If only someone had warned them about this years ago. Oh, that’s right . . . we did.

The topic of public-employee pension reform has long been important to Show-Me Institute writers. Back in 2013, for example, Andrew Biggs wrote Public Employee Pensions in Missouri: A Looming Crisis. The report did not specifically analyze St. Louis’s teacher pension fund, but the point about the pending crisis applied nonetheless.

When we call attention to impending problems, we are often called alarmists. I have twice had teacher groups circulate action alerts warning members not to respond to my requests for information regarding pensions. It was so bad we actually recorded a podcast telling people we were not trying to take away their pensions. The pushback we received led me to ask, “can we have meaningful dialogue on pension reform?”

So—what changed?

Now, it is the educators themselves raising the alarm. In the KSDK report, Byron Clemens, with the American Federation of Teachers in St. Louis, and his brother, state representative Doug Clemens (D-72nd District), are both quoted on the matter. They highlight how the underfunding of pension systems is harming retirees.

Unfortunately, the Clemens brothers do not call for significant pension reform. They see the symptoms of the problem, but rather than address the structural issues that got us to this point they seem to argue for policies that would only treat the symptoms.

St. Louis’s pension system is underfunded because of the program’s design. Missouri needs to explore new options, such as defined-contribution and hybrid plans, to provide retirees a safe and secure retirement.

The post Rising Concerns about St. Louis’s Teacher Pension Fund appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The reason that the president of a teachers union is joining forces with the bipartisan SALT caucus is that taxpayers are more willing to raise state tax rates if they can at least deduct what they pay to the state from their federal taxes. If they can’t deduct state taxes, then they prefer to keep them at a minimum, thank you very much. Same goes for local property taxes. And why does the teachers union want higher state and local taxes? So that more resources can be directed at teacher pay and teacher pensions. The education establishment is taking time to throw support at having everyone pay more out of their pockets to support and grow the education establishment.

Teacher pay, teacher recruitment, and teacher retention are also on the list of legislative priorities for the Missouri State Board of Education. The board would like to see legislatively mandated minimum starting salaries of $35,000 for teachers by 2024. In addition, $50 million in federal stimulus funds have been directed at recruitment and retention.

It’s true that having a high-quality teacher in every classroom is one of the few things that can have a positive impact on academic achievement. But do we get there by protesting for higher state taxes for everyone? Do we get there by paying every teacher more, regardless of their effectiveness? Do we get there by perpetuating a costly and outdated system of retirement that often pays teachers for more years of retirement than working years?

Stuck In the middle of all this are the 65 percent of Missouri students who were not at grade level on the state math assessment last year. Also in the middle are students with disabilities who did not receive any services when their schools shut down, along with the parents who desperately want tutoring for children who have fallen behind these last two years. It’s a sad state of affairs when public education starts to look like a battle between those who support teachers and those who support families.

The post Is SALT Really a Priority for Schools Right Now? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the aftermath of the decision, government unions were unable to convince many non-members to become full-fledged members and pay dues. As I discussed in a previous post, union financial reports submitted to the Department of Labor show the National Education Association lost the 88,000 non-member agency fee payers it had in 2017. And the Americans Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union lost 110,000 agency fee payers. The financial reporting of another large public-sector union, the American Federation of Teachers, does not reflect the impact of Janus because its reporting period ended in the same month as the decision. However, a new report from the Freedom Foundation states that “union spokespeople indicate the union lost nearly all 85,000 agency fee-payers it had at the time of the decision.”

As Kovacs notes later in the piece, the Janus decision doesn’t only affect non-member fee payers, who in many states were the primary beneficiaries of the case, but also union members themselves. As the ruling notes, “Unless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them, this standard [for waiving one’s First Amendment rights] cannot be met.”

But are union members aware of these rights? Kovacs persuasively suggest that the answer is no, and that state law can still act as a barrier to securing these rights.

Prior to the Janus decision, workers who wished to opt-out of union membership were restricted by what are known as window periods. For example, in Michigan, many public employees could only leave their union once a year during a short period of time in August. Other window periods only permitted members to leave the union for a brief time period around the anniversary of their hiring.

