What Teachers Know Matters; How They Feel Matters, Too

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s another reason that allowing alternative teacher certification in Missouri was a good idea: Teachers who are anxious about math can transmit that attitude to their students, who may then lose confidence in their ability to learn math. Specifically, a study has found that girls who were taught by female teachers with math anxiety were more likely to believe that boys are better at math. The girls who formed that opinion also earned a lower average score than their peers on a math test. The difference in scores did not appear at the beginning of the year, before the students had been influenced by their teachers.

Alternative teacher certification is a good way to fill the teaching force with people who are both knowledgeable about math and comfortable with it. Proponents of alternative teacher certification have long highlighted the knowledge that teachers bring to the classroom. Obviously, a teacher with little math background won’t have the same level of expertise as someone who’s worked in a math-intensive field. But this study shows that a teacher’s feelings toward her subject are also important. A teacher who hasn’t developed confidence by using math can change how students think about their potential to learn. And that could prevent them from learning from other teachers later on.

While this study focused on negative effects of teachers, it would be interesting to see whether teachers can inspire previously reluctant students to like a subject. Can a confident teacher turn around students’ attitudes and make them enthusiastic about math and science?

Show-Me Institute Question of the Week

Posted on by David Stokes

Readers, commenters, Missourians, lend me your keyboards.

What do you think is the most heavily subsidized lifestyle: urban, suburban, exurban, rural, or small town? Think of subsidies of every level and in every way — so, basically, when you choose to live in one of these five locations types, which is the one the depends most on other people giving you money through involuntary government subsidies?

Let’s briefly define our terms: By “urban,” I mean within major cities; “suburban” should be the mainline suburbs of those cities; “exurban” should be the extended suburbs that came into being about 20 years ago; by “rural,” I mean farming, ranching, etc.; and by “small towns” I mean towns within rural areas, including small cities like Joplin or Cape Girardeau.

Here are my votes, from most heavily subsidized to least subsidized: urban, rural, exurban, suburban, small towns.

I think there would be a big gap between numbers 2 and 3, and a pretty good space between 3 and 4. I’ll try to find some data to get some answers after I have enough responses. Go!

More on the Proposed Tax Increase for Farmers

Posted on by David Stokes

I really liked this piece by Sen. Jason Crowell in the Southeast Missourian about the proposed property tax increase in agricultural land in Missouri. (Thanks to Mr. Combest for the link.) What I liked most about it was that it focused its ideas on why we should not raise taxes on agriculture, instead of trying to sell the idea that agriculture is already overtaxed in Missouri — which it ain’t. (Note use of term “ain’t” as attempt by said blogger to sound country when writing about farming.) I wrote about this last month when the proposal to raise the assessed valuations of some farmland first came out.

Senator Crowell writes:

Both the director of Missouri’s Department of Agriculture and the Missouri Farm Bureau disagree with the tax Commission’s decision, warning that a tax increase could be extremely damaging to Missouri’s farmers as they work in this struggling economy.

I certainly agree with that. Now is not the time to make food more expensive, and it may never be the right time to do that via tax policy. However, sometimes in the interest of setting proper valuations on which to base property taxes, some people will see their taxes rise while others see them fall. It is important to remind people that some agricultural property would see its assessments — and, thereby, taxes — fall as a result of this study.

I’ll emphasize that I support preventing this new assessment system from going into place, but let’s not pretend for a moment that farm taxes are high in Missouri. That acre of farmland producing valuable commodities that the farmer will sell would only have been valued at $1,270 per acre. That does not entail a tax of $1,270 per acre; as explained nicely here, the tax rates would only be based on that valuation. A tax rate of $7 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation (about average for St. Louis County; it is probably lower in rural Missouri) leads to a property tax of $10.67 per acre — not very much. At that rate, it would take more than 400 acres of the most productive farmland in Missouri to equal the property taxes we pay on our 1/4-acre lot for a starter home in suburban University City. So, keep the taxes as they are; just don’t tell me farmers face a heavy tax burden in Missouri.

If we should be lowering taxes on any one area in Missouri, it should be on commercial/manufacturing property.

Missourians Can Combat the Political Influence of Moneyed Interests

Posted on by Dave Roland

 

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that the First Amendment does not permit the government either to ban certain speakers from engaging in political speech or to restrict the amount of money that a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign. Many commentators nationwide are extremely concerned that this influx of cash will distort the political process, allowing wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions to purchase political influence and degrade the ability of ordinary citizens to affect the political process.

While the fallout of this case is not likely to be as dire as many are predicting, there is reason for voters to be concerned about the degree to which these moneyed interests might influence the political process. As the system currently exists, politicians have every incentive to prioritize fundraising because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the more they spend, the more votes they will ultimately receive. Thus, particularly as elections draw near, they spend a large percentage of their time soliciting contributions for their campaign’s “war chest,” and many focus on paid advertisements more than on debates.

But despite these concerns about wealthy interests’ ability to commandeer the political system, ordinary Missourians have at their disposal the wherewithal to neutralize the influence of campaign contributions without spending a dime — if only they demonstrate the doggedness and cooperation necessary to do so. You see, regardless of how much money a politician or interest group spends, only a voter can control their vote. If enough citizens believe strongly that the influence of money in political campaigns should be limited, they can use their most valuable assets — their votes — to change the incentive structure for politicians.

