It is vitally important that our community know the facts of the case, because there’s more here than meets the eye.

Beginning at the beginning

Courts first heard the issue of school segregation in St. Louis in 1972. That year, Minnie Liddell, a parent in the Saint Louis Public Schools, and a group of 4 other parents filed a complaint in U.S. District Court arguing that the policies of the school district and the State of Missouri were promoting segregation in Saint Louis. The case was complicated and difficult, because segregation in the region involved much more than just school policy. Housing policy, history, and the free choices of individuals all contributed to the problem.

In 1983, after several iterations of the original lawsuit (you can see the whole timeline here), and under the gun of a court-mandated consolidation of the city and county school districts, the St. Louis Public Schools entered into a voluntary transfer program with the 23 districts in St. Louis County. At the same time, investments were made to create magnet schools, offer kindergarten, and make other improvements within St. Louis. The hope was that the magnets would bring white students in from the county, and black students who attended overwhelmingly black schools would be free to go to schools in the county.

While the program satisfied the demands of the courts, the crux of the plan was its cost.  Because the courts found the state at fault for the segregated conditions of schools, the state initially had to pay the lion’s share of the program. By the mid to late-1990s, the state argued that it had done what was asked of it and should therefore be released from its obligation to pay for the desegregation efforts.  The compromise that resulted is central to today’s lawsuit.

In 1999, voters in St. Louis City agreed to a dedicated two-thirds-cent sales tax to fund the desegregation program. The voluntary transfer program became a standalone entity, financed by this new tax, and still exists today. According to its website, this year about 4,500 students will transfer out of the city and into the county and 140 students will transfer from the county into city schools (charter and district). The rest of the money went to provide quality options within the city, both to attract white students and to provide minority students who remained as good an education as possible.

Starting in 2006, when charter schools became their own local education agencies, a portion of those funds started being sent to them directly (previously, the money had to funnel through the district). And therein lies the rub. The district thinks that only it should receive the money. The state says charters, which operate within the boundaries of the district as open-enrollment public schools, should get it as well. As the Post-Dispatch reports, the St. Louis Public Schools want the $42 million charters have received returned to them, and want the $8.8 million that is supposed to go to charter schools this school year to be remitted to the school district as well.

Should charter schools receive desegregation funds?

The purpose of the various desegregation lawsuits in St. Louis is clear. First, they were intended to provide an opportunity for black students to get out of the segregated schools in St. Louis City. Second, they wanted to promote schools that would attract white students from the suburbs to help integrate the schools. Finally, they worked to create quality school options for all students, regardless of race, in St. Louis.

With respect to interdistrict transfers, charters have little bearing on the first goal of these lawsuits. Most charter schools participate in the Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation (VICC), but because such a small number of county students want to go into the city, they play a small role in it. Charter schools do not adversely affect the students who want to leave.

Charter Schools do affect the second goal. As my colleague James Shuls pointed out last week, charter schools attract white students to the school district. In fact, they have been singularly responsible for increasing white enrollment, helping integrate the schools.

Charter schools affect the third goal as well, by providing quality education options for students within St. Louis. According to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, City Garden Montessori, Northside Community School, and the St. Louis Language Immersion schools all earned at least 90% of the possible points in the state’s Annual Performance Rating. That places them in the top echelon of schools in the state and well exceeds the citywide average 76.1%. The three St. Louis Language Immersion Schools provide instruction in French, Spanish, and Chinese. These are the very types of diverse, quality options the desegregation money was levied to provide.

Now, I imagine there are numerous legal technicalities buried in the various motions related to this case, but the plain Jane, average-citizen understanding of the issues couldn’t be clearer. Charter schools help the city’s desegregation efforts. If those dollars are being levied to aid in desegregation, charter schools should have access to them.

What’s up with the timing? Didn’t charter folks just come out for the District’s property tax increase?

Why, yes. Yes they did. And that is what makes this very interesting.

If there is some kind of violation here, it has been happening since 2006. According to the Post-Dispatch article, concerns were first raised in 2008. Why is the lawsuit being filed now?

Well, on April 5 (a Tuesday) the district won its first property tax levy in 25 years. Charter school supporters backed the increase, as they are slated to get about a third of the money that it raises (because charters educate about a third of St. Louis’ public school students). The following Monday, April 11, the District filed the lawsuit. Was it just happenstance that the lawsuit wasn’t filed until after the property tax levy vote?

What will the impact of this lawsuit be?

This is the $42 million question. On one level, the increased revenue from the property tax vote is slated to provide about the same amount of money to charter schools on an annual basis that they would lose should they lose the lawsuit. If they lose, the best case scenario for charter schools would be for the state to pay the $42 million.  While the district would be able to have its cake and eat it too (with both a property tax increase and a huge windfall of desegregation money) the charter schools would be in about the same financial position as they are today.  That position is tenuous, however, as charter schools are funded at a level significantly below that of traditional public schools.

