The report is from an admissions workgroup consisting of university faculty and a handful of administrators. It focuses on a remedial math course UCSD introduced in 2016 to help freshmen fill gaps in high school–level math. The course initially enrolled about one percent of incoming students. However, instructors began to realize many students lacked even more fundamental middle- and elementary-level math skills. In response, the math department split the course into two courses: one focused on elementary and middle school math, and the other on high school math.

By 2024, more than 900 students—12.5 percent of the entering freshman class at UCSD—placed into these remedial courses.

To give a sense of the skill deficiencies among students in these remedial courses, the report shows specific math problems along with the fractions of students who could answer them correctly. Here are three example questions at the elementary level (edited very lightly for presentation here):

1. Fill in the blank: 7 + 2 = __ + 6

2. Round the number 374518 to the nearest hundred.

3. Find (13/16) ÷ 2

While it would be reasonable to expect every student who is accepted into an elite public university to be able to answer these questions correctly, many tested students could not. Just 75, 39, and 34 percent of test takers gave the correct answers to these questions, respectively.

The report identifies several factors that contribute to these disturbing—and frankly embarrassing—outcomes, including grade inflation in California’s K-12 schools that allows students to graduate with good grades but weak skills, the pandemic (every educator’s favorite scapegoat), and the UC system’s stubborn refusal to require standardized tests for admissions. But beneath all of this lies a deeper issue: a system-wide erosion of meritocracy. When merit is downplayed and standards are continually lowered, you end up with students arriving at elite universities unable to do elementary math.

To be clear, UCSD is not the only institution that has this problem, and I don’t want to punish it unduly for being transparent. In fact, the report talks about similar problems at other UC campuses, and what it describes aligns with my own experience as a professor at the University of Missouri.

There is evidence all around us of the shift away from meritocracy in education. Nationally and in Missouri, student grades, and high school and college graduation rates, are at historic or near-historic highs despite clear evidence of declining academic skills. Educational administrators at all levels of schooling have demonstrated a blatant disregard for excellence.

(Disclosure: I am a proud —though less so by the day—alumnus of UC San Diego, where I received my BA, MA, and Ph.D.)

The post We’re Destroying Meritocracy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since September 29, 2023, Kansas City has required new home builders to adhere to the most recent energy code standards, labeled 2021 IECC. In doing so, Kansas City leaped over a few previous iterations of the code, updated every three years. The result has been a drop in the number of new construction permits sought due to the dramatically higher cost of construction the new standards require.

As a recent article in the Kansas City Business Journal points out, “Through May — the most-recent data available — Kansas City approved 132 single-family permits across the three counties it covers. By that time last year, it had granted 480. The year before that, builders pulled 346 permits through May.”

Even that number is high, because it includes applications submitted before the new energy code standards were put in place. The actual number of single-family permits issued in Kansas City under the new energy code is 32.

Proponents of the new regulations argue they are necessary to increase energy efficiency and lower energy costs. Fair enough. But those savings come with their own costs of construction. It’s a trade-off. Public policy almost always presents us with such trade-offs. If policymakers want to increase energy efficiency without abruptly killing new home construction, they need to work on some sort of compromise. Ordinance 240434 is one such effort, but its consideration is being repeatedly put off. Regardless of the exact solution, Kansas City leaders need to show some urgency to fix this problem.

The post Kansas City Must Weigh Cost of Housing Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Turning the School Choice Knob Up to 11 with Matthew Ladner appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. James V. Shuls will serve as Director of Research and a Senior Fellow and Elias Tsapelas as Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy

 St. Louis, MO – Dr. James V. Shuls has been named the new director of research and senior fellow and Elias Tsapelas the director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute. Previously, Dr. Shuls held the title of distinguished fellow of education policy at the Institute and Tsapelas was a senior analyst.

“I am honored to serve the Institute in this new role,” Shuls said. “While the opportunity to focus on policy areas beyond education is new to me, the goal remains the same—to provide high-quality research that helps promote free markets and individual liberty for all Missourians.”

“Research is at the center of everything we do at the institute,” Show-Me Institute CEO Brenda Talent said. “James and Elias bring knowledge and experience to their respective roles that will be invaluable as we continue to address the challenges facing our state.”