My proposal is that such a group of concerned voters could pledge to ignore party, ideology, and rhetoric, and to cast their ballots based solely upon how much money each of the candidates raised — and the lower the amount of contributions, the better. If as few as 5 percent of registered voters (which in many elections could constitute a decisive margin) committed to voting for the candidate in each major race who amassed the third- or fourth-largest “war chest,” I’d wager that politicians in close races would quickly respond by de-emphasizing the importance of fundraising.

Yes, this is a radical solution. At least in the short term, it depends on the idea that no single candidate is worth electing if doing so will only perpetuate a political system that depends more on the power of the checkbook than on the power of ideas. Many may be unwilling to make a commitment that might result in casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, a Libertarian, or even an independent, “tea party” candidate. But the formation of this sort of voting block is the most immediate, most direct way for those concerned to send a message that when it comes to campaign financing, perhaps less is more.

Dave Roland is a constitutional law expert and a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

No Distractions

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Missouri’s law against young people sending text messages while driving is only the beginning. Regulators want to make sure drivers can think about nothing but the road in front of them:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called distracted driving a “hot button” issue for state legislatures and said he’s against all distracted driving, not just cell phone use.

“I don’t care what the distraction is,” he said. “We’re going to set the highest bar possible. There should be no distractions.”

An obvious problem with outlawing all distractions is that we could never enforce such broad controls on drivers’ behavior. That doesn’t dissuade the texting ban’s supporters, who say that whether anyone is ever found to be in violation of a law doesn’t matter. Here’s how an AAA spokesman puts it:

“The benefit of having it in the statute is voluntary compliance, sort of like every other law.”

Perhaps the roads are safer because drivers willingly cooperate with texting bans, but, if so, texting bans are the exception. Most laws are effective because we can prosecute people for breaking them, and thereby deter people from breaking them in the future.

The more laws we write restricting drivers’ activities, the less we’ll be able to depend on their voluntary compliance. Drivers won’t pay attention to a laundry list forbidding every activity they could engage in while behind the wheel.

Could There Be a Long-Term Benefit From the Health Care Debate?

Posted on by Stephen Feman

The recent Massachusetts election confirmed the fact that the health care debate is far from over. The people in the one state where every citizen nominally has health care insurance have extended their influence to the health care of the nation. Those voters may not have been addressing that issue alone, but their actions will have some effect on us all. Interestingly, depending on one’s political perspective, anxiety had been expressed about every plan being brought forward, not the least of which was the concern about the potential effect of these proposals on constitutional liberties. That may no longer be a problem. Nevertheless, even if another alternative is developed, the evolution of the discussion has helped us all.

In our open free society, there is a benefit associated with the debate itself.  Some see an increased awareness of these health concerns as a potential stimulus for continued economic growth. As we know, the United States is in the midst of a profound demographic change. There has been an aging of the population characterized by an increased proportion of persons aged 65 and older. The Congressional Research Service’s demographic charts reveal a great upsurge in the number of older people in this country. By keeping that population healthy, we should all benefit from this preserved human capital. By improving the health and well-being of the generations to follow, additional benefits accrue. As others have indicated, “the accumulation of human capital—in the form of increased knowledge and skills and improved health and longevity” will continue to play an essential role in the economic growth of this country. My contention is that making people aware of these issues has offered some benefit to our society, regardless of the outcome of the debate.

If the investments in American health care that already exist work as expected, there should be a measurable improvement in the long-term functional status of many citizens, both young and old. Not only will the Medicare generation continue to receive benefits, but people that are newly aware of these issues will have a better chance of a healthy life extending into their old age. With many people continuing to be healthy, a small part of the future demand for health care may become reduced over time.

But there is another activity occurring, one discussed less often. In many cases, as people grow older, they continue to work and contribute to the GDP. This had been noted in the past, but few paid attention to it. However, even before people were aware of the developing “sea change” in American health care demographics, there was an increase in the proportion of the workforce older than age 65. Most of those workers are people who are not obligated to work because of reduced economic circumstances. Instead, these individuals have chosen to continue on their jobs, and contribute to society in other ways, because it gives more meaning to their lives.

Going forward, one expects still another “sea change” to develop as a result of the health care debate, but this would be in the doctor-patient relationship arena. What had been a paternalistic situation, with the physician in the role of an all-knowing father, is in the process of shifting. When most patients are older (and more experienced) than their primary care providers, physicians will need to explain their activities in greater detail. The Internet has created a standard of health care knowledge that is free and open to the public. As a result, at every patient interaction, physicians will have to show that their expertise is greater than what one can look up online. Otherwise, why would a patient want to participate? That is, the doctor encounter has to continue to be a “value added” experience that the patient can measure.

At present, from an economic perspective, the prices of health care are not informative, and consumers cannot use dollar-related data to compare physicians and/or hospitals. The existing problem of health care information asymmetry has kept patients at a disadvantage.  Reforming that situation may be an added benefit developing from within the current discussions. This seems to be included, to some degree, in every version of the health care bills. No matter on which side of the aisle one sits, everyone appears in favor of improving knowledge.

Good Story About Autism Legislation on Fox 4 KC

Posted on by David Stokes

John Combest linked today to a very well-written story by Fox 4 in Kansas City. I commend them for asking tough question about the autism legislation that is almost certainly going to be passed and signed into law this year. The answer to the Fox question is that yes, autism mandates will cause premiums to rise for everyone. It may well be a very small increase, and the public good of covering autism may indeed be worth it, but let’s not pretend that this legislation won’t increase insurance costs for everyone.

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