There is also a second, much more troubling scenario. Under the wording of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are asking the state for the money that was allegedly improperly paid to charter schools. According to the Missouri Charter Public School Alliance, though, the State of Missouri could require schools to pay back the money the state gave them. I am not one for hyperbole, but this could very well end charter schooling in St. Louis. None of the schools has the money to pay back 10 years’ worth of desegregation payments.

Either way, losing this funding stream would harm charter schools and limit the kinds of programming they would be able to offer to students in Saint Louis.

Summing it all up

This lawsuit would hurt charter schools in Saint Louis, many of which are getting great results and providing a high-quality education for city children of all races. The average citizen may see the Saint Louis Public Schools attempting to claim money they believe they are entitled to, but to a more cynical observer this might look like an attempt to stifle competition at the expense of students. Providing a quality education in Saint Louis is the expressed purpose of the two-thirds-cent sales tax, and so long as charter schools are playing their part, they should have the city’s support. This suit is misguided, and my only hope is that when it is heard, the judge dismisses it on the spot.

The post #Dropthesuit, Explained appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri, like all other states, requires teachers to pass a series of examinations before they can become a teacher. These tests act as a barrier to entry. As I have written before, barriers to entry are only effective if they do what they are supposed to do. In this case, the tests should keep out individuals who would be bad teachers. My research has shown that the relationship between performance on licensure exams and performance in the classroom is pretty weak. Despite this fact, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary education sees licensure exams as a key driver to improving the quality of the teacher labor force.

Education is not the only area in which tests are used to screen out candidates. For example, lawyers have to take the Missouri Bar Exam, which has three parts. Compare this to the sheer number of teacher licensure exams for those wanting to work in public schools (see below). Whether you are in bankruptcy law, civil rights law, criminal law, corporate law, family law, or any other field in the law profession, you take one exam—the bar exam. In education, however, we have constructed tests for just about every single thing.

Want to be a high school biology teacher? There is a test for that. Want to teach chemistry? There is a test for that. Want to teach earth science, general science, or physics? There is a test for each of those. Oh yeah, and you will also have to take a test of your disposition, the Missouri Educator Profile; a test of general knowledge, the Missouri General Education Assessment; and you’ll be evaluated in the classroom by the Missouri Performance Assessment.

It is understandable to want to ensure that prospective teachers have basic competencies. We will not change the quality of the labor force, however, unless we change the structure of the profession. We must begin rewarding great teachers and become more diligent on removing or remediating the bad ones. As it is, we’ve simply gone test crazy when it comes to teacher certification.

The post Too Much Testing in Public Education – For Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The typical public education model restricts most families from having much say in the type of education their child receives because children are sorted by attendance catchment areas. The traditional model does have school choice; but those choices are, for the most part, limited to moving to a better neighborhood or paying for private school tuition. Many families do not have these options. In Saint Louis, this is changing. Charter schools are giving more and more families educational opportunities for their children.

I recently took a tour of six of the 22 charter schools in Saint Louis and was amazed at the differences among the schools. Gateway Science Academy students are focused on developing their expertise in math and the sciences through innovative programs. Preclarus Mastery Academy students are learning Latin and preparing for college success while students at Saint Louis Language Immersion Schools are immersed in Spanish, French, or Chinese. Grand Center Arts Academy students in one class were acting out scenes they had written, while students in the next room were learning a dance routine. Students at City Garden Montessori were spread out, working on self-directed learning projects as teachers provided guidance.

Each school focuses on academics, but each also has a unique niche, offering something distinctive to students.

The conversation about schools often focuses on standardized test performance. We ask how charter schools are doing compared to the district, or how the district is doing compared to the state. Those are worthwhile questions, but schools are doing more than preparing students for tests. The schools I visited offer students something very unique that may or may not translate to gains on a standardized test, such as learning a new language or developing creative skills. When we focus solely on a school’s performance on standardized tests, we miss a big part of the picture. We miss the variety and options that these schools provide to families.

Critics of school choice often argue that families will not know how to make good choices or that students who remain behind will somehow be hurt by other students leaving. Both of these claims are unfounded. First, parents are very savvy and are capable of making choices for their children. I know nothing about the medical profession, but we were able to choose a great pediatrician. If anything, parents lack experience, but experience comes from having the opportunity to make those decisions.

Secondly, most of the scholarly evidence suggests that the traditional public schools are no worse off, and in some cases, are better when they face competition. As school choice has accelerated in Saint Louis, the St. Louis Public School District has also been improving. The district appears to be responding to the increased competition, opening innovative magnet schools, focusing on teacher quality, and exploring opportunities to improve. As they do, the portfolio of quality educational options in Saint Louis will continue to grow.

