The single program started in Wisconsin in 1996 has grown to 75 school choice programs in 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And in just the last few years, 10 states have implemented universal school choice programs in which all or nearly all children in the state are eligible. These states are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama and Louisiana will be joining the list next year.

When the one million private school choice students are added to the 3.7 million charter school students the result is that one in five children in the United States is receiving a publicly funded education outside of traditional public schools. What was once considered controversial has become mainstream.

The post A Milestone Reached appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A policeman sees a man looking for something under a streetlight and asks what he has lost. He says he lost his keys and the policeman decides to lend a hand looking for them. After a few minutes, the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them there, and the man replies, no, he lost them on the other side of the street. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the man replies, “well, this is where the light is.”

When education researchers want to measure the impact of a policy or program, they are forced to look where the light is. That usually means looking at student test scores, graduation rates, and a set of relatively limited short-term indicators.

Fortunately, school-choice researchers are starting to look at outcomes beyond just test scores, casting light into areas that were previously shrouded in darkness.

In fact, not only does new research show that school choice can boost test scores and increase the likelihood that low-income students finish college, but studies also suggest that students in school choice programs are less likely than their traditional school peers to commit crimes.

Researchers studying the high-performing Promise Academy in the Harlem Children’s Zone found promising results for students at that school, which uses a lottery system to place students in the limited number of available spots. Four percent of lottery “losers” were incarcerated compared to none of the lottery “winners.” In addition, charter school students were 17 percentage points more likely to enroll in college immediately after high school, and female lottery winners were 10.1 percentage points less likely to report having been pregnant as a teenager than lottery losers.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg district in North Carolina used a lottery system to place students into schools that have a limited number of available seats. A study by David J. Deming at Harvard University shows that high school students who “won” the lottery and were placed into their first-choice school were arrested 70 percent less for drug charges and 45 percent less for other felony charges compared to students who entered the lottery but did not secure a spot in their first-choice school.

Schools that use lottery systems for admission are especially helpful for comparison studies because they allow researchers to compare two groups of students who both showed a desire to attend a school of their choosing. But even in situations where there is no lottery, researchers can use other techniques to help ensure the validity of their findings.

For example, researchers from the University of Arkansas found the following reduction in crime rates for male students, relative to incidence rates for their age among the general population: 79 percent for felony crimes, 93 for drug related crimes, and 87 percent for thefts. Because private school enrollment through a voucher program is not capped in Milwaukee, researchers couldn’t sort students into lottery-winner and lottery-loser groups. Instead they “used comparison groups constructed through an algorithm that matched [voucher] students with Milwaukee Public School (MPS) students based on grade, neighborhood, race, gender, English language learner (ELL) status and math and reading test scores” (see page 6 of the study).

These studies are encouraging, and suggest that school choice can not only enrich the lives of students, but also help make our cities and communities safer. No wonder school choice is becoming more popular.

The post Studies Show Benefits of School Choice Extend Beyond the Classroom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cory Deangelis of Cato reviewed the eight existing studies on school choice and integration that were conducted using rigorous, empirical research methods. Seven showed that school choice programs were associated with statistically significant progress toward racial integration (the other yielded results that were statistically neutral). These studies looked at voucher programs in Cleveland, Louisiana, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C.

Attempting to revive long-debunked claims doesn’t help kids get a better education. With clear research on school choice and segregation, discussions of school choice should focus on what will improve schools for all kids. 

The post The School Choice Segregation Myth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Moore [the representative] cited figures showing that Missouri spends the vast majority of its transportation funding in the rural areas of the state, even though more than 80 percent of the state's transportation dollars from gas and auto sales taxes come from the urban regions in and around St. Louis and Kansas City.”

Although Missouri does spend a significant amount on rural highways for structural reasons, MoDOT does not spend most of its money in rural areas, nor does it systematically underfund urban highways.

To show this, first we will look at total MoDOT capital and maintenance spending. As shown in the chart above, in 2013, 61% of total MoDOT outlays went to urban highways and 39% went to rural highways.