James V. Shuls is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Arkansas. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Missouri Southern State University and a master’s degree from Missouri State University, both in elementary education. Prior to pursuing his doctorate, James taught first grade and fifth grade in southwest Missouri.

Elias Tsapelas earned his master of arts degree in economics from the University of Missouri in 2016. Before joining the Institute he worked for the State of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development and Office of Administration, Division of Budget & Planning.

Dr. Susan Pendergrass, who previously served as director of research, has returned to the role of director of education policy in order to focus on education research.

Tsapelas is the institute’s first director of state budget and fiscal policy.

Media Contact: Zach Lawhorn

Zach.Lawhorn@ShowMeOpportunity.org

The post Release: Show-Me Institute Names Two New Directors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Podcast: The Changing Demographics of St. Louis with Dr. Ness Sandoval appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recorded on December 1, 2022 at the World Chess Hall of Fame in St. Louis, Missouri

Tony Woodlief is Executive Vice President at the State Policy Network. He helps oversee SPN operations, supports SPN’s president in her guidance of the leadership team, and helps ensure the organization’s projects and programs measure success, evolve as SPN grows, and maintain alignment with our vision and mission.

Tony previously served as president of the Bill of Rights Institute, and before that the Market-Based Management Institute. He has also served as president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. An alumnus of the University of North Carolina, he has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan, and an MFA from Wichita State University. Tony has appeared in media outlets including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, National Review, and C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

Tony is also the author of I, Citizen: A Blueprint for Reclaiming American Self-Governance. In writing I, Citizen, Tony conducted extensive research on American public opinion to find out what Americans believe and uncover the source of their political animosities. Through his research, Tony discovered that America is more united than divided, despite what the pundits tell us, and traced the source of our perceived animosity to a small minority of dedicated partisans within the political establishment of Washington, DC. I, Citizen tells the story of how these partisans have created the myth of a divided America and how they’ve concentrated power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and partisan elites, and offers practical solutions for how we can reclaim our right to self-governance by focusing on solutions and commonalities closer to home.

The post WATCH: The Red Vs Blue Myth and the Real Threat to American Stability appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post We’re Number Four? With James V. Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When elected officials intentionally ignore the law, we often react with a mixture of anger and helplessness. Abetted by their government lawyers, whose jobs exist at the pleasure of their only client, elected officials invent arguments to justify going around the plain meaning of ordinary words. It’s enough to make the most moderate of political hearts jump online and order home-delivery of pitchforks in bulk.

We have seen too many examples of this recently in St. Louis. For example, the statutory definition of the earnings tax for the City of St. Louis states that it can be collected “. . . for work done or services performed or rendered in the city.” [emphasis added throughout] Yet city Collector of Revenue Gregory F. X. Daly has interpreted those words during the pandemic to include people working remotely from their homes outside of the city for businesses within the city. Such a determination is preposterous.

You don’t like it? You have the audacity to think people should enforce the laws as written? Tough luck. Sue him. War is Peace.

The legislature has failed in an effort to further tighten the law to clarify that it does not include remote workers. That is unfortunate, as it will embolden Daly and others to engage in more of this, and it should not have been necessary in the first place.

St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page is getting a Ph.D. in this line of governing. He took the position knowing the county charter states that “the county executive’s entire time shall be devoted to the duties of the office.” In the vernacular of 1950, when it was written, that passage clearly meant that the county executive could not have a second job, but Page kept practicing medicine part-time anyway. As admirable a profession as medicine is, the charter did not include an exception for admirable work.

Going from the sublime to the absurd, Dr. Page later attempted to appoint former County Executive Charlie Dooley to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. The governing statutes for that board state that nominees “may be appointed by the chief executive of the county with the advice and consent of the county council.” Dooley’s appointment was rejected by the council. (I think he should have been appointed, but that’s another issue.) Page appointed Dooley to the board anyway, with Page’s county counselor justifying it all with legal gymnastics that would have made Simone Biles beam.

You don’t like it? You think the county executive should follow the charter and laws? Tough luck. Sue him (which the council did, in a legislative fashion). Ignorance is Strength.

The county council and county voters have addressed these issues with charter changes, both past and upcoming. But it should not have to come to that.

