This is essentially a lifetime tax that isn’t being addressed as the crisis that it is. Collectively, our nation could lose as much as $28 trillion because the workforce will simply have more people who know less. That’s more than 15 times the current estimate of the economic cost of the pandemic.

The future of Missouri’s workforce is certainly not promising. Our K-12 enrollment is declining. Four in ten of our 3rd graders, who were in kindergarten in 2020, do not have even a partial understanding of 3rd-grade reading material. And last year, 40 percent of our high school graduates were not college or career ready, as measured by state standards.

Test scores matter. Declining test scores matter. Watering down the tests, backing off the grading scale, and not holding students and families accountable for chronic absenteeism only add to the negative impact.

Dr. Hanushek’s policy recommendations may seem harsh, but they’re the kind of bold ideas we ought to consider. He suggests creating meaningful financial incentives for “good” teachers to teach more students and buying out the contracts of low-performing teachers. These are solutions that prioritize the children in the system over the adults. What are the chances that Missouri is willing to take that approach?

The post The Lifetime Pandemic Education Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri currently sits near the middle of state rankings of educational achievement. According to Hanushek and colleagues, if Missouri improved its level of educational achievement to that of Minnesota, the top performing state, it would generate $1.065 trillion dollars in state GDP over the average life of a child born today. Yes, you read that right: Trillion with a “t.”

A key paragraph:

“The results of this exercise again suggest the importance of knowledge capital for state economic prosperity. We find that differences in achievement and attainment account for 20 to 35 percent of the current variation in per-capita GDP among states, with average years of schooling and achievement levels making roughly even contributions. In a sense, this estimate is surprisingly large, because both labor and capital are free to move across states—and thus tend to equalize rewards to workers with different skills. But our results are quite consistent with those obtained from similar analyses of the role of student-achievement levels in explaining differences in economic performance across countries (see “Education and Economic Growth,” research, Spring 2008).”

Missouri has serious fiscal crises looming on the horizon. Our pension systems are underfunded.  Our age-dependency ratio (the ratio of those who pay into our social services to those who receive them) is slated to grow from 61% in 2010 to 77% by 2030. If we don’t grow our economy, we are going to be forced to make some difficult and unpleasant financial choices. 

Improving our education system offers a way out. Rather than raising taxes or taking part in economic development shell games, we can actually help people become more productive and create more real, lasting wealth. And, if the authors of this article are right, our education system can be the engine of that economic growth.

If you’re interested in how we can improve Missouri’s schools, check out the education section of our 20 for 2020 document.

The post Leaving a Trillion Dollars on the Table appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

DESE decided the best way to improve teacher quality was to raise the bar on licensure exams. Licensure exams and other certification requirements are only effective at improving the quality of the workforce if they are related to the outcome we desire; namely, increased teacher quality. The figure below offers an illustration. This figure comes from a paper by economist Dan Goldhaber, “Everyone’s doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness.”

On one axis, you have a measure of teacher quality and on the other a teacher’s performance on licensure exams. The height represents the number of teachers, with most being somewhere in the middle. The red line indicates a minimum passing score on the licensure exam and the blue line indicates some minimum level of teacher quality. If teacher quality and performance are highly related, as they are on the left figure, then a licensure exam could do a good job of screening out individuals. “A” represents the individuals who would be good teachers, but are kept out because they fail the test, “B” are the bad teachers who fail the test, “C” are the bad teachers who pass the test, and “D” are the individuals who pass the test and are adequate teachers. As you can see, when the test isn’t related to teacher quality, as presented on the right, we have more ineffective teachers passing the test (“C”) and more good teachers failing the test “A”.

Teacher licensure tests are more like the figure on the right. They do a poor job of predicting who will be a quality teacher. What DESE did is move the red line further to the right; thus, keeping more people out.

The fact is, we are lousy at predicting who will be a good teacher. Thus, increasing the rigor of licensure exams will not do any good. Hanushek offers another solution – teacher de-selection. He writes, “replacing the bottom 5–8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings with a present value of $100 trillion.” Rather than try to predict who will be a good teacher, we should focus on removing those individuals who have proven to be bad teachers.

