teachers to move between systems.”
Just as teachers in Missouri cannot move between pension boundaries without incurring a financial penalty, teachers cannot move across state pension boundaries without incurring similar costs. Which means, a charter operator with campuses in multiple states, like KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Achievement First, or Rocketship Education, cannot freely move a teacher or school leader between their schools in various states. Indeed, these systems punish all teachers who move from one state to another.
Koedel, Ni, Podgursky, and Xiang liken the costs associated with switching between pension systems to a tariff, “Rather than promoting free trade and labor mobility, the pension plans effectively are imposing a tariff on the import or export of human capital between” the separate pension systems.
This “tariff” on labor is not a new problem, but a longstanding one that Saint Louis and Kansas City have been struggling with for years. Prior research has demonstrated that the separate pension systems create a barrier to recruiting school leaders into the two urban school districts. The separate pension systems also limit the pool of teachers who are willing to work in the cities. Jeffrey Kuntze, chief operating officer of the Confluence Charter Schools in Saint Louis, says “the separate pension systems make it extremely difficult for us to recruit veteran teachers from the county. We can get them when they retire, but not mid-career.”
Missouri’s pension boundaries would make it practically impossible for high-performing school districts to operate a program, run a school, or loan teachers within the Saint Louis or Kansas City boundaries, just as state pension boundaries would make it impossible for schools to effectively work across state lines. They simply could not move teachers or school leaders across pension boundaries without making them suffer great financial penalties.
The only real way to solve this problem is to close the current systems to new entrants and place them in a new, statewide system that participates in Social Security and has smooth wealth accrual. Before this idea causes mass hysteria, let me stress that this would not affect current employees’ or retirees’ pensions. They would remain secure in their current system. It would, however, remove the artificial pension boundaries and allow us to create a better pension system for teachers and students.
Opponents of this idea claim that closing the current defined benefit systems would be financially unsound, as it would lead to considerable “transition costs” that would far outstrip any benefits that we may receive. This is the very issue tackled in a recent Show-Me Institute policy study by Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Biggs examines the evidence for “transition costs” and concludes that the concerns are “largely mistaken and should not stand in the way of public employee pension reforms.”
Whether you believe busing teachers into failing schools is a viable solution or just another feel-good proposition, fixing this pension problem should be a top priority for Missouri and other states throughout the country. Missouri should not have a system that puts our neediest communities at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting talented teachers and states should not impose a tariff on attracting quality teachers and school leaders.
James V. Shuls, Ph.D., earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in elementary education and taught for four years in the Republic School District. Currently, he is an education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy. His wife is currently vested in PSRS.
Michael Podgursky, Ph.D., on the Minimum Wage
Michael Podgursky, Ph.D., responds to recent arguments to raise the minimum wage. While raising the minimum wage would help a few low-skill workers, it would also eliminate many low-skill jobs. Podgursky says there’s a better way.
Marking-Up And The Funky Bunch
In last Saturday’s blog post regarding the disagreement between the Missouri governor and the legislature about state revenue estimates, I mentioned marking-up legislation. Marking-up basically means that members of a Missouri House committee are taking an introduced piece of legislation and amending it to fit their preferences (e.g., the Budget Committee and the Budget).
Usually, when crafting the budget, the House Budget Committee starts with the governor’s executive budget as introduced legislation. It then assigns these introduced bills to different appropriations committees depending on the department being funded. However, due to the disagreements about expected state revenues, the House is not doing that this year. Instead, the House is working off of last year’s budget and making changes based on that.
The House is doing this mainly for the sake of appearances. Representatives don’t want to be seen as cutting spending in popular areas such as education when compared to what the governor introduced in his budget. That’s understandable, but unnecessary. The House should fund education at the levels it believes are proper given the constraints that limited state revenues impose. If that happens to be less than what the governor suggests, then so be it. If it’s less than what was spent last year, that is fine as well. Don’t spend more just because you want to be seen as spending more.
The chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Rick Stream, has asked appropriators to go line-by-line through the budget and find items to cut in order to free money for other, more important programs. The Show-Me Institute has highlighted several areas which appropriators could cut, such as ethanol subsidies. Hopefully, we can see some cuts to non-essential areas.
Creating a budget is arguably the most important task the legislature has every year. Being informed of how that process works is something worth knowing. The House really wants you to know that it plans to increase spending, just less than the governor does. Hopefully, representatives will get to a point where they can justify the spending levels they set, whether it is more or less than last year.
