Internship Applications Due

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Today is the application deadline for summer internships at the Show-Me Institute. But, because we’re so nice, we’ll continue to accept applications through Monday.

If you know any college students who may be interested, be sure to let them know. If you’re a college student currently on the fence about whether you should apply, perhaps this testimonial from our former intern Steve Bernstetter will push you over the edge:

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity.

Well said, Steve. Again.

Bad Bill, Bad Teachers

Posted on by Justin Hauke

There are several bills in the General Assembly this session concerning teacher pay. Generally, I find these bills fairly annoying because they have few qualifying requirements (such as merit pay, etc.).

A new proposal by Rep. Denis Holsman (D-Kansas City) appears, at first glance, to address teacher pay — particularly in rural districts — without providing across-the-board pay increases. Upon further reflection, though, it fails to fundamentally address the root incentive problems.

Among the bill’s merit provisions (from the Post-Dispatch’s coverage):

  • A voluntary grant given to school districts based on test scores and teacher performance. A majority of teachers in each district would have to vote to accept the grant.
  • One-time $5,000 stipends for teachers in small schools who have reached 10 and 20 years of service.
  • Recruitment bonuses of $5,000 for new teachers in small or unaccredited school districts. Math and science teachers would receive $7,500.
  • Retention bonuses ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 for teachers who stay at a small school district for 5, 10 and 20 years.
  • A $2,500 stipend for teachers in a district that moves from being unaccredited to accredited by the state Board of Education.
  • Monthly bonuses for retired teachers older than 75 whose cost-of-living adjustments are capped.

The first point is a throwaway provision to satisfy the merit-pay advocates. Individual teachers should be able to decide whether their compensation is based on their individual performance; it should not be left to the discretion of a monopolistic cartel. The majority of teachers will not vote to accept merit pay, because without merit pay, bad teachers will receive the same pay as good teachers — a tragedy of any state-run enterprise. Worse, this provision provides perverse incentives for good teachers because it discourages them from remaining in a profession where their performance quality is under-recognized. And if Missouri’s aggregate public school performance is any indication of teacher quality, there are far more bad teachers in the state than good.

The retention bonuses are also a mistake. Research indicates (as evidenced by Dr. Hanushek, the nation’s foremost education scholar) that there is little improvement in teacher performance past the two- or three-year mark (in fact, the relationship may actually be negative). So there’s little reason to reward teachers’ tenure without a corresponding performance metric. This is really the critical juncture in the teacher compensation problem. Good teachers should be rewarded for their efforts, and bad teachers should not. The teacher unions have spent years hypothesizing that tenure is a measure of teacher success, when in fact there is little evidence to suggest that this is true.

The math/science recruitment bonuses are a step in the "market" direction. If these skill areas are the ones that need the most improvement, it makes sense that these should be the areas where more money is spent. But, again, basic math and science skills should be a fundamental part of Missouri education — not something achieved only at a premium.

The worst provision, in my opinion, is the monthly bonuses for retired teachers. How will increasing retirees’ pensions improve the quality of education in Missouri?

There are some good elements of this bill (it does, nominally at least, address the merit issue), but on the whole it does nothing but increase costs without linking them to improvement in quality. Missourians — and Missouri teachers — deserve better.

Great Moments In Free-Market Theory at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Posted on by David Stokes

This category may well be as small as an Airplane-style leaflet, but we had an example last week with the defeat of the proposed Segway ordinance by the City Board of Aldermen’s Parks Committee. The West End Word has the story here and here. Alderman Kacie Starr Triplett lays it out very nicely:

"Alderman Krewson’s bill is extremely protectionist, and that’s not a good precedent to set in the city," said Sixth Ward Alderman Kacie Starr Triplett.

Unfortunately, I think the precedent for protectionism in the city is well established in the code, but that’s not Alderman Triplett’s fault. If this statement and the defeat of the Segway bill are an indication of the views of Alderman Triplett and other young members of the board, politics in the City of St. Louis may well have a very bright future.