Despite the text of the decision that allows workers to resign union membership nearly at any time, labor unions are still blocking workers who want to leave by enforcing these invalid window periods. In a recent case, Hendrickson v. AFSCME, New Mexico public employee Brett Hendrickson, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, was prohibited from exercising his Janus rights to resign from union membership. Hendrickson, a quality control specialist for the New Mexico Human Services Department, attempted to leave AFSCME Council 18 and stop dues from being deducted from his paycheck, but was told he could only opt-out during a narrow window period. This is just one of many examples of unions coercing worker to continue paying dues and undermining their First amendment rights.

To what extent Missouri government workers are having their rights curtailed is the subject of rigorous debate. For instance, a court injunction against House Bill (HB) 1413, which reformed much of Missouri’s labor law framework, has created uncertainty as to what the law is on basic issues like union membership and representation. Also, collective bargaining agreements in the state were (to be generous) lightly overseen by the state even before HB 1413 became law, meaning that violations of workers’ rights could be ongoing—and hardly anyone would know about it. Fortunately, Missouri did not technically allow for “fair share fees” of the sort that Janus put an end to nationwide, so many Missouri workers had at least incidental knowledge of their labor rights in the Show-Me State. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.

The better educated workers are about their rights, the better off they will be. Especially in this post-Janus legal environment, that educational process is more important than ever.

The post Are Government Unions Adequately Informing Workers of Their Rights? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But regardless of the extent to which the case affected a given state, the Court’s ruling highlights a pair of important questions that Missouri educators have to grapple with each year: namely, why might teachers join a union, and if they joined, what would their dues pay for?

Unionized teachers do receive some tangible benefits from their membership, such as legal services in the event they’re fired or sued, and liability insurance. The cost of union membership varies depending on location and the union involved; dues are typically either flat, such as the annual $219 for the Missouri State Teachers Association, or a percentage of salary, such as the one percent for the St. Louis chapter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Of course, if a teacher doesn’t join, he or she is still covered by the salary schedule; not joining has no impact on things like health insurance, tenure, or seniority.

But if a teacher does join a union, a portion of their union dues often goes to advocacy work and to support political candidates. Given the diverse opinions of teachers, the funneling of dollars to particular causes often runs afoul of an individual teacher’s own personal beliefs. For example, at the national AFT conference just a few weeks ago, a resolution was passed that stipulated what policies a candidate must support to receive the union’s endorsement. These included, among other things, universal health care, universal and free child care, doubled per-pupil expenditures for low-income students, and free college

What a lot of teachers don’t know when faced with the decision of joining a union is that the vast majority of the benefits unions offer are also available through other vendors. For example, dues for Association of American Educators (AAE), a non-union professional organization for teachers, are just under $200 per year, and the benefits are similar to those offered by unions—disability insurance, legal protection—but without the politics. And if joining a group of any kind isn’t your style, teachers can always buy many of the benefits they want a la carte on the open market.

In short, Missouri teachers have a lot of options in determining how they’ll advance their professional interests—and they can do so with or without the political speech embedded in the operations of a government union. And especially after the passage of HB 1413, teachers in Missouri are particularly empowered to have a say in who represents them to their districts, and to see how unions spend the money they receive from members. Perhaps one day, public school teachers will even be able to negotiate their own employee contracts and have a freer hand to choose their health insurance and retirement plans, like many of the rest of us already have. But until then, Missouri teachers still have a lot of choices that they can make, and fortunately, subsidizing a union’s political speech doesn’t have to be one of them.

The post Missouri Public Teachers, Take Note: Union Membership Is Optional appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter schools are public schools, but instead of being governed by a local school board, they are governed by a document—their charter—that lays out how the school will operate and the metrics by which its performance will be judged. The charter is granted to the group of individuals who seek to open and run the school, and it has an expiration date of three to five years, at which point it needs to be renewed or the school is closed. The charter is awarded by an authorizer, or sponsor, who is responsible for making sure that the school stays on track, both academically and financially, and who makes the renewal or closure recommendation.

