Virtual School Closure a Real Loss for Missouri

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

If a successful, low-cost, cutting-edge school in Missouri were being shut down midway through the school year, leaving thousands of students without feasible educational alternatives, the state would see an uproar. But recent budget cuts to Missouri’s virtual school program will bring essentially the same result, with little backlash.

The virtual school spent $5.8 million last year to educate 2,500 students. That comes to approximately $2,300 per student. The Salem R-80 district, which spent $5,418.37 per student in 2008, had the lowest per-student cost in Missouri. While some of the program’s online students are taking only supplemental classes, Missouri’s virtual education program is still one of the most cost-effective “schools” in the state.

The state’s budget cuts will necessitate that the program close at the end of the semester, leaving some students a few credits away from graduation. This cessation of the full program comes after its budget had already been scaled back earlier this year. From the Post-Dispatch:

Because of budget troubles, lawmakers already had scaled back the virtual school this year to a $4.8 million program serving 1,600 kids who enrolled on a first-come, first-serve basis.
About 2,000 were turned away when the free slots filled up.

Missouri’s students should not be denied the unique opportunities that virtual schooling provides. Although budget costs are necessary, the state’s virtual school was a very cost-effective program in comparison to existing public education. It supplemented traditional schools and home schooling for some, and allowed sick children who were unable to function in crowded classrooms to continue their educations.

The virtual school program is like a charter school for rural Missouri, where the charters do not exist. It provides an innovative learning experience, giving kids an alternative to traditional school. In this way, it both competes and meshes with the traditional school experience to give students a better learning experience. (Read these posts by Sarah Brodsky to find out more about the benefits and challenges of online schools.)

Missouri spends $5.4 billion on primary and secondary education; can it not find the few million necessary to educate students in an innovative, cost-effective manner?

Health Care Solutions Need to Be Feasible

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

The Missouri Budget Project recently wrote a special piece for the St. Louis Beacon about affordable health care, “What to do about health care? Make it affordable.” In it, the author conflates increased coverage with affordability, ignoring the systemic and regulatory factors that have led to the ever-increasing costs of health care we’ve seen in the United States. The piece makes a particularly problematic assumption that passing new government mandates for more coverage will guarantee better outcomes.

One way in which the author proposed to increase coverage is an expansion of Medicaid, because “Medicaid has a good benefit package, low administrative costs, and requires minimal out of pocket expense.” This may be true, but not because Medicaid is more efficient than private markets, but because the program pays a very low rate to doctors, which may become even smaller as a result of recent state budget cuts. Many doctors who face these lower mandated prices conclude that they cannot afford to take Medicaid patients, and are refusing to accept new ones. How will this improve coverage? It may actually decrease coverage by limiting the number of doctors available for an ever-growing Medicaid population.

Increasing coverage by creating deficits or a large burden on the state budget is not a long-term solution. It would be better to lower costs, as described in a recent study released by the Show-Me Institute, through increasing personal accountability. While the Missouri Budget Project’s proposed solution is well-intentioned, it is ultimately not fiscally feasible.

Dutch Court Abandons All Pretense of Impartiality in Dekker Case

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Today brought sad news for Laura Dekker: The Dutch court has forbidden her to set sail and extended state guardianship until July. This despite the fact that she passed every test they set for her:

The court said that while Dekker’s sailing skills were adequate and a psychological report concluded that the voyage would not harm her social or emotional development, there were questions about safety and her ability to continue her schooling while at sea.

It turns out that the psychological assessments were given simply for the purpose of digging up a reason to stop Dekker. She wouldn’t have been allowed to sail had she failed them, and she’s not allowed to sail now that she’s passed.

I’m appalled that Dekker’s inability to attend school while sailing is given as a reason for the state to detain her on land. By this reasoning, a court could prevent kids from going on extended vacations with their families or participating in any competitive sports.

Should the Government Instruct People How to Pray?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I think not, but that’s what a poster from the New York City Health Department does. The poster, which is intended for a religious Jewish audience and is also available in Yiddish, reminds people to wash their hands for at least 20 seconds. It also shows several hand washing steps that you would expect on a poster in the bathroom, such as “scrub” and “rinse.” The unusual thing is, the instructions incorporate a Jewish hand washing ritual and the prayer said after using the bathroom. The last instruction on the poster is “Pray,” underneath a picture of a scroll containing the first two words of this particular prayer.

I would find it cute and informative if a Jewish organization published this poster in an effort to educate people simultaneously about hygiene and Jewish religious practices. But the state shouldn’t tell people how to practice Judaism, or any other religion.

I’m not against translating government documents into foreign languages, and translating a poster into Yiddish could be reasonable in a city with a large Jewish population. However, the translation should present the same content as the original — it shouldn’t add religious instructions.

MO Budget Blues in the Nixon Era

Posted on by David Stokes

Our Policy Pulse site has a good story with some detailed links to the recent budget cuts announced by the governor. I hope and plan to have more thorough work on these proposals released soon, but I don’t want to rush anything — and many of us will be out most of next week at a conference. So, I just want to quickly take the opportunity to commend Gov. Jay Nixon for his willingness to make the hard fiscal decisions that are necessary, including laying off state employees and cutting budgets, rather than trying to raise taxes. He deserves a good deal of credit for that.

At Long Last, Our 2008 Annual Report!

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

You may well have noticed that we’re rapidly reaching the end of 2009, and yet we had not yet released our annual report for last year. I’m happy to announce that this is no longer the case. The Show-Me Institute’s 2008 annual report is now available on our website.

