Schools First? Well … Second, at Least

Posted on by Cynthia Juedemann

There’s no question in my mind that the “Yes for Schools First” campaign would more accurately be called “Yes for Casinos First.” But schools would finish a close second if the initiative passes in November.

The initiative proposes eliminating the $500 loss limit in Missouri casinos imposed by the Missouri Gaming Commission, which says that casinos “shall insure through internal controls that no person shall lose more than five hundred dollars ($500) during each gambling excursion.”

If voters approve removing that regulation, casinos will respond by increasing the gambling tax from 20 to 21 percent. Why is that important to Missouri public education? The vast majority of those tax dollars go toward education spending in the state.

I know full well the criticisms that will be leveled at this post. Removing the loss limit preys on those addicted to gambling, for starters.

Gambling is not synonymous with casinos. Those who have problems would find a way to gamble — on the Internet, at poker night in their own homes, at their church bingo night, or even by traveling to other states. Attacking a lawful form of entertainment is an outlet for frustration with a different problem. And it’s an entirely legitimate problem. But removing temptation from one quarter isn’t the answer. It’s not the casinos that create the problem, just like it’s not the poker or bingo nights.

Another criticism is the extortionist bent to the initiative. It’s the nudge-nudge, wink-wink “let us get away with taking more money and we’ll kick some your way.”

It’s true that casinos are asking to be allowed to take more money, but in my line of thinking, they shouldn’t have to ask in the first place. Why is the loss limit now in place? Why should the government step in to tell me how much money I can spend on entertainment in any given evening?

Casinos are simply providing Missourians with an incentive to remove a regulation that limits their business. If the incentive is great enough, Missourians will respond. But it should be Missouri citizens who decide, not the government deciding for them.

And a final criticism is the rhetoric being used by the “Yes for Schools First” campaign. Many would say it’s a business deal cloaked in feel-good language. I’ve already acknowledged my misgivings about the wording of the initiative, and I’m not overly fond of the fact that casinos can use schools to make their business seem more altruistic.

Anyone who gives it half a thought knows casinos aren’t in it for the schools. They’re businesses, and they’re in it for profit. But why shouldn’t Missouri schools profit at the same time? You’d be hard-pressed to argue that a person who otherwise wouldn’t set foot in a casino will choose to gamble just to help the schools.

Missouri voters will have to carefully weigh their options this November. Gambling addiction is a serious problem, and not one I’m trying to make light of. But the gambling in question is legal in Missouri. And I simply do not believe that removing the casino loss limit will appreciably change the amount of gambling engaged in by Missouri citizens. The only change I anticipate is that it may become more localized.

And it will help Missouri schools.

If you have comments, please leave them below, or email me.

Return of Gas Lines to Missouri!!!

Posted on by Matt Simpson

But these aren’t the same as the price-control induced lines from the 1970s. According to the Post-Dispatch, Rhodes 101 Service Station in Poplar Bluff, Mo., offered gas for $2.69 per gallon on Tuesday as part of a promotion with Big River Telephone. People waited in lines for nearly 45 minutes to get the savings, which amounted to $10–$25 per customer, according to one commenter. That comes out to $13.33–$33.33 an hour. This probably isn’t a very good deal for the average middle class American, who probably earns more than than that.

However, unlike the gas lines of the 1970s, which were induced by price controls, these people still had the option of spending a bit more money to get their gas immediately. If the lines had been induced by price controls, and thus existed nationwide, they would be much longer — and the lower price almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the extra wait. That is the lesson of price controls: The posted price of gas, or anything else, may be lower under price controls, but the price consumers have to pay skyrockets once you take into account their lost time and search costs.

Responsibility

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

Tuesday, the Columbia Public Schools superintendent announced that she was retiring.

The timing was off. The shuffle of superintendents, either into retirement or among school districts, already happened this year. Most made the transition July 1.

According to the city’s two newspapers, at least a few school board members had no idea Superintendent Phyllis Chase was considering retirement until the board’s closed meeting with Chase. That’s strange, too, though allowable. Chase’s contract with the district lets her terminate the contract upon retirement at any time — no notice period was specified. Her retirement is effective Aug. 31.

Within minutes of her announcement yesterday, online comments sprang up on newspaper message boards and blogs, blaming the exiting superintendent for budget and curriculum problems, low MAP scores, and a total lack of community trust in the operation of the school district. In the past, Chase has been criticized for receiving a much-too-high salary — $200,340 — as well as a large car allowance of $7,200 per year.

