Common Core And ‘Deep Understanding’

Posted on by James V. Shuls

On the Brown Center Chalkboard, a blog produced by the Brookings Institution, Tom Loveless has a terrific post (not just because he cites me).  He writes:

Deeper Learning is the current term for an old idea.  The notion is that schools spend too much time focused on the acquisition of knowledge, especially knowing facts.  In the past century, several alternatives have arisen to dethrone the prominent role of knowledge in schools: project-based learning, inquiry and discovery learning, higher-level thinking, critical thinking, outcome based education, and 21st Century Skills.  Now it is deeper learning.

Loveless provides two examples of “deeper learning.” His first is a summary of my personal story of struggle with the discovery learning approach that my kids’ former school uses to teach math. The second example comes from the international assessment known as PISA, or the Programme for International Student Assessment. Loveless contends that the tests may not actually assess the type of deep learning that we aspire to.

Loveless cautions readers to be “skeptical when encountering deeper learning in the future.”

In many of the conversations I have had with supporters of the new Common Core State Standards, people say that these standards will lead to “deeper understanding.” In some cases, the new standards have led school districts to adopt curriculum and teaching practices, much like the ones I describe in my account, which are supposed to lead to “deep understanding.”

Loveless’ post ends with this admonishment: “In the days ahead, you will be hearing a lot about deeper learning. Please be on guard. This virtuous sounding term means much more than its two words imply.” I could not agree with him more.

In Missouri and other states around the country, the Common Core Standards are being implemented. Be on guard if your child’s school begins talking about deep understanding, and find out what they mean by that term.

Finding The Right Way To Fund Roads

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

The Missouri Legislature did not approve Senate Joint Resolution 16, which would have raised the state sales tax by 1 cent to fund roads and bridges (among other transportation items), to be placed on the ballot in 2014. Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Dist. 110) has indicated that the issue will be revisited in the next legislative session.

It is important that Missouri maintain good roads and bridges. That is why I support transportation infrastructure spending. SJR 16 was an attempt to do that. However, my colleague, Policy Analyst David Stokes, and I did have misgivings about the proposal. Namely, we thought raising the sales tax to finance transportation infrastructure was not the right way to go.

Raising the sales tax to pay for transportation infrastructure would spread the burden of financing this spending evenly between those who frequently use roads and bridges and those who rarely use them. I don’t think that people who walk to work should have to pay the same amount for road maintenance as those who commute an hour each way.

When possible, and in the case of transportation funding it is possible, the external public costs should be internalized (i.e., linked to those who use the goods). That is why David and I support dedicated funding mechanisms for road construction and maintenance, such as tolling and increased gas taxes. Tolling isn’t a viable option for all of our transportation needs, but it has worked for the Lake Ozark Community Bridge and it can work for other projects. Increasing the gas tax instead of the sales tax would more closely align the act of using the road, bridge, or port, to those who pay for it.

Show-Me Hits (May 25)

Posted on by Darin Morley

In the press:

New this week:

And much more from the Show-Me Institute on our Show-Me Daily blog.

Another Union Comes Out Against The Affordable Care Act

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

A few weeks ago, I talked about how the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International had dropped its support of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This week, we have another union upset with the law — the 1.3 million-strong United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Joseph Hansen, the union’s president, detailed his objections to the law in an editorial for The Hill that you can find here, but I’d like to highlight this quote from Hansen published in a separate report. Remember when we were told if we liked our plans, we could keep them? (Emphasis mine.)

“You can’t have the same quality healthcare that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen said. “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. … We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”

Hansen’s union wants to be able to keep its current health plan rather than accept a plan the government wants to force on them. I agree with that, because everyone should have the choice to get a health plan — for-profit or not — that is tailored to their own needs, and to not have forced upon them a plan tailored first and foremost to some government mandate. Rest assured, Hansen’s union won’t be the last group to have a change of heart on the ACA. Stay tuned for more.

Army Of Lobbyists Fails To Deliver

Posted on by Kacie Barnes (Galbraith)

If 17 lobbyists cannot get you what you want, then I do not know what can.

At the conclusion of the 2013 legislative session, Missouri senators shut down the tax credit that would have opened up millions more to Saint Louis NorthSide developer Paul McKee.

I would like to take credit for this. But unfortunately, there is no one who can really take credit for this happening. Making a bill become a law can often be a confusing and messy process. In this case, the Distressed Area Land Assemblage Tax Credit (DALATC) was set to expire this year, and there were bills proposed to extend the credit. At the last minute, however, the DALATC extension was tacked on to a different bill, House Bill 698. HB 698 was a hodgepodge type of bill including various tax credit provisions.  Eventually, a senator filibustered the bill so it did not pass. (Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Patrick Ishmael has more detail about the legislature’s failure on this bill here.)

Is this going to stop or hinder in any way NorthSide development? Of course not. McKee’s project has already received more than $40 million in state tax credits, and the City of Saint Louis has promised close to $400 million more in local incentives. Plus, the project still has potential to tap up to $20 million in credits from the state before the DALATC expires later this year.

There is no doubt that McKee wanted access to the $45 million more that extending this tax credit would have opened up. But the project will just have to “make do” with the $440 million in government assistance it will receive.

Michelle Rhee: Radical: Fighting to put Students First

Posted on by Darin Morley

Educator Michelle Rhee joined Crosby Kemper III for a public conversation about her new book Radical: Fighting to Put Students First and explained her ideas for improving public education by ensuring that laws, leaders, and politics are making students – not adults – their top priority.

Rhee is past chancellor of the Washington D.C. Public Schools and the founder, CEO, and president of the New Teacher Project. In 2010, she founded StudentsFirst, a non-profit organization which works on education reform issues such as ending teacher tenure. This event was co-sponsored by the Show-Me Institute.

Love Is Hate, War Is Peace, General Tax Cuts Are Corporate Welfare

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

It seems the St. Louis Post-Dispatch thinks business tax cuts amount to corporate welfare. That is NOT corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is the government giving subsidies, grants, loopholes, and other forms of preferential treatment to specific businesses. The Export-Import Bank is an example of corporate welfare.  At the state level, various instances of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) count as corporate welfare. However, letting a person or business keep more of what he/she/it earns is not corporate welfare.

That is not how the Post-Dispatch sees it. They believe that all money is the government’s money and that we should be grateful for the few cents they leave us.

The substance of the Post-Dispatch’s argument against business tax cuts? They claim there is little evidence to support the assertion that cutting business taxes will result in increased economic activity. Except this study by Jens Arnold found that corporate income taxes were one of the most economically harmful taxes a country can impose. And this study by the Tax Foundation analyzed the economic literature and found that corporate income taxes are the most harmful to growth.

Even one of the articles they cite to support their position states, in regards to start-ups creating jobs, “their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.” Well . . . if a company has more money after taxes (because their taxes go down), what will happen to their profits? They will increase.

Tax cuts aren’t everything, and even if House Bill 253 becomes law, it alone will not cause our state’s economy to go gangbusters. However, tax rates DO matter, and no amount of screeching from the Post-Dispatch will change that.

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