Releasing the annual report so late in the year has become something of an unintended tradition — albeit one that we firmly intend to break for 2009’s report. Here’s what I wrote two years ago:

Most non-profit organizations release their annual reports much earlier in the year than this. Ours would have been out sooner, too, but we decided to commission a thorough independent audit — to make sure everything was fully on track and accounted for during our first full year of operations. We had most of the report ready to go several weeks ago, but we didn’t want to issue an incomplete profile. Some things are worth the wait.

And here’s what I wrote last year:

We had hoped to release this a few months ago, but a string of delays kept pushing it back in our schedule. We’re planning to begin working on the 2008 annual report in the next month or two, so that we can have most of the content ready by year’s end, then add the financials and other finishing touches in early 2009. That should allow for a much earlier release date next year.

So, what was the problem this year? Any guesses? Yes, once again, the audit took much longer than anybody expected, and after we finally got the numbers back we ended up making several changes to the work we had already completed on the annual report. I think that the end result is pretty great, though, if I do say so myself. And I’m particularly happy we managed to include a nice feature on our intern program and our free-market book club — including an excellent group photo on the cover that includes a collage of many of the books that the club read during 2008.

The Show-Me Institute had some outstanding accomplishments during 2008, and a large part of that success can be attributed directly to the people reading this blog, who are engaged by our ideas and research. We hope you’ll continue to help us finish up 2009 in style, and next year, I hope we won’t have to wait this long to tell you all about it!

Filmmakers Vote With Their Feet

Posted on by Christine Harbin

I blogged yesterday about how tax policy distributes people and businesses. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal illustrates an example of this: Tax credits distribute film production activities.

Instead of leaving filmmaking to states that specialize in it, like California, and then realizing gains from interstate trade, star-stuck states are competing with each other (and with other countries) to attract cash-strapped filmmakers. And, just like any other business would, filmmakers move to the state that offers the most tax incentives and subsidies. They even rewrite their scripts to accommodate the setting changes. According to the WSJ article:

Michigan offers credits for as much as 42% of a film’s in-state budget, and Utah and North Carolina have both recently increased their incentives to stay competitive. France recently enacted a new law that creates a 20% rebate for foreign productions shot in the country that have ties with French culture.

Missouri offers a film production tax credit for up to 35 percent of the amount spent in Missouri for activities related to film production.

As a fiscal conservative, I am in favor of reducing tax burdens in general. However, I believe that filmmaker tax credits are bad policy for several reasons.

First, states lose money on them. Filmmakers can frequently claim more than they paid in taxes because refundable tax credits function like grants. My home state, Wisconsin, offers a refundable tax credit of 25 percent for all production-related activities, as well as the use of state-owned buildings and locations free of charge. When Johnny Depp and Christian Bale filmed Public Enemies in the state capitol building in Madison, the state lost money. According to an article in the Wisconsin State Journal:

The state paid $4.6 million to the makers of Public Enemies through the credits, even though the film generated an estimated $270,000 in state taxes.

Second, there are more cost-effective ways to create jobs. In March, the Wisconsin Department of Commerce published a cost-benefit analysis of the state’s film tax credit program, which reported that it costs 20 times more to create a job using the state’s movie tax incentive program than it does using other state job creation programs.

The state subsidy going to films such as “Public Enemies,” starring Johnny Depp, cost $128,000 per each year-long job created, the Department of Commerce study found. In contrast, the agency’s other programs cost about $6,200 for creating a job for the first year and that position might, unlike some film jobs, last much longer than that, the study found.

This quotation introduces a third important point: This economic activity is short-lived. As soon as they complete shooting, the filmmakers pack up their sets and leave the state. Under other job-creation programs, the jobs are more permanent.

Commerce officials said that since taxpayer money for creating jobs is limited, it makes sense to compare how much it costs to create a job with the film program compared to others targeting manufacturers and high-tech businesses.

If the pukka focus of these subsidies were job creation, then they could be directed better elsewhere. I think that the real focus of film tax credits, however, is attracting celebrities to Midwest states. If it weren’t for the subsidies, why would Johnny Depp ever set foot in Wisconsin?

Districts Are Challenged to Find Local Food in the Middle of the Winter

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

An op-ed in the Birmingham Weekly contains an error that’s familiar to anyone following school lunch policy. It conflates “healthy” food with “local” food:

Currently each of these “funded” meals are allotted $2.57, which means that after you strip away labor, energy and overhead costs, schools have $1 per meal to spend on ingredients. This leaves schools and cafeteria managers challenged to find good, fresh, local ingredients to serve their students.

I might give local food advocates a pass on this if money were no object. If, for example, George Soros got the idea to donate $10 lunches to school students and he wanted to buy local, that would be his prerogative. In the real world, however, school lunches are subsidized by taxpayers. And, as the op-ed states, districts have limited resources with which to pay for food.

Districts need to put together the healthiest meals possible within budget constraints. If healthy, cheap produce comes from California, districts should buy produce from California — not from someone in Missouri who will charge more. When districts bring location into the equation and give local food preference over the healthiest, cheapest food from somewhere else, they’re sacrificing either food quality or economy. They’re shortchanging students or taxpayers — or both.

And the problems with schools choosing local food over other food go beyond finances. Some products can be obtained locally for a premium, but some can’t be grown nearby at any price. Should Missouri children give up oranges and bananas because they’re never local? What about fresh produce in the winter? Finding these items locally is indeed a challenge, and a challenge that districts won’t be able to overcome without changing the world’s geography or the nature of plant life.

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