Robbyn Wahby, deputy chief of staff for Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay, says three more charter schools are slated to open next year, and she expects that trend to continue in the foreseeable future. With more schools comes more opportunity; more opportunity means finally being able to ask, ”Which school would best meet the needs of my child and my family?” That is what school choice is really about, giving families options.

If you have not had the opportunity to visit any of these unique schools, I highly recommend you do so.

James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Charter Schools Are Giving Families Options appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The kicker here is that this is not an isolated incident — all unaccredited districts and districts with provisional accreditation for two years are required to pay for these courses for their students. Unfortunately, few districts make this readily known. What is more, all school districts have the option to offer MOVIP courses to their students.

As Show-Me policy analysts have noted (here and here), virtual education has tremendous potential to improve and broaden the quality of education for Missouri students. Schools should be lining up to partner with MOVIP.

Imagine a classroom full of students on computers, each taking a different virtual course. One student is making up English I, which he previously failed, while another is taking a course on web design. Other students are taking foreign language courses that the school could not offer, perhaps Chinese, German, Japanese, or Latin.

We are in a tremendous age, where technology is transforming how we operate in our daily lives. Now, technology has the potential to change how we educate our students. By partnering with MOVIP, schools can expand options for students. More students in Kansas City — or even Appleton City — should enjoy greater educational options. It is time we demand more.

The post Virtual Education, Real Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

US-China Chamber of Commerce President Siva Yam says Missourians shouldn’t expect too much from Chinese investment.

“There has been an illusion that Chinese investment are coming to America and help the economy. “

Yam says most of the investments from China are looking for research and sales opportunities, rather than hiring laborers.

I wrote on Monday about the “mistakes” that were made that China Law Blog identified with regard to Mamtek. CLB calls it the “China is rich. We want money. Therefore this is a good deal” syndrome. Economic activity requires more than just a connection to China.

Yam seems to agree. In fact, it’s not the St. Louis economy that a China Hub would mainly help, Yam says. It’s the city’s PR.

Yam says the publicity values are what St. Louis and Missouri really benefit from.

“It’s a good news for St. Louis not from an economic perspective, but having a China hub would basically help St. Louis proceed itself to be more international in the future.”

We’ve been skeptical of the job estimates given for the project for a long, long time. It’s amazing that at this late stage in the session, the president of the USCCC is basically saying Aerotropolis is a giant public relations project.

The post US-China Chamber President ‘Doesn’t See Significant Economic Value’ in Midwest China Hub appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A company that promised 600 jobs and drew Gov. Jay Nixon to Moberly to announce $17.6 million in state aid is in financial trouble and could potentially stick the city with payments on a $39 million bond deal.

Mamtek International Ltd., a company with Chinese and American ownership, planned to make sucralose, a zero-calorie sweetener at the facility. The $65 million deal, ballyhooed at the start by former Gov. Bob Holden, chairman of the Midwest U.S.-China Association, was put together in 73 days last year and was supposed to include $8 million in private investment.

Moberly issued $39 million in bonds to build the Mamtek factory, buy and install the equipment and take care of other items necessary for the company to begin production. It was supposed to have put 116 people to work — perhaps as early as late last year, according to early reports — and double that employment within 18 months.

China Law Blog is a website operated by Harris & Moure, pllc, a law firm based out of Seattle, Wash., with a China law practice. China Law Blog’s Dan Harris highlighted Mamtek’s troubles on Thursday, telling readers that “[m]any many months ago, I got a quasi-anonymous email from someone in Moberly, Missouri” regarding the Mamtek project. After a series of back-and-forth emails with the tipster, Harris determined “that the odds were that this deal would prove disastrous.”

As it turned out, the deal did prove disastrous. So what happened? According to Harris (Emphasis mine):

First, it appears that got overly excited about the possibility of getting Chinese money. It appears it fell prey to the classic “China is rich. We want money. Therefore this is a good deal” syndrome. Second, it appears nobody conducted adequate due diligence. Were the very valid suspicions of my e-mailer ever checked out? I doubt it. I have no idea if my e-mailer ever raised her/his suspicions with City Hall, but having dealt with governments, I can only imagine how they were treated. Can you say groupthink? Third, the deal was rushed. The Columbia paper noted how it all went through in “73 days, far less than the six months or more usually needed to conclude such a deal.” Rushing a deal does not mean it will fail, but it certainly increases the chances.

