Playing The MSIP Game

Posted on by James V. Shuls

At the Show-Me Institute’s Policy Breakfast last week, Normandy School District Superintendent Ty McNichols stated that his district would begin playing “The MSIP game.” For a great overview of what this entails, check out Dale Singer’s latest article. MSIP stands for the Missouri School Improvement Program. It is the system the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses to accredit public schools. Though they don’t say it explicitly, McNichols’ comment and Singer’s article display the major problem with MSIP and other forms of test-based accountability — they distort the actions of teachers and school leaders.

Rather than focus on the pressing needs of their students, test-based accountability systems encourage school officials to focus on ways to improve their score on the evaluation. Just after No Child Left Behind passed, education scholar Dan Goldhaber predicted that the new accountability system would encourage “a focus on those students who are just below the benchmark. Students far below the benchmark may be seen as ‘lost causes,’ and therefore not a good place to focus efforts.” Goldhaber was right. In many districts, including the one where my wife taught, much of the focus was on these “bubble kids.”

MSIP 5, the latest edition, attempts to address this and includes points for growth, not just achievement. Still, the system is subject to the same type of gaming. There is no doubt every district in the state will soon be playing the “MSIP game.”

So what is the alternative? Should we not have accountability? We should absolutely have accountability. However, the best system of accountability does not come from bureaucrats in the state capitol; it comes from parents demanding excellence from their child’s school.

Critics of school choice often lament that “private schools aren’t held accountable” because they don’t take state tests. What they don’t realize is that choice, not tests, are the best form of school accountability. State evaluation systems encourage schools to focus on the evaluation; choice encourages schools to focus on the student. Unfortunately, few families have school choice.

Panel Discussion of the School Transfer Law

Posted on by Rick Edlund

The school transfer law has created controversy in Saint Louis. The question is, where do we go from here? Show-Me Institute Communications Director Rick Edlund, hosts a panel disccussion with Show-Me Institute Education Policy Analyst James Shuls, Ph.D.; Normandy School District Superintendent Tyrone McNichols, Ed.D.; Kirkwood School District Superintendent Thomas Williams, Ph.D.; and Mehlville School District Superintendent Eric Knost, Ed.D.

Only Round One For Tax Cuts

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Yesterday, the Missouri Legislature failed to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of House Bill 253. It is unfortunate that a legislature with one-party super majorities in both houses could not muster the resolve to pass a tax cut bill that, despite the governor’s scare tactics, was relatively minor.

However, the fact that HB 253 did not become law does not mean tax reform is dead. The legislature can always pass another tax cut and hopefully the one they do enact is much more significant than HB 253. The Show-Me Institute has released a paper detailing how the state could eliminate the income tax and another on how to eliminate the corporate income tax without losing any revenue.

The simple fact is that whether Missouri enacts tax cuts or not, it is still competing with other states economically. Kansas knows this. That is why they cut income taxes last year, and despite the doom and gloom predictions from opponents, the state is starting to see positive results. In the Kansas City metro area, all the net new job growth has been on the Kansas side since the tax cut passed. That is why Kansas continues to cut taxes now.  The sooner Missouri officials understand that the state needs to remain economically competitive, the better off it will be.

From The Jaws Of Defeat: Volunteer Health Services Act Veto Overridden

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

It was a wild ride at the Missouri Legislature’s veto session last night, but as far as I can tell, only one veto was both sustained and (ultimately) overridden — and that was the Volunteer Health Services Act (VHSA), which I’ve discussed many, many times before. The law allows out-of-state medical professionals to more freely provide charitable care to Missourians. After passing through the Senate on a 25-9 vote, the VHSA fell one excruciating vote short of an override in the House, 108-53. It then disappeared but was reconsidered as the last bill of the night, this time passing the House 109-52 and becoming the 10th and final veto override of the session.

A big congratulations to everyone who worked so hard on this bill. It was a roller coaster of a process, but in the end, this ride ended as a great victory for Missourians in need.

Free Rides In The Zoo Museum District?

Posted on by Haleigh Albers

 As first appearing in the STL Beacon on September 11, 2013:

When I was a little girl growing up in rural Southern Illinois, my parents often piled my sister and me into the car, packed a cooler full of our favorite foods, and headed across the bridge toward Saint Louis. Our destination: Forest Park. We spent our morning running around the park, ate our picnic lunch, and then strolled through the Saint Louis Zoo. My parents did this quite often, and for good reason: it did not cost them anything more than the gas in the car and food in the cooler.

I did not realize it at the time, but we were “free riders,” meaning we benefitted from public goods without paying for them. Free riders place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. To reduce this burden, Saint Louisans need to consider long-term funding options to support the institutions like the zoo within Forest Park.

In 1972, Saint Louis City and County passed a property tax to fund the operation of the area’s cultural institutions. The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District (ZMD) was created and initially funded the Saint Louis Zoo, Art Museum, and Science Center. Later, voters included the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Missouri History Museum in the taxing district. Today, a variety of sources fund the institutions, with the ZMD property tax as the primary source.

