School All Year

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Chicago Tribune reports that more than 90 public schools in Chicago will switch to a year-round schedule. This won’t involve more time in class, because the usual summer break will be split up into shorter breaks at intervals throughout the year.

It’s a step in the right direction when districts experiment with new ways of doing things. It would be even better if they gave parents a choice between year-round school and a long summer break. Making the year-round schedule optional would prevent conflicts with parents who liked the old schedule better.

When a district gives parents a choice, it has an opportunity to learn about parents’ preferences. Do they value long vacations? Do they think year-round school helps students retain the material? It’s more pleasant for everyone if these preferences are expressed through enrollment decisions, rather than through angry phone calls after the district puts all families on a new schedule, whether they like it or not.

Missouri Will Likely Be Spared Cap-and-Trade Pain

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

David Catanese blogs over at ky3 political notebook that Sen. Claire McCaskill is highly unlikely to cast a yes vote for the cap-and-trade legislation that recently passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives (link via Combest):

“If there is going to be enough support for the bill, it will be a very gradual implementation as we move toward changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy,” McCaskill told conservative Missouri talk radio host Mike Ferguson. “I’m going to be one of those trying to craft it in a way that is very gradual, that is not going to hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent.”

McCaskill also said she’s in no rush on cap-and-trade because other world powers haven’t agreed to do their share.

“We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker. And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes,” she said.

It is good that the Senate recognizes the harms that Missouri would incur upon passage of the cap-and-trade legislation as it is currently structured. We’ve been blogging about this often recently.  Cap and trade would significantly diminish the competitive ability of the state of Missouri. And I say this not as a global warming skeptic; I’m pro-environment. Still, this is not the way to go.

Missouri Can Do Without Second National Stimulus

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

Some U.S. senators have proposed a second stimulus plan, arguing that there has not been enough spending to jumpstart the economy. To her credit, though, Sen. Claire McCaskill suggested Missouri is not on board for the second round of spending:

“If we are trying to move anything on health care and we’re trying to move anything on climate change, then putting another stimulus on top of that is a backbreaker,” she told POLITICO. “It is a political backbreaker — for people from states like mine anyway.”

We don’t see eye to eye on government action regarding health care and climate change, but her “backbreaker” comment is right on target. Hopefully, Missouri will continue to resist further stimulus and massive national debt.

To Coin Money, Establish Post Offices, Declare War, Call Forth the Militia, and … Regulate Snacks?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I love the fact that the United States has 50 states rather than just one. The states differ in their regulations and policies, which means that people can choose to live in the state they prefer. Plus, we can learn about the effects of laws when we compare outcomes across states. These benefits of the 50-state system would disappear if there were only one state, or if all states had to do the same things.

That’s why I’m dismayed by this excerpt from a Reuters article:

The U.S. Agriculture Department would be given the power to regulate all food sold in schools–including vending machine snacks–when Congress renews child nutrition programs, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee said on Tuesday.

Is this the most egregious misuse of regulation I’ve heard of? No. But it doesn’t exactly fall under the enumerated powers, either. And a little regulation leads to a lot, as we can see from the article:

Agriculture Committee work on child nutrition will begin with a draft that gives the USDA the authority to oversee all food in schools, so nutrition programs are not “undermined” by junk food in vending machines, Harkin said at a confirmation hearing for the head of the USDA’s nutrition programs.

So, when the government imposes a regulation in support of some goal, it then has to ensure that nothing else you do conflicts with the goal. We have to oppose these little infringements before they grow and multiply. If you give a mouse a cookie … oh, wait — cookies are unhealthy snacks! Okay, if you give a mouse a carrot …

Great Privatization Success for Kansas City Animals

Posted on by David Stokes

Check out this article in the Kansas City Star, and these comments over at Toellner Tells It, about the recent privatization of the Kansas City animal shelter. I don’t have much to add, here; I agree with everything Toellner says. I got our family dog at a nonprofit animal shelter here in St. Louis, so it was great to read what an early success this move has been for the taxpayers and animals in KC.

First Things First

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This AP story briefly reports on Missouri’s quest to secure federal stimulus money for broadband internet expansion. The state is accepting applications from contractors, and here are the criteria by which they’ll be judged:

The first is to ensure eligibility with the federal program. Then the state will check technical expertise and experience, and finally, applicants will be reviewed for their ability to meet the project’s requirements.

In other words, ability to bring in stimulus money is the first thing looked at. Last of all, the state considers whether the contractors can actually do the job.

Milk

Posted on by David Stokes

This is going to be a very brief post. In doing some research, I have realized that milk inspection is a good example of government cooperation in Missouri. (I say “realize” instead of “learn,” because I was aware of this program when I worked for St. Louis County.) Anyway, the Missouri Dept. of Agriculture handles milk inspections for most of the state, but it contracts with the Springfield / Greene Co. Health Dept. to do the work in Southwest Missouri, and with the St. Louis Co. Health Dept. to do the work in parts of eastern Missouri. This is nothing groundbreaking — just a small example that I wanted to bring to your attention of how shared provision of government services can (presumably) save tax dollars.

And, yes, you should be allowed to sell raw milk in Missouri, provided it is clearly marked as such.

Homegrown Markets

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Some bureaucrats wouldn’t recognize a free market if it bit them on the nose. If you think I’m exaggerating, look at this (thanks Combest):

The Missouri Department of Agriculture is asking for grant applications from organizations or groups of individuals who have ideas for making the state’s specialty crop industry more competitive.

Okay, so the free market didn’t literally bite anyone on the nose, but I’m entitled to bloggers’ license.

The Department of Agriculture is looking for competition in the wrong place. The market for food is not completely competitive, because of numerous subsidies and regulations. If the department wanted to rectify this situation, it would need to get out of the way and let the market work, not hand out more money. When the government gives out grants, it picks winners and losers, which is what consumers do in a free market.

Like “sustainability,” “competition” is invoked as justification for favoring some producers over others. The grants won’t increase competition within the industry, but they will give some producers an advantage when they compete with others.

Charter School Exits and Entrances

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This is from today’s Post-Dispatch article about the imminent closing of two charter schools:

All agree that bad charter schools should shut down. But some local and state education leaders don’t understand why the universities have dallied for so long, and why they’re even giving these two another year.

One great thing about charter schools is that you can get rid of them. Sure, sponsors may relent and give schools another year to try to shape up. Legal quarrels may drag on for a few semesters. But if there’s no improvement, charters cease to operate.

The situation for traditional public schools is entirely different. They never go away. Consequently, they have less reason to try to do better. Not that every school needs the threat of termination in order to succeed. Most charters don’t come close to exiting because of poor quality (although some struggle to stay open in an adverse political climate). But the example of a few schools that lost sponsors is enough to keep all charters on their toes.

Charter schools face another incentive to maintain quality: Students can leave. Traditional public school students can sometimes leave, but only if they get into a charter or a magnet, or can afford a private school, or find another place to go. Every charter school student could return to the traditional district tomorrow if they wanted to, without applying or being put to any trouble. Some students in bad charters don’t avail themselves of the opportunity, but it exists nonetheless. It could be more important if there were more charters. Two or three abysmal charters can hold on to indifferent students for a little while, but if there were more than that, you’d see people returning to the district.

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