It’s clear that most spending happens in urban areas of the state, not rural ones. One might still think this is lopsided in favor of rural areas, as the vast majority of highway user fees come from urban areas. However, 86% of highway lane miles are in rural areas, and almost half of daily traffic in Missouri takes place in rural areas. Missouri’s rural highway system, mostly due to the Missouri State Routes (the letter routes), is the fourth largest rural highway system in the nation. While traffic per mile in rural areas is low outside of the interstates, roads need to be maintained and bridges need to be replaced.

Even though Missouri spends a significant amount of money on its rural highways, urban areas have not been starved. In fact, the latest Federal Highway Administration data shows that, whether one looks at how much money MoDOT spends per lane mile or vehicle, the state’s urban highway spending is at about at the national average.

Furthermore, MoDOT’s spending in Missouri’s largest urban areas has achieved enviable results. Both Saint Louis and Kansas City have significant highway capacity and low congestion. In Kansas City and Saint Louis, 80% or more of major highways are in good condition. That's excellent for a large metropolitan area and far better than cities like Indianapolis (62%), Milwaukee (38%), or Los Angeles (16%).

MoDOT’s continuing funding problems should prompt Missouri policy makers to consider the extent of the state highway system. Many lesser-used routes might be better handled at the local level, as they are in other states. Such a reform would allow to MoDOT to fund improvements and maintenance on both critical rural and urban thoroughfares. However, there is little evidence that MoDOT is starving its urban system as measured either by spending or current highway conditions.

The post The Urban-Rural Divide in MoDOT Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I taught at an urban, historically African-American Catholic school, St. Jude Educational Institute on the west side of Montgomery, Alabama. After 76 years of operation it closed its doors 2014, following the path of many other inner-city Catholic schools. 

You should be worried about urban Catholic schools closing, as they have for decades succeeded where other schools have failed.  Surveying the research, economist Derek Neal wrote, “Although many questions remain unanswered, one result seems clear. Black and Hispanic students in large cities often have the most to gain from private schooling, in particular, Catholic schooling.”

But the story of Catholic schools in America today is not all doom and gloom. Echoing what my good friend Andy Smarick wrote in National Review earlier this week, there are in fact, several promising trends in contemporary Catholic education. I’d like to highlight three:

1. Innovative management strategies. Many dioceses have not kept up with the changing times. Some still rely on parish-based schools tied to neighborhoods whose demographics of both children and parishioners are changing. Others have decided to keep open a large number of under-enrolled schools rather than consolidate resources into a smaller number of more viable schools. Our Lady Queen of Angels is a great example of a school under creative leadership. It is part of the Partnership for Inner City Education, a management consortium of 6 urban Catholic schools in New York. The partnership has a laser-like focus on providing a great education for low-income students, and supplements the Archdiocese, which already has its hands full managing its diverse portfolio of schools. Organizations like this (which already exist in Washington DC, Philadelphia, and elsewhere) can help bring a much more coherent strategy to urban Catholic education and stretch limited dollars the furthest.
2. Blended Learning. Multiple Catholic-school organizations have been working on blended learning models, which can help schools control personnel costs, a huge driver in the increase in the cost of Catholic schooling as the teacher workforce has shifted from priests and religious sisters to lay men and women. Seton Education Partners has implemented a blended learning model at six Catholic schools in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. The University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education has piloted a blended learning school in Seattle. Even the much-vaunted Cristo Rey network has started a blended learning school in San Jose, California. These could change the delivery model of Catholic education, lower its cost, and make it available for more and more students.
3. School Choice. Probably the single most promising development in Catholic education over the past two decades has been the emergence and growth of private school choice programs. Catholic schools in Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin have swelled with students attending with state support in the form of a school voucher, tuition tax credit scholarship, or education savings account. Nationwide, enrollment in school choice programs has grown from less than 30,000 students in 2000 to over 300,000 today. That said, if more low- and middle-income students are going to be able to take advantage of a Catholic school education, more states will need to create or expand these programs.

It was the prophet Jeremiah who said “in this place of which you say it is a waste, there will be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness. The voices of those who sing.” For years now, many observers have written off Catholic schools as dying institutions that had failed to keep up with the changing times. But across America, voices are singing.

The post Pope Francis Is Visiting a Catholic School. Maybe You Should, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The economists at PNC predict that the unemployment rate in Saint Louis will continue its slow decline, falling to a little over 6 percent by year’s end (see accompanying chart). Even so, job growth in services is expected to slow as the year progresses, and manufacturing jobs are not expected to show much change over 2015. According to its regional outlook, when comparing potential job growth from the trough of the recession through 2015 across a number of Midwest metropolitan areas, PNC ranks Saint Louis well behind such cities as Indianapolis, Chicago, and Milwaukee.

