I Love Telemarketers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I feel really bad for telemarketers. Everybody is out to get them. Here’s an article in the Post-Dispatch about Missouri’s No Call list:

In Missouri, more than 2.5 million phone numbers are registered on the state’s No Call list. (Missouri residents can join the federal list too, which will also get them enrolled on Missouri’s own list. Illinois residents enroll directly through the national registry.)

Attorney General Jay Nixon has aggressively enforced Missouri’s law, filing 130 lawsuits and collecting $1.7 million in penalties since July 2001, when the list began.

Here’s why I love telemarketers. First, they can be entertaining. Sometimes they introduce themselves with economic non sequiturs, like, "What if you could sell your used car at above the market price?" Second, it’s much easier to quickly say, "No, thanks," to a telemarketer than to deal with the people who aren’t soliciting anything but just have wrong numbers. I usually keep my cell phone off, a habit inspired by professors’ ire when students’ cell phones ring, but today I left it on for about two minutes after making a phone call and was immediately contacted by someone looking for "Charlie:" "Is this the Charlie who called me last night? No? Are you sure?" And when answering the phones at SMI, I’ve fielded inquiries from people looking for everything from homeless shelters to hardware stores. Unfortunately, a law can’t solve that problem.

I do see the need for some restrictions on soliciting. People should be able to leave their fax machines on without getting all their paper used up by mortgage ads. But, in general, I’m not a fan of No Call lists. This is just one more indication that I am a unique, special person, since everyone else loves those lists. In fact, I expect some of my colleagues to post rebuttals about why the No Call list is saving humanity. Dave S., Dave R., Justin, Eric, any thoughts? Maybe I should give them a call. …

Forget Light Rail, This Is What Kansas City Really Needs

Posted on by David Stokes

Actually, this post is indeed about light rail, I just liked the connection to the prior post. Damn, this is a big news day in Missouri think-tank world. And trust me, that is one small world.

In one of the politically gutsiest moves I have ever seen, the Kansas City Council overturned the voter-approved light rail plan for the city. The first question many people probably have is: How can they overturn a vote of the people? The answer is: I don’t know, but I assume it is allowed somewhere in their city charter, or else they would not have done it.

The Kansas City light rail plan was loaded with problems, starting with the direct taking of bus funds instead of new taxes for light rail. There are many more problems that just that, though, and the Show-Me Institute is going to weigh in on this issue in a serious manner soon enough. I look forward to seeing how the voters respond to this. Either this is going to be a shining moment for why we are a representative republic rather than a direct democracy, or the mob’s torches will be lit very soon. I hope it’s the former.

Forget Ballpark Village, This Is What St. Louis Really Needs

Posted on by David Stokes

Today’s Post-Dispatch has a front-page article on Mayor Slay’s newly announced plan to seek a major expansion of the network of charter schools in the City of St. Louis. This is some of the most exciting news I have heard in a long time. It’s right up there with Led Zeppelin reuniting. Mayor Slay cannot be praised enough for this bold initiative. Another tremendously useful step would be for the state Legislature to give the mayor’s office the power to sponsor charter schools on its own. If we look back 20 years from now and see a growing, prosporous, and safe St. Louis city, this initiative is going to be the reason why.

A Step Forward

Posted on by Justin Hauke

It’s hard to miss this morning’s front-page article in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch about Mayor Slay’s new plan to expand charter schools in St. Louis.

The new plan ambitiously hopes to open two or three new charter schools a year in St. Louis during the next 10 years, in the hopes of wooing parents from the suburbs to the city.

Obviously, I believe that the introduction of new charter schools will be beneficial for St. Louis, even if the charter school model is far from perfect. Since charter schools are exempt from much of the public school red tape, they have the flexibility to adapt their teaching strategies and pursue alternative educational methods targeted to “at risk” students. And while some charter schools have been failures, many have been hugely successful. But the best part is that, unlike traditional public schools, charter schools represent choice and allow parents to vote with their feet.