A major part of my research this summer has been to request and collect the contracts of every single Missouri superintendent (as of today, we have 335). After reading many of those, and speaking with a few superintendents about the difficulties they and their districts face, I think one of the main hazards of being superintendent is the risk of public blame and accusations.

I spent a year reporting on this school district for the Columbia Missourian, so I have mixed feelings about Chase leaving. On one hand, she did seem to control public information tightly, and yes, she was slow to admit mistakes and make fixes. Blame for that rests squarely on her shoulders. However, this retirement looks like she is taking a fall for the district and its other administrators. And it’s a graceful one.

Continue reading “Responsibility”

SMI “On the Radio,” as Donna Summer Might Say

Posted on by David Stokes

Show-Me Institute staff and scholars are hosting the Gary Nolan show this afternoon while Gary is on vacation. We will be discussing education reforms, property rights, and toll roads from 4 to 6 p.m. on The Eagle 93.9 FM. If you are in the Columbia area, please listen in. If outside Columbia, enjoy the online listening application to tune in. Basically, you have no excuses if you fail to listen. …

Charter Schools in the Suburbs

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edudiva is blogging about the just-released MAP scores. There’s good news and bad news: Some districts in the greater St. Louis area have high scores, with most students at or above grade level. Other districts have appallingly low percentages of students proficient in math or communication arts. It’s not a simple city/county divide, either. The best districts are in the county, but so are some of the worst.

Chicago has a similar problem with inconsistent suburban districts. They’re considering expanding charter schools in the suburbs, so families in the lowest-performing districts have a choice. Chicago has two suburban charters now, and parents are campaigning for a new one in Waukegan, Ill. Illinois state law allows a limited number of charter schools in the suburbs, and it looks like they’ll try to target the districts that don’t yet face much competition.

The same idea could be applied in St. Louis County. There probably wouldn’t be a huge demand for a charter school in the Clayton district, but new charters in the now-unaccredited Wellston district would give students an option other than leaving the area.

It’s a Judgment Call

Posted on by Cynthia Juedemann

We have a desk stacked with 324 superintendent contracts. Quite a few superintendents have asked Audrey and me just what we’re doing with those contracts. It’s a fair question, and one we haven’t completely addressed for our readers.

We’ve said that we’re looking beyond salary, and that our purpose is research, not advocacy. Now, let’s talk about what our research includes.

I can’t speak for Audrey, but for me, at least, sketching out superintendent compensation for Missouri citizens is important not because it allows me or the Show-Me Institute to say we should change this or that to improve public education, but because it allows Missourians to see where their tax dollars are going. And it allows them to make judgments about how their money is being spent, apart from what I or SMI might think.

We’ve requested contracts from every Missouri superintendent, and we’ve received more than half. While we’re waiting for the remaining 200, we’ve begun entering the contract information into a spreadsheet. In all honesty, it’s a judgment call — what gets coded, what doesn’t, or how to compare benefits across contracts when they’re often not entirely comparable.

For the sake of increasing public information, I’d rather be more thorough than overlook something important.

Continue reading “It’s a Judgment Call”

Compromise Is Key

Posted on by Patrick Eckelkamp

As noted in an earlier post by David Stokes, Bradley Ferguson just can’t seem to catch a break these days. His latest, and presumably one of his last, attempts to develop his property into a residential development on the outskirts of Washington, Mo., was recently rebuffed by a judge. Apparently, by not granting a writ of mandamus, the county is not forced to place the village law issue on the ballot.

As a lifelong resident of Washington, I have taken particular interest in the unspooling of this whole ordeal. Long before anyone even knew about the village law, this issue was hotly debated in Washington. Although I live across town from the property in question, I have spent a considerable amount of time near the proposed development (family-owned property) — at least enough to offer some insight, hopefully.

In a general sense, I am in the camp that landowners should be able to do with their land as they please — with some exceptions. I do believe that there should be some “soft” planning and zoning laws on the books, to ensure that surrounding landowners are not adversely affected by the actions of their neighbor. For this reason, I am opposed to the village law as a way to completely get around the system and do with your land as you wish. However, I do think that — as a happy medium — some planning and zoning laws do need to be toned down a bit, and not represent the be-all-end-all of property usage. To me, it appears that the village law was a potentially dangerous and extreme way to make a compromise between land owners and planning and zoning commissions.

