MOScholars isn’t a hypothetical policy experiment anymore—it is a rapidly scaling alternative for families across our state. In just four years, student participation has gone from just over 1,300 students to nearly 6,500. The state treasurer’s office reported a massive surge in applications early this spring, indicating that even more families would like to participate in the program this fall.

It is likely that the number of scholarships will expand even further in the near future. Governor Kehoe recently announced that Missouri will opt into a new federal tax credit program, allowing any U.S. taxpayer to redirect up to $1,700 of their federal liability toward school choice initiatives in any participating state, including Missouri.

When we fund students rather than systems, we create an environment where every child has a path to success. The legislature’s decision to back the growing demand for MOScholars with a $60 million commitment shows that parental empowerment is no longer a fringe priority. Now, the focus must shift to ensuring this funding flows transparently, efficiently, and directly into the hands of the parents who know their children’s needs best.

The post The $10 Million Budget Boost for MOScholars Is a Win for Missouri Families appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In last month’s lower court ruling, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem found the initiative expanding Medicaid unconstitutional because it failed to include a funding mechanism. As I’ve written before, a constitutional amendment that requires new state expenditures should include measures for funding the expenditures. In my opinion, absent such a requirement, an amendment would infringe on the constitutionally delegated power of Missouri’s legislative branch to appropriate state spending. The state supreme court disagreed, but with one huge caveat.

The court ruled that the amendment doesn’t violate the constitution because it doesn’t specifically appropriate funds. In other words: Missouri’s constitutional amendment can require the state’s Medicaid program to enroll those eligible under expansion, but it can’t compel the legislature to appropriate the funds necessary to cover their costs.

If this sounds confusing, that’s because it is. Missouri’s highest court in the land drew a fine line to determine constitutionality but left obvious and important questions unanswered. The legislature thought its refusal to include expansion funding in this year’s budget meant the policy wouldn’t be implemented, but Missouri’s Medicaid budget lines do not include language indicating who the funds cover. As a result, the court concluded the budgeted funds are available to all who are eligible and that would include those covered by the expansion. The decision means that Missouri must start incurring new costs despite not having a plan to pay for them. Until the legislature acts, the cost of covering new enrollees will need to be paid for out of funds specifically set aside for those currently enrolled in Missouri’s program. If this occurs, the Medicaid program will run out of budgeted funds much sooner than anticipated.

So, what should the legislature do? The supreme court’s decision appears to give legislators the authority to continue refusing to provide funding for expansion. Not providing funding for new enrollees would likely require amending the current budget to make clear that the already approved Medicaid budget lines do not apply to expansion enrollees. This action could lead to another court challenge. Lawmakers could also choose to approve expansion funding. But where will the money come from? That’s the multibillion-dollar question. Even though the federal government has currently agreed to pick up 90 percent of the billions in expected expansion costs, all spending needs to be appropriated, and Missouri’s share would still be significant.

It will be interesting to see what our elected officials decide regarding funding the state’s Medicaid program going forward. It seems safe to say there won’t be any easy answers.

The post Missouri Supreme Court Revives Medicaid Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Beetem’s decision was in response to a lawsuit from the initiative’s supporters, which was filed after Missouri’s legislature decided against appropriating funding for Medicaid expansion. Governor Parson then halted all state implementation efforts.

As I explained last month, Missouri’s constitution gives the state legislature the responsibility of appropriating all state spending. It also provides that amendments cannot impose new costs without providing a mechanism to pay for them. Yesterday’s ruling holds that the expansion initiative failed to include a funding mechanism, and that growing the state’s Medicaid program by an estimated 275,000 enrollees will cost the state money. (The decision mentions that expansion would cost $1.8 million per year which is almost surely a typo; it should be $1.8 billion, as projections from Missouri’s Medicaid agency show.)