During his brief time as Governor, Eric Greitens attempted to pay some of his cabinet members more than allowed by state law by quietly funneling the additional salaries through other departments. This was blatantly illegal, but the Greitens administration did it anyway until the legislature caught on and put a stop to it. Until then, it was two plus two equals five.

You think the Governor should follow the law and pay his people within the legal range? Tough luck. Impeach him (which the legislature did, albeit for other, more salacious actions).

President Trump routinely ignored the law to do whatever he wished. Spending money on his ballyhooed border wall without congressional approval and imposing a 25 percent steel tariff without any legal authority are just two examples out of many.

You don’t like it? Tough luck. Impeach him (which they also did, twice). Freedom is slavery.

It’s bad enough when the government lies. It’s worse when elected officials demonstrate how little they think of our democracy and the rule of law by flouting the very laws they are supposed to enforce or enact. The regrettable actions described here are part of a process that is degrading trust in our institutions and our democratic process. As a philosophical libertarian, I appreciate a healthy skepticism of government. Seeing government for what it is instead of taking its benevolent facade at face value is fine by me. But we should all be concerned about the breakdown of the basic regard for the law as it is written. If you don’t like the law, don’t ignore it. Change it by engaging in the hard work of democracy.

But while we are doing that, is it too much to ask that we all agree two plus two equals four?

The post “Stop,” or I’ll Yell “Stop” Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read Chris’s full report: A Plan to Make Medicaid Fair, Focused, and Accountable

Chris Pope is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Previously, he was director of policy research at West Health, a nonprofit medical research organization; health-policy fellow at the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce; and research manager at the American Enterprise Institute. Pope’s research focuses on healthcare payment policy, and he has recently published reports on hospital-market regulation, entitlement design, and insurance-market reform. His work has appeared in, among others, the Wall Street Journal, Health Affairs, US News and World Report, and Politico.

Pope holds a B.Sc. in government and economics from the London School of Economics and an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from Washington University in St. Louis.​

The post SMI Podcast: Chris Pope – A New Plan for Medicaid appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Bastiat (1801–1850) was a French economist. In his most prominent essay, What is Seen and What is Not Seen, he explained how policymakers often tout the immediate effects of a policy but ignore what might have happened without the policy—what is not seen. This would later be known as the concept of “opportunity cost.” Whether discussing tax subsidies for sporting stadiums, tax-increment financing for development in flood plains, or a host of other issues, policy analysts at Show-Me Institute regularly follow in the tradition of Bastiat by explaining what is not seen.

In another of his popular essays, The Law, Bastiat explains that “the law is justice.” The purpose of the law is not to bestow rights or benefits on members of society, but instead: “Its function is to prevent the rights of one person from interfering with the rights of another.” His ideas on property rights and the purpose of the law help form the foundation of the classical liberal tradition.

Lately, I have been particularly intrigued by his essay Justice and Fraternity. I am an educator by trade. My bachelor’s and master’s degrees are in elementary education and my Ph.D. is in education policy. I have been a classroom teacher in public schools and I currently teach university classes for aspiring principals and superintendents. Through my experiences, I have developed some specific views on the purpose of education and what constitutes great teaching. Often, I find these views are not shared by others. Indeed, there are many ideas on the matter that are often incongruous with one another. This is one of the reasons I am so supportive of school choice; it allows individuals to explore the type of education they view as the best.

Others, however, are not sold on school choice. They believe the state should dictate what and how students learn. Oh, they may not say this directly, but consider what they propose. They want the government to dictate which schools children will attend. They want those schools to be accountable to government agencies and financed by funds from the government. They want the government to certify teachers who will teach  government-approved content standards. In short, they want a heavily regulated and centralized system of education.

Now let’s suppose that there is one best way to educate students. Bastiat suggests in Justice and Fraternity that the best way to discover this one best way is through a decentralized system:

Obviously, if people could agree on the best possible kind of education, in regard to both content and method, a uniform system of public instruction would be preferable, since error would, in that case, be necessarily excluded by law. But as long as such a criterion has not been found, as long as the legislator and the Minister of Public Education do not carry on their persons an unquestionable sign of infallibility, the true method has the best chance of being discovered and of displacing the others if room is left for diversity, trial and error, experimentation, and individual efforts guided by a self-regarding interest in the outcome—in a word, where there is freedom. The chances are worst in a uniform system of education established by decree, for in such a system error is permanent, universal, and irremediable. Therefore, those who, in the name of fraternity, demand that the law determine what shall be taught and impose this on everyone should realize that they are running the risk of having the law direct and impose the teaching of nothing but error; for legal interdiction can pervert the truth by perverting the minds that believe they have possession of it.

