New Study: Missouri Charter Schools Outperform Districts

Posted on by James V. Shuls

This week, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University released an impressive study about the impact of charter schools. On average, the results are modest, but positive for charter schools.

The CREDO study updates a 2009 study of charter schools in 16 states, which included Missouri, and expands the study to now include 27 states. These states enroll more than 95 percent of all charter school students.

School choice critics often cited the 2009 study because charter schools performed slightly worse, on average, than their traditional school counterparts. In the updated analysis, charter schools in the original 16 states improved significantly relative to district schools. Now, the average charter school in those states outperforms the traditional public school in reading and has closed the gap but still performs worse in math.

The primary reason for the improvement of charter schools was the closure of low-performing schools. Using statistical methods, the researchers converted student achievement gains into days of learning. Charter schools that closed since the 2009 study “posted an average of 72 fewer days of learning in reading and 80 fewer days of learning in math before closure.”

In the 27-state analysis, the results are even more positive for charter schools. “Overall, students attending charter schools have eight additional days of learning in reading and similar learning gains in math compared to their peers attending traditional public schools.”

Missouri charter schools performed particularly well in comparison to district schools. On average, students in Missouri charter schools learned significantly more in reading and math. These gains translate to nearly three weeks more learning in reading and more than a month of extra learning in math.

Before I paint too rosy of a picture, the results were not positive across the board. Just like district-run public schools, there is tremendous variation in Missouri and across the nation. The beauty of charter schools, as we have seen, is that the low-performing ones close.

The Figure Skating Method For Building Demolitions

Posted on by Kacie Barnes (Galbraith)

“I usually drive by the properties, and give them a score on a scale from 1.1 to 1.9. It’s kind of like judging an ice skating competition.”

This is how Saint Louis City’s demolition specialist described the process of identifying vacant buildings for demolition during a meeting with Saint Louis housing and demolition employees.

Problem properties have long been an issue in Saint Louis, and preservationists question whether some buildings that get demolished are in that bad of condition.

Preservationists fear that knocking down existing houses that could be rehabbed speeds up the process of out-migration and neglect. Michael Allen, of the Preservation Research Office, says, “As many as half the buildings demolished in St. Louis were actually sound under the city’s building code.”

Is Allen’s assessment accurate? It’s hard to know. While the city’s demolition process involves ranking buildings on a scale to determine which are priorities for demolition, there is no specific criteria for each ranking. The demo specialist just drives by and conducts a quick assessment.

Let me be clear: I’m not accusing the demo specialist of doing a poor job. He could be an expert at determining a building’s condition, and only need a quick glance to make a decision.

But this method does leave the process open to influence. Without documenting criteria that determines the need for demolition, what prevents an alderman, developer, or other interested party from getting the buildings in his/her area to the top of the list? Or conversely, out-of-favor aldermen and developers could have high-priority buildings moved to the bottom of the list.

The City of Saint Louis could improve transparency and accountability to its citizens by implementing standards that determine demolition priorities. Or, better yet, make the process easier for private citizens to buy demo-ready properties and tear the building down themselves.

Disturbing: Aviation Department Changing Testimony After The Fact

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey
The first slide from the April 4 presentation.
The first slide from the April 4 presentation.

Is the Kansas City Aviation Department surreptitiously altering its public documents after the fact?

On April 4, Aviation Department head Mark Van Loh presented the results of a $4 million taxpayer-funded study about building a new airport terminal to the Kansas City Council’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I wrote about the meeting at the time.

Mark Perryman, the COO of Landrum & Brown Inc., an airport consulting firm that worked on the new terminal proposal, said in his comments before the committee (begins at 16:23):

You really have, for a modern international airport, you have a general poor passenger experience. I know that there are some who would argue this, ‘no we have a great passenger experience.’ But when you have limited restrooms, limited concessions on the secure side of the airport, that really starts to present itself as a poor passenger experience.

After Perryman’s presentation, I asked about the methodology used to reach that conclusion, given that MCI has been rated highly elsewhere. As I wrote at the time, the committee’s chairman, City Councilman Russ Johnson, refused to answer questions.

The current slide, edited after the fact yet still dated April 4.
The current slide, edited after the fact yet still dated April 4.

