Is 800 Years Old Enough?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Class Notes links to a post by Kevin Horner about the math wars in Columbia Public Schools. He includes a YouTube video that criticizes Everyday Math for, among other things, teaching the lattice multiplication method. Horner writes:

The methodologies of traditional mathematics remain the most efficient algorithms for solving mathematical problems. Advanced math and science are based on these very methods.

This is a great example of why we shouldn’t just say "No new math." Horner is assuming that the way he learned to multiply is the "traditional" and "most efficient" way. But as you can learn from a little research on Wikipedia, lattice multiplication has been around since 1202. It’s hard to be more traditional than that. Furthermore, lattice multiplication is algorithmically equivalent to long multiplication. That’s a mathy way of saying that you’re doing exactly the same thing and you’ll get exactly the same answer. Lattice multiplication is not a less efficient algorithm than long multiplication; it’s the same algorithm, written out in a way that looks different. (And in a way that might be easier to understand for some students.)

So if a method that was invented around the year 1200 is too new, how are kids supposed to learn math? With only the most ancient Chinese abacuses?

Parents should be able to choose new math — even if just for the simple reason that we can’t agree on which kinds of math are really "new."

Should St. Charles Councilmembers Get a Pay Raise?

Posted on by David Stokes

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Saint Charles County Council is considering giving itself a pay raise. Now, those of you expecting or hoping for some populist diatribe against those damn politicians will be sorely disappointed, but I doubt many people fitting that description read this blog. (Point in fact: Nobody reads this blog.) For the sake of comparison, here is the chart copied from the article:

Proposed new pay for St. Charles County Council — $14,375

CURRENT AREA SALARIES:

St. Louis County Council $20,000 or $12,500*

St. Peters aldermen $14,525

St. Charles County Council $12,500

St. Charles City Council $10,200

O’Fallon City Council $7,600

Wentzville aldermen $5,500

Lake Saint Louis aldermen $5,500 or $2,400*

* Amount depends on when term began.

Two additions: St. Louis city aldermen, of which there are a lot (28), make a little more than $30,000 a year. Jackson County (aka, Kansas City area) councilmembers have a neat little trick, in that they earn 24 percent of whatever circuit judges earn, so in order to find out their salary you have to look up what judges make — which I don’t feel like doing. Circuit judges probably make right around $100,000, so for the sake of argument Jackson County councilmembers probably make around $24,000. Please remember that these are all part-time positions.

For the positions above that have two salaries listed, it is because pay raises can’t go into effect during one’s current term. So, for example, on the St. Louis County Council, which raised its own salary in 2005, you have people who joined the council in 2007 (Colleen Wasinger and Barbara Fraser) making a higher salary than people who have been on the council since 2001 (John Campisi and Michael O’Mara). That’s not a criticism of the law. I’m just pointing out how it works.

I don’t think any of the county council salaries discussed here are too high, nor is the proposed St. Charles raise inappropriate. I do think Saint Louis city pays too much, on the whole, for its Board of Aldermen salaries, but I would recommend lowering the number of aldermen rather than cutting their salaries. If salaries are too low, you limit the number of people who can consider serving — even among the already limited number of people interested in public service. Those who can serve for little or no money are limited to the retired, the independently wealthy, those whose spouses are the main breadwinners (no jokes, please), and those whose jobs work seamlessly into the position (such as a union business agent). You have to pay enough that it is worth the time for the majority of people to be able to do the job if they so choose — or, more exactly, if the voters so choose.

You also have to be careful not to pay too much. This is taxpayer money, after all, and these jobs are defined as part-time. With too high of a salary, you also get people interested in the position whose main goal — how do I put this nicely? — may not be public service. I will refrain from listing any examples of this for fear of a lawsuit … which assumes that someone is still reading this post. Over and out.

