Apply Today to Be a Summer Intern!

The Show-Me Institute has a very limited number of spaces available for its summer internship program, and applications are due by May 1. If you, or a college student of your acquaintance, is interested in devoting the summer to gaining experience in the world of Missouri public policy, be sure to peruse the details and apply ASAP.

Here’s part of a testimonial from one of our summer 2008 interns, Dan Grana:

I began the summer by attacking an ineffectual bill that will impose nominal regulatory burdens on textbook producers starting this school year. Although the issue is relatively minor and the legislative action I criticized succeeded, I found immense satisfaction in combating the absurd economics used by students, like me, to justify a mistake. Scholars of regulation repeatedly note that massive damages come in incremental steps. The Show-Me Institute takes this truism to heart, and I appreciate its support of my opinions regarding one particular issue that is especially relevant to me.

I will end the summer by researching different formulations of state education budgets and the taxes that they come from. I understand that this information will be used in an exciting paper […] on Missouri’s educational funding. This project has familiarized me with research methods and policy issues I would not have otherwise encountered. I am certain that this knowledge will prove valuable in my remaining years of economics education, where I will increasingly be asked to raise original ideas in assignments, and beyond. I can only hope that I’ve been as helpful to this project as it has been to me.

During the time between these two endeavors, I’ve found satisfaction in blogging about diverse issues and helping around the office. For what it’s worth, even the most stereotypically inglorious intern duties have provided a newfound understanding of the practical necessities behind a successful office’s operation.

Perhaps more than anything, I’ve benefited from the Show-Me Institute’s exceptional staff. In addition to being extremely friendly, the members of this organization have been great educators. By talking with them about a variety of topics, I’ve gained an understanding of different political philosophies that draw on the same respect for economic freedom.

St. Louis Beacon Writer Misses the Point

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Democrats for Education Reform meeting held at Harris Stowe University. The event featured a panel discussion that included a number of distinguished guests, ranging from elected officials to clergymen to union representatives to school choice advocates to journalists. The panel’s discussion was wide-ranging, although it (naturally) revolved around the question of what can be done to give children in St. Louis the educational opportunities they are currently being denied.

I was intrigued when I read the St. Louis Beacon‘s story on this event, because the reporter ignored the vast majority of the discussion in order to focus on what Ray Cummings, the panelist representing St. Louis Teachers Union Local 420, had to say, as well as one union member’s suggestion that many people in the room had adopted their education policies in order to secure donations from Rex Sinquefield. Nearly one third of the Beacon article is dedicated to the ideas expressed by advocates for the teachers union, and the remainder is, in my opinion, not particularly representative of the discussion.

The recurring theme of the panelists’ comments was that efforts to reform urban education must focus on the children, not the institutions. Kevin Chavous, cofounder of Democrats for Education Reform, passionately insisted that while for years we’ve been waiting for the public schools to come up with a solution, millions of African-American children have been passing through those buildings without being equipped to succeed in life. He invoked Malcolm X, saying that elected officials and parents have to be committed to getting their kids educated “by any means necessary,” whether or not it fits comfortably with the party line. Regarding the common argument that the problems of urban education cannot be solved with programs that help individual students, Chavous invoked Harriet Tubman’s perspective: When similar doubts were raised about the abolition of slavery, and the politicians kept talking about the big picture, she said she’d be out there bringing slaves to freedom, one at a time.

The Beacon article also neglected to describe Rep. T.D. El-Amin’s response when the questioner suggested that campaign donations were driving his interest in education reform. He pointed out that he’s been advocating school choice since long before Rex Sinquefield offered his support. Rep. El-Amin said that “selling-out” is when you adopt an opinion so you can get money, and that there is nothing wrong or questionable about accepting money because the donor agrees with an opinion that you have previously expressed.

All in all, Saturday’s panel generally agreed that urban communities — and particularly black communities — have to marshal the courage to speak out in favor of reforms that focus on the children. Several of the panel members said that they frequently hear people (especially black elected officials) say, “I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but I can’t say it myself.” The panelists said that school choice is this century’s frontier for civil rights, and that people have to have the strength of their convictions, to go out and make sure that their communities’ children don’t become part of the number that have been allowed to pass through the public schools without learning. That is the story that the Beacon‘s reporter should have told.

Slow News Day in Australia

The top headline on the Chronicle‘s website is that a husband had to deliver a baby at home because there wasn’t time for a midwife to come or for him to take his wife to the hospital. (The midwife was consulted over the phone.)

Although the midwife didn’t take a hands-on role, I think this news item supports the case for midwives. Like it or not, some babies are going to be born outside of hospitals. It’s futile to legislate an ideal world in which every baby is born under just the right conditions.

Since we know that births do happen in homes, it makes sense to allow midwives to charge money for their services, increasing the likelihood that someone will be on hand at a home birth. I’m glad Missouri law permits the practice of midwifery.