Governments are responsible to the people for the public money they spend and the public credit they extend. Especially in a down economy, governments will oftentimes risk a little — or more likely, a lot — of both to get the “jobs, jobs, jobs” flowing. The problem, of course, is that governments have a terrible track record of picking economic winners and losers. Unfortunately for the city of Moberly, that’s a lesson residents now know all too well.

The post China Law Blog on Mamtek: “[T]here are some lessons to be learned” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rainford asserts, in contradiction to the “China Hub” proposal’s own experts, that the “Big Idea” (as he calls it) is designed to “sustain 20 to 30 international cargo flights per week.” Thanks to a Sunshine law public records request of email records related to the China Hub, we know that the current $60 million tax credit proposal would require quote “volcanic demand” to reach just the 20-flight level. It’s more likely, documents reveal, that the credits would attract half that number. It is not clear whether Rainford was aware of this March reassessment.

Rainford says that the credits will result in “thousands of new jobs.” He does not justify his claim on any grounds whatsoever. Are these jobs saved and created? And what of the jobs at the warehouses already vacant in Saint Louis, encompassing 18 million square feet of unsubsidized real estate?

Rainford evokes imagined ownership of the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport by “a Wall Street hedge fund, Carl Icahn or the Chinese” as stark warnings against proposed privatization plans. Setting aside for the moment the stunning slam that Rainford levels at the very Chinese trading partners he wants to do business with, the idea that the airport under public management has been a success over the last few decades is a stunning delusion. Lambert’s flights have been reduced to a fraction from their highs only 20 years ago. In the private sector, that would spur a change in management. In the world of government bureaucrats, it apparently means throwing good money after bad, leaving the historic fundamentals unchanged.

Moreover, Rainford tells us that the bill’s supporters “are not gambling” by pushing the Aerotropolis legislation in its current form. He’s right. Gambling suggests that Missouri’s taxpayers might win by fronting the money for this exclusive group of developers. They won’t. The present bill — 85 percent of which is geared toward building unneeded warehouses, not even subsidizing flights, and 100 percent of which is funded by taxpayers — raises a couple of obvious but apparently overlooked questions. If this proposal is so dynamic and rich with potential profits, why haven’t private developers been pushing such a lucrative deal on their own? And why then are tax credits needed at all?

We certainly understand the desire to jump start the Saint Louis and Missouri economies, but we believe that public officials have taken off on a “flight of fancy” when it comes to the Aerotropolis bill.

The post It’s Still a Flight of Fancy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ve been reading current and past news coverage carefully, though, and I can’t seem to find a firm commitment from China or from Chinese flight companies to increase freight traffic to the Saint Louis airport if these tax incentives are authorized.

More troubling, the “aerotropolis” legislation, the bill that details all of the various state subsidies relating to the “China Hub” dream, does not specify that the subsidies are void if there is no commitment from China. (And, actually, I can’t seem to find the word “China” used even once in the legislation itself.)

Yet that potential trade with China is the justification provided by China Hub proponents for the subsidy.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

“China was losing patience because we were not coming in with anything,” [Steve Stone, an attorney involved with the negotiations,] said.

Then Stone brought up the Aerotropolis package, which would create $60 million in tax breaks for shipping companies that export by air from Missouri, and $420 million in credits to build cargo warehouses and other facilities in certain spots, like the region’s now-closed auto plants or the NorthPark business park east of Lambert. It would lower the cost of flights, and help draw more companies to locate around a cargo hub, Stone said.

“The mood changed,” Stone said. “They see a way here for them to succeed.”

Am I missing something? When I wrote about the great deal of public subsidy slated for warehouse construction, Post-Dispatch reporter Tim Logan pointed out on Twitter that, in fact, there are no agreements, just negotiations.

The Post-Dispatch reports that, according to a letter supplied by that attorney:

[…] a top China Cargo executive sent a letter to Mayor Francis Slay. He called the proposal “truly wise and innovative,” according to a copy supplied by Stone. He also said that without Aerotropolis or something like it, “opening a new air route to St. Louis will be very difficult, or even inconceivable.”

That hardly sounds like a commitment. If Missouri is willing to create incentives for this project for a specific duration of time, why isn’t China willing to commit to sending a certain number of flights to Missouri for a specific duration of time?

And, if it is the case that Chinese representatives won’t agree to sending more planes to Missouri without the subsidy, why aren’t they saying so in a clear, verifiable way? Why is an attorney with a vested interest in the project speaking for the Chinese?

Here’s another equivocal statement from Lambert Airport Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, as reported by Channel 4:

“I think if we really want to build an international cargo hub, if we don’t get this, we could see it not happen,” Hamm-Niebruegge said.

Could? Is there a commitment or not? Is China depending on this bundle of tax credits and incentives or not?