Raising the bar on licensure exams will not improve the quality of the teaching profession. If we want to do that, we need to make teaching more attractive to high performing individuals and we need to get rid of the bad apples in the teaching profession.

The post State Departments of Education Should Stop Trying to Predict Who Will Be a Good Teacher appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s State of the State address correctly identified education as a key policy area this year. This is due to the fact that Missouri’s educational record to date is middling at best. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek and his co-authors in a 2012 study compared gains in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test scores for math, reading, and science across states. Out of the 41 states for which assessment results are available, Missouri ranks 27th.

Gov. Nixon called upon the legislature to increase spending on K-12 education in Missouri by $278 million in 2014. Will spending more money on educating Missouri children push us to the head of the class? The chart above, taken from the Hanushek study, does not support the governor’s claim. As shown by the experience of many states over the past 20 years, spending more money on education does not guarantee marked improvements in student achievement.

The chart above indicates no reliable relationship between spending on education and educational success across states. The correlation is 0.12. In other words, the correlation between spending and student outcomes is essentially zero.

The post In Education, Money Itself Is Not The Answer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a recent Saint Louis Beacon editorial, I noted that budget decisions have reduced funding for higher education. Spending on higher education has declined in real terms since 1990. This has had several effects, including forcing Missouri universities and colleges to raise tuition. It also has affected the educational accomplishment of the average Missourian.

How does Missouri stack up when compared to other states in educational achievement by its citizens? In 2008, Missouri ranked 33rd out of the 50 states using the statistic “percent of adults having a bachelor’s degree or more.” Don’t like “number of degrees” as a measure of what you have learned? Using standardized test scores (the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP) as a measure of educational attainment, Stanford University professor Eric Hanushek recently reported that since 1992, the gain in NAEP test scores for Missouri relative to other states is unimpressive.  On this score, Missouri ranks 27th out of 41 states for which data are available.

Missouri’s lackluster educational record is one of several factors that has negatively affected our economic standard of living. In a 2012 Show-Me Institute study, SMI economists Joseph Haslag and Michael Podgursky reported that Missouri’s economy expanded at a slower pace than any of its neighbors since 1997. Compared to all 50 states, Missouri ranked 48th in terms of economic growth. Even in a world of social promotion, this is not a passing record of achievement.

Nixon has called for additional funds for higher education in the fiscal year 2015 budget. Whether these funds survive the political battlefield and find their way to colleges and universities is a dubious proposition. Nor do I mean to suggest that simply throwing more dollars at education is the answer to improving the situation. One thing is certain, however: Unless Missouri’s educational report card improves in the coming years, do not expect to experience an economic boom any time soon.

The post Governor Nixon And Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By many measures of academic achievement, Missouri ranks near the middle of the pack when compared to other states. On the best state-to-state comparison, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Missouri fourth graders ranked 28th in math and 32nd in reading in 2011. Missouri’s eighth-grade students ranked 33rd and 25th in math and reading, respectively. At the high school level, the state’s average ACT score has remained unchanged at 21.6 for the past eight years.

We are stuck in the middle with no signs of becoming “un-stuck.” Using data from NAEP and several international comparison tests, notable education scholars Eric Hanushek, Paul Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann analyzed national and state level trends in achievement. They found United States performance to be middling in comparison to other countries. From 1995 to 2009, 24 countries had educational gains larger than the United States and 24 had smaller gains. In their analysis, Missouri once again appears average when compared to other states, ranking 27th in the annual rate of growth in math, reading, and science achievement. Missouri does not seem to be improving rapidly in comparison to other states or other countries.