A little history might be helpful in understanding how the charter school movement began. It started in the late 1980s as an idea to let teachers, parents, or community leaders open and run a public school outside of district oversight. Credit for the idea usually goes to Al Shanker—head of one of the two major teacher’s unions in the United States. In 1988, Shanker offered an idea for reinvigorating public education that was inspired by a visit to a school in Cologne, Germany the prior year. He argued that we should allow teachers to create innovative, autonomous public schools, and that these chartered schools would serve as laboratories from which effective ideas could be replicated.

Around the same time, political economists John Chubb and Terry Moe argued that the institutional structure of public education wasn’t working. they found that autonomy was the one indispensable requirement for an effective school. And, they concluded, the existing structure of public education limits and undermines school autonomy. In their book Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, Chubb and Moe proposed building an entirely new structure for public education that would withdraw authority from existing institutions and place it directly in the hands of schools, parents, and students. School districts could continue to operate their existing schools, but they would have no authority over the “chartered” public schools.

In 1991, bipartisan support for Al Shanker’s idea led to the passage of the first charter school law in Minnesota. The law was groundbreaking, and in 1992 eight chartered public schools opened in Minnesota that were autonomous, student-centered, results-oriented, and designed and run by teachers. The following year California followed suit. At the start of the 2017–18 school year, there were over 7,000 charter schools in 42 states plus the District of Columbia, serving nearly 3.2 million students. Charter schools now represent seven percent of all public schools and enroll six percent of public school students. Today, one in five public school students attends school in a district with at least 10 percent of its students in charter schools.

The post Charter Schools 101: What Is a Charter School? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cory Deangelis of Cato reviewed the eight existing studies on school choice and integration that were conducted using rigorous, empirical research methods. Seven showed that school choice programs were associated with statistically significant progress toward racial integration (the other yielded results that were statistically neutral). These studies looked at voucher programs in Cleveland, Louisiana, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C.

Attempting to revive long-debunked claims doesn’t help kids get a better education. With clear research on school choice and segregation, discussions of school choice should focus on what will improve schools for all kids. 

The post The School Choice Segregation Myth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This must come as a surprise for readers of this blog, many of whom support school choice because it gives greater opportunity for minority families trapped in schools that are failing to meet their children’s needs. Sorry to break it to you! It turns out (or so we are told) that because some racists used school vouchers 60 years ago to try and thwart integration and some unsavory characters spoke ill of public schooling more than a century ago, school choice is forever tainted.

This is a terrible argument.

It is a terrible argument on the facts, which are either contradict the critics’ claims or are grossly oversimplified. (Not convinced yet? Even more detailed evidence here.)

It is a terrible argument because examples of racists twisting policies and ideas to suit their own purposes are everywhere: from the minimum wage, to federal support for housing, to labor unions, and even to traditional public schools themselves. Pointing out these examples is not a good way to argue about contemporary problems.

But more than anything it is a terrible argument because so many minority families want school choice and benefit from it.

The old lawyerly saw advises “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. And when neither are on your side, pound the table.” School choice opponents are doing some serious table pounding right now. Don’t fall for it.

The post Is School Choice Racist? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Often, people who propose reforming public employee pension systems—people like me and the scholars at the Show-Me Institute—get painted with a very negative brush. In 2013, the American Federation of Teachers listed the Show-Me Institute and two other organizations as personae non gratae for pension fund managers, suggesting that plans should disinvest from funds affiliated with the Institute. In 2015 (and at various other times), Steve Yoakum, executive director of the Public School Retirement System of Missouri, attacked SMI in a letter to retirees. He wrote, “As has become a pattern, ‘studies’ done by the Show-Me Institute and their attendant comments tend to mislead both participants and Missouri citizens and this was no exception.”