The Missouri Plan

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The Federalist Society has released a study investigating the correlation between states with a merit selection judiciary (the so-called “Missouri plan” model) and school finance litigation.

The “Missouri Plan” amended the state Constitution such that judicial nominations are selected — at least in part — through an independent nominating counsel (generally comprising state American Bar Association-appointed lawyers) instead of by popular election. Today, 26 states have adopted some form of the “Missouri Plan” for their judicial appointments.

The legal benefits of the “Missouri Plan” are debatable. Many studies have examined the impact of such plans on business-friendly legislation (the argument being that judicial nominations appointed by ABA members will be less friendly to issues that might limit the market for lawyers). In fact, in an upcoming policy report, the Show-Me Institute will examine the Missouri Plan in detail. (Stay tuned for the excitement!)

The Federalist Society’s research highlights at least one negative aspect, however. To date, 45 states have addressed education adequacy litigation. According to data gathered by Columbia University, about two-thirds of adequacy decisions in Missouri Plan states strike down the legislatures’ funding statutes. This means that courts have effectively commandeered the power of the purse — something clearly within the proper domain of the legislatures.

In addition, in a joint study by the Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council, analysts found that school voucher systems are constitutional in 77 percent of states with popularly elected judiciaries, versus 50 percent in Missouri Plan states.

So I guess this was a long way of me saying that there is evidence that courts are friendlier to the school choice movement in states where judges are elected by the people themselves.

Missourians Should Save Their Stimulus Checks

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Amid the clamor about an uncertain economy, government officials feel pressure that they should do something to fix it all. First, we have the federal tax rebate checks, as part of a "stimulus" package intended to spur consumer spending (David Stokes handily addressed that topic last month). Now we have a sales tax holiday proposal (link via John Combest) to provide an even greater incentive to spend rather than save.

It’s true that consumer spending is a crucial part of any healthy economy, but officials have confused cause with effect. Spending doesn’t create economic growth — rather, it’s a symptom of the growth that results from saving.

That’s right, saving. When you sock money away in the bank, you’re not hoarding it. You’re investing in capital growth. Economic literature is filled with explanations of how this works, but economist Mark Skousen summed it up nicely in a 2004 article about spending vs. saving:

Studies in business cycles and marketing demonstrate repeatedly that CEOs, entrepreneurs, capitalists and other business decision-makers are the primary activators of the economy, and determine when to start investing in capital again and turn the economy around. Government leaders cannot depend on consumers to lead the recovery. They tend to be passive, responding to rather than creating new products and services.

In normal times, increased savings expands the pool of capital investment, lowers interest rates, and allows firms to adopt new production processes, new technologies, and create new jobs. Thus, saving is just as much a form of spending as consumption, only a different form of spending, and in some cases, a better form of spending when it fulfills a need for more capital and investment.

So when you get that stimulus check in a few months, don’t let the tax holiday tempt you to rush out and buy something you don’t really need. Save it for a rainy day, and help lay the foundation for a real, lasting economic recovery.

For Those of You Looking to Compare Individual Missouri Schools’ Academic Performances …

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Look no further.

I was introduced to SchoolDigger this morning as a nifty little cut-and-dried Missouri school evaluator. Unfortunately, the school rankings are assessed entirely by MAP test scores, and many alternative (and charter) schools are omitted. There’s also no direct district comparison, which would be useful, and even the individual school comparisons aren’t that helpful.

But the Google Maps feature is sweet!

A Hit Against Your Property Rights

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

The Missouri Supreme Court handed down a 6-1 decision yesterday in favor of "development" trumping property rights in the matter of City of Arnold v. Homer Tourkakis. According to the decision (summarized nicely by one of the outlets throughout the state) the city is justified in using the power of eminent domain to seize the office of Dr. Homer Tourkakis, a dentist who was the lone holdout resisting the city’s unjust taking of property, because (according to the opinion summary prepared by the Communications Counsel):

[T]he constitution does not limit the legislature from giving such cities authority to use eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, the state’s tax-increment financing act is constitutional, and the trial court erred in dismissing a non-charter city’s condemnation action against private landowners.