At the time Saint Louis City and County levied the tax, the residential taxpayers accounted for 62 percent of the population of the greater Saint Louis area. The majority of the typical ZMD customers were contributing to its funding. Conversely, in 2010, Saint Louis City and County represented only 47 percent of the metro area. Therefore, less than half of the expected patrons were funding the District.

The Zoo Museum District originally was established to help local institutions and residents enrich the area and draw individuals from around the country to experience the cultural wealth located in Saint Louis. The initiative did just that, but many years have passed. Why are the minority of typical patrons paying for the whole? It is time to re-examine the Zoo Museum Taxing District.

Providing neighboring counties in both Missouri and Illinois with the option to join the Zoo Museum Taxing District is a good place to start. If the counties choose not to participate, it may be worth considering admission fees.

The bottom line is that Saint Louis City and County need to strongly consider a more efficient funding strategy for these institutions. Many families like mine make the short trip into Saint Louis to make priceless memories. However, we should not expect Saint Louis City and County taxpayers to bear the entire cost of paying for those memories.

Haleigh Albers is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

TFA Experiment Has Been A Success

Posted on by James V. Shuls

success sign

“I’m sorry, ma’am, but your child will have a Yale grad teaching him math and a Harvard grad teaching science this year.” Those are the words that every suburban parent dreads hearing from his or her child’s principal . . . wait, no they don’t. In fact, I think most parents would love having a highly educated person teaching his or her child. Yet, time and again, critics of Teach for America (TFA) make a big deal of the fact that TFA places highly talented graduates of top-notch colleges in the classrooms of disadvantaged students. They are experimenting on children, they cry.

Well, how has the experiment fared? That was the topic of a rigorous study that the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences released this week: “The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows Program.”

Researchers randomly assigned students to TFA teachers and their non-TFA colleagues who taught the same math course in the same middle or high school. The study covered a two-year period, contained more than 4,500 students, 111 classroom matches, 136 math teachers, 45 schools, and 11 districts in eight states.

What did they find? “On average, TFA teachers in the study were more effective than comparison teachers.” TFA teachers produced significantly larger learning gains. These gains were the equivalent of an extra 2.6 months of learning. The researchers also noted that:

  • TFA teachers were more effective than comparison teachers from both traditionally certified and less selective alternative certification routes.

  • Novice TFA teachers were more effective than both novice and experienced comparison teachers.

  • TFA teachers were more effective than comparison teachers in both middle and high school.

Yes, you read that right. TFA teachers were better than traditionally trained teachers and new TFA teachers were better than veteran teachers. So the next time you hear someone say that TFA is experimenting on children, tell them they are correct . . . and the experiment has been a success.

Three Public School Superintendents Walk Into A Free-Market Think Tank . . . No Joke

Posted on by James V. Shuls

school-transfer-policy breakfast.jpeg

On Tuesday morning, the Show-Me Institute was pleased to host “Solutions: A Panel Discussion on the School Transfer Law.” Joining me on the panel were the superintendents of three area school districts that the school transfer law has greatly affected: Tyrone McNichols, Ed.D., of Normandy, Thomas Williams, Ph.D., of Kirkwood, and Eric Knost, Ed.D., of Mehlville. We all agreed that the current situation is untenable. In fact, there was quite a bit of agreement on what needs to be done going forward, with one major exception.

Areas of Agreement

Tuition Payments:

All four of us agreed that the tuition payment system must be fixed. Currently, the unaccredited districts must pay tuition rates that sometimes exceed what they spend on their own students. For instance, McNichols stated that his district spends approximately $12,000 per pupil, but tuition in the Clayton School District is more than $19,000. Clayton is an outlier; several districts spend less than Normandy. Still, it is unreasonable to expect Normandy and Riverview Gardens to shell out more in tuition than they receive to educate their students.

Enrollment Caps:

Williams noted that his district has participated in a voluntary transfer program for years. In that program, the tuition amount was set at about $7,000. Participating districts could decide how many spaces they had and they could accept students to fill those spaces. The Kirkwood superintendent noted that a class with 19 students could add one more at no additional expense to the district and would actually benefit from the transferring students. He meant that the marginal cost of one additional student is very low. Most superintendents recognize that their districts benefit from tuition-paying students. They are concerned, however, when they have no reasonable control on the number of students that will be admitted to their district. This is a concern I share.

Area of Disagreement

At one point, Knost stated that the Missouri Legislature should address the issue and leave aside unrelated pieces of legislation. Some might think that a private school choice program is unrelated to the issue of school transfers. However, I don’t see a tax credit scholarship program as unrelated. Rather, I think it is a particularly relevant solution to the problem we are facing in Saint Louis.

A tax credit scholarship program would:

  1. Lessen the financial strain on the unaccredited school districts;

  2. Ease the burden on accredited districts; and

  3. Give families more options.

Though we may have had some disagreement about a private school choice program, there was general agreement that students deserve to have quality options. In fact, I wish more school leaders would have the attitude that Williams expressed. He said if students are going to have options, he wants his district to be the best option. That is the type of thinking we need.