What’s interesting is that the report from the University of Missouri faculty makes many of the exact same arguments that we have made at the Show-Me Institute for years. For example, the committee noted that DB plans can provide excellent retirement security for individuals who work a full career at the university. However, few actually do this . Indeed, the report noted “that only 16% [of employees] reach 20 or more years of service.”

What the majority of the members of the committee came to realize was that the standard DB pension plan was simply too risky. The system was shouldering a burden that it could ill afford to carry. So, they suggested a change.

Pension reform is not a crazy conspiracy to rob retirees, as some might have you believe. It is simply common sense planning. It is time for other DB pension systems in Missouri to follow the University of Missouri system’s lead. 

The post University of Missouri System Reformed Pensions in 2012. Other Plans Should Follow Suit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recently, teachers at Grand Center Arts Academy have taken steps toward becoming the first charter school in St. Louis to unionize. Unionization in charter schools is uncommon. According to one survey, only 7 percent of charter schools were unionized in 2012. Last month, about 80 percent of the Grand Center Arts Academy staff signed cards indicating their desire to join a local chapter of AFT.

On the one hand, a union can give teachers a voice. A union that’s accountable to its members allows teachers to participate in the formulation and implementation of school policies. A good union can serve as a counterbalance to an administration that makes decisions without paying attention to the concerns of the people working in the classrooms.

On the other hand, restrictive components of union contracts can interfere with administrative decision-making, offering benefits to employees to the detriment of students. In the Fort Zumwalt School District, for example, the union contract provides guidelines for laying off teachers—last in, first out: new teachers are fired first, even if they are better teachers.

Unlike in traditional schools, families always have the option of leaving a charter school if it doesn’t live up to their expectations. Teachers can’t as easily leave a union. Once teachers unionize, it’s hard to de-unionize.

After an initial union election, no further elections are scheduled, no term limits are imposed, and the union stays in power indefinitely. New employees are forced to accept representation from a union they never had the chance to vote for. A 2015 American Association of Educators survey reported only 8 percent of teachers surveyed had voted for the union representing them.

As Al Shanker believed, charter schools should be laboratories for experimentation. So why not experiment with a new form of union representation in which teachers get to vote for their union in regular elections?

Regular union elections give employees the right to select a union to represent them for a fixed term. When this term ends, employees hold another election where they vote to keep their union, elect another union, or de-unionize the workplace all together. Union elections provide a distinct advantage over traditional union representation, where it can be very hard to remove a union from power if it doesn’t live up to expectations.

In Missouri, school boards get to adopt the labor policy for a school district. Confluence Charter Schools, which operates Grand Center Arts Academy, could set a labor policy that allows its teachers to unionize so long as they are allowed to vote on unionization every two years. This way, if the arrangement with AFT didn’t work out, or teachers wanted the services of a competitor like the National Educators Association instead, they’d have an established policy in place for making this transition.

Confluence has every reason to view the unionization of their teachers with concern. But they can also see it as an opportunity to advance the creative spirit of the charter school movement. And that benefits everyone.

The post Charter School Unionization: An Innovative Approach appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• 98% of educators surveyed believe teachers should have the right to choose an association that best fits their needs. Missouri teachers do have this freedom. However, while the teacher may benefit from the professional development opportunities and liability insurance their association offers, teachers don’t have a choice as to who represents them during negotiations over salary and benefits.
• 68% of members would prefer to negotiate their own contract. Wouldn’t it be nice if a teacher who works twice as hard as other teachers and increases academic achievement more than other teachers could ask for a raise? This is unheard of in education, where 84 percent of AAE members say collective negotiations do little to recognize excellent teachers. No wonder schools have such a difficult time holding onto great teachers! They can’t reward them appropriately.
• Only 8% of educators surveyed reported ever having participated in a union certification election. That means that an overwhelming majority of teachers surveyed have never had the chance to vote for which union represents them. Can you imagine if you never got the chance to vote for an elected official—state representative, governor, congresswoman—and the elected official stayed in office indefinitely?