The PNC report, which provided both charts shown here, also predicts that while household income will continue its post-recession recovery, improvement will be slow. As shown in the chart, PNC predicts that median household income in Saint Louis will increase from about $54,000 to approximately $56,000 between the end of 2013 and the end of 2015. This is less than a 2 percent annual rate of increase. As noted in the PNC report, “Income growth in St. Louis still lacks the job market support necessary to break out to a much stronger pace.”

The post Lackluster Outlook for Saint Louis in 2015 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This will drive up rental unit costs within the county. Not because of the license fee itself, which is very low ($15), but because anything that limits supply will drive up prices. Now, some prospective landlords will not invest within the county because of this new fee and, more importantly, the accompanying regulations. Is that what the county wants? If landlords are allowing renters to do criminal activity within their homes, the county police simply should use existing law to hold people responsible. A general new license on every landlord in the county will do nothing but increase government interference with property rights and decrease the overall supply of housing.

Landlords are to modern politicians what Christians were to Roman Emperors; a quick and easy group to place blame on and abuse whenever they wanted. A study of a very similar proposal in Milwaukee found no evidence for benefits from these programs. You know why? Because there aren’t any. This is another terrible licensing idea from Saint Louis County.

The post But Tomorrow Will Rain, So I’ll License The Sun appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James V. Shuls (JVS): Thanks for taking the time to sit down with me. Tell me a little about EAGLE College Prep. What makes the school unique or different? Why should people be interested in this school?

Suzanne Johnson (SJ): Well, we know that students in South City and students in Saint Louis in general need a great education if they are to break out of the cycle of poverty that we see in too many places. And we know a great school system is critical for the revitalization of Saint Louis. The mayor talked about this recently during a press conference where he said people are choosing to not move into the city or choosing to move out of the city because they don’t have a good public school choice. We saw that need and want to bring a better choice to a neighborhood that is currently underserved. I can speak to this from experience. I lived in the city for five years, we rehabbed a house in Soulard and loved it, but we moved to Illinois because I was having my first child and I couldn’t afford private school and I was not sending my child to a Saint Louis Public School.

So, we’re looking at bringing a neighborhood school, a free public charter school that is going to provide a world-class education. We expect that our students will be able to compete with students in the county, because they will receive a high-quality education, the kind we would all want for our own kids. Not to put anyone else down, because there are many great schools, but we believe the South Tower Grove neighborhood is currently underserved. There just aren’t that many quality options for the kids in that neighborhood and we want to serve them.

The other option that we are bringing in is a blended learning model. We will be using direct instruction, or traditional education, but we also know kids need differentiation. This neighborhood is very diverse; socially diverse, economically diverse, culturally diverse. So the one-size-fits-all model is not going to work. We want all of our students to achieve, so in addition to the direct instruction where we use the best researched-based methods, we’re also going to differentiate using a blended learning model with the Compass Education program. Our kids will be meeting in small groups for reading and math so we can really target in on those skills that our kids need remediation with or have an opportunity to excel. We know we will have some gifted kids, and we will be thinking “how can we get them higher?” We know we will have kids who will come in to kindergarten not recognizing their alphabet, so we have to start where they are and bring them up, and we have to be able to do that.

JVS: Talk a little more about the blended learning model. There is a lot of talk that blended learning can not only improve education by tailoring education to a student’s specific level, but could possibly bring some financial benefits as well. Was that part of the consideration when thinking about a blended learning model?

SJ: Right now we are seeing great success with our schools in Milwaukee and in Phoenix and they’re using models very similar to ours, with the differentiation piece. As a former classroom teacher, and a former principal, I know this is critical. When I was a high school English teacher, I had a class of 30 kids; some were reading at a third-grade level and some were post-high school. How do I go into that class and teach a lesson? You need help. You can break into small groups, but classroom management becomes an issue. So we believe a blended learning model will help us engage students and keep them on task, so we can have that one-on-one time. And yes, there are economic advantages because this is economically feasible. This is a great tool, plus we know technology has transformed so many jobs in the work place, so kids need to be able to use a computer to learn and perform in the work force.

