Evidence highlighted by Show-Me Institute researchers shows that charter schools are disproportionately represented among “Bright Spot” schools nationwide; that is, schools where students consistently exceed expectations academically. And Missouri charter schools are doing even better—ours are among the most effective in the country in terms of improving academic achievement relative to their traditional public-school alternatives.

The introduction of a charter school does not replace existing public schools; instead, it adds another option for parents and students to address their diverse needs. The move signals broader momentum for school choice across Missouri. It represents an important step toward a much more diverse and adaptable educational system, one designed to give every student access to high-quality instruction and the opportunity to succeed.

The post Columbia’s First Charter School Approved for 2027 Opening appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The University of Missouri (MU) recently hosted a lecture by Robert Henderson, who coined the term “luxury beliefs.” These are beliefs that signal status among the affluent while imposing little cost on them, but that burden the poor and marginalized. A common example is the idea of defunding the police: it’s easy to endorse from a safe, well-resourced neighborhood, where the consequences are less likely to be felt personally.

Once you understand the concept of luxury beliefs, you see them everywhere.

After Henderson’s visit I found myself thinking about school choice, and specifically the debate over charter schools in Columbia. Charter schools are public schools that operate independently of traditional school districts. They have more flexibility in how they educate students, but they’re also held accountable for results. Unlike traditional public schools, they can be closed if they fail to perform or attract students. The data on charter school outcomes in Missouri are unambiguous: Charter schools consistently outperform traditional public schools.

A recent state law change allows charter schools to open in Columbia, but there is vocal opposition locally. This is despite the fact that many district schools perform poorly. Moreover, the first approved charter is operated by one of the most successful Charter Management Organizations in the entire state, Frontier Schools. In the PRiME Center’s 3-Year Growth Report, Frontier has two schools in the top five statewide in terms of promoting academic growth.

Columbia Public Schools has opposed Frontier’s entry (luckily to no avail thus far). Several current and prospective school board members are also opposed, and community forums are full of what I suspect is an angry minority of citizens who don’t want Frontier to open a school in Columbia.

The opposition screams of luxury beliefs.

I wonder how many of the opposing voices send their kids to Battle High School, where of all the students who take Algebra-I, just 7 percent—this is not a typo, 7 percent!—score proficient or higher on the state’s Algebra-1 End of Course Exam. Or how many send their children to Derby Ridge Elementary School, where fewer than 5 percent of 5th graders—again, not a typo—score proficient or higher in mathematics.

How many of those in opposition send their children to any of Columbia’s low-performing schools?

I bet very few, if any.

For families with means, school choice already exists—they can buy homes in neighborhoods with higher-performing schools. Opposing charter schools costs them little. But for families without that option, the stakes are much higher.

What are those families supposed to do?

Why not allow a proven operator like Frontier to offer another path? If you were a family without means, wouldn’t you want that option?

If you’re fortunate enough to send your children to a school you like in Columbia Public Schools, I’m happy for you, genuinely. But don’t stomp on other people’s opportunities with your luxury beliefs.

The post School Choice and Luxury Beliefs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In fairness, my colleague Joe Miller recently wrote that there are some reasons why a city might rightfully consider building a new terminal. The cost of current maintenance may be more expensive than a modern replacement, or a new terminal may be needed to accommodate increased traffic. Neither of those apply to MCI. While our traffic is up moderately, no one is arguing that we need to build for increased capacity. In fact, the new terminal proposal from the Aviation Department would reduce the number of gates we have now.

No one is arguing that the costs of maintaining the current MCI are prohibitive, either. Supporters of a new terminal seem to have strictly cosmetic concerns.

As for doing what we want airports to do, MCI is serving admirably. Consider the recent developments.

