And You Thought Our Education System Had Problems…

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

It’s been a slow news weekend for Missouri, so I’ve decided to write about Somalia. That’s right; our public schools look pretty good in comparison:

The only government funding in the last 16 years came four years ago when the local warlord offered to pay teacher salaries at seven schools in the region. But the warlord, Mohammed Dheere, who is now Mogadishu’s mayor, raised the money in part by taxing teachers’ income.

The quote is from an article in the L.A. Times. This reminds me of Andrew Coulson’s research on private schools in poor parts of the world. Coulson describes schools that charge only a few cents per day in tuition (and parents can pay by the day as they go). Despite their constraints, some of these schools surpass local government schools in English instruction, computer literacy, and other subjects. However, you need some basic level of political stability to maintain private businesses like that, so I doubt private schools have made much headway in Somalia.

When you think about the tough odds schools face in other countries, the claims of Missouri school districts that our schools don’t receive adequate funding are less believable. If activists on shoestring budgets can work for universal education in Jowhar, we should be able to teach kids in St. Louis with $390 million.

Stokes on Kirkwood’s Utilities

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Thank you, Dave, for responding to my telemarketing challenge. For those of you who want to read about something more substantive than telemarketers, check out Dave’s op-ed in the Post-Dispatch on the topic "Should Kirkwood Sell Its Municipal Utilities?":

According to Kirkwood’s 2007 budget report, "The high average age of our (electric) system dictates more replacement and maintenance and drives our operations and maintenance costs up." This situation will become more expensive for Kirkwood over time.

I think Kirkwood should follow the example of the municipalities in our area that have ceased providing utilities, and sell its facilities to investor-owned, regulated firms. This would allow Kirkwood to focus on services that are not privately provided.

Read the whole thing. I take umbrage at the "conservative" label the Post sticks on us at the bottom of the page, but I guess I don’t need to rant about that subject again.

I’ll Bite on Telemarketers

Posted on by David Stokes

We are on the No Call list, and nonetheless somehow receive a large number of calls each evening. Lately, Discover has been particularly active in trying to get our business. I have nothing against telemarketers themselves — they are just people trying to support a family and earn a living, or work part-time through college, or burn their way through 20 years of purgatory, whatever their reason might be for doing what they do. Sarah already made a key point as to why some no-call lists need to be allowed: fax machines. Unsolicited faxes have a direct cost in paper and ink to fax machine owners, and as such are not merely some random inconvenience.

I do believe in some type of hard-to-define right to privacy. I like No Call lists, and do not feel they are an intrusion on free trade or a right to work. They are a voluntary listing of people who choose not to receieve calls, and should be respected by telemarketers in the same way "No solicitation" signs on doors should be respected.

Why Education Reform Can’t Wait

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There’s a sad post today on the Missouri Parents for Public Schools blog:

My children are the most important things to me. Therefore, the education of my children is incredibly important to me. […]

Unfortunately, I am unable to pay for my school of choice and have been forced to send them to the public schools in the St. Louis School District. Where and when I grew up, the public schools were pretty good. Now, the schools I send my boys to have been unaccredited, which really did not surprise me. I am trying to make the best choices for my boys. However, I am currently standing in front of a brick wall. I cannot seem to get them transferred out to better schools. I hope this is taken care of quickly.

When we debate the pros and cons of hypothetical future reforms, it’s important to remember that there are real people in the district trying to find a better education for their kids right now.

Maybe these boys will be able to attend one of the charter schools that are now in the works.

Lawyers Continue Rolling in Taxpayer Dollars

Posted on by Dave Roland

You can’t really give away something that doesn’t belong to you — especially if the "recipient" is its rightful owner! While it may seem like common sense for most people, Attorney General Jay Nixon apparently has trouble grasping this simple idea. Instead, he continues to insist that the Department of Natural Resources is nefariously giving Union Pacific Railroad a sweetheart deal just by allowing the company to do what it wants with its own property.

The bridge at the heart of the lawsuit belongs to Union Pacific Railroad, which purchased it from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad in 2004. The dispute has come about because in 1987 MKT reached an agreement with the state that gave the DNR nearly 200 miles of right-of-way for use by the Katy Trail project. That agreement specifically excluded the Booneville lift bridge, although the state was given assurances that the railroad would not modify the bridge in such a way that the Katy Trail would be disrupted.

Since that agreement was reached, the DNR has decided not to use the bridge for trail purposes, and the bridge is currently not being used by anyone at all. To make absolutely certain that the DNR’s intentions were clear, and to guarantee that the railroad had no further duty to maintain the bridge for trail purposes, the DNR officially released and permanently waived any rights it might have had to use the bridge.

The attorney general’s misguided lawsuit, which has already cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, basically claims that the DNR has no authority to say that it isn’t interested in using the bridge. Nixon wants to force the DNR — against its avowed desires — to claim a right to keep using the bridge even though it does not fit into their plans for the Katy Trail.

Even though two courts have now thoroughly rejected Nixon’s arguments about the bridge’s ownership, he is vowing to press on — at taxpayer expense — to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The bottom line is that Union Pacific, the rightful owner of the bridge, now wants to make use of its raw materials for another bridge and Nixon should be ashamed for using taxpayer dollars in his personal quest to prevent them from doing so.

Too Bad This Is No Longer Current

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’ve been searching for more good blogs and other websites about public policy outside of St. Louis, and today I almost thought I’d found one. It has news about politics, crime, transportation, and courts — and it’s mainly about Kansas City. But upon closer inspection, it turned out to be 100 years old:

The county court in Independence yesterday issued the order to Oscar Koehler, county surveyor, to prepare all necessary profiles and plans and specifications immediately, so that there may be no delay in the work next year of closing up the gaps in Jackson county’s rock road system.

Can we make a time machine?

Merit Pay for Teachers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Merit pay for teachers is on the horizon. With gratitude to Combest for the link, here’s an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune about the possibility of merit pay for all of Missouri’s teachers:

Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, said he plans to file legislation that would clearly allow merit pay in Missouri schools.

The Ladue School District in St. Louis County has had performance pay for teachers for more than 50 years without legal challenge. The district assigns teachers points based on yearlong evaluations, then doles out raises accordingly.

The article discusses Ladue’s merit pay system and describes why teachers like the idea. It makes sense to pay teachers like the individual professionals that they are, not like interchangeable assembly-line workers.

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.

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