Prior to last August’s election, a different lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the expansion petition on the same legal grounds. As Beetem’s decision explains, the courts at the time decided against removing the initiative from the ballot in part because the fiscal estimates showed a wide range of potential outcomes, from enormous savings to extraordinary costs. If the amendment did end up saving the state money, it wouldn’t need a funding mechanism. As I wrote repeatedly last year, the promise of savings was always illusory Once the true cost of expansion was presented to the legislature, legislators refused to appropriate funding citing their sole constitutional authority on the issue.

The plaintiffs certainly disagree with the circuit court’s ruling and have already filed their appeal. While it may be weeks or months until this issue is ultimately resolved, Judge Beetem’s decision is an important one with implications beyond this particular fight. If a petition to amend our state’s constitution violates the constitutionally defined rules for amending the constitution, it should not stand. It’s really that simple. Time will tell if the Missouri Supreme Court agrees as well.

The post Judge Strikes Down Medicaid Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The ruling comes from a lawsuit filed by the Missouri Automobile Dealers Association (MADA) against the Missouri Department of Revenue. MADA argues that allowing Tesla to sell directly to consumers is forbidden by the Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act (MVFPA) and that the DOR was mistaken in granting a dealer’s license to Tesla. The law requires manufacturers to sell cars via a franchise agreement with a car dealer, but Tesla argues that the two (manufacturer and franchisee) can be one and the same. In other words, Tesla established an agreement with Tesla to sell Tesla’s cars.

Regardless of whether Tesla is exploiting a loophole in the current legislation, to me the real question is whether the law should effectively prohibit a manufacturer from selling to consumers. While dealerships can reduce a manufacturer’s burdens regarding advertising, selling, and maintaining cars for consumers, does it make sense to “force” a third party into the mix? Given that dealerships tend to provide insufficient information on electric cars, and that direct manufacturer sales can lower distribution costs, it’s difficult to see the rationale behind limiting consumers’ decisions regarding how to purchase a car.  

Tesla is bringing innovation into Missouri’s automobile industry, and to shun such innovation is a missed opportunity. Regulations such as the MVFPA should be in place to serve consumers, not protect specific dealerships. If they don’t do this, then perhaps it’s time for an updated business model.

The post Road Blocked for Tesla in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, last March a Cole County judge invalidated much of SB5, ruling that several of its most important provisions were unconstitutional. Although the decision will be appealed, it has jeopardized the protections that SB 5 had provided to Missourians.

Regardless of the fate of SB5, concern about court fines and fees should extend beyond traffic tickets and percentages of budgets. State Senator Eric Schmitt (the sponsor of SB5) sponsored legislation in the recently completed session to extend the protections against taxation by citation.

SB 572 (passed by the legislature this session) lowers and caps fines applicable to both municipal traffic and ordinance violations and adds municipal ordinance violations to the calculation of the 20% municipal revenue cap allowed to come from municipal fines and fees.

The use of taxation by citation in any form invites unpredictability and conflicts of interest among the courts and law enforcers. For the benefit of government and the people of Missouri, tax policies should be set so that revenue is reasonably stable and predictable.

The first step to solving any problem is admitting that one could exist. The legislature has recognized that funding municipalities using traffic fine collections, and now municipal ordinance violations, is bad policy—and that’s a great start. The next step is to fully address taxation by citation in all its forms.

The post Making Sure Municipal Courts Are Not Tax Collectors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many municipal leaders in Saint Louis County are opposed to SB 5, especially those officials from cities who heavily rely on fines (traffic and otherwise) for revenue. They sued the state over SB 5, claiming the provisions limiting Saint Louis County’s municipalities’ ability to collect fines and fees to 12.5% of general revenue constituted a “special law,” because elsewhere in the state the limit is 20%. Despite the fact that laws tailored to individual counties are passed all the time (think the provisions restricting floodplain tax incentives in only Saint Charles County) the judge in this case found SB 5’s fine limits unconstitutional. The judge also ruled that law’s reporting requirements and policing standards were unfunded mandates, and thus also unconstitutional. For all intents and purposes, much of SB 5 is gutted.