Readers of Show-Me Daily know that I prefer for government to state such claims in writing. Written documents provide some level of transparency and accountability, as opposed to unsubstantiated opining.

As the proposed legislation stands, it will likely cost more than $480 million — which is already close to half a billion dollars — and, as Christine Harbin pointed out, the benefits of the China Hub will be concentrated in the Saint Louis area.

If Missouri legislators are going to continue to push to give out a great deal of taxpayer money, the least they can do is get a real commitment from Chinese representatives, or write  safeguards into the aerotropolis legislation. Is that so much to ask in exchange for about $80 in taxpayer money for every Missourian? Or is it all too tenuous to put in writing?

It isn’t good public policy to subsidize warehouse construction and operation with no real likelihood of increased freight traffic.

The post Wait … Shouldn’t Missouri Have a Firm Commitment From China Before Awarding $480+ Million? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I believe the main reason for this disparity is that foreign languages are treated by our public education system as less important than math, science and English. In contrast, E.U. governments expect their citizens to become fluent in at least two languages plus their native tongue.

Another panelist laments the fact that “unlike Europe, the U.S. has no coherent strategy for making our society bilingual.”

I suspect European countries’ policies are a reflection of their citizens’ interest in languages, rather than the cause. Europeans have ample reason to study languages; they all live within a short distance of other countries where different languages are spoken. As Norman Matloff notes in his response to the Room for Debate question, Americans who live close to the border with Mexico show more enthusiasm for learning Spanish than do their fellow citizens to the north.

Could it be that although proximity to foreign language speakers can spark people’s interest, policies are what really make them use other languages? If that’s the case, I’d be hard pressed to explain what happened in Ontario, Canada, where a ceremony was conducted in English a few weeks ago. That was despite French’s status as an official language of Canada, and despite the French-language public school boards and community colleges that are established throughout the province. When a language isn’t useful to people, policymakers who promote it are wasting their time.

The United States shouldn’t order everyone to learn languages, but the education system should give opportunities to become bilingual to people who are interested. Magnet schools and charter schools are good environments for language specialization, as are the optional language-immersion programs offered by some traditional districts. (Examples in Missouri are Academie Lafayette, the St. Louis Language Immersion Schools, and the Kansas City School District’s Foreign Language Academy.) Parents who want their children to have a lot of foreign language exposure can enroll them in these schools.

If Chinese language education is to continue growing, more people must be free to choose schools that teach it. Policymakers who are worried about American students learning English only ought to try to make it easier to open new language-immersion choice schools.

The post “No Coherent Strategy” for Teaching Foreign Languages appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With revenues down by about $1 million, the Saint Charles County Council met to debate the merits of granting $80,000 to market an airport expansion project that doesn’t fall within the county. The project is a proposed expansion of the Lambert–Saint Louis International Airport that would create a China hub in the hopes of increased international trade.

Developer Paul McKee, who put forward and completed the Winghaven development in Saint Charles County, has been a strong backer of the China hub expansion. McKee has said publicly that his latest project, a 1,500-acre redevelopment of the city of Saint Louis’ north side, hinges on Chinese business for many of the project’s promised 22,000 new jobs.

But county council members were skeptical when they held a work session on Monday to review the proposed county’s 2010 budget. Council member Cheryl Hibbeler brought up the issue first.

During 2009, she said, the county council allocated $37,500 for marketing of the China hub expansion. In 2010, the amount increased to $80,000, a significant amount of money for the county, with what she saw as no guarantee of a return.

“It basically boils down to finding enough to pay this one guy … to attract enough China business to Lambert,” she said.

The $80,000 is part of a $931,000 bill for annual marketing costs that the county, along with others, such as Saint Louis County, is considering paying. According to County Executive Steve Ehlmann, the marketing costs include not just salary for one man, but work to be done by a number of individuals working for a single marketing firm.

Oversight of how that money will be spent was another concern for Hibbeler.

“Who’s going to be deciding whether this $931,000 is really working?” she asked.

And, even then, she wondered aloud, what were the chances of the China hub coming to fruition, and bringing new jobs and business to the county? At one point, Hibbeler characterized the project as a “crapshoot.”

County Council Chairman Joe Brazil also questioned why the county should spend money on marketing the project. Brazil, who is critical of tax incentives and subsidies, asked whether the county could expect competitive bid reports and cost documentation if it granted the $80,000.

“I don’t know that you’re required to bid this,” Ehlmann responded.

In 2008, stemming from concerns about bids being awarded as political favors, the county auditor conducted a review of a few tax development districts (TDD) in Saint Charles County, including Winghaven. Of the five TDDs surveyed, all failed to adhere to a complete competitive bidding process. The Winghaven TDD was cited in the review because two of the project’s codevelopers were connected to contractors hired to do work for the development.