JVS: I’m a former first grade teacher myself. I taught reading and I had that struggle of working with my small group, while other students are supposed to be working at literacy centers. So I had to find tasks for the students to do, which often resulted in a lot more work for me. Plus, the students were often off task, which distracted my small group. For many teachers like me, literacy centers are a headache. The idea is great, but it is hard to manage. So is blended learning kind of a different take on learning centers?

SJ: Absolutely, and we will utilize paraprofessionals to help in that time, because while the teacher is engaging that small group, you may not be able to pay attention elsewhere. And that is where kids are off task. We will have paraprofessionals to guide students, to keep them on task, and to help the teacher.

JVS: Some people are critical of computer-based instruction. They think this is the dehumanization of the classroom. How would you respond to that?

SJ: If we were going to 100 percent computer-based instruction, I would be on that bandwagon. There are things that are appropriate for every age level. For us, along with the computer-aided instruction, students will be engaging with their teachers. Another way we will humanize the classroom, to use your term, is by teaching character education. That will be a huge component of our schools.

Parents aren’t just concerned about the quality of education they are receiving; one of the major concerns is safety. Somewhere we lost that character component. I found it to be my job as a teacher and a principal to teach kids how to be good people, to form a classroom community. So that humanization is going to come by blending character education in with our daily instruction. [We are] teaching kids, not just expecting them to enter the school knowing how to be good students, knowing how to be good people. We will teach them values, like how to be respectful, how to be helpful, how to be responsible, how to be safe, how to be a servant leader to their community. Because we know we have to give back in order to revitalize our neighborhoods.

JVS: You talk about character education and the name of the school has college prep in it, but it is one thing to say these things and another to actually do them. If you go to any low-performing school and change the name, it’s still a low-performing school. So how will you actually teach character and how do you actually put the emphasis on college prep?

SJ: It is part of the culture of the school. You teach character education, just like you would teach a lesson about adverbs. And you don’t just say these things, you have teachers who model the traits that they are teaching. You use direct instruction, saying this is what being responsible looks like, and you reinforce it. Then you go back and you re-teach, because kids don’t learn these things when they are told them once. I have a 6-year-old, and I know you have to reinforce those traits that you want to see in children.

I took over a school that had more than 5,000 office referrals the year before. Within three years, we had less than 1,000. So, I know it can be done. We didn’t weaken the rules, there were still consequences for bad behavior, but by the time our students left the school and went to the high school, there was a difference. High school teachers commented that they could tell which students came from our school because they treated their teachers with respect.

You focus on college prep with the same mindset. You reinforce to kids that it’s not “if I go to college,” it’s “when I go to college, which college am I going to?” You create this mindset by having teachers talk about their college experiences. A little thing that makes a huge difference is college Fridays. Every Friday our staff will wear clothes from their alma mater. They will talk about what it was like to be a college student. We will talk with kids, especially as they go into high school, about how to apply for college. We will work with families and help them with the paperwork. As a first-generation college student, thankfully I had people to do that for me and we will do that for our kids and give them those opportunities. My goal is not only 100 percent of our students will graduate and go to college, but we want 100 percent of our students to graduate from college. It is not good enough for students to enroll in college and then drop out; we will continue to support our students because that is how we do business.

Matt Hoehner (MH): The community is really a focal point of our school. A lot of community leaders that I know are coming together for this school. I live in the neighborhood and it is not only about teaching the kids, but teaching the parents as well. When we use love and logic to teach the kids, we will also have parent meetings where we share that information. We will share what we are doing in the classroom, so families can reinforce those skills throughout the day. We will really build a community and once you build those relationships, it carries on through college because it is more than just a school. It is a community, it’s a family, you have these relationships and you care about these people beyond the class walls.

JVS: You keep talking about college, but isn’t this school initially only going to have youngsters? What grades are you opening with and how do you plan to expand to that point where you are serving high school students?

SJ: We will start with a K-3 school and will add a grade every year. Our initial charter is through eighth grade, but we have an expansion plan in place, so when our sponsor says we are ready, we will be able to open a high school. My vision is that those third graders will go from eighth grade into our high school.