If you visit the Aviation Department now, and download the April 4 presentation, you will find that at least the first slide, specific to “Poor passenger experience,” has been altered to read, “Post security passenger experience can be greatly improved.” That change happened at some point after April 10, but the slide deck does not note that the presentation was changed after the fact; it is still dated April 4.

Perryman and Van Loh sat through the entire April 4 hearing. They heard my question about the methodology of their study concluding a “poor passenger experience.” They knew they had conducted no such study and that there was no such methodology. If they felt that their presentation had been misconstrued, they had ample opportunity to correct the record. Instead, they chose to say nothing and now, weeks after the fact, we discover that the Aviation Department has surreptitiously altered its presentation.

It is tough to maintain an open mind about the prospect of building a new terminal when the proponents have relied almost solely on stonewalling, obfuscation, and empty gestures. Is it any wonder the public is skeptical?

Education News: Salary Spiking Boosts Pensions, But Cripples Taxpayers

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Today, Education News published my op-ed, “Salary Spiking Boosts Pensions, But Cripples Taxpayers.”

The crux of the piece is this: Imagine you are nearing retirement. You have a good pension, but if you work one more year, you could earn an additional $15,000 every year for the rest of your life. The rational decision would be to stick around for one more year. That is exactly what former Wentzville School District Superintendent Terry Adams did when he accepted the interim superintendent job in the Rockwood School District.

Missouri school superintendents are part of the Public School Retirement System of Missouri (PSRS). Like many public employee pension systems, PSRS is a defined benefit plan. This means employees are guaranteed benefits. These benefits are not tied to their contributions. In the PSRS system, benefits are paid on an individual’s final average salary of the last three years worked. By taking the Rockwood gig, Adams boosts his final average and his pension.

Let me be clear: Adams is not the problem. Nor are the countless other teachers and school leaders who make similar decisions. The problem is that we have established a system that encourages this type of behavior. The result is a growing unfunded liability problem for Missouri taxpayers.

It is time we address our pension problem by moving away from defined benefit plans. The only other options are to continually raise taxes or pray for a stock market miracle.

It Is Hip To Be Square

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Kansas City leaders have sacrificed much at the altar of cool. But arguably the coolest thing to happen to the region was not a result of government stepping forward, but of government stepping back.

Urban planners and politicians scramble to build things they think will attract the so-called creative class. In remarks extolling Kansas City, Mayor Sly James has said, “Young creative people want to be in a vibrant area. We’re the vibrant area. They want to be where things are going on downtown — that’s us. They want to be in a place where there are creative minds and arts — that’s us.”

While some point to a slight increase in people living in Kansas City’s downtown, the overwhelming evidence suggests that jobs and residents are moving elsewhere. The Kansas City Star reported on April 18 that the downtown core is still losing jobs to the suburbs. The article stated: “A report to be released today by the Brookings Institution said that in 2010 just 16.9 percent of the area’s jobs were in the core, defined as within three miles of Kansas City’s downtown. That’s down from 20.5 percent in 2000.”

City officials are still bent on spending taxpayer dollars to build things aimed at attracting the creative class. The downtown streetcar is chief among them. So, too, was the Power and Light District, which remains a drain on city finances. While voters have rejected rail transit time and again, city leaders want it because they think it is hip and cool.

James likes to say that Google would not have come to Kansas City, Mo., were they not bullish on us. But he forgets that Google rejected our offer and instead settled down next door. They certainly did not choose a location based on how cool it is. When Google announced that it had chosen Kansas City, Kan., the March 11, 2011, Kansas City Star reported: “More than 1,000 cities across the United States campaigned to be Google’s first site. [Google Vice President Milo] Medin said Kansas City, Kan., stood out for its infrastructure and for a unified leadership with county, city and utility services combined, but also for the state’s attitude toward business. . . . We wanted to find a location where we could build quickly and efficiently. Kansas City has great infrastructure and Kansas has a great business-friendly environment for us to deploy a service in.”

Missouri’s bid was predictably heavy on taxpayer subsidies. “Across the state line, Kansas City, Mo., courted Google by coupling its proposal to the company with applications for $10 million in federal grants to improve broadband access in public buildings,” according to the article.