This is a disappointing outcome for those hoping that the state’s actions last year might rein in those small cities keeping themselves afloat by turning law enforcement into tax collection. On a hopeful note, the state plans to appeal, and the governor indicated a willingness to work with the legislature on a bill that will pass constitutional muster. 

The post A Big Step Backwards for Municipal Reform in Saint Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is nothing wrong with a business manipulating its prices and practices when it is confronted with a budgetary dilemma. But there is something wrong when it fails to adequately serve customers while the state prohibits competition. In the private sector, businesses compete to provide the best for the least. In the case of the USPS, however, customer satisfaction can simply be sacrificed for financial health. After all, why worry about quality customer service when a competitor cannot put you out of business?

The least weak argument in favor of public mail delivery is that private enterprise could not profitably serve rural areas. For example, my grandfather often patronizes the post office in Centertown, Mo., a small town in Cole County. He prefers it to the one in Jefferson City, as there is never a wait. My guess is that the privatization of the USPS would spell the end of the Centertown branch, as well as countless other small town post offices across the state. Or perhaps they would remain, but mail delivery to and from such remote locations would be significantly more expensive.

Public support is likely necessary if many rural areas are to maintain their post offices, but this is not a justification for such support. Many things are relatively expensive for rural dwellers (e.g., Internet, gas to get to the grocery store); others are comparatively cheap (e.g., land).  The reverse is true for urbanites. What sense does it make to subsidize something simply because it is comparatively expensive in a given area?  The bottom line is that living in a particular locale comes with its unique set of costs. The most sensible route to take is to stop artificially reducing the cost of mail service in rural areas; let those who remain in these areas face the commensurate costs.

Privatizing the USPS, in short, makes both practical and moral sense.

The post One Day Down, Five To Go! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The issue is not going away forever. The supporters are continuing their effort to cap interest rates. I admire the desire to protect borrowers from abusive lending, but there is a better way than capping interest rates.

Interest rate caps at this rate will not only prevent high interest rates; they will eliminate payday loan shops in the state. Consequently, payday borrowers will probably not be able to acquire credit.  A better way to help borrowers is to make cheaper credit available. Do something similar to what this group is doing, and donate money to banks to offset losses from high-risk, short-term loans — thereby bringing down the interest rate.

For an excellent, succinct analysis of payday loan shops and regulations, click here. For more detailed commentary on the topic, see here and here.

The post Short-Term Lending Regulations Can Do More Harm Than Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The reason, Mayer said, is many in the Senate will demand comprehensive tax credit reform — an idea that died twice last year over difference between Republican leaders — before signing off on the fund, known as the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act (MOSIRA).

“I don’t think the Senate can pass MOSIRA without comprehensive reforms to our state tax credits,” Mayer said. “That was true during the special session and that’s true now.”

The Senate passed the MOSIRA bill with a contingency clause that said it couldn’t go into effect unless a separate tax credit bill also won approval. Even though the House didn’t approve of the contingency clause it passed the bill anyway in the hope that it would hold up in court.

In a ruling Tuesday morning, Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green concluded that the contingency clause was unconstitutional, and because he believes it was vital for the legislation to pass and “may well have been a last-ditch attempt to garner enough votes,” the entire fund is unconstitutional.

The “separate tax credit bill” referenced here originally included the Aerotropolis credits, but when the Missouri Senate largely removed those credits from the bill, the Missouri House declined to pass the tax credit bill in any form. That decision, it appears, has sealed MOSIRA’s fate, at least for now; everyone expects that the case will be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, and there always is the possibility that Judge Green’s decision could be overruled. That said, it is very good to see legislators recognizing the gravity of the tax credit problem. Legislators should not be resurrecting the same sorts of failed tax credit ideas and tax incentive policies over and over again: abetting a tax incentive system that, particularly since the late 1970s, has grown fatter and fatter as the decades have passed.

Try something new: reduce taxes for everyone. Missouri can be more competitive, and it can start by eschewing opportunities to constantly pick and choose who benefits from the state’s largesse.

