James Shuls, Ph.D, on Redefining Public Education

Posted on by James V. Shuls

The Show-Me Institute recognized this year’s Friedman Legacy for Freedom Day, 7/31/2013, with a policy breakfast in Springfield, Missouri, which featured James Shuls, Ph.D. The Springfield Libray Center hosted the event, and twenty-seven (27) guests attended. The program focused on school choice, with Shuls speaking about his work on education policy and how we should redefine public education. At 8 AM, Show-Me Institute Director Louis Griesemer gave brief remarks. He then introduced Missouri Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Dist. 133). Rep. Burlison talked about his efforts in the state legislature to support school choice reform before introducing Dr Shuls.

Dr. Shuls discussed perceptions of public education in the community. Shuls argues that the view of public education is often inaccurate, and should be results oriented instead of process oriented. Rather than thinking about public education as simply government schools that often fail to properly educate kids, it should be viewed as any institution that can adequately serve the public’s interest in an educated citizenry. The fact that an educational institution may be private does not change the fact that the students it teaches are members of the public. Shuls emphasized how the Show-Me Institute is working to change these perceptions in Missouri. Beyond events like these, the Show-Me institute works to inform the public via social media, the Show-Me Institute website, and local TV and radio.

alt

What’s Up Kansas City? Video From The Urban Summit

Posted on by James V. Shuls

On Aug. 3, I had the great pleasure of participating in a panel discussion about education in Kansas City. The Urban Summit hosted the event. The panelists included Rev. Wallace Hartsfield, Missouri Rep. Gail McCann-Beatty (D-Dist. 43), Missouri Sen. KiKi Curls (D-Dist. 9), and Doug Thaman of the Missouri Charter Public School Association.

Thanks to What’s Up Kansas City, you can view my comments below.

Video: Redefining Public Education

Posted on by James V. Shuls

I spoke on July 31 in Springfield, Mo., in honor of Friedman Legacy Day. The title of my talk was “Redefining Public Education.” The Show-Me Institute also released my essay with the same name, which you can read here. Video of the event is below. Enjoy.

Introduction from Show-Me Institute Director Louis Griesemer:

Remarks from Missouri Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Dist. 133):

The speech from yours truly:

More Like This. . .Please?

Posted on by Haleigh Albers

The Carter Carburetor building has sat dilapidated for numerous years and is a blight for the city of Saint Louis. Just a few decades ago, the Carter Carburetor Corporation was a major employer in the Saint Louis area. Today, the 4-story main building sits empty after Carter Building Inc. (CBI) donated the property to the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). The LRA’s job is to return property to private use. Unfortunately, the agency has not always accomplished that.

Given the building’s current state, it is exciting that the LRA has found a positive future for the property. The owners of CBI donated the property to the LRA with the understanding that once the current environmental clean-up is complete, the land will be given to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club.

boys and girls club

The LRA is not responsible for the site’s clean-up, but it is responsible for what happens to the property after that. While the president of the Boys and Girls Club, Flint Fowler, said he looks forward to the Club’s expansion, some locals are wary of the property’s future. Loletta Zasaretii, a resident of the neighborhood, said she would rather see jobs created on the property instead of  “just another ball field.” Although many share Zasaretti’s desire for more jobs in North Saint Louis, the LRA is making the right decision because it is not holding onto the property.

The LRA may not be solving all of the neighborhood’s problems by handing the property over to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club, a non-profit, tax–exempt organization. But it is definitely moving in the right direction toward improving Saint Louis. Along with making the property more attractive and safer, the Boys and Girls Club — rather than the city — would be responsible for the land’s upkeep. Most importantly, the LRA deserves credit for getting the property off the city’s balance sheet and back into private ownership and productive use. Why can’t the LRA do this same thing with the thousands of other properties it owns?

No, The Volunteer Health Services Act Didn’t Offer ‘Blanket Immunity’ To Out-of-State Doctors

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Just before the Fourth of July holiday, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the Volunteer Health Services Act. The legislation — which would have allowed out-of-state health professionals to more easily offer free care to needy Missourians — was criticized in Nixon’s veto message for creating “blanket immunity” for such doctors.

Just one problem with that claim: it’s not true. Don’t believe this lawyer? How about . . . the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys?

Sharon Jones, deputy director of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, which initially opposed the bill, said “even in times of emergency people need to be careful and they need to be responsible. If you harm someone, you should still be held responsible for the harm that you’ve caused.”

But the bill doesn’t actually grant blanket immunity. Trial lawyers stopped actively working against the legislation after language was added providing for civil penalties if health workers engage in “willful misconduct” or a “gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care,” Jones said. [Emphasis mine.]

What a disaster. Assuming the governor wrote his veto message, there is now a serious question about whether he read the bill before he killed it. Does he stand by his veto message? And the big question now with the upcoming veto session is, will the bill stay dead, or will the veto be overridden?

Andrea Flinders, Kansas City’s Acting Superintendent

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Andrea Flinders is president of the Kansas City Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO-affiliated teachers’ union. But last week at the board meeting of the Kansas City Public School District, it seemed as if she also was the acting superintendent.

