“The Laws Sort of Differ From State to State”

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Some congressmen are irked that, in policy matters left to the states, laws are not uniform across the country. One of those issues is cyberbullying. Online harassment is difficult to define. Any definition depends on the intent of the bully and must encompass so many online activities that a resulting law would curtail free speech. At least, it would curtail free speech if it were enforceable enough to curtail anything, which is doubtful.

No one should be surprised, then, that some states don’t yet regulate cyberbullying or that the ones that do assign it varying definitions and penalties. Nevertheless, federal lawmakers are trying to rectify the situation.

The bill’s sponsor gives the weakest justification for federal interference in states’ affairs that I have ever heard:

“Some states do have … bullying laws on the books, many states don’t, and the laws sort of differ from state to state,” Sanchez said.

School Reformers Tinker Around the Edges

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’m not usually a “let’s tear down the establishment and start a revolution” kind of person, but even I can see that making minuscule changes in school policy will not turn around SLPS.

Superintendent Kelvin Adams wants SLPS students to wear uniforms. Maybe that’s a good idea, but a lack of uniforms wasn’t what lost SLPS its accreditation. Nor has it been the reason so many families are leaving the district.

Someone in the article’s comments section suggests that SLPS spend the uniform money on better school food instead. (Could it be a locavore?)

I don’t expect food to affect student achievement any more than clothing. These proposals focus on physical aspects of schools that have no direct connection to learning. As Bob Compton points out on the Two Million Minutes blog, successful schools around the world are built first and foremost on great teaching. Handsome uniforms, new buildings, and delicious food are just icing on the cake.

Education for Sustainable Living

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There’s a great environmental economics blogger at UCLA, so don’t conclude from this post that all UCLA environmental programs are nuts. Just some of them. I’m watching a five-part series about locavores and “sustainable living.” I’m not going to torture everyone by embedding it, but the first part is here on YouTube if you’d like to watch from the beginning.

Some thoughts on Jules Dervaes’ lecture:

  1. (Part 2, 1:05) It’s interesting that he complains about the existence of a few hundred different brands of shoes. In his words, it doesn’t “necessarily ensure that you will have a successful future.” I can’t think of any particular number of brands that would ensure that. It seems like a bit much to ask of a pair shoes. Most importantly, if he got his way and everything had to be produced locally, there would be many more brands of all products, because each location would have to have its own brand. That really would be wasteful.

  2. (Part 2, 3:50) Now he’s complaining that there aren’t enough varieties of lettuce. Quite a leap from his train of thought five seconds ago. I was expecting him to make better use of logic after he drew all the Venn-diagram-look-alike circles on the board — although I have to admit that his mastery of the Socratic method is impressive. The students, at his prompting, are listing all the ills a diverse seed bank would save us from, including global warming. What about an attack of killer shoes?

  3. (Part 2, 4:00) If he’s so concerned about hedging his bets and guarding against all these risks (drought, disease, etc.) you would think buying food from a variety of places would be more effective than using a variety of seeds. If there’s a natural disaster in your area, for example, your seeds are going to die and it doesn’t matter if you’ve got 25 varieties.

  4. (Part 2, 6:45) I don’t have data on hand, but I think he’s wrong about fewer varieties of produce. You can get many varieties of fruits and vegetables at a grocery store, if you’re willing to buy food from far away. Like those fancy tomatoes in different sizes and colors. And the apples they’ve bred to be extra sweet.

  5. (Part 3, 0:20) Who wants to eat that one ugly squash for two weeks straight?

  6. (Part 3, 3:20) Now he implies that eating local food gives you an advantage in sexual selection and evolution.

  7. (Part 3, 6:00) I planted seeds in cups, too, in preschool.

  8. (Part 4, 3:08) “Resistance is fertile.” Ha ha ha ha ha …

  9. (Part 5, 0:10) He orders bugs, like from a catalog. Isn’t that cheating? That’s not local if you introduce foreign animal species!

I wouldn’t pay much attention to this if his ideas stayed in his vegetable garden. But the locavores want to force the rest of us to jump on the bandwagon — or should I say, hay wagon? This nutty ideology may soon be coming to a school near you. Stay on the lookout. Keep the friends of the free market close, keep the enemies … local.

It Looks Like the Public Service Academy Might Already Be Here …

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

… And it’s a charter school. Actually, I’m not sure whether this particular school is truly the long-dreaded Bureaucrat High or not. The school is the Academy for Civic and Entrepreneurial Leadership. “Civic Leadership” could mean civil service prep, but “Entrepreneurial” invokes business and the marketplace. So which is it? I’m still confused after reading this article (link from Edspresso). Leaning toward the private sector, the school will incorporate technology into the classroom, and students will participate in internships. On the government side, students will research government agencies, and someone is quoted saying that the school should be close to as many public sector office buildings as possible.

The school’s website isn’t enlightening — the few paragraphs posted so far basically just talk about video production. What do you think? Evil government service academy of doom, or just a confused charter?

Say No to National Schools – Even Virtual Ones

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This op-ed in the Chicago Tribune suggests that the United States needs a federal virtual school. The authors, Jeb Bush and James B. Hunt Jr., put it this way:

We think it is time for America’s first national online campus of virtual schools–an Amazon.com of courses and curricula where students, parents, teachers, principals and school administrators could shop for a better education. Virtual courses open to everyone would tear down the chief barrier to student achievement–access to a quality education.