The post Adios, MOSIRA? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hotels in Jefferson City already experience a high tax burden. They pay commercial property tax rates and the Cole County property tax surcharge. The hotels must obtain business licenses, liquor licenses, restaurant health inspections, etc., just to open and operate. Guests at the hotels pay the standard state and city sales tax of 7.725 percent for the rooms, as well as Jefferson City’s current 3-percent charge on top of that.

The question is not whether the current taxes are reasonable. In comparison with most other cities, they are. But the voters of Jefferson City should consider whether this is the time to tell their elected officials “enough.” Voters in three suburbs of Saint Louis did exactly that in response to hotel tax proposals in November. Voters in Clayton, Richmond Heights (both within Saint Louis County), and Saint Peters (in Saint Charles County) overwhelmingly rejected hotel tax proposals at the polls. The voters sent a message to local elected officials that they wanted difficult budget issues to be dealt with through greater fiscal discipline, not higher taxes. The voters of Jefferson City should give strong consideration to saying the same thing.

The private sector is capable of providing a conference center if there is a genuine market for one in Jefferson City. The taxpayers do not need to build one, even if the “taxpayers” in this case are mostly visitors from other areas. The city of Saint Louis used tax dollars to build a convention center hotel a decade ago, an investment that has worked out poorly. The hotel was unable to make its bond payments and was literally sold on the courthouse steps in 2009.

Nobody knows whether Jefferson City’s proposed conference center would also fail. It is reasonable to suspect that demand for hotels in Jefferson City is more inelastic than in many other Missouri locations, because many of those who travel to Jefferson City do so because they have matters that require the visit, regardless of the cost. However, although Jefferson City may face a lower risk than many other cities of losing business after a hotel tax increase, it does not follow that the tax should be increased.

Conference centers are not a core responsibility of local governments. There is almost nothing about a conference center that fits the economic definition of a public good. The hotel that developers plan to build next to the conference center is privately funded, and the backers of that project will undoubtedly direct their investment more efficiently than the promoters of a publicly funded conference center. Private investment in the conference center would have greater positive consequences than public subsidy, and taxpayers would not be on the hook if the hotel fails.

The voters and taxpayers of Jefferson City should think twice about assigning the role of developer to city government. Although hotel guests may be an easy mark for higher taxes, this does not mean that voters should use them to enlarge the portfolio of city hall. Rejecting this tax proposal would tell Jefferson City’s leaders that the residents want responsible, limited government, not government expansion and higher taxes.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post New Hotel Tax a Bad Idea for Jefferson City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, although it is true that Paideia’s test scores rank among the lowest in the state, absolute measures of test scores are not a very meaningful measure of school quality. The production of education is similar to the production of anything else in the economy: Poorer quality inputs, in the form of poorer students from historically disadvantaged ethnic backgrounds, translate to poorer quality outputs, in the form of test scores. It’s not only a mistake, then, to compare Paideia’s students to those of high-performing districts, but also to an arbitrary benchmark determined by the state. Taking a snapshot of test scores is not enough, because a reliance on mere glimpses into time discourages an understanding of the underlying trends at work. The more important measure is the longitudinal one: Are Paideia’s students learning more now than they were before the school existed? Perhaps the answer is no, but it doesn’t look like this question was considered by either the Board of Education or the Cole County Circuit Judge.

Second, I am willing to believe that we may overvalue test score measures of all kinds. One-size-fits-all models don’t work in schools, where abilities and interests vary greatly between student populations. Schools that produce less significant test score gains but more significant “creativity” gains may still be cultivating meaningful human capital.

The post Snapshots Vs. Trends in School Testing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A home on the 2300 block of Mullanphy. Photo by Audrey Spalding.

SAINT LOUIS — A much-debated $8 billion development in the city of Saint Louis’ north side has been awarded $19.6 million in state tax credits. Those are in addition to city tax incentives, which could total up to $398 million.