Regular union elections ensure that government employees like teachers have the opportunity to vote for the union or professional association that best represents their interests. While education analysts at the Show-Me Institute often advocate for more choice for students, teachers need choice, too. Teachers need the freedom to decide who represents them at the bargaining table. Whether that’s the individual teacher or a preferred association, teachers should have the freedom to choose. 

The post Teacher Survey Makes Case for More Government Employee Freedom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One topic of discussion was pay for teachers. Flinders asserted that Kansas City teachers are paid lower than the state average. She is most likely correct, and there is something we can do to fix it. In previous posts we suggested reforming teacher pay schedules to increase the incentive for teachers to stay on.

But the district actually can pay teachers more if it cuts back on hiring non-teacher personnel. According to my colleague Brittany Wagner,

Over the past 60 years, schools have increased non-teaching personnel positions by 702 percent. [A report] also found the U.S. spends more than double what Korea, Mexico, Finland, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Spain spend on non-teaching staff salaries and benefits.

Recall that upon arriving Superintendent John Covington asserted that the district was too big, and in 2010 KCPS closed 30 buildings and eliminated 1,247 full-time equivalent positions. Doing so freed up a great deal of money. According to Wagner,

One study showed that if non-teaching personnel grew at the same rate as the student population, American public schools would have an additional $24.3 billion annually.

This impacts pensions as well, which is far greater than the immediate cost of this educational bloat on salaries. Show-Me Researcher Michael Rathbone writes,

Non-teaching personnel also accrue pension benefits through the Public Education Employee Retirement System of Missouri (PEERS). According to the PEERS annual report, “PEERS is a mandatory cost-sharing multiple employer retirement system for all public school district employees (except the school districts of St. Louis and Kansas City), employees of the Missouri Association of School Administrators, and community college employees (except St. Louis Community College).” Members of the plan and their employers both contribute to the pension.

Over the last five years, the unfunded liabilities (liabilities minus assets) of this plan have increased by more than $64 million. Pension benefits like PEERS benefits are guaranteed and must be paid out. If PEERS can’t make those payments, taxpayers (i.e., you) will have to.

By spending too much on non-teacher personnel, KCPS is draining resources from both funds to pay teachers in the short term and teacher pension funds in the long term. Cutting back on non-teacher staff—or perhaps just restricting growth—would allow school districts to better meet their financial responsibilities to teachers and to demonstrate a real commitment to the children in the classroom.

The post Ideas for Kansas City Schools: Focus on Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri is submitting a new teacher equity plan to the Department of Education. As the Associated Press reports, the plan touches on the unequal distribution of experienced teachers within urban and rural school districts. States must submit updated plans to continue receiving waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

Within a draft of Missouri’s Educator Equity Plan, DESE writes, “According to federal guidance, less effective teachers are those who are inexperienced, unqualified, or out of field.” Later in the plan, the department presents dozens of ideas about how to recruit effective teachers to rural, poor communities.

Though DESE highlights a few academic studies, it neglects research with alternate findings especially in relation to experience and education versus student achievement. This—combined with the listed stakeholders (National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, Missouri State Teachers Association, etc.) who played a role in giving the department recommendations—produced several unsurprising potential strategies.

• Increased salary
• Smaller class size
• Entry-level screening tools
• Content knowledge and pedagogical skills assessment

None of the listed strategies are “proven” to increase academic achievement. Still, the state continues to draw away from local policies in favor of controversial state and federal mandates.

This is not to say that recruiting teachers to rural communities isn’t a problem; one study found that 75 percent of teachers in urban areas stay in their hometown, while only 43 percent of rural teachers remain. There are, however, more creative solutions to ensure students in rural communities receive a quality education. Here are a few:

• Expand educational opportunity through virtual learning (DESE lists this one, Bravo!).
• Eliminate state mandates that encourage the use of salary schedules, which judge teachers based on experience and education. A competitive salary early on for science and math teachers may drive more qualified teachers to the profession.
• Eliminate arduous certification requirements. The Bering Strait School District in Alaska has 15 schools covering more than 80,000 square miles, many of which must be reached by airplane. The Alaska State Department of Education has recently given waivers to school districts, allowing them to recruit teachers from out of field. “It’s really been handy. Just recently, we hired a language arts teacher with no background, but he’s a good teacher, he’s what we look for,” a Bering Strait personnel staff member told me.
• Allow school districts to operate like businesses—let administrators make personnel decisions that make the most sense to the students within the school district.