To illustrate my point above, I believe that a perfect example can be found in Mr. Ferguson’s hard-fought battle to develop a subdivision, against the wishes of the planning and zoning commission. The commission cited traffic safety as a major reason for not allowing the proposed development. Whether or not this concern was legitimate doesn’t really matter here — the subdivision request was denied.

Under the soon-to-expire village law, one form of recourse would be to petition to incorporate the land as a village, and build the subdivision anyway. This may seem like a good alternative, but the village law could also produce very bad results. For example, if someone wanted to building a shooting range in their backyard, in the middle of a subdivision, they could declare their property a village, vote on it, accept it, and build a shooting range. Although the neighbors could try to protect their safety by taking the matter to court after the fact, that course of action isn’t particularly comforting if a bunch of gun-wielding four-year olds are running around the neighborhood in the meantime.

Planning and zoning laws exist for a good reason. These laws are in place to ensure that complete chaos does not erupt. Are some of these laws arbitrary and overbearing? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we would be better-served by a free-for-all, where people exercise their Second Amendment rights in the stomping grounds of suburbia.

What You Pay For

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

There are wide gaps in pay and benefits between superintendents at rich and poor districts — even for those with seemingly equal qualifications. I suspect that a large reason several superintendents have been so wary of providing their contracts is that they know how big the range in compensation is.

For teachers, pay is pretty simple. Missouri public school districts have “teacher salary schedules” to determine each teacher’s salary. Generally, there are two factors: relevant experience and education. Think of each level of education as a ladder, with years of experience as rungs. When a teacher comes into the district, he’s placed on a ladder rung, and moves up in pay each year he stays with the district. For example, at Waynesville School District (linked above), a teacher with a Master’s degree and three years of experience earns $40,634, while someone with four years of experience earns $41,164.

Those salary schedules are hyper-public. Many districts, such as Lee’s Summit, also post online salary schedules for other employees, such as custodians.

Notably absent is a superintendent salary schedule. Unlike teacher pay, those figures aren’t standardized within a district. Instead, salaries are negotiated when a superintendent is first hired, and usually amended each year at school board meetings. The contracts vary widely. Sure, superintendents tend to earn more at larger districts than at smaller ones. Other things, like whether a superintendent has an advanced degree, and the number of years he has worked at the district, play a role.

But, sometimes, the district just might have more money to spread around.

Continue reading “What You Pay For”

Update on Franklin County’s Village Law

Posted on by David Stokes

Brad Ferguson’s attempts to develop a subdivision in Franklin County have been dealt another setback (note clever use of planning and zoning term) by the court. According to the Washington Missourian, the Judge denied a writ of mandamus (I’m not a lawyer, so no idea what that means …) and the case was continued until August 22. Because the repeal of the Village Law is effective August 28, the 22nd will likely be the last attempt under the current law allowing greater ease of incorporation. It clearly appears that these attempts to incorporate are going to fail.

My colleague Dave Roland argued a short time ago that Mr. Ferguson should be allowed to develop his property however he sees fit, and the issues that might arise out of that could be dealt with later. I believe that the people of Franklin County have chosen, in a democratic fashion, to enact a planning and zoning system, and there is nothing wrong with requiring developers to go through that process, even if the process might go to far (if it does, that is a legitimate thing for the courts to decide).

There are clearly reasons why the commission has decided that this development is not right for Franklin County. These reasons likely come down to the effects and costs it will have on people outside of the immediate development area. If the people in Franklin County want to change this, they can elect people who want to get rid of planning and zoning entirely. (Charges that this is some kind of Potemkin Court, and that the good ol’ boys network is out to get someone, are going to be ignored here.)

At a previous eminent domain forum — the arguments from which apply just as well here — a supporter of eminent domain made an absurd statement and left himself open to withering counterattack when he said we need things like eminent domain for private purposes because he “believed in order.” (A very close paraphrase.) Well, his opponent retorted that he believed in freedom, including the freedom not to sell your property if you don’t want to. Well, I have no such concern with order when it comes to issues of property development — and I believe in freedom, too. But I also have a respect for democracy. If the people of Franklin County have chosen a system of planning, residents should either work within the system or work to change the system. The obvious counterargument to this would ask: What if democracy violates a fundamental right, like Jim Crow laws that prevented African-Americans from voting? Of course, there are issues like this that you should never leave to majority rule — but, without going any further, I don’t think zoning rises to that level at all.

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