Is Kansas City A ‘Low Tax’ City?

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Missouri is a “low tax state,” but to come to that conclusion, you almost have to ignore how taxes are actually levied and collected in practice here. Indeed, I believe that a closer examination of Missouri taxes produces a very different conclusion. Consider, for instance, Kansas City:

  • Kansas City has a top marginal income tax rate of 7 percent — the state’s 6 percent income tax, plus the city’s 1 percent earnings tax. Kansas has an income tax of 4.9 percent. In 2018, it will be 3.9 percent. No earnings tax. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Income taxes hurt growth, penalizing productivity and deterring greater investment. And this is to say nothing, of course, of the 100 percent deduction Kansans get for non-wage pass-through income. For Kansas businesses organized as LLCs, S-corporations, and sole proprietorships, the tax rate is effectively 0 percent. (And as we all know, 0 percent is also a lower tax rate than 7 percent.)

  • Not counting its special taxing districts (TDDs, CIDs, etc.), Kansas City’s sales tax ranges from 8.1 percent to 8.85 percent, depending on the county. Those are pretty comparable to the rates charged on the Kansas side of the metro area — generally between 8 percent and 9 percent on sales, also not including special taxing districts. Not a huge difference. But what if we include special districts? Kansas City’s “1200 Main/South Loop TDD and DT Streetcar (KC Live!)” area — in other words, the Power & Light District — has the top sales tax in the bi-state area, with a whopping 12.35 percent tax on the sale of prepared food. (Click that last link to see the rates not only of the city, but also of the special districts. I found them startling.) One special tax costing a fraction of a cent may not seem like much, but put a few together and — as we’re seeing across the city — it adds up to real money. And the new, and bad, sales tax ideas keep coming.

  • As our own David Stokes would note, apples-to-apples property tax calculations are tough to come by because property valuation norms can vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If I’m charged a 5 percent tax on a property valued at $100,000 by one set of assessing criteria, or a 6 percent tax on the same property valued instead at $83,333 using different criteria, I’m still paying the same amount in taxes ($5,000) regardless of the legislated property tax rates. Kansas property taxes, driven in Johnson County by taxes for schools, generally sit at higher rates, yet that doesn’t say a great deal on its own. What is notable on this front is that both Kansas and Kansas City have a bad habit of concentrating their property taxes on fewer and fewer taxpayers with special incentives. Check out the latest example on the Kansas City side; I’ll have more to say about that project later.

And we won’t even go into the city’s hotel taxes, rental car taxes, water and sewer fees, which are all high. Kansas City is one of the highest-taxed cities in the region, and Kansas Citians are the first to tell you as much. Especially after Kansas’ tax reforms, is it credible for Kansas City, Mo., policymakers to suggest the region has been or is tax competitive with its Jayhawk neighbors? Do they really believe the city’s businesses, particularly its small businesses, don’t know what’s happening in Kansas and won’t consider moving under these circumstances?

I’ll Gladly Cost You Your Job On Tuesday For My Pay Raise Today

Posted on by Rik W. Hafer

On Aug. 29, hundreds of fast-food workers in dozens of cities across the United States (including Saint Louis) walked off their jobs in protest. The focus of their discontent is the minimum wage, currently $7.25. Arguing that this wage simply isn’t enough, they demand that their employers increase the entry-level wage to $15.

Economists of all stripes recognize the impacts that imposing such a wage on these employers would have. Most notably, it would reduce the number of jobs available for entry-level, unskilled workers. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank that labor unions partly fund, noted on NPR’s Marketplace, “I’m sure you would see a lot of jobs lost.” Even a liberal economist agrees: Raising wages above that which market forces determine is a recipe for job loss.

How do Baker and others of similar views assuage their conscience at this prospect? When a hypothetical job loss of 20 to 30 percent was suggested, Baker responded that the remaining workers would “take home twice as much pay. They’re still way better off.” However, at the higher, artificial wage, fast-food employers will sensibly opt to keep the most productive workers. For the rest, well, they’ll just have to find employment elsewhere or be driven to rely on government assistance.

This episode and liberal support for it recalls an argument that economist John Stuart Mill made almost 150 years ago. Mill staunchly supported the rise of Unionism in England. Mill viewed union workers as the best representatives of the “upright and public spirited working man.” Mill argued that by excluding the “ignorant and untrained” part of the working class, unions benefited society. He believed that “We do them [the unskilled masses] no wrong by intrenching ourselves behind a barrier, to exclude those who competition would bring down our wages, without more than momentarily raising theirs.” Unions, in other words, would drive the unskilled and poor to the wall, reducing their numbers. And with a smaller labor force, there would be no downward pressure on wages overall.

Haven’t we learned anything over the past 150 years? Mill was just as wrong then as supporters of raising the minimum wage or mandating living wages are today. If everyone agrees that imposing wages that exceed those based on mutually beneficial decisions of workers and employers alike leads to increased unemployment for those who need work the most — the poor and the unskilled — how can responsible civic leaders call for further increases in the minimum wage?

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