Google did what any business could be expected to do: chose a city that was business-friendly over one that was not. Kansas City, Mo., is saddled with some of the highest taxes in the region and large financial commitments because leaders are eager to kowtow to developers. The city is not keeping up on infrastructure maintenance and is cutting important services while paying out more for entertainment districts. Spending on streetcars and airports and convention hotels will only make this worse.

Instead, officials in Kansas City, Mo., should embrace an idea whose time has come and do the things that helped Kansas win Google: streamline government, reduce bureaucracy, and make sure we have a good business environment for everyone. Even the unhip.

Patrick Tuohey is the western Missouri field manager at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

 

 

 

Kansas City’s Eternal Emergency

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Kansas City leaders may aspire to be Portland or Denver, but their legislative actions make us more akin to third world dictatorships. Declaring emergencies to circumvent important legislative requirements is unacceptable. That it does so often and has for years is no salve.

On May 2, Kansas City’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard testimony on ordinance 130335, which would pay an engineering firm several million dollars for streetcar planning. It also declared an emergency. What is the emergency? When asked, Chairman Russ Johnson said, “If you look on the agenda you will see that numerous ordinances have an emergency clause on there. It is fairly routine to place an emergency clause on capital projects because it makes the ordinance become effective immediately rather than [after] a 10-day waiting period. The term emergency is in the Charter. Maybe that was the wrong term, maybe it should be some other type of term but the Charter authors use the term emergency.”

In other words, Johnson claims the word has no real meaning, it is just a term the city can slap on an ordinance to get past important legislative restrictions.

Johnson is partially correct. At least four other items on the agenda that day declared emergencies, and the city has been operating this way for years. It is also wrong.

Section 503 of the City Charter defines emergency ordinances: “An ordinance recognizing an emergency is an ordinance which in whole or in part falls within any of the following categories and is recognized in the ordinance as an emergency.” The categories are elections, expenses of government, appropriation of money, public improvements, inter-fund borrowing, and fixing interest rates. As a result, the city recognizes an emergency whenever it wants to dispense with the regular requirements of governing, such as multiple hearings, 10-day waiting periods, or a voter’s right to referenda.

The Charter has those requirements to protect voters and to serve as a check on legislative abuse. It allows for emergency legislation when there is, well, an actual emergency. The courts have upheld this view, saying that merely recognizing an emergency is not sufficient to dispense with the rules.

In Hatfield v. Meers, 402 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. App. K.C. 1966), the court ruled, “[T]he affixing of an emergency clause to a statute or ordinance does not, of itself, make it an emergency measure within the meaning of the law.” The court went further and offered an actual definition. “The word ’emergency’ has been defined as follows: ‘an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action’”

What about an engineering firm’s work on the streetcar project is unforeseen or needs immediate action? Nothing.

The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled similarly. In Padberg v. Ruse, 404 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Banc 1966), the court rejected the notion that a Saint Louis County effort was an emergency just because the County Council said so. “There is nothing in the subject matter of either ordinance which even suggests an emergency. One transfers some employees to the Merit System. The other changes an office from elective to an appointed status. It is hard to imagine anything less emergency in nature.” Likewise, in Kansas City, nothing about these ordinances is an emergency. They were adopted incorrectly and the courts should strike them down.

Kansas City government has abused this provision so often and for so long that City Council members do not even recognize the abuse. Johnson says the term is merely a poor choice of words — as if those words have no bearing on his job. This is unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. Sloppy legislative work like this risks the important work the City Council has done on many issues. Anyone who petitions the court is likely to be granted an injunction against most everything passed in this manner, as they should.

Declaring an emergency because the City Council is impatient — or because it fears public input — is an affront to democracy and a return to Kansas City’s darker past.

Patrick Tuohey is the western Missouri field manager at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Adams Had A Lot Of Reasons To Accept Rockwood Interim Superintendent Position

Posted on by James V. Shuls

When Terry Adams decided to retire from being the Wentzville School District superintendent last April, he had some good reasons. After a 38-year career in education and being named Missouri School Public Relations Association Superintendent of the Year in 2010, Adams was looking forward to spending time with his grandchildren. Instead of retiring, however, Adams accepted the interim superintendent position in the Rockwood School District. He had good reasons for this decision as well.