The most striking difference between Amazon and a hypothetical national virtual school is that Amazon came about naturally in the competitive marketplace, while government programs don’t. A national online school would be like any other unwieldy federal bureaucracy, and very unlike Amazon.

A better idea is for individual states to take down the barriers to entry that they’ve set up. Some states, like Missouri, have only one virtual school. Others allow several virtual schools to compete with each other, but hit them with all the restrictions that apply to brick-and-mortar charter schools. Each state should allow its students to participate in a virtual school based in any other state. The money should follow the student.

This would work like the system of public colleges and universities. You can attend a public college in your own state, or in another state, but you don’t have to go through a “national campus.”

While I’m on the topic of virtual schools, it occurs to me that online education might be a way to cut down on the costs of the public service academy everybody’s talking about. Let people learn to be bureaucrats online.

“Bail Out the Dead … Bail Out the Dead”

Posted on by David Stokes

The funeral home industry has long been one of the most heavily licensed and regulated occupations in every state, and Missouri is no exception. This is one of the reasons that we here at the Show-Me Institute have not focused much on the Jeff City debate surrounding prepaid funeral plans. Because Missouri has fewer licensing regulations than other states, I instead prefer efforts to prevent new rent-seeking laws from being enacted. In states that have much more licensing than Missouri, it’s much more of a priority to overturn bad laws. But, anyway, the prepaid funeral debate made it seem as though an already heavily regulated industry would become a little more regulated — but an attempt by some funeral home directors to gain even more power over their own industry might be killing (and embalming) the golden goose.

Today’s Post-Dispatch has a very detailed story about the movements of the bill in question, Senate Bill 1 (sponsored by Sen. Delbert Scott). The bill is in trouble because of an amendment that has been pushed by the funeral home industry that would alter the current mortician board to have it filled by nine funeral home directors and one person not affiliated with the industry. That’s right, a nine-to-one ratio weighted toward an industry group getting to decide who is allowed to enter the occupation, which restrictions might be retained or initiated in order to benefit current businesses, etc. This is every bit as much of an effort to restrict competition as it sounds like.

In a shocking revelation that absolutely floored me, the funeral homes pushing this amendment are primarily the ones who lost the most when a national prepaid funeral seller went out of business last year. Now they are hoping to add new fees to help make up their loses:

Sen. Scott said Lindley’s group has floated the idea of a surcharge on death certificates or a surcharge on prepaid funeral plans to help offset the rest of the NPS contract costs. Scott said those ideas won’t fly.

The proposed changes to the board that is supposed to overseee the industry would make it easier for proposals like this one to be enacted by the industry. The entire story is a textbook example of the economic harm that is done when an industry becomes actively involved in its own regulation. Such regulations are quickly bent to help current practitioners, but not future competitors or current customers.

At least one current funeral home owner sees the proposed change for what it is:

Sue Heckart, who owns Heckart Funeral Home in Sedalia, Mo., served on the state regulatory board from 1987 to 1993. She said those seeking the amendment “made a bad business decision, so they’re trying to make the rest of us pay for their mistake. And ultimately, it’s going to affect the consumer.”

I commend Sen. Scott for his opposition, and this is one amendment that I hope to see die on the floor of the legislature. (Get it — funeral homes, die …)

New Member of the Show-Me Institute Family

Posted on by David Stokes

In honor of the birth of my son, Ryan Parker Stokes, this past Friday, I present to you this beautiful piece about the future of the United States, titled “A child born in America today,” which was conveniently enough written just a few weeks ago. Actually, as you will realize as soon as you start reading it, it is not a beautiful piece — it is just some worthless drivel written as utopian fantasy by some 19-year-old statist:

A child born in America tonight deserves to be safe and free at the same time.

But when these two values come into conflict, guess which one will always have to give way first in order to build the perfect proletarian state? It is just so disheartening to read the writings of a young man who thinks the highest achievement in life is full-throttle government protection and care for everyone. (I highly recommend the comment below the piece, though.)

But mom and baby are both healthy and doing great, which is the most important thing!

Property Tax Appeal Workshops in Saint Louis

Posted on by David Stokes

I am simply posting the following information (which I received from a friend who often forwards political notices) so that our readers throughout the St. Louis area who are considering appealing their assessments are aware of these meetings. I don’t know too much more about them. I am confident that they will be valuable, but I can’t vouch for them or give any guarantees. If anyone has more info on them, such as who is putting them together, feel free to share it in the comments.

REAL ESTATE TAX APPEAL ASSISTANCE

Volunteer tax payer advocates will host workshops for St. Louis County homeowners on how to effectively appeal property tax assessments. Homeowners will receive their reassessment/tax impact notices in May. In order to make an appeal, an appeal form (available at the workshop) needs to be filed with the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County, which will hold hearings during July and August. The deadline to file an appeal is July 13, 2009.

The workshops for tax appeal assistance are free and open to anyone.

Workshop dates and times are:

7 p.m. May 21 at Glendale City Hall, 424 N. Sappington Rd.

9 a.m. June 6 at Shrewsbury Community Center, 5200 Shrewbury Ave.

1 p.m. June 16 at the Jones Building on the campus of Edgewood Children’s

Center, 330 N. Gore.

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