Ladue Objects to Its Phone Bill

Posted on by David Stokes

The Post-Dispatch is reporting that the City of Ladue is balking at its requested contribution to the Municipal League for its share of the Verizon cell phone settlement. I certainly see Ladue’s point here. After all, the requested fee is for a share of the settlement after legal fees, so it does not go toward those. It just goes to help the county and state municipal leagues continue to lobby state government on behalf of local government, which is a whole ‘nother issue and which I think is a horrible use of tax dollars. I’ll save that for another day, though.

Here is an interesting little nugget in the article:

Ladue’s taxes in dispute exceeded $629,000, higher by far than any other city in the county.

I find that very interesting, since Ladue, with just 8,413 people, is not one of the larger cities in St. Louis County. Have the stereotypically wealthy people of Ladue used more cell phones for a longer time with more plan minutes than people in other cities? Are they so wealthy that the cell phones they bought in 1989, installed in their Jaguars (do you remember how popular those were in the ’80s?), with a rate of $3.50 per minute, are still in operation at those prices? Do they just not care about the new plans with stuff such as free phones and unlimited minutes? Do they not know they can add their butler to their favorite five and save a bundle? I am kidding here, of course. But the only answer I can think of as to why Ladue’s disputed tax bill is larger than any other city is that the residents have had more cell phones for a longer time on average. Any suggestions out there?

But back to the issue at hand. Ladue has a history of tough negotiating (see New I-64 project road changes), but at least this time they seem to have a fair argument. It’s not as though they are disputing the amount owed to the lawyers who did the actual work — just the amount owed the municipal league for whatever they did. And it’s not as if they won’t pay anything, they just won’t pay the full requested amount. I predict some sort of compromise here, as I can’t imagine the municipal league can sue over this, but this might well be one battle Ladue wins, and I commend them for fighting the moneygrab by the municipal league.

Choices for Drop-Outs

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

In an op-ed last year, I speculated that the high minority drop-out rate in St. Louis was caused by a lack of educational choices for students. A new website that’s trying to get Los Angeles drop-outs back in school supports my theory. On every page, the site emphasizes options and choices, and describes the variety of ways in which students can continue their educations. Here’s a quote from a Diploma Project Adviser:

“Students in this community need one-to-one attention — they need to know that somebody really does care about their future. There are so many options available to help students get their diploma, but they aren’t always aware they have choices."

Let’s see if this approach works better than the one-size-fits-all attitude of many districts. If it’s successful in L.A., St. Louis should consider offering its own dropouts more choices to lure them back.

The Perfect Nexus of Things I Can’t Stand

Posted on by David Stokes

Tiny little municipalities, red-light cameras, and policing for profit have found each other, just like chocolate and peanut butter finally did back in the ’70s. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article today (via Mr. Durrwachter Combest) on the tiny little Saint Louis County city of Beverly Hills improving safety making money by running new cameras at the corner of Lucas and Hunt and Natural Bridge. As if the policing for profit is not bad enough (and it is), Beverly Hills has actually put the cameras in a different city — Normandy:

"To put their cameras in our municipality and record our violations is none of their business," said Normandy Police Chief Douglas Lebert. "They’re policing in somebody else’s venue, and they’re generating a hell of a profit from it."

I can’t put it any better than that. Good for Chief Lebert! What should be done here? First, citizens need to elect local officials who are opposed to red-light cameras. Second, the state needs to alter the law capping the amount of any city’s budget that can come from traffic fines, lowering it to about 10 percent. Third, citizens need to fight these bulls%*#t tickets in court.

The businesses located along this intersection must love this quote in the story:

Page said the camera enforcement seems "a little unfair because they’re making a boatload of money" from the fines. Since then, Page said, she tries to avoid the intersection.

Thanks to these stories, I know now to avoid this area as much possible — and I used to go to the McDonald’s there once in a while. Making money for the municipality while hurting local businesses probably seems just fine to Beverly Hills officials, sad as that is.

It’s good to be back posting again after a week in Maine. More to come today, I assure you.

Don’t Know Much About History … (Or Economics)

Posted on by Justin Hauke

An Associated Press article printed in this morning’s Post-Dispatch details a subsidized housing project for teachers in New York City — a project that New York believes will be a model for other U.S. cities with escalating housing prices.

New York teacher salaries start at $42,000 per year, in a city where studio apartments average more than $2,000 per month. The lack of affordable housing has prompted teachers’ unions to petition for “affordable” housing within the city. For teachers, this means monthly rents closer to $800 per month.

It always amazes me when people respond to problems created and perpetuated by governments by proposing solutions that involve not less, but rather more, government intervention. I agree that housing costs are out of control in New York City and that most teachers are underpaid. But if it weren’t for the rent controls that the city imposes (which cause housing shortages and reduce the incentive for developers to create additional units or maintain existing ones), then affordable housing wouldn’t be an issue to begin with. And if it weren’t for the fact that teacher salaries are determined by a rigid (and arbitrary) government-imposed pay scale, perhaps good teachers would receive the compensation that they deserve, and an increasing number of quality teachers would be attracted to the field.

The “solution” being proposed to correct the problem in New York is to introduce additional government control, which will only exacerbate housing inequality and prevent the market from correcting price imbalances. I think that’s a model that we can do without.

Sinking Ship

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The Kansas City School District is attempting to prevent (through the court system) a November 6 ballot initiative which would allow Kansas City voters to decide whether or not to transfer seven schools from the Kansas City School District to the nearby Independence School District.

Residents of Independence and Sugar Creek (two Kansas City suburbs), whose homes are zoned to Kansas City public schools, believe that they should be “rezoned” to the Independence School District instead. They argue that Kansas City’s poor public education track record is responsible for falling property values and depressed economic growth within their communities.

