Click below for live video of the Show-Me Institute’s Speaker Series on Economic Policy, which will begin at about 6:00 p.m. CDT. Tonight’s speaker is Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Until January 1, 2009, Mr. Brooks was the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University. Mr. Brooks is the author of a new book, The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise, published on May 8, 2012.
Columbia’s Historic Preservation Study Should Be Understood As PR, Not Policy
Last week, a study presented to the Columbia City Council explored the impact of Missouri’s historic preservation tax credit on the city. The report, funded by the Historic Preservation Commission, found that “historic preservation” had accounted for almost 5,000 Columbia jobs and more than $1 billion of “economic activity” over the last decade, with almost $100 million attributable to the historic preservation tax credit. Like any report of this kind, it paid the requisite homage to the dark art of “economic multipliers,” which we have criticized in the past.
In stark contrast to the study’s claims, official state figures actually show that historic preservation credits return 23 cents for each dollar the state spends. These tax dollars are often used on dubious projects of little or no public use, such as private mansions and at least one country club.
The main point I would like to highlight, however, is that the Columbia study was written explicitly to pump an agenda, a point that may not be immediately evident if casual newspaper readers just saw the headlines. The study’s authors were (refreshingly) transparent about this in the text of the study itself. Goal one on the study’s first page explicitly says that the report “will promote the economic development benefits of historic preservation to an expanded audience.” Goal two makes the study’s goals even clearer (emphasis mine): “This report will encourage tax credit eligible projects to homeowners and developers by promoting visible local examples.” And the “Vision Impact” outlined at the bottom of that page is clear that the objective sought is to preserve “historic areas” through “education, enforcement, and incentives” (emphasis mine) — namely, the HPTC. This is more about marketing than good policy, and should be understood as such.
We at the Show-Me Institute have seen this sort of report before, of course. Back when Aerotropolis was still a thing, I wrote about the National Center for Beef Excellence‘s “report” on whether it was “feasible” to “ship meat to China.” One would think that a state-funded group with “beef” in the name would make it clear that American beef was actually, er, banned in China. Alas, the NCBE attempted to pass off the study as objective when its only goal was to pump Aerotropolis.
That is, in the end, what is going on in Columbia, albeit with laudable transparency. There should be a vigorous debate about the merits of tax credits generally and particularly the historic preservation tax credit, but this report is only one especially biased side of that conversation. There should be no misconceptions about that fact.
Stuck In The Middle: Empowering Parents With Educational Choice
Stuck. That seems to be the theme of education in Missouri (see here and here). We are stuck in the middle in terms of academic achievement and most families are stuck in their local public schools. To get Missouri moving in the right direction, we must start by freeing families to choose their child’s school.
Bold Solution No. 2:
Provide parents with options so they can choose the school and type of education that best meets their family’s needs.
A growing body of research suggests school choice has many potential benefits for students.
For example, the Institute for Education Science’s study of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in Washington, D.C., noted that students who attended a private school with a voucher were significantly more likely to graduate from high school.
A study released in August showed that “using a voucher to attend a private school increased the overall college enrollment rate among African Americans by 24%.”
Another study released last month tested the impact of school choice on intrinsic motivation and academic outcomes. The researchers found that winning a lottery for a choice school significantly lowered truancy rates even before the students actually enter the choice school. From the study: “The effects are largest for male students entering high school, whose truancy rates decline by 21% as a result of winning the lottery.” The study also found “substantial test score gains from attending a charter school.”
Each of the studies used a lottery to determine if the student would earn a voucher or be able to attend a charter school. In the real world, winning the lottery leads to making you work less, but in school choice, it appears to (thankfully) have the opposite effect for inner city schoolchildren.
By empowering parents to choose their child’s school, Missouri could dramatically improve educational options for all students. Better yet, no child would be stuck in a school without options.
(Here is a link to Bold Solution No. 1.)
A New Hospital In Chesterfield?
Officials in the city of Chesterfield recently approved an ordinance that will allow an overnight surgery center to operate on property at North Outer 40 Road and Boone’s Crossing. At first glance, this seems like a simple business response to a market demand.
There is just one problem. Area hospital leaders argue that the overnight surgery center (the potential site for Regeneration Orthopedics) is a hospital under Missouri law and should follow specific licensing, staffing, and safety standards.
