*Statistics are based on a self-compiled compilation of calendars. If snows/sick days have shifted the last day of school, they are not accounted for.

**Kairos Academies, Clarksburg C-2, Clarkton C-4, Crocker R-II, Eldon R-I, La Salle Charter School, Mark Twain R-VIII, New York R-IV, Premier Charter School, The Biome, Thornfield R-I, and Union Star R-II are not accounted for.

Skyline R-II was the first district to start summer break, on May 1. Hazelwood and Ferguson-Florissant will be among the final districts to go on break on May 31.

Based on the projected last day of class, if you are a St. Louis kid, you are probably getting out later than everyone else. Of the 15 traditional school districts (non-charters using a five-day school week) that end classes May 28 or later, 11 of them are in the St. Louis area. These St. Louis–area schools are Ferguson-Florissant, Hazelwood, Clayton, Ft. Zumwalt, Parkway, Wentzville, Ladue, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, University City, Mehlville, and Riverview Gardens.

How long do most summer breaks last in Missouri?

*Based on the projected number of days, we rounded the district to the nearest week. For example, a district with an 81-day summer would be coded as “12 weeks.”

**In this estimation we assume districts have the same first day of school as 2023-2024, and then subtracted that number by two. In 2020, Missouri mandated that Missouri public schools’ first day of school cannot be before a certain date. In 2023-2024, it was August 21st. For 2024-2025, it will be August 19th, two days earlier.

As the above figure displays, the average summer break is a little over three months for Missouri students. The shortest summer break is roughly 10 weeks, while the longest is around four months at 16 weeks. The rural districts (enrollment in parentheses) of Fairview R-XI (493), Glenwood R-VIII (218), Howell Valley R-I (209), Junction Hill C-12 (193), and Richards R-V (343) all have nearly four-month summer vacations—with May 2 as their last day of class, and August 21 as their first day of class in 2023–2024.

Interestingly, the districts that have the shortest summer breaks all tend to be St. Louis–area districts, with Ferguson-Florissant and Hazelwood having the shortest breaks. Along with these two, Clayton, Ft. Zumwalt, Parkway C-2, Wentzville, Ladue, University City, Mehlville, Riverview Gardens, Affton, Bayless, Brentwood, Francis Howell, Orchard Farm, Rockwood, and Valley Park all have estimated summer breaks under 90 days.

How do these statistics differ amongst various types of schools?

The above figures are known as a box and whisker plot. The vertical line (whiskers) represents the full range, while the box represents the middle 50 percent of responses. Any statistical outliers are noted as dots, the horizontal line is the median, and the “x” is the mean.

As shown, rural schools on average have much longer summer breaks than their suburban and city counterparts. Additionally, most of the longest breaks in the state are rural—of the 50 longest summer breaks in the state, 47 of them are rural districts. While this may be reflective of the bygone days when most rural children worked on farms, Institute analysts have conducted research that found rural high school students may have fewer opportunities and lower rate of college readiness than their suburban counterparts.

Another important takeaway from these figures is the difference in break length between charters and traditional schools. Charter schools have an average (mean) summer break of 84 days, versus 92 for four-day school week districts and 94 days for traditional five-day school week districts. In Missouri, charter schools serve high proportions of disadvantaged students and shorter breaks may be a good use of charter school flexibility.

Do longer summers hurt students? Summer learning loss is a well-documented phenomenon. However, there are debates about the actual extent of achievement loss. Regardless, it is interesting to see the variability across the state and to consider if there could be academic implications.

The post When Do Summer Breaks Start for School Districts Across Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years now, critics (and even some supporters) have known for sure that charter schools had harsher discipline policies than traditional public schools and suspended or expelled students at much higher rates. According to new research from Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute, that just ain’t so.

Malkus used data on school suspension rates collected by the federal government to compare charter schools to the traditional public schools that surround them. As Malkin's graphic (above) shows, in most cases, there is no substantial difference in the rate of suspensions between traditional public schools and charter schools. In fact, while 17 percent of charter schools do see rates higher than neighboring public schools, 29 percent see rates that are significantly lower.

It’s time we put to bed the idea that charter schools are draconian institutions where the joy of learning is taken from students and where harsh punishment is meted out for the most minor of infractions. The data do not back that story up.