The answer to our apparent inertia is not simply more money. Many rigorous studies have shown, including the one cited above, that increased funding simply does not buy higher achievement. From 1992 to 2008, real per-pupil spending on K-12 education increased by nearly 40 percent. Last year, Missouri spent approximately $9,600 per student. For a class of 25 students, that equals $240,000. And that figure is just for current operating expenditures, which typically does not cover the cost of buildings and classrooms. For the 2013 fiscal year, spending on elementary and secondary education will consume more than 36 percent of the state’s general revenue operating budget.

Freedom, not money, is the answer to Missouri’s education problems. Our education system is rife with burdensome regulations and limitations that inhibit teachers and school leaders from addressing the most pressing needs at their schools. At the same time, most families lack the ability to express any meaningful choice in where their child goes to school. We need to allow school officials to innovate and we need to empower families to choose.

The state cannot afford to continue the path we are on, but we can certainly afford to dole out more freedom. Arizona lawmakers have discovered a way to promote freedom while saving money, with the use of education savings accounts. Families who wish to homeschool or place their child in a private school can now receive a portion of the funds that would have been spent on their child. They can use these funds for approved education purposes, including textbooks, tutoring, and even tuition. Because students only receive a portion of the funds, the state saves money and families have more options. In my book, that is a win-win.

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

The post Mo’ Money Will Not Solve MO Problems appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute is in the process of researching the impact of Missouri’s existing teacher tenure laws. We have made hundreds of information requests to school districts throughout the state to discover just how many teachers have been terminated in the past decade. Generally, we are seeing few — and in some cases no — teacher terminations. Clearly, some of these school districts continue to employ bad teachers.

I have listed teacher termination statics that we have received from school districts that fall within Engler’s Senate district. Three districts report that they have not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000.

Senator Kevin Engler’s Area:

Arcadia Valley R-III: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Belleview School District: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

DeSoto School District: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

East Carter County R-II: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Potosi R-III: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

Van Buren School District: The superintendent writes that “There were no teachers [since 2000] that were asked to leave, terminated, or were fired by the district.”

Legislators should remember that the purpose of public education is not to employ as many teachers as possible; it is to provide education to Missouri students. As we have pointed out on this blog, we must acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that not all teachers are above average. A consistent finding in academic studies is that teacher quality matters. In fact, a study by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University found that students can learn three times as much from a good teacher than they do from a bad one.

Restricting school districts’ ability to fire bad teachers ensures that some Missouri students are receiving a poor education. As shown in the school districts from the area Engler represents, some districts rarely terminate teachers. Is this practice the best for Missouri students?

The post Some School Districts Rarely Terminate Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Eric Hanushek, of Stanford University, found that a good teacher can help a student learn one and a half years of material during a single academic year while a bad teacher might only be able to help a student learn half a year’s worth of material. In other words, a good teacher can help a student achieve three times as much educational growth as a bad teacher. A push for teacher tenure reform is not just about holding teachers accountable, it is about creating a way for school districts to get rid of ineffective teachers in order to help students learn more and from better teachers.

It appears that teaching is one of the most secure jobs in the state of Missouri. According to national data, few Missouri teachers are terminated in a given year.

But, I am curious about specific school districts, not just an estimated average across numerous schools. For school districts throughout the state, what number of teachers were terminated during the past 10 years? Are most dismissed teachers new to the profession (and have not yet achieved tenure), with very few being dismissed after achieving tenure? We are still doing research on this issue, but the preliminary data looks like teaching has an extraordinary level of job security.

Consider the following:

• In the past 10 years, the Cape Girardeau School District, which employs approximately 350 teachers, has terminated just two tenured teachers.

• During the same time, the Parkway School District, which employs more than 1,200 teachers, has terminated five.

• The Springfield School District, which has more than 1,600 teachers, has terminated fewer than 10 teachers in the past five years.

• The Van Buren School District, in its response to a Sunshine Law request, noted that “no teachers …were asked to leave, were terminated, or were fired by the district” during the past 10 years.

• The Shelby County R-IV School District has not terminated any teachers during the past 10 years.

• The last time the Gilman City R-IV School District terminated any teachers was during the 2002-03 school year. That year, two teachers were terminated.