The state’s Department of Economic Development has made public only a small portion of the development company’s application for the state tax credits. You can read those four cover pages here.

According to the cover pages, NorthSide Regeneration LLC has spent about $25 million to purchase property, and expects to spend $66 million to acquire additional properties. The company spends about $415,000 each year to maintain its properties, and interest costs are estimated to be about $1 million each year.

The rest of the application, department spokesman John Fougere said, is so large that it isn’t feasible to send it electronically. The remainder will be made available in a few days, he said, but only in the department’s Jefferson City office, where people can view and copy the additional documents.

Documents that haven’t been made available to the public yet include a breakdown of property acquisition costs, interest costs, a map of the development area showing where NorthSide-acquired properties are located, and a list of owner-occupied residences in the development footprint.

Those application documents could shed light on as-yet unanswered questions, such as where within the development area NorthSide has acquired most of its properties, and what it has paid so far to purchase properties. Records kept with the city’s Recorder of Deeds office are unclear — according to deeds of trust filed with the office, properties acquired by the developer were traded among various shell companies.

More interesting is the $66 million NorthSide says it plans to spend acquiring additional properties. Previously, Paul Puricelli, a lawyer for NorthSide, has said that the company has about 20 properties left to acquire, which, if true, would mean a much higher purchase price for the remaining properties.

CHALLENGES TO THE STATE TAX CREDITS

The $19.6 million in state tax credits are authorized by the Distressed Area Land Assemblage (DALA) Tax Credit Act, which allows large-scale developers in urban areas to collect up to $20 million each year in reimbursements for 50 percent of property acquisition costs and 100 percent of interest costs.

Two active critics of the development, Barbara Manzara and Keith Marquard, are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that claims that the act is unconstitutional. From the lawsuit: “… the state provides public credit to prospective applicants to secure and pay for private investments, private property and does not serve a primarily public purpose because a direct private benefit is derived by the borrowers and investors to the detriment of the state.”

Paul McKee, the developer who put forward the north side redevelopment project, has repeatedly pointed to the dismal education, vacancy, and employment statistics in the area as evidence that development is needed, and will improve the area.

The lawsuit is set to be heard in Cole County Circuit Court on Jan. 27.

The post NorthSide Details Not Yet Public appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since passage of a 2005 law with provisions for direct funding of charter schools, the Kansas City school district has fought a battle against what it sees as an unfunded mandate. Prior to the law, charter schools in the area were funded indirectly. The money trickled down from the state to public school districts, and then finally to charter schools. The 2005 law streamlined this process, allowing states to dip from the pool of revenue typically reserved for district schools and fund charter schools directly:

District schools receive local tax dollars, but charter schools do not, said Khris Heisinger, attorney for the Missouri Charter Public School Association, which is named in the lawsuit. […]

“They want to spend all the local money and get the same state money they had been getting,” Heisinger said of the school district.

It is conceivable that this policy could help district schools as well.  Faced with a shrunken revenue pool, Kansas City schools will be forced to focus on what works, and cut out what doesn’t. Regardless, the recent Cole County court ruling in favor of charter schools and the streamlined funding process is a positive step forward in compensating for the disparity of available resources between district and charter schools.

The post Breaking Down Barriers to Charter Funding appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The goal has always been to spend money to help students. The court ruled that Missouri was spending enough. Based on the ruling, what we would expect to see over the course of the next few years is a leveling of total spending on public education in Missouri. If the state was the only one handing out money for education, we would see just that.

But schools don’t receive state funds alone. Though state spending is not growing as fast as before, school districts can always ask their communities for more money.

As I’ve been looking over election results for school financial issues, occasionally I’ll stumble across a recent news article about a district’s election. When I do, superintendents are often quoted as saying that a property tax increase is needed because the state just isn’t providing as much money as the school district had counted on. In the lawsuit, more than 240 Missouri school districts had joined together to charge that they weren’t getting enough from the state.

And, while the court ruled otherwise, school districts have proven that they can get money in other ways. It’s not just the state that controls the public education finance spigot.