• In 2014, MCI picked up service from Spirit Airlines, and Seaport Airlines added service. Southwest announced that service to Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. has been approved.
• In 2015, Spirit started offering direct nonstop flights to Los Angeles. Allegiant Airlines will be flying nonstop to Florida from MCI, and Southwest offers new direct service New York LaGuardia, and Orange County, California. American Airlines added nonstop flights from Kansas City to Miami.
• And in 2016, Frontier Airlines will add flights to Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Southwest recently expanded service in the form of direct flights to San Antonio.

In January, the Star catalogued some of MCI’s gains, including that annual traffic has grown each year since 2012 with the terminal we have now. Supporters of a rebuild point to possible (but by no means certain) increases in traffic as a result of a new terminal. But as Miller concluded in 2014:

To sum it up, the airlines (and common sense) say that building an expensive new terminal will not increase demand for air travel. Quite the contrary, the higher costs to airlines and passengers may mean fewer flights. Even if we agree with business leaders that MCI requires more amenities, certainly there is a cheaper way of providing these than a $1.2 billion new terminal plan. The cost is so much greater than the supposed benefits that the plan looks more like a vanity project than a sound investment.

In short, Kansas City’s airport is doing well. It has won high marks for its convenience; we’re unlikely to suffer the long waits seen at other airports because MCI does not use the TSA for security. Importantly, airlines seem eager to come and expand their service (despite their claims to the contrary). It is unlikely that Kansas City could improve on this. In fact, in taking on mountains of debt we risk losing the competitive advantage that many of us now take for granted. 

The post MCI Is the Envy of its Peers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The headline? The near future of all air service is looking grim. Airlines continue to consolidate service at their largest hubs, consolidate with each other, and will continue further reductions at small community airports.

Columbia has felt this decline over the past several months, and the final Frontier Airlines flight from Columbia took off for Orlando, Fla., on Monday. Columbia is not alone. Data in the MIT study shows that Missouri airports, along with almost every other airport in the country, have lost service over the past five years.

This data shows us that the fate of air travel is not dependent on how shiny your airport is. Airlines have shifted away from capacity expansion because it was not a profitable strategy. They will continue to seek ways to maximize profits; unfortunately, small- and medium-sized airports are disproportionally affected in the process.

The post MIT Study Cautions Small Community Airport Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here is a quick recap of recent events. This past year the airport enjoyed service from American Airlines, Delta, and Frontier Airlines. But American Airlines is now the only commercial airline staying in Columbia, as Delta already left the market, and Frontier exits in May.

Consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff will provide design services for the new terminal for $38,000. In a recent press release, Parsons Brinckerhoff hypes the new terminal and defends the need, stating that “Columbia Regional Airport has been experiencing growth and has seen an increase in the number of commercial airline service offerings.”

After reading that, I literally double-checked the date of the press release to confirm that it indeed said March, 28, 2013, and not 2012. While it is technically true that the airport has increased commercial airline service offerings, the statement leaves off the very important second half of that statement — the growth has stopped, and service offerings are much lower than they were a year ago.  It is like saying George Bush is president. It was true, at one point in time, but you are not going to find him at the White House today.

Still, city leaders seem confident with their multi-million dollar plan. The Columbia City Council decided on Monday to transfer $1.2 million away from other city projects to fund the terminal, and plan to allot another $18.7 million to the project in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan, in hopes that the federal government will agree to contribute a large portion of the total cost.

The post Funny-But-Not-So-Funny Update On Columbia Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Frontier just began flights from Columbia to Orlando, Fla., last November. American Airlines now will be the only provider at the airport — and the company receives a revenue guarantee for two years to provide service. So if American does not make a profit from this market, they can still dip into funds that Columbia will provide to make up for any lost revenue.

Delta Senior Manager Trebor Banstetter commented that revenue guarantees “can be a tool to perhaps get things started, [but] . . . airlines really like to see a service that can sustain itself and be successful, without having a guarantee in place.” He added that the most important thing when considering what a community can offer an airline is “having the community and the travelers embrace  the service and use it on a regular basis because without that it’s hard to justify operating the route.”