But I do have one qualm with the plan. Charter schools are still controlled and overseen by governmental watchdogs, which from an accountability standpoint is fine, but it also invites potential corruption. For one thing, new charter schools will be heavily subsidized (low-interest loans, state grants, etc.), which puts up red flags in my mind that there will be abuses in the system (who gets these contracts, and why?). And traditionally, the universities and school districts that have overseen Missouri charter schools have been less than enthusiastic about the task.

But this is a great step forward for St. Louis and the school choice movement, and this will go a long way toward improving the city of St. Louis. As Mayor Slay states in the article:

“St. Louis has it all — except enough quality public schools.”

More Investments in Education

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed (get a subscription, people; there’s no free lunch) about for-profit management of public schools. The authors are researchers at Harvard who have analyzed the test scores of students in schools under for-profit, non-profit, and government management. The kids in the for-profit schools did a bit better than the others, after controlling for student characteristics and other factors.

After berating one of my colleagues for taking test scores too seriously, I probably shouldn’t jump up and down with joy about this.

Still, it’s an indication that we should be willing to experiment with different school structures and management styles. And I’ve always said the St. Louis Public Schools should be run more like a business.

Save the Charters!

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Dave Roland takes issue with my criticism of an effort to close "failing" charter schools in Ohio. He writes:

A fundamental principle of school choice is that some schools will succeed and endure, but others will do poorly and close.

I agree completely — but the mechanism that closes schools should be choice, not state fiat. If parents aren’t happy with the failing charter schools, they can always send their kids back to the traditional public schools. But in the absence of the charters, the traditional public schools are for many families the only choice. If the charter schools are that bad, no one will send their kids there and the charter schools will close of their own accord.

This controversy illustrates one problem with evaluating schools based on standardized test scores. Parents might want their kids to attend a charter school, even if it doesn’t improve their test scores. For example, they may feel that the charter school is safer or inspires their kids to be more creative.

So why am I always complaining about bad test scores at traditional public schools? Well, since many families don’t have educational choices beyond the traditional public schools, I suspect that some of them would choose other schools if they had the chance. The bad scores hint that for families interested in academic achievement, traditional public schools would not be their first choice.

But if parents prefer charter schools to poorly performing public schools, why should we deny them that choice?

A Great Investment or a Tough Choice?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I learn from the Missouri NEA that next week is American Education Week. (I love how we have a week for everything. Next thing you know, we’ll have a week for Missouri’s cherished crayfish.) Next week will be all about public schools. There are even accompanying certificates. The Orwellian theme is:

Public schools: a great return on your investment.

How’s that for financial advice? It’s like, "Hiding money under your mattress: a great return on your investment."

If you want to know about public education’s true effect on our economy, take a look at the New Commission for the Skills of the American Workforce, which is much less sanguine than the NEA. They’ve given their report the ominous title, "Tough Choices or Tough Times."

Close Those Charters, Dangit!

Posted on by Dave Roland

I just wanted to briefly follow up Sarah’s earlier post about Ohio’s threatened closing of some of its charter schools. While I do agree that the state should also consider closing traditional public schools that have a history of failure, I think it is a signal of success that Ohio’s charter program is looking to shut down some poor performers! A fundamental principle of school choice is that some schools will succeed and endure, but others will do poorly and close. It’s true that there should not be a double standard that allows awful traditional schools to continue while similarly awful charters are eliminated, but let’s appreciate the fact that these closings actually represent a step in the right direction.

Tuition Tax Credits

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Within the next few weeks, the Show-Me Institute will be releasing a study about the economic benefits of a tuition tax credit program for Missouri. These programs offer individual tax credits for charitable donations to private school scholarship programs. The credits allow taxpayers to target their tax dollars toward educational improvement, and also provide low-income families with subsidized tuition at better-performing schools. Several states have implemented such programs over the past five years amidst widespread support.

If you can’t wait for our study, though, the Cato Institute has a great op-ed on the subject that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Read about it, then come back and read our study detailing an approach for Missouri later this month.

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