Slow Down There, Turbo

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

In one of the more bizarre (and ridiculous) examples of local government unnecessarily exerting its will over citizens, a St. Louis alderman has introduced a proposal requiring riders of Segways, accurately described by a Post-Dispatch article as "slow-moving electric chariots," to purchase a $300 permit in order to ride the scooters throughout Forest Park. The utter lunacy of this idea is described in the following quote (emphasis added):

"Segways are something new in city parks," parks director Gary Bess says. "We want to go slow."

Actually, it’s more like they want you to go slow, as the fears of Alderman Lyda Krewson (who introduced the bill) so accurately describe:

"I happen to think they are really cool devices," said Krewson, whose
ward includes the park. "But if you were running along on the path, you
don’t want a bunch of them coming up behind you."

As someone training to run a very long way in April for no real reason, I think I can safely attest that the biggest danger on the paths of Forest Park isn’t a scooter that tops out at a whopping 12 mph. More importantly, why is the city trying to regulate the Pokey Little Scooter for safety concerns when I get buzzed at 25 mph by a guy on a Specialized every time I run past the Grand Basin?

The use of parks, sidewalks and roadways in the city of St. Louis should be encouraged as much as possible, if not for the sake of fitness, than at least for the overall boost that outdoor activity brings to societal welfare. Requiring a permit to ride a Segway in the park is the same as requiring a permit to ride a bicycle, roller blade, or jog: it’s an unnecessary step that will reduce usage and prevent citizens (particularly those with disabilities) from fully enjoying one of our state’s greatest treasures.

It’s ironic that a city with such a tradition of offering a park space "free and open to all" is trying to restrict who can do what on its paths.

Thank You for Smoking

Posted on by Justin Hauke

A Minneapolis condominium community has voted to self-impose a smoking ban throughout its building.

I’m fine with businesses and residences self-imposing smoking bans, but some might argue that this type of decision is still too restrictive: Shouldn’t a smoker be able to smoke in his own condo? Yes, and current smokers are grandfathered in. But new tenants will have to choose whether a smoking ban is appropriate for their living needs. This is exactly the kind of decision that bars should be allowed to make, as well.

The government doesn’t need to impose legislation outlawing smoking in private businesses. As the above article suggests, private businesses are perfectly capable of self-regulation to satisfy customer needs.

If It Moves, Tax It

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s a proposed ordinance that could compete with Dave’s nomination for Stupidest Idea of 2008. The city of St. Louis is considering whether to require $300 permits to use Segways in Forest Park. (I’m sure all my readers are cool enough to know that Segways are electric-powered scooters that coast around at about 10 mph.) It would also limit Segway tours in Forest Park to organizations who already have a physical presence in the park; those organizations would be the Science Center, the Science Center, and the Science Center.

The vice president of the Science Center claims this isn’t about creating a monopoly for them:

"If it was a sweetheart deal for the Science Center, it would say ‘Science Center,’ wouldn’t it?" Wharton asked.

Yet Krewson, sponsor of the measure, acknowledged she did have the Science Center in mind when she wrote it.

Well, what do you know — sometimes proposals are not named in a completely transparent way, as we should all know from the time the midwife debate suddenly turned into a dispute about "tocology."

This is not to say that city governments shouldn’t regulate Segways at all. I don’t think Segways are popular enough to warrant a crackdown yet, but if busy urban sidewalks were crowded with the scooters, that could pose a threat (or at least, an annoyance) to the pedestrians who would no longer be free to walk. But in Forest Park, there’s lots of open space and nobody is complaining about Segways. Furthermore, a license fee would be a burden to disabled Segway users, who can’t enjoy the park with traditional, unlicensed forms of transportation like bikes and roller skates.

But this proposal isn’t about embracing innovations to help the disabled. Governments just don’t like new things:

"Segways are something new in city parks," parks director Gary Bess says. "We want to go slow."

