Show-Me: The Grades

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The Joplin Globe ran a comprehensive review of "Show-Me: The Grades" in a series of articles and editorials published over the weekend.

The institutional criticism stated by these editorials was that school rankings in general are a "crude tool for measuring [school] improvement" and that the Show-Me Institute’s ranking methodology was "overly simplistic."

As the creator of "Show-Me: The Grades," I understand these criticisms, but that doesn’t mean that our rankings are meaningless or uninformative. A cursory glance of the schools and districts appearing at the top and bottom of our lists confirms anecdotal opinions about many of the state’s best-performing and worst-performing public school systems. And the "report card generator" application is a great tool for graphically comparing test scores by school, district, and state averages. The state should have created such an application for parents and teachers to use years ago.

I would also like to reiterate that the rankings used in "Show-Me: The Grades" are computed by using the state’s own data, which is reported somewhat ambiguously in the news coverage. So any criticism of the MAP index score methodology must ultimately be a criticism of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, rather than the Show-Me Institute’s "agenda." There will always be critics of ranking systems, regardless of methodology. For example, had the Show-Me Institute included No Child Left Behind (NCLB) data instead of MAP scores, critics of NCLB would point out that such performance numbers are suspect and easy to distort. In fact, in a congressional review of NCLB, Missouri admitted as much, stating that officials had actually lowered academic standards in order to "game the system" and report significant academic improvement. And may I remind Missourians of the problems inherent in even the most scientific of rankings.

The Show-Me Institute has not taken a particular position on the quality of Missouri’s public school system based on MAP index rankings. But, in the interest of public transparency, we wanted to make this data readily available to the public. We believe we have done this, and that "Show-Me: The Grades" is ultimately a tool to help Missourians make informed choices. Some parents will value standardized test scores more than others. If parents are happy with the educations their children are receiving at a particular public school, then we are happy too.

As I stated in my interview with the Joplin Globe, this is really about giving parents a greater choice in finding schools that meet their children’s needs:

"If a parent finds from this ranking that their school is not meeting their children’s needs, then why force them to remain in substandard schools?" Hauke said. "But if a parent is happy with where their children are going and that the teachers and staff are doing a good job, by all means it’s a good school."

Isn’t that what education should really be about?

Springfield and the Courts, a Love Story

Posted on by David Stokes

The Springfield News-Leader ran an op-ed about our recently published study of the "Missouri Plan" for judicial selection. The piece was written by the study’s authors, professors Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel. (Thanks again to Combest for the link on Saturday.)

The Show-Me Institute study of judicial selection is topical in Springfield for several reasons.  First — and this is really more of a statewide issue — there is another vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court, so our system shall again be put into action and to the test. Also, some community leaders in Springfield are beginning a process to consider whether Greene County should join the five other local circuits in the state that use the non-partisan court plan at the local level. While the study itself focused on the Supreme Court, I believe its findings — that our current system of judicial selection is good for our economy — apply just as well to the local courts. And, clearly, from what television tells me, the legal community in Springfield could use some improvement. 

When Think Tanks Attack!

Posted on by David Stokes

The Post-Dispatch rips a think tank in an editorial today, and — whew! — it ain’t us. The editorial (link via Combest) notes how a recent study by the National Center for State Courts had what the Post-Dispatch called a "fatal flaw" in its reasoning when it concluded the St. Louis City Circuit could make do with four fewer judges. The flaw was that more criminal cases go to trial in the city than elsewhere, trials take much longer than other caseload items (obviously), and the study did not realize this. Admittedly, this does seem like a substantial oversight by the think tank (that I will, again, repeat was not us).

Should the city lose some judges? Probably not now. But as tort reform kicks into high gear as the cases filed pre-reform get disposed of, and the city sees fewer overall cases, it might be a worthy idea in the near future.   

Light Rail Op-Ed By Randal O’Toole in the Post-Dispatch

Posted on by David Stokes

Randal O’Toole had an op-ed published in the Post-Dispatch yesterday, about light rail and the environment. It is a very interesting read. As some of you may recall, Randal wrote a major Kansas City light rail study for the Show-Me Institute earlier this year (although he created this particular op-ed in his capacity with the Cato Institute). As both St. Louis and Kansas City move forward with major votes on mass transit, it is important to hear voices like Mr. O’Toole’s.

More O’Toole from this weekend on NPR, here. Thanks to my brother Mike for the link.