Perhaps Missouri is inundated with high-quality teachers to the point that, over a 10-year period, some school districts have termination rates of as little as 0.4 percent. But, the case may be that poor teachers continue to teach at school districts that cannot (or will not) terminate them for performance reasons. And this means that some Missouri students will continue to receive a low-quality education.

Instead of keeping on the best and the worst teachers, it is time let school districts encourage the worst teachers to find new jobs, while rewarding the best teachers with pay boosts. Missouri House Bill 1526 is certainly a step in the right direction.

The post Missouri: Where the Women Are Strong, the Men Are Good Looking, And Every Teacher is Above Average? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There also was good news for some teachers in Dieckhaus’ 2011 legislation. The proposal called for the best teachers to be paid at least twice as much as the poorest-performing teachers. While this may seem like common sense (why not pay the best teachers more, as a reward for their effort?), it runs contrary to the current system of paying Missouri public school teachers.

The 2011 legislation did not pass. However, Dieckhaus is considering submitting tenure reform legislation again this year. The bill is not yet available, but I have listed two areas of reform that are needed to help improve student academic achievement in Missouri. Our priority should be educating  children, not rewarding those who happen to have been teaching for the longest period of time.

Let’s pay good teachers more: In Missouri, teachers are paid under what is known as a “teacher salary schedule.” Broadly, teachers who have more years of experience and higher levels of education are paid more (here is an example). At many school districts, these are the only components of teacher pay — teachers who teach difficult subjects, at-risk students, and teachers who have the best track record of helping students learn do not get a pay boost.

Teachers who do a poor job of teaching students can actually earn more than the good teachers if the poor teachers have a higher education level and/or more years of teaching experience.

Dieckhaus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2011 that “It’s time we move away from paying people based on how long they’ve been teaching and what piece of paper they have hanging on the wall.” I certainly agree.

Paired with the issue of teacher compensation is the question of how to deal with teachers who have a track record of failing to teach students. Right now, those teachers can stay at a district for years, if not indefinitely.

Let’s help school districts get rid of bad teachers: State law awards teachers “indefinite contracts” if they have taught at the same school district for at least five years. These “permanent teachers” can be terminated, but only through a lengthy process. If a school district terminates a teacher (after going through all of the notification requirements specified by state law), that teacher can appeal the termination, triggering a court case. If the teacher wins in court, the school district must pay that teacher all of the compensation he or she would have received had he or she stayed at the district during the period of appeal.

I suppose that if you are trying to discourage teacher termination, the above makes sense. But, as a state, our concern should not be to hire and keep on as many teachers as possible. We should instead be concerned with how to provide quality education to students. Allowing failing teachers to continue to teach students does nothing to help students, and may be hurting them.

It is an uncomfortable truth, but one we must acknowledge. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it, “We can no longer pretend that all teachers or all principals are from Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average.” Many academic studies have shown that teacher quality matters. Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University, has shown that good teachers can teach students three times as much as bad teachers — in a single year. Improving student academic achievement can be achieved in part by attracting more good teachers to the profession, and encouraging the bad teachers to leave the field.

I hope that the 2012 teacher tenure reform legislation can help enable school districts to have more autonomy when it comes to rewarding good teachers and terminating the worst teachers. When the full text of the bill becomes available, I will post my take on it here.

The post It Is Time To Reform Teacher Tenure In Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A better education reform strategy, according to education experts Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is to allow free competition among schools for students. Such competition would allow schools that provide a quality education to flourish while punishing schools that provide a poor education.

A review of all available empirical studies of school voucher programs — a school choice policy that allows students to take public dollars with them to schools that they choose — found that the majority of studies showed that voucher programs improved student outcomes and public schools. Unfortunately, education vouchers are not a viable option in Missouri because they might violate the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment.

Increased choice frequently produces cost savings. In Washington D.C., for example, charter school students are outperforming traditional public schools while operating at a per-pupil cost of $11,000, compared to the $17,000 per-pupil expenditure of traditional public schools. Options are limited in Missouri because state law restricts the creation of charter schools to the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City.