Banstetter makes the point that revenue guarantees and other subsidies are not sustainable. The only way to keep service at the airport is if the flight itself is profitable. Prior to 2008, Delta served the Columbia airport with revenue assistance from the federal government, as part of the Essential Air Service program to provide air service to rural airports. Delta continued serving the airport for the next few years, until it was no longer profitable (Delta reported a $900,000 loss in 2011). During this time, Columbia had two airlines and no city subsidies — and now it has just one, plus subsidies.

Columbia officials would be better served if they give up on the “40 in 2020” goal to have 40 percent of mid-Missouri airline passengers using the Columbia airport by 2020. The loss of Frontier and Delta are real indications that flying to Columbia is not profitable for airlines. Yes, it would be convenient for Mizzou students and others in the area to have affordable flights closer than Saint Louis or Kansas City. It might be difficult to conceptualize because we live in a world where the federal government subsidizes almost everything, but there are costs to doing business. We all face constraints in resources. Airlines cannot provide services to a market that is not profitable. How long will it take for Columbia officials to understand this?

The post Now It’s Time To Say Goodbye appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I know Columbia Mayor Bob McDavid has a catchy-sounding goal of “40 in 2020” — meaning, to have 40 percent of mid-Missouri airline passengers using Columbia’s airport by 2020. But doling out subsidies is not the best way to strive for this goal.

The revenue guarantee enables American Airlines to break even on each flight. But what about Delta, which already services Columbia without subsidies? Let’s look at an example. Airlines have a minimum amount they can charge for each ticket before they start losing money — say it is $200. But because Columbia is helping American, that airline now can provide fares at $150. Delta, on the other hand, does not have this extra help and cannot lower its prices below $200. Which flight will passengers choose? Unless they have an unwavering love of the Delta Biscoff cookies, they will choose the cheaper American flight; and this is how Delta now will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

Delta officials know this, and already warned the city that they will expect a similar subsidy if the American deal goes through. I expect that we will now see a domino effect.  Chances are, Columbia will have to spend taxpayer money to keep Delta from leaving the airport, even though they were already providing service there for four years. There is also a third player. Frontier Airlines is scheduled to begin service to Columbia in a few weeks. They will have good reason to ask the city for a revenue guarantee as well.

The city created an artificial need for other companies to now require subsidies that previously they did not expect or request. Thank you, Columbia, for giving us an example of how subsidies can cause harm to a city.

The post Dominoes In Columbia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Incentives often appear to be an easy solution to spur economic development. But this plan is now backfiring for Columbia. Delta has served the Columbia market since 2008 —  without any special government incentives. Now that American has been offered a two-year revenue guarantee of $3 million, Delta is reconsidering its service to Columbia.

In a letter from Delta Senior Vice President Robert Cortelyou to Columbia Mayor Bob McDavid, he states, “While we welcome competition in the marketplace, this revenue guarantee puts Delta at a severe disadvantage by subsidizing American Airlines at Delta’s expense. This is unacceptable.”

Cortelyou emphasizes an important point. If Columbia gives a subsidy to one airline, it creates unfair competition and puts the other companies in that market (Delta and Frontier) at a disadvantage.

Delta officials did state that the airline will exit the Columbia market if they are not offered a similar package. Their threat exemplifies why cities like Columbia should not provide benefits to some companies and exclude others in the first place. If Columbia meets their demands, the city will waste even more scarce public dollars. There is no reason to bribe airlines to serve Columbia.  If there is passenger demand to warrant increased service to the airport, companies will provide it without subsidies, just as Delta has been doing. Doling out subsidies to these companies takes money and resources away from other actions that could be better investments for the city.

However, at this point, Columbia has dug itself a hole and the only option may be to provide similar incentives to Delta, if the deal with American goes through. The good news is that it would only be a two-year commitment. If city officials act prudently, they will prevent it from extending beyond two years.

The post Columbia: You Can’t Dance At Two Weddings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.