The Standards MacGuffin

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edudiva responds to Caitlin Hartsell’s standards post by arguing that Missouri’s education standards don’t come up to the difficulty level of the MAP tests. She predicts that joining the coalition of states will improve our standards, and that we have nothing to lose:

We won’t look bad when compared to states with easy assessments when they upgrade their tests. We won’t need to “dumb down” ours; instead, the rest of the country will need to catch up to our assessments.

This is wishful thinking. If other states wanted to improve their tests, they could do that right now without joining a group. A coalition of states won’t necessarily bring everyone up to the level of the best state. It will create new standards, which will be some kind of compromise among all the different participants. States with the worst standards may get a boost; other states might very well dumb down their standards, or they could leave the coalition — in which case, what will have been the point?

The discrepancy between state standards and MAP test content is clear evidence that standards don’t matter. We often hear about teaching to the test or schools engaging in excessive test prep. Standards are rarely mentioned outside of the context of the MAP. Standards don’t drive district behavior; this is apparent from the wide range of outcomes among districts, all of which are held to the same state standards.

We’ll see a similar result from national standards. One set of standards will apply to all 46 or 47 states that join, but outcomes will still vary greatly as some states apply them better than others, or ignore them entirely.

High-Speed Rail Would Take Taxpayers for a Ride

Posted on by Josh Smith

There’s an unfortunate discussion going on among Midwestern governors and the federal government about a possible high-speed rail line linking major Midwestern cities. The Show-Me Institute has covered the problems with light rail in the past, but surely some of the arguments carry over: This project will likely cost more than projected, and the benefits are almost certainly overstated.

If this issue appeals to you, stay tuned to Policy Pulse for stories relating to this and other topics of interest.

Keeping St. Charles Safe From Hot Dog Vending Chaos

Posted on by David Stokes

The denizens of Missouri’s first capital can rest easy tonight, knowing that the effort to subject them to hot dog vendors within the city has been defeated. The Suburban Journals has the story. 

The city council, in its debate of a proposal to allow a hot dog stand, seemed to have a disproportionate amount of concern for something so simple (emphasis added):

Several members of the council expressed concerns that approving a permit for Daily could lead to many more people hoping to set up carts on city property.

Others were worried a late-night hotdog stand would lead to more people loitering after bars close.

It would clearly be a disaster for St. Charles if all of a sudden more people tried to sell food out of a cart to loiterers. Next thing you know, St. Charles will be like Las Vegas and they’ll do away with laws altogether! (Note: Sorry, but I can’t find the Onion article I just referenced.)

In all fairness, at least one councilman is going to keep trying to allow hot dog vendors. I give him credit for staying at it. Regulating and taxing street vendors is better than an outright ban, I guess. Why is it so difficult for someone to sell a hot dog to people who might want to buy one? Oh, yeah, because the government gets involved. (“But David, it’s for your own safety!” “I guess I forgot that for a moment.”)

Need for Wariness Regarding Eminent Domain Use

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

Over at the News-Leader, Joseph Sugarman discusses the need for Missourians to be wary of the actions of their politicians in regard to eminent domain issues. Sugarman remembers that the pivotal court case of Kelo v. City of New London “did not happen in a vacuum,” reminding Missourians to heed the lessons of eminent domain victims in other states and to quickly petition for legislative action to protect property rights.

The Show-Me Institute has argued, since its inception, that Missouri needs strong and clearly articulated property rights that defend the state’s citizens from eminent domain. You can read a few of our studies and testimonies here, here, here, and here.

Local Tax: Ups and Downs

Posted on by Josh Smith

There’s an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune today that discusses the latest flap in Jefferson City about a sales tax issue (link via Combest). The article deals with some general perverse incentives, and is an interesting study in public choice theory, but the precise issue at hand also touches on some interesting free-market ideas.

It seems that a lawyer has been suing some small towns in Missouri for charging what he claims is an illegal sales tax. State law is a bit ambiguous on this point. From the article:

State law allows cities to levy sales taxes for general purposes and capital improvements, subject to voter approval. The rates vary up to 1 percent for a general sales tax and one-half percent for a capital improvements tax. In 1999, the Department of Revenue issued a letter saying there was “no limit to the number of taxes” that could be adopted under the law.

The legality of such taxes is not as important to me as whether they should be illegal — that is, whether there is a compelling reason to allow or disallow local taxation of certain levels. I will refer once again to one of my favorite economic concepts: the Tiebout Model, which shows that under certain conditions, local government can do the best possible job at satisfying its constituents’ preferences.