The post The Charter School Discipline Problem that Isn’t appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Jobs and the minimum wage
• Public employee union reform
• Interdistrict school transfers in Saint Louis
• Kansas City's convention center
• Legal obstacles to pension reform for Missouri's public employees
• Mark Twain, taxes, and growth

Newsletter June 2015.pdf

The post July 2015 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But what we also should take into account (but almost never do) are the conditions of the labor market in which teachers work.  If you pay the same amount to a teacher in St. Louis that you do a teacher in Nodaway County, it’s very likely that you’ve underpaid the St. Louis teacher and overpaid the Nodaway County teacher, even though they got the same amount.  Let me explain why.

There are vast differences in the cost of living and average salaries of workers across the state. Take Shannon County for example. Located just south of the Mark Twain national forest, Shannon County is one of the poorest counties in the state (It also happens to be where my wife’s grandparents call home). The median household income in 2011 was roughly $20,000 less than the state average, at $25,684.  The average teacher in the county makes over $35,000, more than 135% of the median household income. On top of that, teachers receive a 14.5% match on retirement contributions and employer-paid health care. All of this for 180 days of work—that is, unless they use their 10 to 12 built-in sick/personal days. 

What would happen if we gave these teachers a raise? Would paying teachers an extra $2,000 or $3,000 and moving them to 140 or 150 percent of median household income attract new teachers or retain current teachers? That’s unlikely. They’re already far above their neighbors. What’s worse, it would strain the already limited stream of money that the district has to fund its schools. Small benefit, high cost, bad policy.

As I pointed out yesterday on the blog, teacher pay should reflect local economic markets.  The map at the top of this post shows the average salary of teachers in each Missouri county. The color indicates how the salary compares to the median household income of the county. An index can be thought of as a percentage, so in the counties shown in orange, teacher salaries range between 75% and 99% of median household income.  In many areas of the state with “low” teacher salaries, the wages are actually high compared to the median household income. 

Because of all of this, a statewide increase in teacher salaries (like the ones the MSTA calls for) would mean paying teachers in some areas of the state above what their local market demands.  It would push districts that are already financially strapped to take unpopular measures such as holding wages down for more senior teachers or increasing class sizes by hiring fewer teachers.

Today Missouri requires all school districts to start teachers at a salary of at least $25,000, and teachers with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience must earn at least $33,000. Increasing the minimum teacher salary to, say, $30,000 would have little effect on overall teacher pay.  According to a study by the Missouri State Teachers Association, the average starting teacher salary in Missouri is $33,012.

Still, many school districts—poor, rural districts—would be affected by an increase in the state-required minimum wage for teachers. Thus, this type of mandate would disproportionately affect those districts most strapped for cash. It would mean they could hire fewer teachers because they have less money to spend.

Increasing teacher salaries may be a noble goal, but the decision of whether to do so should be made by local school boards taking into account local conditions, not by politicians in Jefferson City.

The post Increasing Teacher Pay from On High Is Simply Bad Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Believe it or not, the same may be said of the sewers serving the 20,000-plus residents of Arnold, Missouri, located on the southern edge of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area at the confluence of the Meramec and Mississippi rivers.

Missouri American Water has offered to purchase the Arnold sewer system for a total of $13.2 million. This is a win-win proposition for the city and its residents.

The deal not only would provide Arnold with the funds to pay off $8 million in sewer bonds, but it also would supply $5 million in additional revenue. At the same time, the arrangement with Missouri American Water would guarantee timely improvements to the sewer system and lower utility costs for residents.

Arnold currently operates its sewer system as a public utility and charges residents $24.33 per month for up to 5,000 gallons of wastewater. However, like many municipalities around the country, Arnold is not charging residents what it needs to keep the system up to date, especially with increasingly stringent EPA and Clean Water Act requirements coming into force. According to one report, by 2016 the city would need to charge $34.50 per month to provide the same services.

Facing very similar pressures, cities across the country have turned to partial or full privatization of their water and wastewater systems. Deals with private companies typically result in an upfront payment to the city, a commitment by the company to make investments in the water or sewer system, agreement on pricing, and often a stipulation that the private company must retain the existing utility staff. The vast majority of these privatizations have been successful, with more than 90 percent of cities renewing privatization contracts and 94 percent recommending privatization as a method of water and sewer system management.

To cite one example, the city of Florissant in Saint Louis County sold its municipal water utility to Missouri American Water for $14.5 million in 2002. The city spent part of the proceeds on immediate needs and put the rest in a reserve fund. More than a decade later, the privatization is still a success. The lesson from Florissant and other cities is clear: When governments set the standards and carefully manage the privatization process, private operators deliver better, cost-effective service.