There are two important points made here. First, that the rational self-interest of diverse groups of individuals is better suited to discover the best way to educate students, or at the very least to satisfy the desires of the most individuals. Second, instituting one method from on high via government agencies is a surefire way to mandate error. At present, we do not have the magical education bullet that will meet the needs of every child. Therefore, a centrally imposed system will by its very nature force some students into a system that doesn’t work for them.

Think about this as we move forward in the coming months. As schools remain closed, parents throughout the country will be taking on the new role of home educator. They will, undoubtedly be working to find the system that works best for them. These parents will need the support of teachers and schools, but they are most likely to find that system through their own trial and error. They do not need a government order that forces every family to conform to the same routines.  

In my estimation, some of Bastiat’s essays should be required reading for high school economics students. Maybe I should work to impose that view on others. 

The post Homeschooling, Centralized Education, and Bastiat appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Taxes: Hitting Some Missouri Businesses Harder than Others? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a recently released report, “(No) Money in the Bank: Which Retirement Systems Penalize New Teachers?,” Marty Leuken, Ph.D. examines how many years an individual will have to pay into the retirement system before their benefits are worth more than their contributions. The study analyzed the largest public school district in each state. The results reiterate exactly what we have written before at the Show-Me Institute: Most teachers are paying more into the pension system than they are getting out of it.

Nationally, teachers with a defined-benefit pensions must work, on average, 27 years before their pension is worth more than their retirement contributions. This is incredible when you consider that 72 percent of teachers don’t even make it to 20 years of service. In other words, our pension systems benefit less than 30 percent of all teachers.  

In Missouri, the study included the Springfield Public School District. Teachers here must work 26 years before they finally break even. 

Missouri’s defined-benefit pension system for teachers is a good fit for those relatively few teachers who work their entire career in one pension system. Most Missouri teachers, however, would be better off if the state moved away from the current pension system. The current system punishes individuals who don’t stay in the system for a full career by transferring some of their retirement wealth to those who do stay.

Pension reform is not an effort to take someone’s retirement money away. Rather, it is an effort to allow individuals to actually keep their own retirement contributions.

The post Most Teachers Lose in Current Pension System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post 2016 Friedman Day Policy Panel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Company Birth and Death: Why Growth Is Slow in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Funding Status of State and Local Government Pensions in Missouri – Andrew Biggs, Ph.D.             

Betting on the Big Returns: How Missouri Teacher Pension Plans Have Shifted to Riskier Assets –James Shuls, Ph.D., and Michael Rathbone

Pension Reform in Missouri – Erin Hawley

Teacher Pension Enhancement in Missouri: 1975 to the Present – Robert Costrell, Ph.D.

Missouri Transition Costs and Public Pension Reform – Andrew Biggs, Ph.D.

Public Employee Pensions In Missouri: A Looming Crisis – Andrew Biggs, Ph.D.

But as informative and compelling as these papers are, there is just something engaging about a video with hand-drawn illustrations. That’s why I love this new video released by TeacherPensions.org, a project of Bellwether Education Partners. In less than three minutes, the video shows the key problems with teacher pensions. Check it out.

