It’s Time to Get Out of the Comfort Zone

Recently, the Stanford Education Opportunity Project released a new analysis of education data. The analysis measured the academic growth of students in a single school year. In other words, did a school’s student gain, on average, a full year of learning, more than a year, or less? While we would hope that most schools move their students a full year forward academically in a year, the fact is that many do not. As a result, children fall further and further behind.

How can we prevent this from happening? An analysis of these data yielded an interesting finding—a little competition might just do the trick. And how do we get that competition? We encourage charter schools to open in every type of district, even those with “good” schools that don’t “need” them.

Generally speaking, suburban school districts are believed to be the highest performing and the most protected from competition. When open enrollment was considered in Missouri, suburban districts balked. The fear was that students from low-performing urban districts would try to enroll in their schools while providing no local property tax dollars and depleting their test scores. This is not unique to Missouri. When open enrollment programs, in which students can choose any school in the state, are voluntary for districts, the higher-performing suburban districts often opt out.

But, according to this new analysis, when charter schools open in suburban districts those that have chosen to sit out open enrollment realize that they’re going to need to get in the game. Their students can already leave for a charter school so they might as well start competing with other districts in the area for open enrollment students. Of the six states analyzed, the one with the most competition—Arizona—also had the best growth performance. More importantly, the finding held for low-income students. Seventeen percent more suburban schools achieved more than one year of growth for their low-income students than achieved less than one year of growth. In Ohio, where there are no suburban charter schools and open enrollment is voluntary, the numbers were reversed. More suburban schools achieved less than one year of growth for low-income students than not.

Of course, Missouri has no suburban charter schools or voluntary open enrollment. We have suburban districts such as Columbia 93 that have become complacent and middling to low performing. We should be encouraging high-performing charter schools in these districts to push them out of their comfort zones.

Back to the Future on Licensing in Missouri

Many are familiar with the plot of the classic movie Back to the Future. While I am probably thinking of my job too much, I see this story relating to the status of licensing regulations in the most recent legislative session.

Missouri passed universal licensing reciprocity in 2020, meaning licenses from all other states can be used in Missouri. For example, 37 states across the country require licensure to be a makeup artist. Licensing reciprocity means that anyone who has a license in one of the 37 states can have Missouri licensing requirements waived when they move to Missouri to be a makeup artist. This policy lowers barriers to entry for professionals and in turn, increases the supply of workers and services. With increased supply and competition, quality increases while prices decrease.

However, Missouri legislators have taken the DeLorean and gone back in time by sending two bills (Senate Bill (SB) 157 and SB 70) to the governor’s desk. The bills would create a new licensing compact and also have Missouri join two other existing compacts. Licensing compacts allow workers with licenses in one state to practice without additional licensing requirements in other states in the compact. These compacts are essentially a less inclusive version of licensing reciprocity. Former Show-Me Institute Analyst Corianna Baier explained the harm licensing compacts can cause:

[T]he current licensing reciprocity statute states that licensing reciprocity “shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered into a licensing compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.” On its face, this language indicates that the license compact would overrule licensing reciprocity to the injury of Missouri consumers.

Essentially, a compact would partially cancel out licensing reciprocity. Missouri, like Mrs. McFly, is obsessing over the wrong thing. To use the makeup artist example: with reciprocity, anyone from any state (which has a license) can work in Missouri without having to get a new license; under a compact, only makeup artists from states included in the compact reap the benefits.

As Institute analysts have noted repeatedly, this glitch needs to be ironed out with a language change. If we remove the “compact exception” then Missouri can “restore the timeline” and Missouri will once again have full licensing reciprocity.

At this point you may be wondering: what is the benefit of compacts? The benefit of keeping compacts is that many other states don’t have reciprocity. For example, to practice telehealth in another state, one needs to be eligible in that state. While Missouri lets any license apply to our own state, suppose Arkansas does not have the same rules. Therefore, with the passage of the compact, a doctor in Cape Girardeau could now practice telehealth in Little Rock if Arkansas became a member of the same compact.

State regulatory boards are certainly satisfied with the expansion of compacts in our state, but our policymakers need to look out for the interests of Missouri consumers. Fixing the language that puts compacts and reciprocity in conflict would be a win for everyone in Missouri. Hopefully we will not need two more sequels to solve our issues.

