Part I: Squaring The Circle Of Tenure Reform And Local Control

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Over my next two blog posts, I examine the issue of teacher tenure reform and local control.

It is no secret that I support reforming teacher tenure, using value-added student achievement to evaluate teachers, and removing ineffective teachers from the classroom. Therefore, you might expect me to completely support a bill that would do these things. Yet, I find it very difficult to support legislation that does these things at the expense of local control.

While it is true that some tenure reform proposals in the Missouri Legislature may not be completely pro-local control, we must remember that the status quo is not pro-local control, either.

Last week, the Missouri House of Representatives voted down a bill (102 to 55) that would have changed the way teachers are evaluated, tenured, and dismissed. In response to the vote, Missouri State Teachers Association lobbyist Mike Wood stated, “We were very excited to see that kind of support for local control of public education.” This sounded very much like comments from former Missouri Speaker of the House Jim Kreider. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote, “We want less government in local schools, not more needless government mandates.” You can read my reply to Kreider here.

The problem with both of these arguments is that doing nothing to reform teacher tenure is not a pro-local control position; it is a pro-tenure position or a pro-state restrictions position.

When it comes to tenure, a true pro-local control position would support:

  • Removing provisions from state statutes that require districts to award permanent contracts after a teacher’s fifth year.

  • Removing restrictions that prohibit schools from laying off low-performing veteran teachers before high-performing novice teachers during a reduction in force.

Local school districts are limited in many ways and the bill that was voted down did not infringe on local control any more than the current policies do; the bill simply infringed in a different manner.

In my next post, I will discuss how we square the circle. How do you get school districts to implement rigorous evaluation systems and remove low-performing teachers, while still giving school districts maximum local control?

American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me Institute

Posted on by Administrator

Today the American Federation of Teachers targeted the Show-Me Institute for our work to improve educational opportunities for Missouri’s families.

The public-sector union included Show-Me Institute board members as part of a national blacklist of fund managers that public pension trustees are encouraged to avoid.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, the union’s goal is to “strong-arm pension trustees not to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds that support education reform.” (Full Article)

“The Show-Me Institute will not be bullied by the American Federation of Teachers into abandoning ideas that are in the interests of the people of Missouri,” Show-Me Institute Executive Director Brenda Talent said. “It is ironic, and sad, that a union which claims to represent kids and teachers is using pressure tactics to defeat proposals that would benefit both groups. We will continue our principled fight for Missouri’s students, taxpayers, and pensioners — whether the AFT likes it or not.”

Read a post on this event on Show-Me Daily.

As Reported In The Wall Street Journal: American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

It seems James Shuls’ ongoing efforts to make our children’s education better and Andrew Biggs’ report on Missouri’s public pension liabilities have struck a sour chord with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a nationwide public employee union. How sour? So sour that the AFT named the Show-Me Institute on a “blacklist” meant to attack supporters of education and pension reform (emphasis mine).

The union report says it wants pension trustees to “take into account certain collateral factors, such as a manager’s position on collective bargaining, privatization [read: vouchers] or proposals to discontinue providing benefits through defined benefit plans.”

The report adds the lovely threat that “The American Federation of Teachers is committed to shining a bright light on organizations that harm public sector workers, especially when those organizations are financed by individuals who earn their money from the deferred wages of our teachers.”

The report goes on to list StudentsFirst, the Show Me Institute and the Manhattan Institute as special bêtes noires that promote school and pension reform. And it helpfully lists no fewer than 34 funds whose “directors, managers, advisors and executives” have dared to support reform organizations. The funds on the blackball list include such well-known names as Appaloosa Management, Elliott Management, Khronos, KKR and Tudor Investment.

The AFT’s national report also appears to have been coordinated with a local AFT affiliate. Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a letter to the editor by Byron Clemens that assailed the Show-Me Institute and the pension work of Mike Podgursky, a Show-Me Institute board member and economist. Yet despite all of Clemens’ supposed sleuthing, the author ironically failed to reveal that he . . . is a “union organizer” with AFT. For a letter so intent on establishing “links,” it is curious Clemens did not reveal his own.

But what the AFT and Clemens did get right, explicitly and implicitly, is that if public unions such as the AFT stand in the way of reforms that would protect taxpayers and help kids, they should absolutely worry about the threat the Show-Me Institute poses to them. And to be clear, we will, with great pleasure, continue the fervent, methodical, and fact-based research that has raised their ire.

Press Release: American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me Institute

Posted on by Rick Edlund

Today, the American Federation of Teachers targeted the Show-Me Institute for our work to improve educational opportunities for Missouri’s families.

The public-sector union included Show-Me Institute board members as part of a national blacklist of fund managers that public pension trustees are encouraged to avoid.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, the union’s goal is to “strong-arm pension trustees not to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds that support education reform.” (Full Article)

“The Show-Me Institute will not be bullied by the American Federation of Teachers into abandoning ideas that are in the interests of the people of Missouri,” Show-Me Institute Executive Director Brenda Talent said. “It is ironic, and sad, that a union which claims to represent kids and teachers is using pressure tactics to defeat proposals that would benefit both groups. We will continue our principled fight for Missouri’s students, taxpayers, and pensioners — whether the AFT likes it or not.”

Public Dollars, Private Schools

Posted on by James V. Shuls

In this Columbia, MO Forum, Show-Me Institute Education Policy Analyst James Shuls spoke to an enthusiastic crowd about what private funding of public schools really looks like.
“Isn’t that just a voucher?”
“No,” says Shuls, as he describes the three basic types of publicly-funded private schooling.
This talk was reprised the following morning at the Show-Me Institute’s office in Saint Louis.