The post A Must-Watch Video about Teacher Pensions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! More School Choice, More Graduates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week, Student Life, a WashU college paper, published a story about the Rams stadium. For the story, the author interviewed five WashU faculty from different disciplines. The faculty spoke nearly unanimously against using public money to fund the stadium. Here are some of the faculty’s comments, as reported in the article, the Longest Con:

“It’s really hard to see this as overall a good idea. It’s going to be very expensive…That’s not a very good way to spend government money.”—Glenn MacDonald, an economics professor in the Olin Business School

“We’ve known since the mid-’70s that sports teams don’t bring fast economic benefits, certainly nothing that offsets the kinds of credits they’re getting…Ten times a year, 12 times a year, you get a huge influx of people in, [but] that’s it.”—Sunita Parikh, an associate professor of political science

“What it does is it destroys the area so it vanquishes the blight that it identifies by just knocking everything down,” and “decimates the existing urban character.”—Michael Allen, a University College coordinator and American culture studies lecturer

“I think it’s pretty clear to anyone that spends any time here…that this town’s civic sporting identity is Cardinals first, second, third, fourth, fifth, down through 10, then Blues probably and then Rams. So they’re already the low man on the totem pole… I think it’s kind of silly that some people in cities feel like they need to measure their city by how many teams from the Big 4 leagues they have”—Noah Cohan, a recent Ph.D. and adjunct instructor in English who studies the relation of sports fandom to identity and politics,

The only WashU faculty member interviewed who supported the stadium plan, Rich Ryffel (senior lecturer of finance in the business school who helped finance the Edward Jones Dome), admitted a stadium was “not a good public investment. In other words, if the public puts in a dollar, they’re not going to get a dollar out of it.”

In other news, stadium proponents are touting the final initial design (which I guess is kind of like jumbo shrimp?) of a planned stadium. It will even have a new brew pub. Will policymakers heed the advice of experts or opt for beer and circuses? 

The post Washington University Faculty Oppose Public Dollars for Stadium; Planners Promise Brew Pub appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Video: The Economic Value of Teacher Quality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen now!

The post Podcast 1: Interdistrict Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These days there are a lot of calls to make people pay their “fair share,” and no, we are not referring to the 1 percent. We are talking about smokers. The argument for raising the tax on cigarettes is straightforward—smoking is harmful to individuals, and though smoking is an individual decision, it impacts each of us. We all bear the brunt of additional health care costs incurred by smokers. These are what economists call negative externalities. They are, in theory, why smokers should be taxed more for their behavior—to offset their costs to society. Most proposals to raise the cigarette tax, however, seek to tax smokers to pay for unrelated programs, such as education.

For example, Erin Brower of Raise Your Hand for Kids is seeking to put a 50 cent increase on the ballot to fund early childhood programs. Missouri Treasurer Clint Zweifel has proposed an increase to fund college scholarships, an idea Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster supports. In a recent special to the Joplin Globe, Koster called for a 73 cent per pack increase. These are certainly not the first calls for increasing the tax. In the past 15 years, tobacco tax increases have appeared two times on the ballot. Each time Missouri voters have had the opportunity to tax smokers more, they have failed to do so. Why?

First, Missourians are leery of using “sin” taxes to fund other programs, especially education. This was the same tactic used to legalize gambling in Missouri. Lawmakers said the revenue from gambling would go to education. They did not tell voters, however, that the money would supplant not supplement existing funds to education. There are fears that the same would happen with proposals to raise tobacco taxes.

Second, using tobacco taxes to fund other programs simply does not make economic sense. Missouri’s lowest-in-the-nation tobacco taxes help draw in an untold number of shoppers across state lines, especially in Kansas City and along the Illinois border. These shoppers make it a point to buy their cigarettes in Missouri, thus creating sales for our local businesses and generating tax revenue for the state. Raising the tobacco tax would deter these shoppers.

Tobacco taxes also have the negative distinction of being one of the most regressive taxes. Smokers tend to be from lower-income households. At the same time, middle-income families would benefit from many of the programs created from increased tobacco taxes, such as college scholarships. Thus, if Zweifel and Koster’s proposal was implemented, low-income families would be subsidizing the college education of middle-income families. What is the “fair share” for smokers to pay for a middle-class student’s college education?

The truth of the matter is that smokers are an easy group to target. Few, except for other smokers, are sympathetic to their plight. At the same time, we all support better educational opportunities for Missouri students. Therefore, taxing smokers is a relatively easy way to raise taxes to fund educational programs.

If lawmakers are seriously concerned about the negative externalities causes by smokers, they should direct tobacco tax revenue directly back to smoking prevention programs and the Medicaid costs for smokers. That is the only logically and economically consistent use of the tax revenue.

James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, where Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher.

The post Taxing Smokers Does Not Show Support of Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.