JVS: Suzanne, you brought up your experience and I’m sure you could have stayed where you were. So what is it about this school that made you want to take this step and say, let’s do this?

SJ: The idea of being able to teach kids to be a servant leader. I want to be able to give back to the community. Nobody goes into education to become rich. And if you don’t go into education because you love kids, you’re going to burn out quickly. Saint Louis is such an amazing place, but we have a need for high-quality schools. This opportunity is the perfect meld, because I want to be able to move back to the city, I want my kids to have a great place to go to school, and I want to be a great school leader. This is the opportunity to do that and really make a difference for our area, to really help Saint Louis grow to what it once was and what it can be.

JVS: Matt, you live in South Tower Grove, but the management company, Educational Enterprises, operates schools in Milwaukee and Phoenix. How did you and Educational Enterprises become interested in Saint Louis?

MH: I have been in the Saint Louis area for 14 years. I have a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old and obviously education is important to me, for my kids and the kids in my community. Before this role with Educational Enterprises, I served as a pastor. So I have been serving and caring for many other kids who also need a great school.

The South Tower Grove area has many refugees, Nepalese, East and West Africans, and they don’t have enough money to send their kids to a private school. So, they come from a refugee camp into Saint Louis and their children are often placed in failing schools. We know that system is simply not working out for many of them. So we started wondering, how do we meet that need?

In my former congregation, we leased out our building to a charter school and then ran an after-school program to support the kids afterwards. It was through that interaction, as I was directing the after-school program, that I came into contact with Educational Enterprises. Having been on school boards with private schools, I was able to see their track record, meet with the CEO, and understand their vision and mission. I could see how well their schools were performing in Milwaukee and Phoenix. I visited their schools to see what it was they were doing and when I saw it I said, “We need this in Saint Louis.”

So we worked to bring Educational Enterprises here and EAGLE College Prep is our first school here in the city. This organization is all about the kids. Every decision we make is kids first. Our blended learning model is not just about being financially feasible; we believe it is what’s best for kids. It makes the school sustainable, it’s long lasting, and it helps us reach all of our students individually.

Our model has been proven to be very successful in both Milwaukee and Phoenix and we are really excited to bring this school to the kids in our neighborhood.

JVS: You mention an after-school program. Will EAGLE College Prep have an after-school program?

MH: Educational Enterprises will create a separate after-school program to wrap around the public charter school because we believe that additional support is important. We also recognize that many families want a faith-based option. Through our free public charter school and a separate, optional faith-based after-school program, we believe we can meet the need for a high-quality school and faith-based instruction. The after-school program will run from the end of school at 3:45 p.m. to 6 p.m. The kids will be able to be at a place where they will be safe, they can play sports, get a healthy snack, and also have some Christian faith-based instruction. We will also be offering a pre-school to families with young children. And, it is our goal to make all of these additional options as affordable as possible, so they are accessible to everyone.

JVS: The school is to open next year, for the 2013-2014 school year. If someone is interested in EAGLE College Prep, what should they do now?

SJ: We will be accepting any student who is a resident of the city and will be going into grades K-3 next year. The enrollment packet should be online at the beginning of November. Like other schools, you will have to be able to prove residency and you will need shot records, all the state required pieces. Enrollment will officially begin in January and will run through sometime in March. If we have more names than seats, we will do a lottery.

JVS: What else should people know about this school?

MH: The three words that best sum up EAGLE College Prep are college, character, and community.

The post College, Character, and Community appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On the stump, candidates rail against corporate giveaways and crony capitalism. In town halls they opine about “backroom deals,” preferential treatment, and earmarks. But when it comes to a whole host of issues — sports teams, convention centers, hotels, and many other developments, too many politicians find their inner Nancy Pelosi and — Eureka! — discover that this latest project they’ve stumbled upon is about one thing, and one thing only: “Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.”

So, what’s the latest and greatest form of state-supported “economic development”? Introducing the “Aerotropolis,” the theoretical airport-centered city of the future.

The idea is that decades from now, the animating appendage to the most successful cities will be massive international transit hubs combining air, rail, and wheels that can get product from manufacturers in, say, China to buyers around the United States. It requires massive inventories of warehouses around the airport to store the product, massive improvements in the airport itself to handle the air carriers, and, predictably, massive, massive public subsidies, at least if you’re going to build the thing from scratch on the backs of taxpayers.