Ice-Cold Beer in a Red, White, and Blue Label

Posted on by Justin Hauke

One of the creators of the “SaveAB” website posted the following commentary on the Columbia Daily Tribune‘s blog:

“Americans don’t want the Statue of Liberty bought by the Saudis or the Washington Monument purchased by the Chinese. Shareholders should resist choosing dollars over American jobs. Selling out to the Belgians is not worth it ? because this is about more than beer: it’s about our jobs and our nation.”

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment and nostalgia surrounding the Anheuser-Busch drama, I cannot agree with the author’s logic. The InBev bid is a perfect example of what capitalism is all about — the migration of capital to the places where it can be used most productively. It is this free flow of capital that has powered the U.S. economy since its inception.

For example, during the past decade Toyota has created 36,632 new American jobs. Is Toyota destroying U.S. culture? No. It has been fundamental in fueling innovation in the automobile industry and ensuring that those 30-some-odd thousand families have a home to live in and food on their plates, and are able to contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy. In fact, there are currently more than 5.1 million Americans (4.4 percent of the entire labor force) employed by non-U.S. companies. If we deny Anheuser-Busch shareholders the right to choose whether to accept InBev’s bid, what are we saying about the long-term prospects of millions of Americans’ jobs?

Moreover, if foreign investment is such an “affront to democracy,” then why is the Missouri legislature paying Bombardier Aerospace (a Canadian airplane manufacturer) millions (of taxpayer money, no less!) to build a factory in Kansas City? If we rely on nationalistic sentiment, shouldn’t we demand that those jobs remain in Toronto? Or shouldn’t we demand that Anheuser-Busch bring back the jobs of the nearly 24,000 people it employs outside of the Saint Louis area? If we were to follow this kind of protectionist sentiment to its logical extreme, we would simply revert back to an economy of sustenance farmers, completely dependent upon our local economies for our entire means of production.

How “American” is that?

And the Award for Sensible Government Goes To …

Posted on by David Stokes

Alderman Anthony Smith of Bellefontaine Neighbors, come on down! You’ve won the June 2008 award for daring to ask just why the hell your medium-sized suburb in St. Louis County needs a full-time mayor with a full-time salary. The Post-Dispatch has the story here. My sharing of his concerns really has nothing to do with the questions about travel in the article; my question is, why is the mayor full-time to begin with? Full-time mayors are needed in large cities, not suburbs. As a fourth-class city, Bellefontaine Neighbors has the option to hire a city administrator to run day-to-day operations. As a larger-than-usual fourth-class city, it should do just that.

Suburban mayors should be part-time policymakers/cheerleaders for their community, not full-time economic development officers trying to give TIFs away like candy. It was stupid when Kinloch (population 449) made its mayor full-time last year. It was admirable when Frontenac ended its short experiment with a full-time mayor and went back to a part-time position with a qualified city administrator. Bellefontaine Neighbors would do just fine with a part-time mayor, and I wish Alderman Smith the best of luck in his efforts. I hope he at least gets a second next time he makes the motion.

Eminent Domain Decision Makes Economic Sense

Posted on by Dan Grana

Dave reported that the Missouri Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of property owners regarding the misuse of eminent domain. In addition to setting a much needed precedent, this ruling will have important economic consequences. Specifically, it promotes a slightly more equitable and efficient compensation procedure that, in turn, creates new disincentives for some unnecessary designations of blight.

Clearly, this ruling defends blight victims’ rights to just compensation. The owners of blighted properties are now armed to potentially claim
damages caused over time by the negative designation on their homes and
businesses. We can easily sympathize with businesses and homeowners who suffer for years from decreased revenues and property values because of the uncertainties inherent in owning "blight." Hopefully, deserving home and business owners will follow the Gladstone
Plaza Shopping Center’s lead by keeping the thorough financial records necessary to sue for damages. Although the court’s decision will by no means deliver fully the promises of the Fifth Amendment, it is a step in the right direction for a select group of property owners.

I contend that a move toward compensation at market value will permit greater economic efficiency as well. Simply put, if a development will be more beneficial to society than the current inhabitants of a parcel of land, its investors should be able to buy out this inferior market competition. Half-baked arguments about positive externalities and the failure of markets to deliver public goods should not suffice to construct legal barriers for a class of private conflicts that can usually be resolved by supply and demand. Even if the unavoidable difficulty of providing for public goods can theoretically be used as a justification for eminent domain, Missouri authorities have surely crossed the line from beneficial to harmful.