The post Missouri’s Teacher Equity Plan Draft Misses the Mark appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The graphic below represents how teachers’ unions influence local school districts.

The first path of influence is through national and state political activity. At both levels, teachers’ unions make contributions to candidates that are likely to represent their platforms. The NEA, for example, takes strong positions on national education issues such as Common Core and school choice.

Unions also back issues at the state level—the Missouri NEA is reported to have donated $20,000 to campaign against Amendment 3, an initiative to end teacher tenure in Missouri, while it’s PAC, the Committee in Support of Public Educators, raised almost $90,000. Although there is money spent on the opposite side, monetary contributions are not the only way teachers’ unions influence policy.

Involvement in school board elections is the second route of influence. In Missouri, teachers’ unions have the right to collectively bargain with school administrations. These agreements include a range of items such as workplace rules, teachers’ compensation, and personnel decisions. According to union guru Myron Lieberman, collective bargaining was initially seen as a check on the power of school boards, who are democratically elected by residents within a school district.

However, a study by Stanford Political Scientist Terry Moe showed that within the 253 school districts examined unions supported school board candidates in 92 percent of the districts,”made phone calls in 97 percent, campaigned door-to-door in 68 percent, and provided mailings and publicity in 94 percent.”

If Moe’s study holds true in Missouri, then teachers’ unions have influenced school board elections, helping to elect candidates with similar views—nine Missouri school boards have passed resolutions against Amendment 3.

Through these two paths, the teachers’ union cycle perpetually strengthens itself. By limiting the power of parents, influencing the hand of local school district officials, and mobilizing state and national efforts to keep the status quo, the teachers’ union is able to protect the people the system was designed to serve—teachers.

Protecting the interests of teachers is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that within the teachers’ union cycle the interests of teachers often outweigh the needs of students.

The post The Teachers’ Union Cycle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri teachers are tenured, or become permanent teachers, once they have taught for five consecutive years within the same district. According to the American Federation of Teachers, a Missouri tenured teacher may be fired only in the following circumstances:

(1) physical or mental condition unfitting him to instruct or associate with children;

(2) immoral conduct;

(3) incompetency, inefficiency or insubordination in the line of duty;

(4) willful or persistent violation of, or failure to obey, the school laws of the state or the published regulations of the board of education of the school district;

(5) excessive or unreasonable absence from performance of duties; or

(6) conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude.  

This law is meant to protect Missouri teachers, but does it provide Missouri students with protection from bad teachers? A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge recently considered this question.

Judge Rolf Treu found on Tuesday that teacher tenure protections “disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students.” The ruling cited Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court case that declared segregated schools are not equal. Judge Treu said:

All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience.  All sides agree that grossly ineffective teachers substantially undermine the ability of that child to succeed in school.

California’s teacher tenure laws may differ from Missouri’s, but the problems are the same. One Missouri superintendent reported, “Teacher tenure is the greatest restraint to student performance!” If we hope to provide all students with at least a chance at success, we must consider Missouri tenure reform.

The post Teacher Tenure: Good for Teachers, Bad for Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Find out what has been going on at the Show-Me Institute. The newsletter features articles about the Common Core State Standards and the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority as well as a feature story on Show-Me Institute supporters Joe and Judy Roetheli. You can also read about our recent dust-up with the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers’ union.

Happy reading.

Click here to view the June Newsletter.

The post Check Out The Show-Me Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of course, Taibbi knows his role in that game and plays it as best he can. But I would like to know his source on this nifty factoid (emphasis mine):

Dan Loeb isn’t the only hedge fund manager aligned with groups like Students First, the Manhattan Institute, or local anti-benefit lobbies like the Show-Me Institute (created by billionaire Rex Sinquefield to campaign against defined benefit plans in Missouri) . . .