Ehlmann was the most vocal supporter of the budgeted marketing expense. The project, he said, has the support of the governor, the chamber of commerce, and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and would bring spillover business to the county.

“If we don’t get this China trade, that’s where it will go, it will go to Chicago,” he said.

Other counties and municipalities weren’t asked to be a part of the project, Ehlmann said, but Saint Charles was invited to participate.

“I don’t think this is going to rise or fall [based on] whether we put our money in,” Ehlmann said. “The question is, do we want a seat at the table?”

After more debate about whether the county could spend the $80,000 elsewhere, council member Nancy Matheny suggested that the group reconsider the expenditure at a later date.

“As tight as we are, with no raises or anything else, it’s hard to allocate to something we don’t understand,” she said.

The council made no decision during its work session, and the $80,000 remained in the proposed 2010 budget. But, said Brazil after the work session, the council will likely vote on whether to strike the expenditure during the next few weeks.

The post Saint Charles Debates $80K Funding for Publicity of Developer’s Airport Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

With all the talk about polarizing politics and the fracturing of our democratic institutions, I have found the one topic upon which everyone can agree. Oh, and can disagree. That is protectionism.

On Sept. 11, President Barack Obama imposed a whopping 35-percent tariff on imported Chinese tires. Right-wing free-traders raised a hue and cry about his action. On the left, the New York Times editorial page observed that Mr. Obama “acted unwisely” in erecting this newest barrier to trade.

In response to critics, Mr. Obama should simply claim right of office. History shows that protectionism knows no party affiliation.

Ronald Reagan, the great advocate of free trade, slapped a 100-percent tariff on Japanese electronics in the late 1980s. His administration also pressured Japanese automakers into a “voluntary” restraint on their exports to the United States.

Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement and imposed punitive tariffs on imported steel. One Clinton official anonymously justified the move to the New York Times by noting that “The U.S. has a right to safeguard its industries and to impose temporary relief to address serious injury.” (By the way, much of the tariff fell on the kind of wire rod used to make clothes hangers.)

There are other examples: Lyndon Johnson threatened the French that the United States would not lower its tariffs on manufactured goods imported from their country unless they lowered the tariffs on our agricultural goods. George W. Bush followed Clinton’s lead by imposing stiff tariffs on steel, in an effort to protect the domestic steel industry.

Presidents of all political stripes seem disposed to impose tariffs, but is there an economic justification?

A tariff acts as a tax on an imported good. Like any tax, a tariff distorts the market’s equilibrium price and quantity for the good. And, like any tax, the government prospers. In this case, however, so do domestic producers. Because the imported good is now more expensive, U.S. producers are able to continue operating. And therein lies the true reason for tariffs: They supposedly save jobs.

In the case of Clinton’s steel wire tariff, the domestic wire industry employed at most an estimated 4,000 workers. For the modern tire industry, however, the number of “protected” jobs is much higher. But tariffs may not even save domestic jobs. Economist Thomas Prusa of Rutgers University estimates that Obama’s tariff could actually result in a net loss of 25,000 U.S. jobs over time. Moreover, he calculates that the annual cost of each job saved in the short term is upward of $300,000.

The big losers from a tariff are consumers. The price of tires, on average, will be higher after the most recent tariff. Using data from the International Trade Commission, Daniel Ikenson of the Cato Institute estimates that the average tire price for a post-tariff Chinese import will be about $60, significantly higher than its current average price of about $39. That raises the import price much closer to the average U.S. price, which is around $68. But the average post-tariff price of a tire — imported and domestic — has increased from $53 to $64. On average, consumers pay more for tires. Period.

If we all pay more for tires or steel or electronics after a president imposes a tariff, how can they get away with it? Consumers who pay more for tires or coat hangers or electronics are politically diverse. We do not have a strong lobby in Washington, D.C. The workers who face stiffer competition and may lose their jobs are much better organized. So are their lobbyists.

Presidential tariffs are as common as admonishing welfare cheats and overpaid CEOs. Leaving good economics behind, Obama is only channeling his predecessors. Too bad: I thought he was the president of change.

Rik W. Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Tariffs Punish Consumers, but Remain Politically Popular appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Wu Williams, who is the type of person to bubble with enthusiasm over most anything she does, was especially excited about today’s visit.  She told the students that by the year 2015, about 750,000 high school students will be taking Chinese language courses.

Whatever the exact statistics, interest in teaching Asian languages is definitely increasing. For more on schools and languages, see my op-ed about languages in charter schools.

The post Chinese Language in Public Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In places, the article insinuates that Disney is just trying to push its brand and get Chinese kids hooked on Mickey Mouse and princesses. But the parents quoted point out that they chose the Disney school for their daughter because they already liked the brand, which shows that advertising can work both ways.