From 2002 to 2004, the total amount that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) spent on education decreased. The fall from 2003 to 2004 was drastic — more than $100 million (all dollars here and throughout this post, including the figure below, are adjusted for inflation and calculated in 2008 dollars). The last time funding decreased was in 1990 and 1991 (click to enlarge):

(This information was provided by DESE. Years 2002 and 2003 are amounts after state withholding.)

So, state aid to schools fell. How did school districts react? Well, they asked local voters for more money.

In the April 2004 election, about 25 percent of school districts asked their voters for some type of money. About 13.4 percent asked for tax increases, about 5.8 percent asked voters to waive state-mandated school tax decreases and about 7.5 percent asked voters to approve district-issued bonds. (For shrewd readers, a few districts asked for two or more of these, so the percentage breakdown adds up to a little more than 25 percent.)

In short, 2004 was a big year for Missouri public school district financial elections.

“We had an unusually large number of local tax proposals that year,” said Jim Morris, DESE director of information. Part of the reason many districts asked for tax levy increases was because of the state funding decline. “It was when the state was squeezing the budget and withholding money,” Morris said.

Bottom line: When the state cut back, districts asked voters to step up. And they did.

Of the 139 financial issues put before school district voters in the April election, 107 passed. The success rate for bonds, levy increases and tax decrease waivers was about the same, 76 percent.

This isn’t routine. From the school election results I’ve been looking at, a 76-percent success rate for school financial issues is high, especially for tax increase proposals. A 50-percent success rate is much more normal.

This shows that if state funding falls short, school districts go to voters instead of just making do with less. And, in 2004, voters said yes.

State funding for education is not declining. But it certainly isn’t growing as fast — and school districts have taken notice. With the information I have, I can’t say yet how heavily they’re going to lean on local dollars, but I’m curious.

It is clear that the state does not control education funding totally. If 2004 is any indication, there’s more than one way to pay.

The post Control appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

"ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contacting, employment and education."

The new wording, as written by the judge, is much more even, yet still accurately descriptive as to the effects of the vote:

Ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment, or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin unless such programs are necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funding or to comply with a court order?

You would have to by very, very partisan to argue that the latter is not a much more fair way of phrasing the question to be put before the voters.

The post Judicial Smackdown in Jefferson City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To date, Columbia Public Schools has spent roughly $82,000 on the “adequacy” lawsuit, despite the fact it is a no-win venture for the community. Several other plaintiff schools have come to a similar conclusion and have declined to join the appeal. CPS should do the same.

The plaintiff school districts are spending tax dollars to hire private law firms to sue the Legislature — i.e., us — and the attorney general’s office has used tax dollars to hire a private law firm to defend the Legislature. The cost so far, just for private law firms, is more than $4.6 million, and that does not count the time of the attorney general’s staff lawyers or the court. I find it remarkable that some members of our school board think this is an appropriate way to spend education revenues. During the 10 years I spent as chairman of the University of Missouri–Columbia Economics Department, it never occurred to me it would be acceptable to use some of my department budget to sue the Legislature for more money, even though MU is also mentioned in the Missouri Constitution.

Issues of propriety aside, let us turn to some specific reasons I believe CPS is ill-advised to continue its participation in this lawsuit.

First, it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to have lost this case more completely. Judge Richard Callahan’s decision is clear, concise, and logical. The “adequacy” aspect of the lawsuit was based on the Missouri Constitution’s requirement for free public schools and the stipulation that the Legislature must devote at least 25 percent of revenues to that end. Judge Callahan ruled both requirements are being met easily. The plaintiffs asked the judge to read something into the state Constitution that is not there, and this he refused to do. Of course, the notion that a given level of spending can be reliably associated with a given level of MAP achievement — “adequacy” — was never established by the plaintiffs because it is statistically impossible to do so, a point made repeatedly by the three economists, including myself, who testified for the defense.