Oh? And what actual evidence, Matt, do you have for the assertion that the Show-Me Institute — now close to a decade old — was founded for the purpose of “campaign[ing] against defined benefit plans”?

We’re waiting.

But while we wait, Matt, I did want to tell you that I found your investment advice remarkable, compelling, and ironic (emphasis mine):

A lot of teachers and public sector workers would do just as well to just dump their money on some plain-vanilla S&P index and not pay obscene tax-sheltered fees[…]. Not only would the returns probably be a wash or close to it, but retirees at least wouldn’t be stripping themselves of their biggest asset – the political power their money represents.

That is excellent advice. And you know who helped invent the first S&P index fund? Rex Sinquefield, of course. But you knew that, right?

Right?

The post It Is Called ‘Fact-Checking,’ Rolling Stone, And You Should Try It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The public-sector union included Show-Me Institute board members as part of a national blacklist of fund managers that public pension trustees are encouraged to avoid.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, the union’s goal is to “strong-arm pension trustees not to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds that support education reform.” (Full Article)

“The Show-Me Institute will not be bullied by the American Federation of Teachers into abandoning ideas that are in the interests of the people of Missouri,” Show-Me Institute Executive Director Brenda Talent said. “It is ironic, and sad, that a union which claims to represent kids and teachers is using pressure tactics to defeat proposals that would benefit both groups. We will continue our principled fight for Missouri’s students, taxpayers, and pensioners — whether the AFT likes it or not.”

Read a post on this event on Show-Me Daily.

The post American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The public-sector union included Show-Me Institute board members as part of a national blacklist of fund managers that public pension trustees are encouraged to avoid.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, the union’s goal is to “strong-arm pension trustees not to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds that support education reform.” (Full Article)

“The Show-Me Institute will not be bullied by the American Federation of Teachers into abandoning ideas that are in the interests of the people of Missouri,” Show-Me Institute Executive Director Brenda Talent said. “It is ironic, and sad, that a union which claims to represent kids and teachers is using pressure tactics to defeat proposals that would benefit both groups. We will continue our principled fight for Missouri’s students, taxpayers, and pensioners — whether the AFT likes it or not.”

The post Press Release: American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The union report says it wants pension trustees to “take into account certain collateral factors, such as a manager’s position on collective bargaining, privatization [read: vouchers] or proposals to discontinue providing benefits through defined benefit plans.”

The report adds the lovely threat that “The American Federation of Teachers is committed to shining a bright light on organizations that harm public sector workers, especially when those organizations are financed by individuals who earn their money from the deferred wages of our teachers.”

The report goes on to list StudentsFirst, the Show Me Institute and the Manhattan Institute as special bêtes noires that promote school and pension reform. And it helpfully lists no fewer than 34 funds whose “directors, managers, advisors and executives” have dared to support reform organizations. The funds on the blackball list include such well-known names as Appaloosa Management, Elliott Management, Khronos, KKR and Tudor Investment.

The AFT’s national report also appears to have been coordinated with a local AFT affiliate. Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a letter to the editor by Byron Clemens that assailed the Show-Me Institute and the pension work of Mike Podgursky, a Show-Me Institute board member and economist. Yet despite all of Clemens’ supposed sleuthing, the author ironically failed to reveal that he . . . is a “union organizer” with AFT. For a letter so intent on establishing “links,” it is curious Clemens did not reveal his own.

But what the AFT and Clemens did get right, explicitly and implicitly, is that if public unions such as the AFT stand in the way of reforms that would protect taxpayers and help kids, they should absolutely worry about the threat the Show-Me Institute poses to them. And to be clear, we will, with great pleasure, continue the fervent, methodical, and fact-based research that has raised their ire.

The post As Reported In The Wall Street Journal: American Federation of Teachers Attacks Show-Me appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Sometimes Old Law Is Good Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.