The courts’ decision, authored by Judge Russell, reversed the previous decision by the trial court, which had held in favor of Mr. Tourkakis (also from the summary; link added):

The trial court erred finding that article VI, section 21 limits the entities that may exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes and in dismissing the City’s condemnation action. The City is authorized under several statutes, including the TIF Act, to exercise eminent domain.

It should be noted, though, that the court failed to rule on the controversial nature of Missouri’s "blight" definition, which has allowed municipalities in the past to condemn pristine areas and doom them to economic failure. Also, as reported by the Post-Dispatch, the court left open the issue of whether Arnold’s status as a non-charter city brought any bearing to the issue at hand:

[O]ne of the dentist’s attorneys, Tracy Gilroy, said she believed the Supreme Court had failed to address whether the state’s Tax Increment Financing Act actually sets out a procedure for nonchartered cities like Arnold to use the power of eminent domain.

"We may need to request a rehearing on that matter," Gilroy said.

This particular point was highlighted again by Judge Teitelman in the lone dissent to the majority opinion:

[A]rticle VI, section 21 provides that with respect to non-charter cities, "laws may be enacted" that provide for the exercise of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Article VI, section 21 does not expressly authorize the wholesale delegation of such power to third-class cities. Instead, it provides only that the legislature may enact a law allowing the use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project. In this case, the General Assembly has enacted no law authorizing the City of Arnold to exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.

Three tragedies result from this ruling. The first, and most direct, is that Homer Tourkakis will almost certainly lose his office, and that any payment he will receive will be a pittance compared to what the property is worth, in terms of both financial and sentimental value (read more about Dr. Tourkakis’ story).

Second, the ruling in favor of the city of Arnold leaves the door open for other municipalities throughout the state to go forward with plans to seize private property for private use through the power of eminent domain. As explained by Show-Me Institute policy analyst Dave Roland, the Missouri Supreme Court had an opportunity to strengthen citizens’ rights:

The Court could side with the city and its commercial developers, meaning that virtually every home, business, and house of worship in the state could be condemned and given away for the profit of a government-chosen owner. Or the Court could turn the tide in favor of individual liberty by deciding that the state Constitution’s protections for private property still have meaning.

But obviously, the court watched that opportunity sail right by.

Finally, I leave you with this story. In a time when the economy is sliding and half-million dollar homes are being abandoned because of defaulted mortgages, what right does the city of Arnold have to call the pristine, entrepreneurial office of Homer Tourkakis — which was doing nothing but an honest service to the community — a blight?

Something to think about.

Two New Cities Considered in Franklin County

Posted on by David Stokes

We have a new leader in the "most boring headline ever" competition here at SMI. The only way anyone is ever going to click on this post is if my friend Gus W. stops by the site. But anyway …

There are two new municipalities being considered in Franklin County. The Post-Dispatch has a good article on the debate today. One of the proposed cities, Lake St. Clair, has gone about the process the right way, and one, Stonewater, has taken advantage of the controversial "village law" passed last session to attempt to bypass the normal rules. It should also be noted that there is only one resident of Stonewater, and nobody can reasonably be so pro-property rights that they think any single individual should be able to incorporate their property into a new political entity on a whim.

I actually don’t have too much to add from the article’s coverage of the decisions of the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. It seems correct to me that the residents of Lake St. Clair form a new city, and it seems more than reasonable that Stonewater was denied:

Stonewater is 40 acres of almost entirely vacant ground off Holtgrewe Road southwest of Washington. Ferguson, a developer in the county, is the site’s only resident.

Just because Wikipedia has a terrific article on micronations does not mean you have to grant political autonomy to every jerk who wants his own city. ‘Nuff said.

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