If Arnold accepts the deal with Missouri American, it will reap other benefits as well. Public services, like the school district, will benefit from this proposal via the expansion of the property tax base when the assets of the sewer system go on the tax rolls after Missouri American takes control. Residents will benefit from low utility fees, as Missouri American Water has stated that they will not increase rates until 2016. Even after that date, they project they will only charge residents $30 a month, which is less than what the city is likely to charge absent privatization.

While privatization of the sewer system makes sense, Arnold must be cautious on how it crafts and implements a final deal. The city must hold Missouri American Water accountable for the quality of service and the implementation of agreed-upon improvements. Furthermore, Arnold would be wise to follow the example of Florissant by carefully spending its windfall profits.

As long as local officials perform their due diligence, Arnold has much to gain and little to lose from privatizing its sewer system. Come November, residents should not let this opportunity slip down the drain.

The post Arnold Wastewater Privatization: Don’t Waste the Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is perhaps the best known of all of Mark Twain’s quotes – “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” It would be hard to find a better illustration of that line than the misuse of unemployment statistics in Twain’s home state of Missouri.

After peaking at 9.6 percent in July of 2009, Missouri’s unemployment rate fell three full percentage points—to 6.6 percent—at the end of 2012. That compares to a 1.7 percentage point decrease in the national unemployment rate.

To hear Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon talk, you might think that Missouri’s economy is booming. “Missouri families and businesses are reaping the benefits as our economy continues to grow,” Nixon said in early June, citing 44 consecutive months in which the state’s unemployment rate has been at or below the national average. “In every corner of our state, businesses large and small are deciding to invest and expand.” Though Missouri’s unemployment has ticked back to 6.8 percent, it remains below the national average of 7.6 percent.

But Missouri is not blazing a path for other states to follow. To the contrary, it ranks near the bottom of all states in job creation. In this regard, the Show-Me State serves as a textbook example of the fallacy of thinking that a large drop in the unemployment rate must be synonymous with a corresponding increase in business activity and employment.

From 2010 through 2012, total employment in Missouri grew a trifling 1.8 percent, compared to 4.1 percent for the nation as a whole. Thus, Missouri considerably underperformed the rest of the nation in job growth—even as it seemingly excelled in dealing with the scourge of high unemployment.

You will not find any stories in Missouri newspapers trumpeting the state’s economic performance. Whatever the governor might say, most Missourians are well aware of the state’s inability to keep pace with its neighbors in business and job creation. In the past three calendar years, Missouri ranked dead last among Midwestern states (counting Missouri and the neighboring states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Oklahoma) in growth of both employment and GDP.

So why the disconnect between the good numbers on unemployment and the bad numbers on GDP growth and employment? The answer lies in a far-from-vibrant workforce. This goes beyond the fact (and it is a fact) that job growth in Missouri has failed to keep pace with population growth. Over the past three years, tens of thousands of Missourians have quietly exited the labor market. And that has had the effect of lowering the state’s unemployment rate.

In the Bureau of Labor Statistics way of calculating unemployment, able-bodied people without jobs are not counted as unemployed if they have stopped looking for work. What the BLS calls the “labor force” is the sum of total employment and total unemployment, and people who are eligible for employment but do not seek it are neither fish nor fowl—neither employed, nor unemployed.

From July 2009 to April 2013, the number of unemployed people in Missouri fell by 96,000. But the number of employed people rose by only 26,000—which means that some 70,000 people (the difference between the two numbers) dropped off the grid—in neither working nor actively seeking work.

Who are these dropouts? I can easily think of a dozen of them in my own circle of friends and family members. They include non-working sons and daughters of affluent parents who have discovered they, too, qualify for food stamps and other forms of welfare, extended by the government or their own parents. They include doctors, lawyers, and other business or professional people who have retired or quit working earlier than they might otherwise have done—as a result of the combination of unhappiness at their former jobs and seeing no possibility of finding other, better employment.

In the previously mentioned time period, the labor force participation rate in Missouri (the labor force divided by the labor-eligible population) fell from 66.6 percent to 64.0 percent—a drop of 2.6 percentage points. That compares with a 2.2 percentage point drop in the participation rate nationally over the same time.

The disappearance of 2.6 percent of the workforce is no small thing. Without it, Missouri’s unemployment rate, instead of falling three points, would have increased 0.7 points to 10.3 percent.