Second, as the magnitude of this defeat becomes more widely recognized, the “tax base” of paying plaintiff districts is shrinking. Some major districts have publicly dropped out of the case, including St. Joseph, Liberty, and Francis Howell. More are expected to follow. As the number of participating districts falls, Columbia Public Schools and Columbia taxpayers will be left to bear a larger share of the litigation bill. That might make narrow sense if there were reason to believe that, ultimately, there is something in this for Columbia, but that is the biggest folly of all.

Let’s begin with the “equity” issue. Under the current system, CPS fares well. We are a relatively wealthy district that enrolls 1.5 percent of Missouri public school students, yet receives 1.7 percent of state K-12 funding. Our per-pupil spending is higher than the state average. What can CPS hope to gain in an “equity” lawsuit? Is a Cole County judge likely to find Columbia schools relatively impoverished?

Now, let us consider “adequacy” — the argument that almost all districts are underfunded. The plaintiffs are asking for roughly $1 billion in additional state funds for K-12 education. If they are successful and the Supreme Court tells the Legislature it must spend $1 billion more on public education, that money must be found somewhere in the state budget. Given the Hancock limits on raising taxes, we must ask lawsuit proponents where they propose to obtain these additional funds for K-12 education.

With tax increases off the table, K-12 gains must come at the expense of the rest of the state budget. One billion dollars more for K-12 implies a 21-percent cut in spending for the non-K-12 budget. Assuming those cuts are across the board, the MU budget would be cut by 21 percent as well, in which case MU would lose more than the entire state funding of CPS. Whatever the size of the boost in K-12 spending, every dollar CPS would gain through this litigation implies at least a $2.25 cut in the MU budget. This assumes Medicaid is subjected to the 21-percent cut. If Medicaid escapes the across-the-board cut, the MU loss is even larger.

Along with making higher education even less affordable, a plaintiff victory must lead to cuts in a wide range of state-provided social services. The primary recipients of those programs, poor families and children, would end up worse off. We elect legislators to make these difficult spending decisions and to balance the complicated tradeoffs. That is not the job of our courts.

The most likely outcome of the appeal is that CPS simply will have wasted tax dollars on frivolous litigation. Our school board, however, is playing with fire. In the remote chance the plaintiffs win on appeal, the broader Columbia community might well be seriously harmed because of large cuts to the MU budget. It is time to stop participating in this nonsense and spend our education tax dollars on education — and not on $250-an-hour legal fees.

Michael Podgursky is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri–Columbia and a member of the Show-Me Institute board of directors.

The post Columbia School District Should Abandon Frivolous Lawsuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Sullivan, who said he will not accept the salary he is entitled to under
the statute that permits the city schools to operate as a transitional
school district, promised that he and the board will not act
impulsively.

He pledged that the community will play a major role in helping to find
solutions for what he characterized as a crisis of regional proportion.

"There is no quick fix, there’s no silver bullet. It is going to take
the full engagement of the community and it is going to require the
community to understand that this is going to take time, a lot of
time," he said.

Time will tell if he lives up to his word, but his words shows the mature leadership that is needed to turn around the sorry state that the St. Louis Public school board is in. Compared to some actions of individual board members, this is a great first step.

The post A New Start for SLPS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The lawsuit makes more than two dozen claims, basically arguing that the state acted unconstitutionally in removing accreditation and setting up an appointed board.

Well, knowing as little as I do about the role of the State Board of Education, they do decide on accreditation of school districts. And under state law, they have the lawful right in setting up an appointed board as stated in Missouri Revised Statue section 162.1100. So if that is one of their arguments, it should be dead in the water. Overall, it’s time for the St. Louis School Board to stop trying to save themselves.  As a student who attended the St. Louis Public Schools for my whole life, I have never seen a school board that has acted against the students’ best interest, while claiming to do otherwise. Enough of the bickering and attacks that have taken focus off of the students, and time to put in a board that will focus one one thing: getting the SLPS back on track.

The post End the Insanity! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.