Adams earned $221,769 from Wentzville in the 2012-13 school year. He signed with Rockwood for $250,000. This move will not only earn him more money this year, he will reap the rewards for the rest of his life. Wentzville and Rockwood are part of the Public School Retirement System of Missouri (PSRS). This pension system is a defined benefit pension system. That means retirees are guaranteed benefits based on their final average salary.

Final average salary in PSRS is based on the last three years of employment. By working one additional year at a higher salary, Adams boosts his final average from $213,877 to $228,200.

I visited the PSRS benefit estimate calculator and plugged in these figures along with Adams’ years of service and his approximate birthdate (I had to guess). By my calculations, Adams would have received more than $207,000 a year in retirement benefits. By working one extra year, he will earn an extra $15,000 per year for the rest of his life. Over the course of 20 years, this will add up to more than $300,000 in extra retirement benefits. Not bad for an extra year’s work.

I certainly do not blame Adams for his decision. He was doing what was best for him and his family. Moreover, Adams is not alone. The final average salary rule is well known among teachers, principals, and superintendents, making switches like this quite common. The problem is not the individual, but rather a poorly designed system that rewards this type of behavior.

Spiking of final average salary is one factor among many that contributes to the underfunding of defined benefit pension systems. According to a recent policy study by Andrew Biggs for the Show-Me Institute, the total amount of unfunded liabilities for PSRS is more than $5 billion. That is assuming an 8 percent return on current investments — an ambitious assumption. If we assume a more moderate 4 percent rate of return, the unfunded liabilities of PSRS swell to more than $31 billion.

So who pays for Adams and the countless other individuals who spike their pay in their final years? Who pays for the mounting unfunded liabilities? The taxpayers do.

James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

 

 

Widen Pool of Dock Electrical Inspectors

Posted on by David Stokes

As published in the Springfield News-Leader:

It is hard to imagine a more terrible death than electrocution and drowning. Last summer, three people died that way in the Lake of the Ozarks area because of faulty electrical systems on docks. As a result of these tragedies, there have been calls to institute and expand dock electrical inspection programs in Missouri.

Dock inspections should be expanded in Missouri, particularly in tourist areas such as the Lake of the Ozarks. However, in the promotion of safety, it is also important to protect against “regulatory capture” — making sure that inspections do not become a monopoly for a small group.

A number of studies have demonstrated the danger. A famous study in the field found that areas with more stringent licensing of household electricians have higher rates of electrocution.

The reasoning behind that counterintuitive fact is simple. More stringent licensing leads to fewer electricians (which is often the intent in the first place). Fewer electricians leads to higher prices to hire one. Higher prices lead to more homeowner do-it-yourself work, which results in more accidents.

Licensing rules are always sold as protecting the public safety; in reality, however, they are often used to improve the financial position of current operators at the expense of competition (especially nonunion competition).

In setting up a comprehensive inspection program for all docks with electrical power, dock owners and authorities in the Lake of the Ozarks area should aim to widen — not narrow — the circle of potential inspectors.

Fire district officials, city or county code inspectors and private electricians should all be able to perform inspections. The lack of electrician licensing by the local government is not a concern, though I have no doubt some will try to raise it as one.

The goal should be to make regular inspections (once a year seems reasonable) as routine as annual heating and air conditioning checks or changing the oil in a car.

If annual inspections are easy to schedule and affordable, the vast majority of dock owners will be happy to comply. If, however, there are difficulties in scheduling and costs are high because the number of inspectors is limited, compliance will fall. Unless the point is to raise money from fines (and I trust it is not), nobody gains when compliance is reduced.

People do not select their electricians, lawyers or plumbers randomly, with only a government license to protect the public interest. People almost always choose these services based on the advice and experience of family, neighbors or business associates. Undoubtedly, there are dozens of electricians who have served the area well for decades without the government’s stamp of approval. Those private electricians should have the same ability to inspect docks as any code officials.

More inspectors means more competition and choice, and that always benefits customers and the public good. Even more importantly, it will help save lives.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

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