The Show-Me State did not, in any real sense, add jobs to bring down what counts officially as the unemployment rate. Rather, it shed workers. And that is nothing to cheer about. It is a sorry reflection on the large number of people who have given up hope of finding a job.

Andrew Wilson is the resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post False Pride: Missouri’s Governor Shouldn’t Be Boasting About “Low” Unemployment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

All of the above have been pushing increased funding for early childhood education on the basis that it will provide a great return on investment, up to a stratospheric level of 8–1 in the widely-criticized study the Post-Dispatch cites. (And they accuse us of being a “belief” tank?)

The folks at the Cato Institute have been doing a great job covering the topic of early childhood education. In a recent post, they state that the large returns on investment often cited do:

. . . not in fact refer to the typical return from federal or state pre-K programs. It refers to the findings from a single intensive 1960s early childhood experiment that served 58 children in Ypsilanti, Michigan- The High/Scope Perry preschool program. Out of the literally hundreds of preschool studies conducted in the past half-century, the Perry results are not representative and have never been reproduced on a national or even a state level. In fact, an earnest experimental effort to reproduce them for just a few hundred children at eight locations failed despite an annual investment of $32,000 per child, adjusted for inflation . . .

I have written about these claims.

Spending money on children is appealing and it is something almost everyone agrees is a worthwhile endeavor. I am not opposed to spending tax money on early childhood education, but I am opposed to universal pre-school programs or systems that put the private market at a competitive disadvantage. I am also opposed to selectively using the research to advance a point, when the data simply do not bear out. The Post-Dispatch would, no doubt, call us out if we did that.

As Cato puts it, “What we have here, in other words, is a monumental act of cherry picking rather than an example of scientifically grounded policymaking.” In other words, it “just ain’t so.”

The post It Just Ain’t So appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I don’t know much about the pros and cons of police using golf carts, but I was surprised by this article about what police are using them for in Pine Lawn. Giving people tickets because their pants are too low? And parents could end up in jail for three months if their 16-year-old-or-younger kids wear the offending style?

My first reaction to this was that maybe they have nothing else to worry about in Pine Lawn. The article mentions gunshots and a chase, though, so that can’t be right. And violent crime must scare businesses away at least as much as low pants. (The ostensible reason for the pants ordinance is to bring businesses to the city.)

If Pine Lawn wants to attract more economic activity, it should crack down on real crimes — not fashion crimes.

The post “The Clothes Make the Man” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dave has probably never been to Compton, Calif. Neither have I, for that matter, and I believe most sensible people haven’t. You can not honestly tell me that St. Louis is a more dangerous place to live, I’m sorry.

I believe that the St. Louis data might be skewed and there are a couple of reasons why. For example, Dave might remember a few weeks ago when the Post-Dispatch reported that the Illinois side of the river is more dangerous than the Missouri side (according to Illinois data, which the FBI rejects). In fact, Metro East is apparently safer even than the national average.

Really?

The first problem I have with the data is that St. Louis’ bizarre municipal boundaries make the per-capita crime statistics appear much higher than they otherwise would be. Crime is a problem in areas of most U.S. cities, but the difference is that it is generally spread out over a larger population. But when St. Louis unincorporated itself from St. Louis County more than a century ago, it effectively land-locked itself. So, unlike metro areas such as Phoenix or Houston (which continue to incorporate “safe” suburban satellites within their municipal boundaries), St. Louis is stuck with inner city crime with nowhere to run. And that is an idiosyncratic feature of the data that should have been accounted for.

My second point of contention, though, is that crime at the national level is grossly underreported, particularly within low-income and minority neighborhoods. I imagine that Compton, Calif., gets a much better rating because most of the crime that occurs within its borders never gets reported to the police. I mean, it’s not like the Crips go to the police station every time a Blood robs one of their fellow gang members. In contrast, I imagine that a significant portion of the crime being reported in St. Louis comes from those trepid suburbanites that make the five-mile trek into the city and become easy prey.

The point of my post was that while I agree that the city has crime problems (I thought I stressed that point when I mentioned that I was mugged outside of my apartment), I believe it is unfair to single out the city for idiosyncratic features that should be washed out of any truly unbiased statistical study. Maybe the data is right, but even then, I don’t see how reporting these statistics does anything but blur the issue.

In closing, I want to add Mark Twain’s famous quip about statistics: “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." As a native Missourian, he might have had a problem with the St. Louis crime data, too.