This is a complicated issue and I am not an expert. Like most people, I tend to believe that the area’s leading hospitals are genuinely concerned about patients. But making an overnight surgery center, with approximately a half dozen overnight patients, follow the same regulations as BJC HealthCare, SSM Health Care, Mercy, and St. Luke’s is about business, not patients.
I understand that hospitals face complicated regulations, moreso than many other industries, but we must remember that hospitals are businesses. And as businesses, it is in their best interests to limit the entry of other firms into their field. So, when a business claims a new or emerging competitor has an unfair advantage, we must question their allegations and motives. I recognize that Regeneration Orthopedics is in a unique situation, but just because it provides similar procedures as hospitals does not mean it is a hospital.
What is next? Are we going to make test preparation or tutoring centers follow the same regulations as public schools or universities? I mean, they also “skim off” paying individuals and “leave the poor” ones. Like most licensing debates, the Chesterfield “hospital” debate is best left to the free market to decide instead of the government.
Who Is In It For The Kids, Teachers’ Unions Or Charter Schools?
In an impassioned address to the media, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis stated the reasons the teachers’ union would begin striking. In her statement, Lewis attempted to frame the argument in terms of improving education and doing what is right for kids. While some of the requests of the union are reasonable, like having textbooks at the beginning of school, other demands are downright egregious.
Teachers in Chicago public schools currently make about $71,000 or $76,000, depending on who you ask. In a time of budget shortfall, the union rejected 16 percent in raises over the next four years. The union is also fighting against a teacher evaluation tool that they say relies too heavily on student test scores. Essentially, the union wants more money and more job protection for their teachers without accountability for actually teaching kids.
While Karen Lewis and other union officials can posture as if they are in this for the kids, the truth is, the union is in this for the teachers. The late national union leader Albert Shanker was quoted as saying, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” In his farewell address to the National Education Association (NEA), Bob Chanin said the NEA is such an effective advocate because they have power, not because they care about children (watch the video). Though these two are not currently representing Chicago, you can be sure the sentiments are not far off.
The CTU president closed her remarks with this: “Schools, real schools, will not open tomorrow.” This statement is downright obnoxious. Maybe her definition of a “real school” is a bit different than mine, but Chicago charter schools and private schools are open today. That is right; while teachers in the Chicago Teachers Union are busy striking, charter school teachers are busy teaching and their students are busy learning. I would say the people actually educating kids are the ones in it for the kids.
McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS
David Stokes has a recurring spot on McGraw Milhaven’s KTRS radio program. In this appearance, Stokes and the host discuss topics such as the latest on the Ellisville argle-bargle, the recent news relating to how car sales are taxed in Missouri, how online sales are (or aren’t) taxed in Missouri, Kansas’ competitive economic policies, and the latest Show-Me Institute events.
Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreements in Missouri’s Public Schools
In 2011, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of American Federation of Teachers v. Ledbetter. The case is pending a decision as of July 12, 2012. At issue is whether a public school district has a legal “duty” to collectively bargain in “good faith” with a teachers’ union. Before addressing the specifics, some historical context is needed.
In 1947, the Missouri Supreme Court, in City of Springfield v. Clouse, held that the city of Springfield, Mo., could not collectively bargain employment contracts with public employee unions. The reason was twofold. First, the Missouri Constitution’s clause guaranteeing the right to collectively bargain did not apply to public employees. Second, public entities such as cities act on behalf of the general public and therefore, only elected legislators, as the people’s representatives, may set the terms of employment for public employees. Non-elected public officers lacked the requisite authority to collectively bargain with labor unions.
Fast forward to 2007. In Independence-NEA v. Independence School District, the Missouri Supreme Court partially overruled Clouse and held that the Missouri Constitution’s collective bargaining clause extended to public school teachers. The court rested its opinion in large part on the modern trend recognizing a legislature’s power to delegate its decision-making authority to administrative agencies. Because a legislature “may” delegate its power to negotiate and agree to the terms of public employment, the constitution’s collective bargaining guarantee was held to extend to all public employees, including teachers.
If due respect is to be paid to the legislature, then the following question naturally arises: Did the Missouri General Assembly in fact delegate this authority to public school districts? And how can one reconcile the majority’s broad recognition of the power to delegate with its stern rejection of the legislature’s discretionary choice to exclude public school teachers from its grant of collective bargaining rights?