If It Works in California, It Could Work in Missouri, Too

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s a chart of Missouri’s teacher shortage areas from 1997 to the present. The list keeps getting longer, and there’s some variance from year to year, but math and science are always a high priority. Other states suffer from math and science teacher shortages too. One of them — California — is trying to solve the problem with a new approach:

The EnCorps Teacher Initiative kicked off a campaign to help career-switching baby boomers from a dozen companies become math and science teachers.

The innovative program hopes to place 200 new teachers in California classrooms this September. Applications are due by March 14.

This is not a volunteer program or a combination of part-time work and education courses. New teachers in the program are in classrooms full-time, where they receive hands-on, relevant training. The only program comparable to this in MIssouri is alternative teacher certification, which still calls for a lot of theoretical courses (and so is less attractive for career-changers who want to get right to work). The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education also hasn’t promoted it to scientists so forcefully as California is spreading the word about EnCorp.

It will be interesting to see whether California can meet its goal of persuading 200 former scientists to take up teaching this year. If it does, Missouri might want to try the same thing.

Spotlighting Special Needs

Posted on by Dave Roland

Yesterday, committees in both the House and Senate of Missouri’s General Assembly heard testimony on several bills designed to help the families of more than 50,000 children suffering from a range of developmental disorders. Three bills have been introduced as possible solutions to the problem.

SB 770, sponsored by Senator Rupp, would create a publicly funded scholarship program, much like a traditional voucher program, that would allow the parents of students diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder to redirect the public education dollars already allocated for their child toward the public or private school of their choice. SB 993, sponsored by Senator Crowell, and HB 1886, sponsored by Representative Scharnhorst, would allow taxpayers to claim a partial credit for charitable contributions made to non-profit scholarship organizations that would help parents of special needs children afford the schools best prepared to assist their kids.

The hearings yesterday included moving testimony from parents who have faced (and, in some cases, overcome) enormous obstacles in trying to help their children, as well as testimony from a number of parents, educators, and administrators opposed to changing the status quo. Unfortunately, this morning’s news reports missed the opportunity to note that some of the points raised by those opposing the bills were clearly and thoroughly debunked. Articles in the Southeast Missourian and the Post-Dispatch try to present a relatively balanced picture of the issues, as presented at the Senate committee’s hearing. Both of these articles, and the one posted at Missourinet, point out concerns raised by some educators that the programs would take money away from public schools — but (as conversations at the House committee hearing made absolutely plain) it would be impossible for the tax credit bills, as written, to divert any money away from the state’s educational funding formula. If the special needs tax credit program is adopted, public schools will receive exactly the same level of funding as they would without the program.

I was on hand to present testimony at both hearings, a written version of which we have posted on the Show-Me Institute’s main website. I hope that anyone interested in learning more about these proposals will glance it over.

Whoops

Posted on by Justin Hauke

One month into Missouri’s new ethanol fuel standards, and what have we learned? The 2006 legislation that required all gasoline sold in Missouri to contain a 10-percent ethanol blend was heralded as a great  step forward for Missouri’s environmental needs. As Governor Matt Blunt stated at the time:

“Missouri is a leader in the use of alternative fuels, and this change benefits Missouri’s consumers, economy, environment and farmers,” Gov. Blunt said. “Filling our gasoline tanks with E-10 will improve our air quality and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.  Missouri corn fields have now become the oil fields of the 21st Century.”

Except that they haven’t. A new study in the journal Science (not known for taking up right-wing causes) finds that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol during the next 30 years will be twice as high as they would be from regular gasoline. The cost discrepancy comes from previous estimates that failed to account for the carbon dioxide emissions that have arisen from the clearing of forests and grassland for biofuel production. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when land is cleared for ethanol production.

So, while ethanol may be a boon for corn farmers, it will be a huge detriment to everybody else (I’m not talking about the CO2 issue, but the impact on commodity prices).

So much for the government’s success at picking industry winners. The most recent estimates suggest it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from ethanol “pays back” the carbon used by land-use change.

Good thing Missouri is one of only three states that have adopted such strict(ly stupid) industry standards.

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