As you’d imagine, the promises made to hawk a project like this aren’t a far cry from the days of travelling salesmen and their talismanic tonics. Need your cattle flown overnight to China? Aerotropolis. Want your city to “seize the opportunity” and act on this “vision” before it “passes us by”? Aerotropolis. Want your hair darkened, your teeth whitened, your wife to love you, and your children to praise you in song?

Point being, there’s no shortage of promises made for a project like this, nor does there seem to be a shortage of willing elected officials prepared to throw money after those sweet, sweet nothings whispered in the name of government-created “markets.” This session the Missouri legislature took up an Aerotropolis bill that would have given millions in tax breaks to the private sector, primarily to warehouse developers in Saint Louis.

But for the fact that the chambers ran out of time on a compromise, a bill with a reduced price tag would have been signed into law, and still may be; a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans are lobbying hard to bring the legislature back into a special session and pass the bill once and for all.

The problem for Saint Louis and other cities is that the marketplace for freight has been making its decisions about transnational hubs for years, long before the word “Aerotropolis” was even imagined.

• To the north of Saint Louis, Chicago and Detroit are both well into the international passenger and shipping game.
• To the east of Saint Louis, Louisville hubs for super-carrier UPS.
• And only four hours to the south of Saint Louis, Memphis — the mother of all Aerotropoli — hosts mega-freighter and overnighter FedEx. And that’s to say nothing of Milwaukee, which is also looking to create yet another “Aerotropolis” of its own. Or DFW. Or ATL. And others.

Indeed, Saint Louis is only the latest proposed entrant into the “Aerotropolis” game in a region rife with competitiors. This, really, is the problem. Subsidizing projects whose market-crystallizing stages passed years and sometimes decades before is a not a recipe for sustainable economic growth, but it is absolutely the M.O. of typical, undisciplined Big Idea public spending, even here in the Show-Me State.

What makes the situation in Missouri particularly strange and disheartening, though, is that substantial conservative (and arguably tea party) majorities exist in both legislative chambers, and yet … $360 million in special tax breaks is still on the table for the project, a high stakes experiment based on highly dubious economics. It’s hard to shake the disturbing reality that in even one of the most tea party–friendly states in the country, this sort of legislation could get “aye” votes from more than 94 percent of a legislative chamber.

This is, of course, to say nothing about the legislation itself, which ultimately has little to do with encouraging international trade and everything to do with awarding taxpayer money to the politically connected business elite. The Show-Me Institute found that there was more than 18 million square feet in vacant warehouse space available around the airport already, yet the Aerotropolis tax credits would go to subsidize construction of even more. That hurts business owners who took on the risk of building without the lure of Aerotropolis’ lucrative tax breaks.

But whether you’re talking about hurting existing local businesses through preferential tax credits or about chasing after yet another “economic development” comet, the list of reasons not to put public money behind a project like an Aerotropolis are wide and dispositive. We all want our cities to grow, but to do that, governments should be relying on the free market to make those decisions and not the wrong-headed and expensive big ideas of its politicians, however well-meaning those politicians may be.

The post The Next Big Handout: An “Aerotropolis” Near You? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Do students benefit by using the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to attend a private school instead of a Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) school? In addressing that question, most prior evaluations focus on whether students in the MPCP score better on tests of academic achievement than students in MPS schools. As reviewed in our 2007 report, two studies based on randomized trials each demonstrated significantly higher mathematics test scores for MPCP students as compared to MPS students four years after enrolling in the program; one study also showed significantly higher reading test scores.

In contrast, the focus of the present study was to investigate the effect of the voucher program on graduation rates:

Overall, had MPS graduation rates equaled those for MPCP students in the classes of 2003 through 2009, the number of MPS graduates would have been about 18 percent higher. That higher rate would have resulted in 3,939 more MPS graduates during the 2003-2009 years. A recent analysis of the economic impact of high school dropouts suggests that the annual impact from an additional 3,939 MPS graduates would include an additional $24.9 million in personal income and about $4.2 million in extra tax revenue.