Nota Bene: Historic Preservation Tax Credit ‘Consultant’ Supports Historic Preservation Tax Credit

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a commentary by Stephen Acree, president and CEO of the Regional Housing and Community Development Alliance (RHCDA). The editorial extolled the virtues of the historic preservation tax credit under the headline “St. Louis: Rebuilt with the historic tax credit.” Setting aside the demonstrable absurdity of that proposition, I think it is worthwhile to highlight an important fact-nugget that did not find its way into Acree’s piece — namely, that the RHCDA acts as a consultant for the historic preservation tax credit, as well as other tax credits. From the organization’s website (emphasis mine):

We provide Residential Development Consulting services to both non-profit and for-profit organizations. We provide expertise in structuring developments utilizing a variety of public and private resources, including federal CDBG and HOME funds; tax-exempt bond financing; and low income housing tax credit, historic tax credit and new markets tax credit transactions.

That probably should have come up at least in the author’s bio. Unfortunately, it did not.

While we are discussing the RHCDA’s portfolio of tax credit expertise, it should be noted that the Associated Press made this revelation about the New Markets tax credit program just this weekend (emphasis mine):

Missouri has authorized more than $120 million of tax credits through a program intended to entice wealthy investors to pour money into businesses in low-income areas, but the initiative has yet to produce even half the jobs that were anticipated, according to state figures provided to The Associated Press….

At the request of the AP, the state Department of Economic Development compiled a spreadsheet documenting every New Markets tax credit that has been authorized. The 9,679 “anticipated jobs” associated with the tax credits far exceeds the 823 “actual new jobs” and 3,141 “jobs retained” under the program, though those numbers could continue to rise.

This “tax credit job-shortfall” storyline is not unique. Indeed, the AP report on the New Markets program follows earlier, similar revelations about the Quality Jobs tax credit program, which I testified about earlier this year. In the case of the Quality Jobs program, 45,000 jobs were promised; according to state records, only about 7,000 jobs were created in reality. As I said then (emphasis mine):

In practice, there is no particular consequence to the state and its public officials claiming that new jobs will be coming, even if the jobs never materialize. That may explain the difference between the number of jobs state officials promise when a tax credit project is announced and the number of jobs actually created when the project winds down. To some officials, big tax credit promises look better than small tax credit promises, even if those promises do not pan out.

The same can be said of the consultants who go to bat for these credits. Acree even has the audacity to claim that the historic preservation tax credit is “Missouri’s most useful economy-boosting program.” A program that returns 23 cents on the dollar is our “most useful economy-boosting program”?! Does this suggestion horrify anyone else?

I have a better idea: Cut taxes with the money instead and let taxpayers invest their money themselves in their own businesses. Better yet, eliminate a tax or two instead of underwriting the projects of the politically well-connected. Missouri’s most useful economy-boosting program is the hard work and innovation of its taxpayers, not some bloated, special-interest government handout.

As story after tax credit story bears out, tax credit proponents/consultants have a terrible track record of substantive, sustainable, and enduring successes. The historic preservation tax credit is a central player in this ongoing, budget-busting, decade-long state development debacle. Suffice to say, I am looking forward to the findings of the state audit of the program, due to come out later this year.

It Begins: Roofers’ Union ‘Seeks Repeal/Reform Of Affordable Care Act’

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The Wall Street Journal says this “is believed to be the first union to initially support the law [the Affordable Care Act] and later call for its repeal.” The substance of the press release, which the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International issued, is below (emphasis mine):

Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office.

But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.

These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans.

Like your health care coverage? You might not get to keep it, as the union roofers are now finding out. Stay tuned.

Airport Transparency

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Kansas City is in the midst of a debate about whether our airport should undergo a renovation that would cost at least $1.2 billion. There are many questions about this, and Kansas City Mayor Sly James just called on the city to have an “adult discussion about the facts,” but the City Council has no interest in actually answering questions. In fact, City Councilman Russ Johnson, chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, refused to answer questions from the public or from the media about his hearing on the matter.

At that hearing in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Kansas City Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh walked the committee through a slide show detailing the problems with the existing Kansas City International Airport. Chief among the reasons for spending $1.2 billion on a new terminal is “poor passenger experience.” Yet none of the material available to the public gives any indication of how the Aviation Department concluded passengers have a poor experience. When I asked about the Aviation Department’s methodology, Johnson responded that my questions would not be answered (questions start at 1:13:30). This matter is important because in 2010, J.D. Power and Associates rated the same airport as “highest among medium airports,” writing: “Kansas City International (MCI) ranks highest among medium airports, and performs particularly well in three of the six factors: airport accessibility, check-in/baggage check and security check.”

In his later remarks disparaging J.D. Power, Johnson wrongly referred to the company as a think tank. It is not. It is a customer satisfaction survey firm that McGraw-Hill owns. J.D. Power is likely known to many voters because its ratings appear in numerous television commercials. VanLoh even said that when J.D. Power rated MCI the best in 2010, his department asked if they could publicize that rating and were told it would cost $80,000 to do so. They were likely correct to demur. But if VanLoh and his colleagues are going to rate the same airport as providing a “poor passenger experience,” it is reasonable to ask how they did so when they endorsed Power’s “best in the country” rating just a few years prior.

If the Aviation Department and their chorus on the City Council want to tear down a much-loved and nationally recognized airport, the public deserves transparent processes and substantive answers to serious questions regarding the endeavor’s necessity.

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