For the most part, current legal hurdles exist solely to favor developers (socially beneficial and otherwise) by allowing them to force away competition for property at inefficiently low prices. If those prices become less hampered by interference, society will better allocate its scarce resources into the most efficient avenues (see the Coase Theorem). Nonetheless, there are certainly cases in which eminent domain can be used for greater social efficiency, regardless of its moral ramifications. Because of these exceptions, I cannot provide a wholesale endorsement of the due criticism leveled at eminent domain abuses based solely on economic efficiency grounds. Even so, marginal decreases in the use of eminent domain would undoubtedly benefit society economically. A move toward market forces, then, is not only ethically right but economically sound. In a limited capacity, the recent court ruling represents such a move.

Additionally, this decision will cause some developers to think twice before seeking government assistance in dealing with resistant property owners. Faced with the threat of lawsuits, those developers who don’t intend to proceed quickly with their projects will be less willing to stake claims on other people’s property. Unfortunately, this specific case in Gladstone offers little promise to owners of property that is condemned so quickly that its initial blight designation causes no quantifiable harm. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has offered a partial solution to one group of victims — individuals whose possessions hang in the uncertain limbo of pre-condemnation blight. This empowerment should at least deter future encroachments on property rights that won’t produce results within a somewhat reasonable time frame.

The recent court ruling is by no means a sufficient fix to Missouri’s struggle with eminent domain abuse. Because of its limited applicability, the decision will probably only benefit a handful of vigilant property owners. Nevertheless, those individuals will receive unprecedented relief that may establish a positive trend.

An Attempt at the Least Popular Post of All Time

Posted on by Patrick Eckelkamp

In case anyone in Missouri has been living under a rock recently, let me bring you up to speed. European beer giant InBev has made an unsolicited bid to buy St. Louis icon Anheuser-Busch for the small sum of $46.3 billion. As a native St. Louisian, and also a believer in free markets, my heart is really torn. As is the case with most Missourians, I believe St. Louis and Anheuser-Busch should and will be forever linked, but ultimately I trust in the free market and concede that a buyout may be in the best interest of both corporations. However, there has been some chatter that local and federal government officials may try to intervene to stop a local landmark from entering foreign hands.

Although I can understand where they are coming from (securing local jobs, pandering to voters, etc.) this blatant act of government interference is unnecessary and quite ridiculous. This is a possible acquisition between two publicly traded companies, and for government officials to even suggest impeding the process is outlandish. Officials even acknowledge there is nothing they can lawfully do, yet they insist on causing a commotion in hopes that InBev will retract its offer and ride off into the figurative sunset. There is no doubt that Anheuser-Busch has played an influential and charitable role in the development of St. Louis, but after all, it is a private corporation and if it decides selling to InBev is in the best interest of shareholders, no government official should try to obstruct the process. It is not the responsibility of government officials to determine what is best for a private entity, and they are grossly overstepping their boundaries in attempting to influence the outcome of this particular situation.

Personally, I hope the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch reject the offer and the organization remains a pillar of stability in St. Louis and throughout Missouri. After all, InBev Stadium just doesn’t have the same ring. With that said, if stockholders agree to a sale and the government continues to try invoking its (phantom) power to affect the outcome, it will just be another case of the government acting inappropriately and out of its realm of authority.

Ah … the politicking that takes place during an election year.

In Education Reform, Don’t Do More of the Same

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Massachusetts is experimenting with ways to improve academic performance, including expanding the school day. Roy Romer expresses his approval on Ed in ’08’s blog, commenting that this is the kind of reform Ed in ’08 is promoting:

If we’re going to give our students the tools necessary to compete in a globally competitive workforce, we are going to need to give our students more time and support for learning.

As we’ve seen, Ed in ’08 has great goals but tends to think inside the box. If schools are ineffective, then doing more of the same between the hours of 3:00 and 5:00 is not going to transform the education system.

On the other hand, a longer school day could work well if combined with other reforms. Some charter schools, such as KIPP schools, require students to attend class for extra hours and on Saturdays. And the Massachusetts school profiled in this article didn’t stop at lengthening the school day; it also added new art, music, and enrichment courses.

The advantage of combining a longer school day with parental choice is that the extra school time is targeted to the children who would gain the most from it. Parents might choose to send a child who’s struggling academically to a school with extra afternoon classes, but they might prefer a shorter school day for a child who’s already above grade level.

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