In short, I am not entirely opposed to local sales taxes, because they are the most likely form of taxation to be approved by people who want them, and the least likely to subject unwilling people to taxation that they feel does not fund things they of which they approve. Moreover, local taxes tend to fund services that make the most sense for government provision, such as police and fire protection.

Here’s a glance at the current sales tax picture in St. Louis:

City of St. Louis Sales Tax Breakdown

4.225% State of Missouri
1.000% City – General Fund
0.375% City – General Fund
0.500% City – Transportation
0.500% City – Capital Improvements
0.250% Public Transit
0.100% Metro Parks/Recreation District*
0.666% Transitional School District
0.125% City-Parks and Recreation
0.500% Public Safety

8.241% Retail Sales Tax Rate
1.500% Sit Down Restaurants
9.741% Sit Down Restaurant Rate

This is a far cry from 1.5 percent, to be sure, but the Tiebout model indicates that these tax rates are by and large acceptable to and may accurately reflect the preferences of the residents of St. Louis, given the services they provide. On the other hand, here’s an article that discusses the possibility that residents of population centers are more willing to trade away economic freedom in exchange for the conveniences and efficiency gains of metropolitan living — an unsettling notion for the Tiebout model, and for those who love freedom.

Spring Training Deal Amended Behind Closed Doors

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

Spring training for the Kansas City Chiefs will officially take place in Missouri for the next 10 years, the governor announced on Thursday.

The deal requires the Chiefs to spend $50.6 million to improve their stadium, as well as to give Missouri Western $10 million toward a new training facility. The team’s presence in Missouri — the first five years will be at Western, and the last five can be anywhere in the state — is expected to contribute significantly to the area economy.

The Chiefs and the Missouri Development Finance Board (MDFB) had each agreed on a deal last year to hold spring training at Missouri Western for 10 years, receiving $25 million in tax cuts from the state. After the vote passed by MDFP, state officials and the Chiefs reworked the deal privately, agreeing for the team to spend only five years in Missouri, with the option of renewing for five one-year periods. Essentially, the tax credits would remain the same as they were in the original agreement, but the Chiefs would only have to uphold half of its end of the deal.

Whether or not tax credits are beneficial (as has been previously discussed on this blog) is beside the point: Secret renegotiations of public contract agreements, particularly ones that halve benefits to the Missouri public, are never a good thing. If Missouri taxpayers are obligated to pay for such special deals, the process should be as transparent as possible.

“Race to the Top” in Education Meaningless for Missouri

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

As Sarah Brodsky pointed out in her post on Friday, Missouri is one of four states so far that have opted not to join the “Race to the Top” education initiative that requires conforming to a national standard. While the governor may be only postponing the decision until a new commissioner of the state’s Department of Education can be consulted, Missouri would do well to avoid participating in this program entirely.

Missouri has higher education standards than do many other states as it is; adopting national standards would simply entail an increased use of standardized tests, resulting in more wasted classroom time. Getting the program started would also require a great deal of additional funding: Texas estimates that it will cost $3 billion to implement.

Adopting a federal standard would be the first step toward relinquishing the state’s constitutionally granted control of its public education system.

Missourians already know what their students should be learning, and have thus far created a fairly rigorous set of statewide standards. And, as it is, fewer than half of Missouri’s students are meeting or exceeding the MAP standards Adopting lower national standards instead would only provide a misleading inflation of achievement metrics.

Why should Missouri surrender its authority to meeet the educational needs of its children simply in order to conform to a national standard that would provide no measurable benefit?

A Nonexistent Benefit of Uniform Standards

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

From an editorial in the Kansas City Star:

Charter schools and lab schools would have a framework within which to experiment.

This is put forward as an argument in favor of uniform education standards across states — that a national standard will help charter schools experiment better!

I can’t imagine how any government standards would do that. But even if I’m wrong, and standards are an important ingredient in innovation, charters already have the state standards to work from. Currently, charters can choose from 50 different standards and pick whichever ones would help them innovate best.

(How does that work? They look at the traditional district standards and say, “This is what we need to not follow if we want to experiment?”)

Besides a benevolent desire to help charters experiment, which assistance no charter I know of has requested, standards enthusiasts are motivated by cold, hard cash. I call it “Race to the Tax Dollars;” Arne Duncan calls it “Race to the Top.” A Post-Dispatch editorial describes the matter with customary candor:

More than $4 billion in federal stimulus funds are being devoted to a national “Race to the Top Fund” to support innovation and leadership in the nation’s public K-12 schools. Some $350 million of that will go to states that have signed onto the new standards.

Notice that bribing all states to do the same thing is called “innovation.” I think this is the kind of innovation standards supporters have in mind for charter schools.

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