The post No, Crime Statistics Are Statistics, Not Facts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Any re-examination of our experiment with term limits is bound to draw the attention of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Term Limits organization. Last week, Jeremy Johnson, the U.S. Term Limits director of state government affairs, said in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that he was “prepared to run TV and radio ads and ‘do whatever it takes’ to keep Missouri’s legislative term limits in place.”

Claiming to be “one of the largest grass-roots movements in American history,” this organization goes from state to state testifying, lobbying and pontificating about the great benefits of term limits. U.S. Term Limits, however, has no interest in leveling the political playing field by supporting public financing of elections, free media time for candidates or any other type of campaign finance reform that would actually reduce the advantages of incumbency. In fact, their main goal seems to be to make sure that races for the General Assembly are based on one criterion: Money. Or, special interest money, to be exact.

You see, U.S. Term Limits is not the grass-roots organization that it makes itself out to be. It is yet another “Astroturf” organization funded almost entirely by billionaire Howie Rich, a real estate tycoon from New York who has been trying to get states to enact his radical ideas for property rights, education spending and state funding for the past 20 years or so.

Now, I’m the new guy here at the Show-Me Institute, but as far as I know we haven’t taken an official position on term limits. I’m convinced term limits are an excellent idea, but your mileage may vary. One thing I can say for sure, though, is that U.S. Term Limits is not an “Astroturf” organization. During the five-plus years I spent as an editor and webmaster for U.S. Term Limits, I had plenty of exposure to the organization’s membership databases and fundraising efforts — and we had huge broad-based grassroots support from throughout the nation. Including Missouri.

Term limits have gotten quite a bit of attention in the Missouri press recently, as pundits throughout the state blame them for an indecorous Legislature, in which lawmakers squabble and strongarm each other rather than compromise in order to get things done. “Go along to get along” should be the rule of the day, I suppose.

But for those of us who heed the adage (oft attributed to Mark Twain) that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session,” a Legislature beset by gridlock and filled with lawmakers who mistrust each other’s motives is a welcome improvement over the usual politics of glad-handing and backroom deals. I don’t want a Legislature that functions smoothly and with minimal dissent as it screws over taxpayers. Passing new legislation should be a difficult, contentious process, laden with scrutiny and debate. It should also be flexible enough so that if lawmakers, in retrospect, realize they’ve passed something that’s simply a bad idea, they can kill it or change it to make it better. If this is what term limits is bringing Missouri, we should be grateful.

Mr. Christianson claims that term limits “have succeeded in increasing the power of capital city lobbyists.” He gives one anecdotal source for this absurd claim, but no evidence. If they’re more powerful, why do surveys show that, consistently, lobbyists are more anxious to repeal term limits than anybody else? Lobbyists can’t enter into cozy long-term relationships with lawmakers who will be gone in a few years. They become less powerful under term limits, not more. If somebody is overhearing term-limited lawmakers talk about their lobbyist affiliations, it’s likely that they just haven’t learned to keep their nascent attempts at mutual back-scratching hushed up and out of sight, like career politicians have.

It’s telling when Mr. Christianson complains that “U.S. Term Limits, however, has no interest in leveling the political playing field by supporting public financing of elections, free media time for candidates or any other type of campaign finance reform that would actually reduce the advantages of incumbency.” These are all measures that limit free speech and entrench the political establishment against dark-horse candidates or outside criticism. It’s a common rejoinder that “money isn’t speech,” but the freedom to speak is worthless if the law prohibits you from buying a soapbox so people will actually hear your message.

Mr. Christianson also seems to object that the founder of U.S. Term Limits is spending “his New York money to influence how people live in some 14 other states,” as though good ideas about policy are dependent on geographic point of origin. The Show-Me Institute is based in Missouri, and we focus our research on Missouri economics and policy. But national groups have a broader purview, and it’s illogical to be wary of an idea simply because it comes from somebody based outside the state. Although I’m no longer an employee of U.S. Term Limits, I recall a column written by Paul Jacob during the last couple of months I worked there. He wrote:

U.S. Term Limits hears this argument about out-of-state influences quite often. Of course, the critics of term limits would like nothing better than for friends of term limits to pack our bags and go home. They don’t have any good arguments to make, so they talk about this out-of-state thing instead. Only when it’s convenient, though; career politicians love out-of-state influences when it adds to their campaign coffers.

In any case, U.S. Term Limits will not back away. We’re a national organization, with members in every state. And, of course, the nation is made up of 50 states, and term limits are a good idea for each and every one of them.

This is true for any good idea — regardless of the source.

The post Missouri Term Limits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.