I think that for-profit schools like this can be successful, if kids are enthusiastic about the brand. Similarly, when I was in elementary school, one of my friends got to learn piano by practicing theme songs from different movies. That method has the potential to motivate students.

I bet most American kids would love to study math or reading after school in a miniature Disney World. Unfortunately, Disney would meet with a lot of resistance if it opened these schools in the United States, because the public is extremely suspicious of marketing to children and for-profit education. (If you want proof, take a look at the comments to the Journal article.) It’s fascinating that for-profit schools are more welcome in communist China than they are here.

The post The Wonders of the Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter schools, the public schools run by independent organizations that are continual subjects of debate, are often compared to traditional public schools on the basis of facts and figures. Education reformers pore over test scores and graduation rates. They ask how many alumni go on to attend college. They tally the number of school computers and count how many hours students spend in the classroom. All of those measures reveal something about school quality, of course, but parents may consider any number of other factors when choosing where to send their children.

Fortunately, charter schools have the flexibility to tailor their curricula to specific types of student needs. For instance, charter schools that focus on foreign languages are flourishing across the country. Here in Missouri, there is currently one French-immersion charter school, Academie Lafayette of Kansas City, and French- and Spanish-immersion charters are set to open this year in Saint Louis. These specialized charter schools give students language-learning opportunities unmatched by traditional public schools, and their achievement in this area of instruction showcases the charter model’s advantages.

Many traditional public schools list foreign languages in their course offerings, in recognition of the cultural awareness and economic competitiveness that students gain from language learning. Still, the differences in how traditional districts and charter schools approach foreign languages are striking. Traditional public schools typically begin teaching foreign languages in middle school, or even later, by which time students are too old to absorb new vocabulary through effortless play and imitation. Students struggle with spelling drills and grammatical rules. Even if a teacher creates the most imaginative language lessons possible, the students have few other experiences with the language to reinforce what they’ve learned. What happens in French class stays in French class.

That’s not to say individual districts haven’t tried. Some, acknowledging the importance of early exposure to a foreign language, have introduced Spanish or French classes into their elementary schools. In Tarrytown, N.Y., for example, kindergarten and first-grade students study Spanish for 20 minutes each day. Older children receive one 40-minute lesson every fourth day. This is similar to the Ladue district’s Spanish program here in Missouri. Ladue kindergarteners study Spanish for 20 minutes three times a week; first- through fifth-graders have Spanish class for 30 minutes twice a week. Students don’t hear nearly enough Spanish to gain fluency, but because classrooms have to wait their turns for the Spanish specialist, more Spanish time isn’t possible. Ambitious districts like these may squeeze a little more foreign language time into the school day. However, producing multilingual graduates is hardly a top priority in terms of class time or resources.

For language-immersion charter schools, language acquisition isn’t just a 20-minute activity; it’s the focus of the entire school. “Welcome” banners and cafeteria signs are printed in the target language. (Or languages. Many teach multiple languages in addition to English, like the World Language Academy in Chestnut Mountain, Ga., which features both Spanish and Mandarin Chinese.) Immersion requires a significant chunk of school time, although this varies by school and by grade level. At the low end, the Ben Gamla Charter School in Hollywood, Fla., teaches Hebrew during two class periods. At the other end of the spectrum, the Yu Ying Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., is conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese. And some charter schools, like Kansas City’s Academie Lafayette, start out with full immersion in the early grades and gradually introduce more English time as students grow older.

There’s no law that says traditional districts can’t adopt school languages and teach various subjects in an immersion environment. Charter schools don’t have that kind of legal advantage. But they do have the advantage of specialization. To attract students, they must create unique educational features that aren’t found in every other school. Charters start from scratch with new ideas and needn’t try to cram language time into preexisting schedules. And, because students choose to attend charters, they’re free to go out on a limb with policies that might not work in all schools but could be very successful for students who are interested.

Parents who want to cultivate a love of languages in their children should consider sending them to language-immersion charter schools. Charters’ language programs stand in sharp contrast to those offered by traditional public schools, and are a testimony to the benefits of specialization and competition.

Sarah Brodsky is a former Show-Me Institute policy analyst. She works as a freelance writer.

The post Charter Schools Succeed at Language Instruction appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

President Obama is correct–there is a remarkable amount of innovation and success taking place in American education–most of it outside of the public school system.

At last, Two Million Minutes recognizes that there are different kinds of schools in the United States, and some are doing well. It goes on to discuss successful private schools and charter schools. (One minor point: charter schools are public schools too. They just face different rules and incentives from traditional public schools.)