Furthermore, Missouri has many rural areas without a critical mass of students to support the infrastructure of multiple schools. In fact, two-thirds of Missouri’s school districts have fewer than 1,000 students.

For students whose educational choices are limited by geography, restrictive laws, financial constraints, or some combination of the three, a new approach is necessary to give them the benefits of educational competition and course diversity. Virtual schools and distance learning can offer these benefits to nearly all of Missouri’s students.

Related Links

The post Virtual Learning: Beyond Brick and Mortar appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Can We Improve Urban Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This Thursday evening, the library’s series will continue, as Jay Matthews, an education reporter from the Washington Post, will discuss his new book, Work Hard, Be Nice. The book offers readers a look at how the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) network of charter schools has become a poster child for helping children from the most challenged socioeconomic groups prepare for academic success and college. This topic is extremely relevant for Kansas City, which saw a KIPP school open in recent years, as well as Saint Louis, which will greet a new KIPP school this fall.

And, last, but not least, I wanted to take this opportunity to plug yet another exciting event on the calendar. On May 5, the Show-Me Institute and Saint Louis University will be hosting Dr. Caroline Hoxby, yet another celebrated education expert with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, for a discussion titled, “The Promise and Performance of Charter Schools: Drivers of Educational Improvement in the U.S.?” This lecture will be a great opportunity for anyone interested in learning what research is telling us about the impact of charter schools nationwide.

The post Education Events in Kansas City and Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nobody doubts the need to improve our schools. Students across the nation are being left less than fully prepared to meet the challenges of the new economy. But the problem is especially acute in our urban centers, including Saint Louis and Kansas City, which have been declared educationally bankrupt.

Kansas City is historically famous as an example of the problems facing much of the nation. Following a federal judge’s desegregation order that gave school officials a license to dream (at no cost to the district), the school system moved to the very top of the spending rankings for urban districts in the nation during the early 1990s. But student performance did not budge, and the eventual withdrawal of court support and state funding left the city with some great facilities — but without more learning. Saint Louis followed a slightly different court-ordered plan, spent almost as much money as Kansas City, and got the same dismal student achievement results.

Saint Louis and Kansas City have not been alone. Nationally, schools — urban, rural, and suburban — have pursued aggressive spending programs. They have followed conventional wisdom, reducing class sizes, introducing a wide variety of “reforms,” and hiring more educated and experienced teachers. And, as a nation, our achievement today is little different than it was in 1970.

What is wrong with this picture? We have moved our schools to a vastly different level of resources — almost quadrupling since 1960, after allowing for inflation. Yet we have not improved our performance. We do not come close to equaling the performance of students in East Asia, or in the better European countries, or in Canada.

This general problem confronts our nation, which is entering into a new competitive era in the international economy. And it particularly falls on our urban populations that lag the United States as a whole, and thus lag the dynamic economies of the world.

The most direct conclusion is that we need to make much more fundamental changes in our schools. We cannot continue doing what has not worked, even if we do this more intensively.

A fundamental issue is that we do not reward success. The current system has few rewards for producing higher achievement, but instead supports failure. If a school does well, the staff should be rewarded, not punished. If a teacher does well, she should be rewarded.

Some such better incentives are being put in place. Saint Louis and Kansas City have had a large out-migration, students fleeing the regular public schools for charters or for the suburbs. In a best of worlds, these public schools would recognize that they must change and would break from the long history of mediocre to poor schools. In the worst of worlds, everybody except perhaps the most immobile will simply leave the shell of Missouri urban public schools. The future options could not present a more stark contrast.

Eric Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is the author of a Show-Me Institute study on education finance and has been a guest speaker for the Show-Me Institute lecture series with Saint Louis University and the Kansas City Public Library.

The post Urban Schools Need Fundamental Change Before They Will Improve appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hanushek makes some particularly good points during the last 10 minutes of the podcast, when he describes how current funding systems reward failure by directing resources to failing schools — in essence, giving schools an incentive to fail. He also discusses the complex relationship between choice and accountability and explains why one can’t succeed without the other.

