For instance, Tubbs suggests charter schools in Missouri do not have to administer state tests. This is simply not true. Charters administer the same exams to students as the traditional public schools do. You can view exam data on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s website. They show that 70 percent of students at City Garden Montessori in Saint Louis scored proficient or advanced on the third grade English Language Arts Assessment in 2014, while just 64.9 percent did so at Joplin’s highest-scoring elementary school, Kelsey Norman. If you look at all the data, you’ll see charter schools in Saint Louis and Kansas City outperforming many Joplin schools.

Of course, not all charter schools are models of success; but neither are all district schools. Contrary to the claim of Tubbs, however, we do have reliable data and the effectiveness of charter schools has been measured. A 2013 study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University showed that Missouri charter school students learned significantly more than their peers in nearby public schools in both reading and math.

Tubbs’s letter also misrepresents how school funding for charter schools works. She states that charter school students will take funds away from the district schools, and that part is true. Anytime a student leaves a district, the district will lose money. If a student moves from Joplin to Carthage, the Joplin School District would lose the same amount of money. Tubbs then goes on to say, “However, that public school district must continue to maintain facilities (pay the utility bills, fix the plumbing) and provide support services (bus transportation) for the remaining students.” But she does not mention that all of the funds used for facilities, maintenance, and debt service remain in the school district. Charters do not have access to these funds.

Tubbs also states that “non-public charter schools are not required to take all applicants.” First off, there is no such thing as a “non-public charter school.” Charter schools are public schools. They are free and open to anyone who lives within the attendance boundaries. They must take all students who apply, unless they are oversubscribed. Then they must hold a lottery.

Tubbs’s letter is filled with inaccuracies that are constantly repeated as if they were true. It’s time to put a stop to arguing with these “alternative facts.” We can have a debate as to whether charter schools are right for Joplin, Missouri, or the rest of the state, but we should do it with the truth in mind.

The post Attacking Charter Schools with “Alternative Facts” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Superintendent Huff has been credited with helping rebuild the Joplin community after 2011’s devastating tornado. He was the 2013 Missouri Superintendent of the Year and a finalist for National Superintendent of the Year.

That said, the agreement still has some big numbers. Huff will continue to earn his regular paycheck until he retires on June 30. From July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016, Joplin will pay Huff a total of $262,912.50 in additional compensation. According to the Kansas City Star, “the agreement requires Huff and the district not to criticize each other, and bars Huff from suing the district.” Huff will also receive $50,000 to “assist the new superintendent,” starting in June 2016.

According to the salary schedule for the Joplin Public Schools, a teacher would have to earn a master’s degree and make it to the 26th pay step in order to make $50,000 a year. That is some expensive advice.

This revelation raises a lot of questions. The first, of course, asks, Is this the best use of district funds? Clearly Superintendent Huff was a talented leader, but those 312,000-plus dollars could hire nine new teachers at the starting point on the district’s salary scale.

More than anything, this signals a need for public school finance transparency. A sunshine request from an intrepid reporter shouldn’t be necessary to get these facts into the open. How can taxpayers hold school boards accountable when they don’t even know how their tax dollars are being spent? Watch this video to hear how one legislator feels about public school spending and transparency.

The post Golden Parachutes for Bureaucrats appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Early on, I penned an op-ed. Not in defense of Turner, for I didn’t know the details of his case, but in support of school choice. How, you may ask, does Turner’s story mesh with the topic of school choice?

Like this:

The Joplin School District has the corner on teaching jobs in Joplin. In economic speak, this is called a Monopsony. Whereas a monopoly means having a single provider of goods or services, a monopsony means having a single buyer of goods or services. Buyers or employers with a monopsony control the market and are able to dictate terms to the supplier — in this case, the teacher. In most cities, public school districts have a monopsony on the teaching jobs.

You see, in a school choice system, it is not just students who have options; teachers have greater options as well.

Essentially, school choice breaks up the monopsony that districts have on teaching jobs. It gives individual educators more freedom to seek out the teaching post that best fits them and it increases the market competition for their talents.

You can read the full op-ed on our website.

The post Monopsony: Why Teachers Should Support School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While I respect his right to express his opinions, I am not taking a stance on whether he should be fired. I am not privy to all of the charges and evidence brought against him and there very well could be reasons unrelated to his views that have landed him in this situation. Rather, I think this is the perfect opportunity to discuss why teachers should support school choice.

The Joplin School District has the corner on teaching jobs in Joplin. In economic speak, this is called a monopsony. Whereas a monopoly means having a single provider of goods or services, a monopsony means having a single buyer of goods or services. Buyers or employers with a monopsony control the market and are able to dictate terms to the supplier — in this case, the teacher. In most cities, public school districts have a monopsony on the teaching jobs.

The way we have structured our education system has created this monopsony. The state has created school districts and students are required to attend those district schools, unless they can be homeschooled or afford private school. This gives the district in each town control over almost all of the teaching jobs and hampers the prospects for teachers.

When districts have a monopsony on teaching jobs, teachers have little ability to seek out a school that aligns with their values and beliefs. Rather, they have to align with the district’s thinking on issues, such as teaching practices, achievement testing, discipline policies, standards, and possibly even political issues. In school choice systems, many different types of schools exist. This allows teachers to be choosy about where they work.

Take, for example, the website myedmatch.com. It is essentially an online dating site for teachers and schools, allowing teachers to find the school that fits them. This concept is foreign to most educators because they have not had the ability to enter a true market for their labor.

Great teachers may also benefit from school choice through increased salaries. The Joplin School District pays teachers based on experience and degrees. They have no incentive to offer good teachers more money. If schools were competing for the best teachers, however, they might receive pay increases.

Essentially, school choice breaks up the monopsony that districts have on teaching jobs. It gives individual educators more freedom to seek out the teaching post that is the best fit, and increases the market competition for their talents.

If Joplin had a robust school choice system, Turner’s dismissal would be a non-issue. When he realized his school was unhappy with him, he could have searched for employment at a school that more closely aligns with his values and rewards his skill set.

All teachers, including Randy Turner, have the right to express their opinions in the marketplace of ideas. They should also have the ability to express their beliefs in the marketplace for jobs. For this reason alone, teachers should support school choice.

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

The post Monopsony: Why Teachers Should Support School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the Joplin Globe, the destruction from the tornado resulted in a decrease of $34 million in assessed valuation for the school district (and a similar number for the city, counties, etc.). According to the rules of TIF, a new TIF would freeze the property taxes paid to all districts at that number for 23 years. In the long run, that could be very damaging to public services. Fifteen years from now, how is the school district going to fund its services when a substantial part of the district has its taxes frozen at a 2012 post-tornado level? One way they will do it is by having very high taxes on the areas outside of the redevelopment zone. If this TIF passes, I could see tax differences between the areas in and out of the zone so large that people start making decisions to move based on that, and that will start to affect property values. (See pages 33-36 here for how this can happen in such situations.) It is one thing to pay more to live in a better school district. It is another thing to pay more for a house with lower taxes than other, similar homes within the same school district.

My general objections to TIF are laid out here. There are, no doubt, different circumstances in Joplin than just moving around big box stores in Saint Louis County.

The Joplin Globe editorial board is correct in stating that the community should step back before making such an enormous decision. Once the properties within the proposed district are redeveloped, they should be required to pay, at a minimum, the pre-tornado tax levels to partly reduce the discrepancy in future property taxes between property in and out of the TIF district. (Obviously, before and during the period they are being redeveloped, the much lower tax levels should be paid.)

The post Joplin School District Right To Be Concerned About Super TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.