“Mr. Mayor, Tear Down This House!”

The average size of American homes has increased dramatically in the post-war period. (And by post-war, I mean post-World War II, not post-Grenada.) The average size of a home has increased from 909 sq. ft. in 1949 to 2,480 sq. ft. by 2021.

Where do we put these larger homes? Well, obviously, many of them are new homes in outer suburbs around the country. But many of them are also infill housing, which simply means someone (often a developer or rehabber who plans to flip the property) buys an older home in a developed area and either substantially remodels it or tears it down and rebuilds from scratch. Usually, as the trend above indicates and the profit margin often requires, the new “infill” house is larger than the prior house. Because there are two constants in life—change and people complaining about change—infill housing often becomes a public policy issue.

While many cities have dealt with the issue of infill housing in Missouri, two cities are debating the issue right now. Columbia and Glendale are both considering changing their municipal codes to address infill housing, though Columbia at least for now has decided against any changes. The objections in both places—and basically everywhere this debate occurs—are very similar. I agree with some and disagree with some. In Columbia, supporters of a moratorium on in-fill development in part of the city described the concerns thusly:

Infill development doesn’t match the character or the scale of the existing neighborhood, historic buildings are not adequately protected, there is a lack of affordable housing, and the areas need better storm water management, stronger development buffers and increased walkability.

Remember, these aren’t really zoning disputes. In many cases, you have single family homes replaced by larger single-family homes. The infill housing in question in Columbia is a bit different, given that it’s a college town with more multi-family (i.e. student) housing in the area. Let’s start with where I agree with some limits or regulations on in-fill housing, which are the very real concerns about the stormwater and flooding issues. That is a big part of the Glendale debate. Tearing down an older home and replacing it with a larger home often involves filling up much more of the lot with concrete and asphalt, with much less space to retain water. Just a few of these infill houses on a block can mean worse flooding for downhill neighbors. These water issues are a legitimate issue for cities to address, either by requiring improved stormwater systems or requiring minimum greenspace on a lot.

What don’t I agree with? Generally, the neighborhood character argument. As people objecting to a development in St. Louis County a decade ago phrased it:

The “McMansions” of Berra’s proposed Estates are too large for small lots and are crammed together to maximize profits, while irrevocably changing the character and density of a treasured neighborhood, 15 residents living near Schuessler Road told the panel. They presented a petition with 186 signatures opposing the development.

The character of a neighborhood is not for the government to decide. That is best left to market decisions or homeowner indentures (which are now easier to amend in Missouri). Yes, the difference between neighborhood indentures and government zoning and regulations may seem small, but I think it is important. There are many aspects of life we do because of social commitments, not government mandates or laws. I can sympathize with objections based on size of the homes, etc., even if I don’t agree with them. I have much less sympathy for government regulations on “neighborhood character” issues like siding, color, heights, plywood, and so on. Those are decisions for people to make with their property, not the government, even in instances where the neighbors may reasonably hate it.

The End of the Session Episode

Susan Pendergrass, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the end of 2023 Missouri legislative session.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Watch or Listen: Jay Nordlinger – Adventures in Journalism

On May 9, 2023, Jay Nordlinger delivered a talk titled “Adventures in Journalism” at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Missouri.

During the talk, Nordlinger surveys today’s media landscape with what has become frequent dismay.

Listen as a Podcast

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

“We’ve never had so much journalism and so many outlets, which is great,” the National Review senior editor says. “But politics and journalism have merged, and … I’ve seen a lot of journalists begin to act like politicians with political calculations. That’s crippling to a writer.”
“You’ve got to be free at the keyboard,” he says, “to pursue the truth as you find it.”

Nordlinger, who lives in New York, writes the column “Impromptus” for NationalReview.com and is a book fellow of the National Review Institute. He’s the author of two books: Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World and Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. Selections of his work have been republished in two anthologies.

He also is a music critic for The New Criterion and the host of two podcasts, Q&A and Music for a While.

The event was co-presented by the Show-Me Institute, National Review Institute, the John W. Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise, and Show-Me Opportunity

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