Two Millions Minutes has posted some videos of young students learning Mandarin Chinese and Spanish at the Renaissance School in Florida. This private school’s curriculum looks impressive: accelerated math, lots of foreign language time, clear goals for science and history. It even has its own blog with links to articles about U.S. and Asian education.

However, there is a downside of the focus on Asian education. Asian educational programs are great, if that’s what parents want. We need to concentrate on creating an education market full of innovative choices — not on requiring everyone to learn two languages and algebra by fourth grade. As an illustration of the dangers of obsessing over achievement, look at this news story, linked to from the Renaissance School blog. It’s about a father who wants his daughter to go live with people who are more intellectual than he and his wife are, all for the sake of better mental cultivation. I think that’s even more bizarre than Nadya Suleman.

The post Asian Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I think that technology has the potential to change the market and the way educational services are delivered to students. Virtual schools bring competition to areas where there was none before, and help break the connection between where a student lives and his learning environment. They bring enrichment opportunities to students who once had only the foreign languages and electives offered by their local schools to choose from.

However, curriculum and learning processes will evolve more slowly. “Virtual” students take tests and complete assignments online, but they still read books and practice handwriting. Although they have more subjects to choose from than their counterparts in brick-and-mortar schools, they don’t study them in radically different ways. A student learning Chinese online will memorize vocabulary and learn to write just as a student studying French in a classroom would.

The post Schools and Technology appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although, as regular readers know, I have long been opposed to the English-language initiative, I can’t say the new amendment will have some huge detrimental effect on the state. State business is already conducted in English, so no changes will need to be made there. And we’ve already had a meaningless law on the books for 10 years proclaiming English our common language, which did little harm.

The amendment is unlikely to benefit anyone, either. An extra paragraph to a constitution they can’t yet read is not going to be the deciding factor in influencing immigrants to learn English, especially because they already have so many substantial inducements to do that. Furthermore, the idea of a language assimilation dearth is laughable, at a time when schools are scrambling to hire teachers of Spanish, Chinese, and Italian, and the federal government pays Americans to study other languages.

This initiative was aimed at reassuring some people that their culture and language will be upheld. I agree that celebrating English is worthwhile, but there are more material ways to do that than amending the state Constitution. Speaking and writing English, learning new vocabulary words, and studying great works of English literature would all achieve the same goal. And our appreciation of English needn’t detract from our respect for other languages, setting up a false dichotomy between “English lost forever” and “English only.”

The post English Only appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Math teacher Teresa Barry challenged the notion that all students should be learning only one method of calculation, and to prove her point, she asked board members to multiply 12 by 16. When member Tom Rose said he got the solution by first multiplying 16 by 10 in his head, Barry was quick to mockingly chastise him for not using the traditional algorithm.

Sorry to bring out the snarkiness for which this blog is known, but if by “traditional” they mean long multiplication, then that is the traditional algorithm. (You might write it out by first multiplying 16 by 2, but the order doesn’t matter.) At any rate, even if a board member used some obscure ancient Chinese algorithm, is that really worth calling a meeting about?

I’ve concluded that the math wars are less about specific algorithms — the competing methods are, in some cases, algorithmically equivalent — than about philosophies of education. Even if all parents agreed on how to write out a multiplication problem, there would still be passionate debates about explicit instruction vs. exploration, how much practice kids need, what topics should be taught at each grade level, etc.

It just goes to show that one standard form of education can’t satisfy everyone. Why not offer a few different math courses, based on different approaches, and let parents choose which ones they want for their kids? That system works well enough for other subjects. Some students study Spanish, others study French, and nobody argues at board meetings about which language is better.

The post Multiplication in Columbia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Our goal is to promote understanding between China and the United States," Wiedmeyer said. "Language is an important part of it. Currently Chinese is not included. So we would like to make Chinese language a regular part of public school curriculum in Columbia.”

Most public schools stick to a few languages, which usually include French, Spanish, and German. Broadening course offerings to include Chinese is a great idea. However, nobody can learn a foreign language in three months. This program is probably so limited because it’s a new idea, and traditional public schools are notoriously cautious about innovation. Compare the 12-week Chinese program with the French curriculum at this Kansas City charter school, which starts immersion in kindergarten. Charter schools have more freedom than traditional public schools to experiment and specialize, so they can start language instruction earlier. And lest you think charters just focus on the same handful of languages that have always been taught in high school, take a look at this Chinese language charter school in Massachusetts, where 75 percent of the 1st-grade curriculum is taught in Chinese. Here’s another Chinese-immersion charter school, this one in Minnesota. Other charter schools teach Arabic, Japanese, and Greek.

Exposing kids to Chinese is a nice idea, but if they really want to gain fluency, it would be wise to start a charter school around the theme.

The post Learning Languages appeared first on Show-Me Institute.