Wise Words on Charter Schools

When I saw this link on Edspresso, I thought, “Great. The federal government is, as usual, telling the states how to run schools — which neither state nor federal government can do very well.” Then I read Arne Duncan’s statement on charter schools:

He wants Illinois to lift its cap on charter schools. State law says there can be no more than 60 charter schools in the state, but there is demand for more than that. Why the cap? Because charter school teachers usually don’t have unions, and the teachers unions see that as a threat.

“Great charters make a huge difference in kids’ lives. What I loved about charters is they’re a school of choice,” Duncan said. “If kids stop showing up, we’ll take the school out. The money follows the kid.”

Hear, hear. I still don’t think the federal government should tell states how long their school days or years should be. Nonetheless, enthusiasm for charters and choice is welcome from all corners.

Knowledge Is Power

It’s a familiar story: a gifted public school teacher comes up with a new way to motivate or teach students, only to be quashed by administrators who say the idea can’t be expanded. Did you know that’s what happened to the first Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) class? I’m not making this up:

The first year went well. They doubled the number of students passing the state tests. But they were denied permission to expand the program at Garcia.

KIPP is now one of the most successful charters out there, and it’s coming to St. Louis this year.

If this doesn’t make people reconsider teachers’ good ideas that don’t have research (yet) behind them, I don’t know what will.

An Education Proposal That Falls Short

This is well-intentioned, but it’s not enough. The Grade reports on Rep. Ted Hoskins’ proposal to “require accredited school districts who reject a student from an unaccredited district give the parents a reason.”

I’m sure Rep. Hoskins is motivated by a true desire to help students in unaccredited districts, but this bill wouldn’t give them any new alternatives or educational options. It doesn’t reform the education system to make it easier for schools to accept out-of-district students, nor does it give schools any incentive to take students from nearby districts. It just says the districts can continue doing what they’ve always done, but now they have to give a reason.

This is like a teacher telling students they needn’t complete assignments, as long as they say “The dog ate my homework,” and put it in writing.

Concealed Carry on Campus

Katy Steinmetz responds in the comments to my post about concealed carry:

The point is that carrying guns around is not justified on the basis that it is a personal freedom; it is justified when exercising that personal freedom can help achieve the end of self-defense, which, given the lack of danger on the MU campus, is not possible (outside of truly extraordinary circumstance) there.

In my worldview, people start out with personal freedoms and have to give some up when they harm others. So I agree with Steinmetz, for example, that we shouldn’t allow people to carry hand grenades around. Hand grenades are a danger, and giving up the freedom to carry them is a small price we pay to enjoy the benefits of civil society.

But guns are a different story. It’s possible to safely carry guns without threatening anyone else’s lives or property. That’s why Missouri, like most other states, allows concealed carry.

Steinmetz says that MU should be different from the rest of the state because of its low crime rate. I don’t think it makes sense to divide up the state into little areas and allow concealed carry in some but not in others. Crime can happen anywhere. Although as Steinmetz points out, school shootings are rare, we see that they have occurred. Opponents of concealed carry at MU argue that the campus police is enough to deal with those rare events, but campus police wasn’t able to prevent the tragedies at Virginia Tech and other schools.

Suppose we were to follow Steinmetz’s reasoning to its logical conclusion and permit concealed carry only on streets with high annual crime rates. (On streets with lower crime rates, crime is a rare event that we shouldn’t legislate based on.) And suppose a murder takes place on my street this month, on a nearby street the next month, on an adjacent street the month after that, and so on. No one would be allowed to carry guns because no particular street would have a high enough crime rate. Steinmetz could argue that my street just had that one murder a while back, so concealed carry isn’t justified on that street. And the next street over also had one murder, so we shouldn’t allow concealed carry on that street either. This is not the approach Missouri law takes to the Second Amendment — it allows concealed carry throughout the state, regardless of the statistical likelihood of crime in individual counties and neighborhoods.

For more on concealed carry and self-defense, I recommend listening to Marcus Bowen’s arguments in this podcast.

Cautious Optimism on Sale of SLPS Buildings

In the past several years, St. Louis Public Schools has been forced to consider selling dozens of its former school buildings, which are no longer economically viable to maintain because of the steep drop the district has seen in the number of enrolled students. Knowing that these buildings would be very attractive to those interested in opening new charter or private schools, two years ago the district’s Special Administrative Board placed deed restrictions on the vacant buildings that would prohibit future purchasers from allowing charter or private schools to operate in those buildings. This was really just a formalization of an earlier, unwritten policy of refusing to sell empty buildings if the district suspected that they might be used for such purposes.

In the past few months, a broad coalition of legislators (led by Rep. Talib El-Amin) and education reform activists (led by the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri) have pushed to have these deed restrictions lifted, either by action taken by the Special Administrative Board or by a vote of the General Assembly. This morning, David Hunn at the Post-Dispatch reported that the SAB has rescinded the formal deed restrictions.

Theoretically, this means that any buildings sold by SLPS will now go to the highest bidder — unless a government agency opts to bid for the property, in which case it will likely take precedence over a private purchaser. Time will tell whether the SAB (or the elected Board of Education, in the event they are ever given back control over the district) will actually put these buildings on the market for all interested parties, or whether they will implement a new plan that would selectively withhold properties that might be useful to potential charter and private 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