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
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
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!
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?
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!
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
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.
Charters Held to a Higher Standard
The New York Times reports that Ohio’s attorney general is trying to close some of the state’s charter schools, and charter school supporters in other states are starting to worry.
It doesn’t seem fair to impose all this scrutiny on charter schools without doing anything about the failing traditional public schools that spurred the charter movement in the first place. The article notes that 43 percent of traditional public schools in Ohio’s cities are failing, too. Where is the effort to close them? Charters are trying to reverse a trend of academic failure that has persisted for decades. They won’t all be able to do that overnight. The point is made by one priceless quote from the article about the Ohio attorney general’s plan:
“This is like suing the American Cancer Society just because they haven’t yet cured cancer."
Fortunately for Missourians who like charter schools, the disaster in the St. Louis Public Schools makes even the least successful charters look like John Burroughs by comparison.
Interesting Story in Post About Outsourcing Mental Health Care
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very interesting story (link via Combest) on the state’s plan to send the casework on developmentally disabled citizens to local and county boards, and outside groups. I don’t yet know enough about this plan to talk with certainty about it, although it sounds good to me in theory. I think that some of the cost savings that would be realized by outsourcing should be put back into very solid oversight of the program. The Legislature has yet to approve this plan, and I look forward to hearing more about it. I hope both its pluses and minuses get a fair examination.
The real point of this post, though, is yet more examples of how the welfare state has become a permanent part of some people’s mindsets, and the belief many have — which I will never comprehend — that government bureaucrats are somehow more kindly and fair than employees in the private sector. Trust me on this, people — there is nobody more cold than a bureaucrat following orders and a budget. Here is a quote from one state rep whose worldview never fails to astound me:
Details aside, one legislator said the plan suffers from a core flaw. Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-Richmond Heights, said the state, not outside groups, has the duty of looking after the care of the developmentally disabled. "The real issue is that those clients are our responsibility," she said.
How about including the family in this issue, first and foremost? Isn’t it the responsibility of the families, rather than the state, to look after their own family members? Here is another quote demonstrating welfare-state creep:
Woodruff, of Poplar Bluff, fears those changes will spell the end of an arrangement that has allowed her son to live at home, with the help of round-the-clock care. "It’s all about the money, and it shouldn’t be about the money," she said.
Of course it is not about the money when everybody else is paying for it. I really don’t mean to sound cruel, but the assumption so many people have that other people should pay for their needs is something that always amazes me. As I said, I don’t know whether this proposal is a good one or not, but it sounds promising as a way to both improve service and make sure more of the money goes to the people who need it, rather than to the layers of bureaucracy that oversee it.