The podcast and a list of related readings are available online.

The post Hanushek Interview appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A new proposal by Rep. Denis Holsman (D-Kansas City) appears, at first glance, to address teacher pay — particularly in rural districts — without providing across-the-board pay increases. Upon further reflection, though, it fails to fundamentally address the root incentive problems.

Among the bill’s merit provisions (from the Post-Dispatch’s coverage):

• A voluntary grant given to school districts based on test scores and teacher performance. A majority of teachers in each district would have to vote to accept the grant.
• One-time $5,000 stipends for teachers in small schools who have reached 10 and 20 years of service.
• Recruitment bonuses of $5,000 for new teachers in small or unaccredited school districts. Math and science teachers would receive $7,500.
• Retention bonuses ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 for teachers who stay at a small school district for 5, 10 and 20 years.
• A $2,500 stipend for teachers in a district that moves from being unaccredited to accredited by the state Board of Education.
• Monthly bonuses for retired teachers older than 75 whose cost-of-living adjustments are capped.

The first point is a throwaway provision to satisfy the merit-pay advocates. Individual teachers should be able to decide whether their compensation is based on their individual performance; it should not be left to the discretion of a monopolistic cartel. The majority of teachers will not vote to accept merit pay, because without merit pay, bad teachers will receive the same pay as good teachers — a tragedy of any state-run enterprise. Worse, this provision provides perverse incentives for good teachers because it discourages them from remaining in a profession where their performance quality is under-recognized. And if Missouri’s aggregate public school performance is any indication of teacher quality, there are far more bad teachers in the state than good.

The retention bonuses are also a mistake. Research indicates (as evidenced by Dr. Hanushek, the nation’s foremost education scholar) that there is little improvement in teacher performance past the two- or three-year mark (in fact, the relationship may actually be negative). So there’s little reason to reward teachers’ tenure without a corresponding performance metric. This is really the critical juncture in the teacher compensation problem. Good teachers should be rewarded for their efforts, and bad teachers should not. The teacher unions have spent years hypothesizing that tenure is a measure of teacher success, when in fact there is little evidence to suggest that this is true.

The math/science recruitment bonuses are a step in the "market" direction. If these skill areas are the ones that need the most improvement, it makes sense that these should be the areas where more money is spent. But, again, basic math and science skills should be a fundamental part of Missouri education — not something achieved only at a premium.

The worst provision, in my opinion, is the monthly bonuses for retired teachers. How will increasing retirees’ pensions improve the quality of education in Missouri?

There are some good elements of this bill (it does, nominally at least, address the merit issue), but on the whole it does nothing but increase costs without linking them to improvement in quality. Missourians — and Missouri teachers — deserve better.

The post Bad Bill, Bad Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

SLPS’s response to Hanushek’s criticism is that they’re working on making the traditional public schools "more attractive." That’s a positive step — and one that I’m sure was prompted by the large numbers of students leaving the district every year. Limiting new charter schools would remove this incentive for SLPS to try to appeal to parents.

The post New Charters Threatened appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post New Speaker Series From SMI and SLU appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hanushek analyzed Missouri test scores and spending levels at the state’s public school districts. That analysis did find a link between higher spending and higher student performance. But Hanushek said the link was extremely weak.

By his estimate, schools would have to triple, or even quadruple spending to raise average student test scores to levels that meet state standards.

The spending-performance relationship is so weak because most of the variation in Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) scores (about 85-90%, depending on the subject and grade level) is within district, not between districts. So if you compare any two students in Missouri, most of the difference in their test scores is caused by their families, teachers, and personal characteristics–what their districts spend doesn’t matter very much.

And as Hanushek points out in his many publications, a weak correlation between spending and achievement at current spending levels won’t necessarily translate into any correlation if you triple spending. We don’t have enough experience with such high spending levels to know what would happen.

The post Statistical Analysis of the Effects of Throwing Money at Problems appeared first on Show-Me Institute.