Flinders rose during public comments to restate her opposition to the 1:1 technology program, which would have the district buying 17,000 computer tablets. She was very critical of Superintendent Stephen Green and his unresponsiveness to her questions about the program. Of the initiative itself, she said:

There is no 1:1 implementation plan.

But don’t take my word for it. Ask to see the classroom diagrams for each school showing which classrooms currently have working wireless access points or working Eno boards, or working projectors, or enough electrical outlets, or proper furniture. For the classrooms that don’t have those things, ask administration to show you the cost and the timeline for getting these classrooms ready for 1:1. Ask to see proof that the district has enough bandwidth, and if there isn’t, how much will enough cost.

Ask to see the procedure for students getting computers. Is there a form? Do students sign for it? Do parents? What happens to students whose parents don’t or won’t sign for it? Ask for that written procedure. What’s the plan and procedures for the student who leaves the computer at home? What happens if a computer is stolen, or broken, or lost? Ask to see that procedure. Ask to see the plan to show students how to use and take care of their device.  Ask to see the insurance policy. Is there insurance? Are you requiring parents to pay a fee? Ask to see the process for gaining parental permission.

Ask to see the procedure at the school site for checking out computers to students. Who’s in charge of it at the school site? How will teachers print student work? Nine hundred students printing to one copier could be a problem, because there are no printers in the classrooms. Has the paper and copier budget been increased? Ask to see the building plan for accounting for computers.  Will both classified and certified staff members get these computers?  Where does it say that? Ask to see the plan and timeline for training staff and students on the hardware.

Board Chair Airick West asked Flinders what she would propose instead. She rattled off several suggestions for launching a much smaller — and less costly — pilot program involving perhaps just one school in the district. Remember, she  was given almost no time to prepare a response.

We previously wrote about the problems with the proposed technology program and we lauded Flinders’ opposition. The “plan” she criticizes was “developed” by school district administrators being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and benefits. Yet it seems to be full of holes.

Flinders was “acting superintendent” because she seemed to be the only one providing thoughtful suggestions to the board or to be interested in really holding the superintendent and district staff to account.

Show-Me Minute: Border War

Posted on by Darin Morley

The Show-Me Minute is a short radio advertisement to inform listeners about the work of the Show-Me Institute in a particular policy area. In this Show-Me Minute which first aired on KWTO 560AM in Springfield, MO, we discuss the efforts of Kansas and Missouri to lower taxes to encourage economic growth.

Transcript:

It used to mean a football or basketball game, but now the Border War between Missouri and Kansas is more like a high stakes game of poker. Kansas has raised the ante by dramatically lowering taxes on both individuals and businesses. Governor Sam Brownback is betting that lower tax rates will ultimately mean more economic growth, and a bigger jackpot for the state.

So what should Missouri do?

Well its leaders can stay with a pat hand–one that has left the state lagging well behind others in growth–and risk having some businesses and citizens cross the border for the neighborly tax haven. Show-Me Institute economists say that could mean a loss of $300 million in goods and services, and 4500 jobs to boot. Or leaders can push for tax reform, lowering taxes and cutting tax credits so the state can compete, and maybe even win, the economic Border War.

This has been the Show-Me Minute. Learn more about the Show-Me Institute, where liberty comes first, click on our website at ShowMeInstitute.org.

 

 

The Mystery $600 Million

Posted on by Joseph Miller

In their push to construct a new $1.2 billion terminal at Kansas City International Airport (MCI), officials with the Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD) appear to be exaggerating the costs of terminal renovation and downplaying the costs of a new terminal.

According to KCAD, keeping MCI’s current configuration will require a $600 million renovation project in the next few years. This $600 million figure breaks down into $440 million for the terminal and $160 million for airside improvements (runways, aprons, drainage, etc.) and centralized de-icing pads. These airside costs are necessary under any plan, but the de-icing plan that KCAD lays out is expensive and assumes a new centralized terminal. In addition, it is unclear when and where these improvements will take place, as KCAD’s five-year capital improvement plan only calls for $144 million.

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. It may be that construction costs have exceeded inflation, but the Aviation Department should explain why the new renovation would cost more than double the adjusted expense of the last.

KCAD may be downplaying the relative cost of a new airport by inaccurately comparing the costs of new construction versus maintaining its terminal. To put it simply, the costs of maintaining the current terminals are long-term and include incremental improvements over a number of years while the price tag of a new terminal is just the cost of its construction. These two prices cannot be accurately compared, as a new terminal would also require upgrades and refurbishment.

To fairly compare the costs of a new terminal with continuing upgrades, the KCAD must compare like to like. We need to see all the costs over the same period of time for any option. Although the origins of KCAD’s calculations are opaque, with a fair analysis, the relative expense of a new terminal may be greater than advertised.

Officials for KCAD and the Kansas City government have not demonstrated to the public why the current plan is the most cost-effective. Given the expenses of this new terminal, the Aviation Department would do well to seriously consider a whole slate of options. If KCAD has already done so, it should fairly and exhaustively explain why alternatives are not feasible.

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