It’s easy to see why residents would rather be zoned to the Independence School District. According to data collected by Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Services, more than twice as many students in the Independence School district received “proficient” scores on their Missouri MAP exit scores than did Kansas City students, despite the fact that the Independence School district spent nearly $2,500 less per student (in state tax dollars). Who wouldn’t want to switch to a district that is both more effective and less expensive?

How will districts ever improve if they remain insulated from competition? If individual schools were allowed to “jump ship,” perhaps school districts would have an incentive to improve performance, rather than tolerating decline.

Not Just Test Scores

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A column by Sylvester Brown Jr. in the Post-Dispatch today contains some thoughtful discussion about education reform. Although I don’t agree with all the conclusions, Brown raises important issues. For example, here is an excerpt from a discussion he had with Professor William Tate:

When politicians set the educational agenda solely based on test scores, they miss the big picture, Tate said.

"Test scores do not measure social development. You can’t talk about the educational phenomenon without considering the housing, health, juvenile justice and dropout phenomenons. That’s the role these great universities can play."

Politicians may set the educational agenda for now, Tate said, but St. Louis has the resources and "capacity to change."

"When it comes down to it, we’re all in charge; it’s a group deal. I think we can do better here," Tate said. "But it will require a consortium of leaders broadly concerned about the real future of our youth, not just test scores."

SLPS test scores are so poor that pointing them out is an eye-catching addition to any argument (including some of mine). But we shouldn’t base our support for any policy on test scores alone. After all, some countries have school systems that do a good job at achieving high scores but that fail in other areas, such as promoting creativity and independent thinking.

Tate and Brown think the plurality of educational purposes calls for more input from experts. I think it calls for more input from parents. When some parents look for a school, they are interested in test scores and academic achievement. A study summarized in Education Next has found that parents whose kids attend high-poverty schools are most interested in those measures of success. But even within socioeconomic groups, not all parents want the same things. Some parents care more about values and character education, extracurricular activities, a warm school environment, or a number of other factors. 

We don’t need one "educational agenda" for a diverse group of people. We should allow parents to make their own decisions about which schools their children attend. That way, parents can choose schools that excel in areas that matter to them — whether or not they include high test scores.

Time Is Money

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I enjoy reading the Missouri State Teachers’ Association blog, which includes fun links to English and math websites, as well as commentary on education policy. But I don’t think this is exactly what they meant to say:

I agree it is virtually impossible to meet all standards and grade-level expectations in the limited seat time kids currently serve.

So now attending school is serving time? I know some kids view school as a prison, but I thought the teachers were generally more positive about it.

Semantics aside, the post argues for a longer school year and observes that increasing the time kids spend ("serve") in school would be expensive. This is a variation on the adequacy argument: we can’t meet the standards with the amount of money we currently have, so give us more money. The problem with this is that if money or time isn’t being used effectively right now, spending more time or money the same way won’t improve anything.

I have a better idea. Since many districts already operate summer schools, and several private schools host summer enrichment programs as well, we could give low-income kids vouchers to attend summer classes at any existing program they choose. Kids who want to attend would reap the benefits of additional time in school. And because the program would be in operation for only a few months out of the year, it would be a way to explore parental choice without making any major changes to the regular school year.

Way to Go, Missouri!

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’ve complained in the past about Missouri’s system of occupational licensure, which requires manicurists, martial arts judges, and lots of other people to get permission from the state just to do their jobs. However, it turns out we’re not doing that badly compared with the rest of the nation. This report from Reason (linked by David Stokes in August) compares states by number of licensed job categories. With 41 licensed categories, Missouri has the fewest of all. (California, with 177, is the worst offender.)

I’m also happy to see that most of our categories seem almost sensible compared with the list of outrageous licenses on page 50 of the Reason report. We have no licenses for fortune tellers, reptile catchers, or turtle farmers. Although now that we have official state reptiles and invertebrates, we should be on the lookout for regulation of their catchers and farmers. 

Education Tall Tales

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article this morning detailing a study by the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, which claims that urban private high schools are no more effective at academic achievement or college completion than inner-city public high schools.

Please. I guess that’s why the first question I’m asked when I meet somebody new in St. Louis is, "Where did you go to high school?"

I’m not going to argue with the results here (though I do question the methodology … and our own Michael Podgursky has had issues with the author’s research in the past) but I will stress that this is from a national study, and local results will not necessarily be the same. There is plenty of research that documents the success of individual school choice programs in some of the nation’s worst-performing public school districts. More than anything, their success results the fact that teachers are free to pursue alternative curricula in private schools, which enables them to reach students who have traditionally failed in public education. And, according to Post-Dispatch‘s coverage, the study itself admits that “overall, low-income students in private schools outperformed those in public schools.”

Furthermore (and I realize this isn’t an effective rebuttal) the Center on Education Policy is hardly an objective source. According to their website, they claim that they are “independent,” “unbiased,” and that they do not “represent any special interests.” Yet in the same breath, they unabashedly state that they are avowed “advocates for public schools.” How can you be independent, unbiased, and immune to a special interest, when you are explicitly tied to a special interest to begin with?

I believe that public schools would perform better if they had incentives to innovate. That’s hardly an unrealistic assumption. If they are as great as the Center on Education Policy believes, then they should have no problem responding to increased competition. So what are the public school advocates afraid of?

Oh, and speaking of those wonderful “public schools,” there’s another article today about just how much taxpayer money they are wasting in adequacy lawsuits. So, while school districts argue that they aren’t given enough money by the Legislature, they are simultaneously wasting millions of tax dollars in legal fees, through an endless appeals process.

I wonder what the Center on Education Policy would say about that?

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