Specifically, the Missouri General Assembly enacted the Public Sector Labor Law in 1965. The Act empowers certain public employees to join labor organizations for the purpose of negotiating terms of employment. But the legislature expressly excluded school teachers from its provisions. By exercising its power to delegate, the legislature “selectively” delegated its powers by withholding statutory collective bargaining rights from teachers. One may ask whether the power to delegate implies the power to withhold.
For now, the law regarding a school district’s legal obligation to collectively bargain is in flux. The trial court in Ledbetter held that school districts had no duty to bargain. The court in Independence clearly supported the constitutional right for teachers to collectively bargain, but further held that school districts are under no obligation to agree to contractual terms that the teachers’ bargaining agent proposes. If the Supreme Court in Ledbetter adds a good faith requirement, school districts will suffer a diminished right, a right recognized in Independence, to reject union proposals.
In light of the current state of flux, and the importance of this issue for Missouri taxpayers and schools, the Show-Me Institute has begun gathering and reporting collective bargaining agreements and related agreements between school districts and certified staff governing the terms of employment for teachers.
We sent letters to the largest 100 districts in Missouri requesting all such agreements. Agreements include formal collective bargaining agreements and other agreements such as closure documents. The common denominator, however, is the written expression of the terms of employment between a district and its certified teaching staff.
The responses we received are searchable below. Moreover by simply double-clicking on a document the entire document is viewable. We welcome your feedback.
Crowd Surfing! I Mean, Crowdfunding!
Officials in Kansas City, Mo., are using an exciting new way to fund civic projects that minimizes government’s power in the process. “Crowdfunding” through Neighbor.ly is a game changer for how we choose and pay for civic projects. Through this website, individuals in a community vote with their dollars to support only projects for which they are passionate. Neighbor.ly’s instant popularity sends a loud message to government: “You do not have to tell us what we want!” Private and non-profit organizations are able to list projects, allowing the introduction of projects that community members support, but may be at the bottom of the bureaucrats’ list.
One current Kansas City Neighbor.ly initiative is called “Paint the Town Green.” Contributions help expand the number of neighborhoods eligible for Google’s fiber optic project to provide ultra-high-speed Internet/TV connectivity. This initiative already has collected more than $10,600 to aid communities in need.
Kansas City is using Neighbor.ly for other projects as well. Residents have contributed almost $420,000 toward a new public bike sharing program downtown called Kansas City B-Cycle, and there are more projects on the way.
I just want to go out and hug Neighbor.ly’s creator/CEO Jase Wilson. This system allows people to voluntarily support projects that are important to them, and reduces the burden on the average taxpayer. Neighbor.ly understands that civic projects are about the community’s choices and desires — not the government’s.
Crowdfunding is a unique, innovative solution that enables the community to show government what is important to them. Yes, some folks do not have the financial means to contribute in this way, so the system is not perfect. However, it is a step in the right direction toward reducing the chance that only government officials instead of citizens choose capital projects to pursue.
Stuck In The Middle: Empowering Schools
In my previous two posts (here and here), I highlighted the plight of Missouri’s education system. We are stuck in the middle in terms of academic achievement, and do not look to be improving very rapidly. Sticking with the status quo or even tinkering at the margins is unlikely to have any significant effect on improving our educational system. We need bold strategies that will allow Missouri schools to innovate and compete and Missouri students to thrive.
One of the challenges of our schools is attracting and retaining great teachers. Top-performing teachers generate learning gains almost double that of a teacher in the bottom 20 percent, equivalent to almost six months of learning (see study). Unfortunately, institutional rules and burdensome legislation make it difficult for schools to hire and retain great teachers or to remove low-performing ones. In fact, a recent study revealed schools retain teachers from the top and bottom at “strikingly similar rates.”
Part of the problem is schools treat teachers like they are interchangeable. In reality, teachers vary wildly in terms of performance and have markedly different opportunities based on their expertise.
Bold Solution 1:
Empower schools to attract and retain the best teachers and promote a system that equips schools to remediate or remove the worst.
Schools need to be able to hire the best person for the job, regardless of certification, and they should be equipped to pay each teacher what they are worth based on their performance and market options. To do this, schools need control over their compensation system, including the retirement package they offer to their employees. Additionally, schools must be able to identify and remediate or remove poorly performing teachers. One way of doing this would be to actually evaluate teachers based on their performance and make tenure decisions based on their ability to impact student achievement (see here for an example).
Some teachers are great and some are not so great, some have a lot of other employment options and some do not. We need to be smart in how we staff schools and stop relying on an antiquated system that treats teachers as if they are all the same.