An important consideration to bear in mind when reviewing education research is that educational goals are varied, and a wide variety of educational outcomes can be implicated by policy changes. As such, even if a policy change is demonstrated to have a negligent impact on an important student outcome such as test scores, that policy may still positively impact other desirable student outcomes. In the case of the voucher program in Milwaukee, it appears that several student outcomes are positively implicated by school choice. In other regions of the country, school choice programs have had a much less significant impact on test scores. It is important that researchers and the general public then probe the effects of such programs on other desirable outcomes, as well, before a summary judgment of the policy is made.

The post School Choice and Graduation Rates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s notable that this $40,000 figure is much lower than the cap on film tax credits in Wisconsin, my home state, which is currently $500,000 a year. That’s only 8 percent of the maximum allowed! Furthermore, the existence of the cap obviously didn’t prevent the project from being made — since it was made.

Wisconsin has had difficulty with its film tax credit program in the recent past, and that’s why the state scaled back its program. From an earlier article on the subject that appeared in the Business Journal of Milwaukee (emphasis mine):

Producers [of the film Public Enemies] spent more than $18 million, but the [D]epartment [of Commerce] said most of that money went to out-of-state workers and for out-of-state services. Wisconsin’s real economic impact — money spent here, wages to Wisconsin employees and tax revenue from those wages — equated to $5 million. At that level of spending, the $4.6 million in tax credits nearly wipe out the fiscal benefits of the tax incentives program.

Similar to Wisconsin, the state government in Missouri should consider instituting limits and sunset clauses to control the cost of tax credit programs, given that the fiscal notes have had poor predictive power. This was proposed in the April 2010 report from the state auditor’s office, which pointed out that, of the 53 programs redeemed in 2009, 23 did not have annual or cumulative limits. The report also observed that it is difficult to predict the long-term effects of specific tax credits; with a sunset provision, the effects are reviewed and evaluated before a program is continued. Annual and cumulative limits would hold tax credits to the amount specified by the bill, which would discourage underestimates as well as control tax credit expenditures.

Furthermore, cutting the film incentive program in Wisconsin doesn’t not mean that major motion pictures will not be filmed in the state. On the contrary, the film industry is thriving in Wisconsin without it. Parts of Transformers 3 were filmed in Milwaukee this past summer, and the project didn’t receive a cent of subsidy from the state government. Transformers 3 is a blockbuster movie — much larger than the PSA project described in the article — and its producers decided to film in Wisconsin based on the merits of the region.

Missourians and Wisconsonites would both be better off if they attracted companies that were profitable because they engaged in activities in the unrestricted market — not those that are profitable because they exploited the political and economic environment through programs like targeted tax credits.

The post Film Tax Credit Programs Should Remain Capped (If Not Eliminated Entirely!) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Wisconsin State Journal published an article that the film industry is thriving in Wisconsin, my home state, despite the fact that the governor reduced the cap for film tax credits in Wisconsin from $1.5 million to $500,000.

Why did Chicago writer and director Terry Green film in Wisconsin rather than some other state with more generous tax breaks for movies?

It wasn’t because of a fat state subsidy. According to the film’s Web site, Milwaukee was Green’s “first choice location” because of “the city’s rich history, vintage architecture and Lake Michigan’s horizon,” which made a “perfect backdrop for the 1919 period locations which simulate old world New York City.”

What’s more, Wisconsin is able to attract major blockbuster films without providing a cent of subsidy. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, many scenes of Transformers 3 will be filmed in Milwaukee this summer:

Visit Milwaukee spokesman Dave Fantle says “Transformers 3” doesn’t qualify for that particular [tax credit] program, and that no public money is going to the production in Milwaukee.

”They are here because director Michael Bay fell in love with the Art Museum (the Calatrava addition) and wants to feature it in the film,” Fantle said, in an e-mail.

Wisconsin sets a great example for Missouri in this regard. Both states have many positive attributes (e.g., the river, the architecture, the skilled human capital, the history, etc.) which can attract business on their own merit. Firms will locate here for these reasons; they don’t need to be bribed with generous incentive packages.

As an example, the True/False documentary film festival in Columbia illustrates that the Show-Me State doesn’t require production incentives from the government in order to have a thriving film industry. My colleague, Audrey Spalding, is a fan of the festival. In the comment section of a previous post, she writes (emphasis mine):

Just last weekend, I attended the True/False Film Festival in Columbia, watched at least 13 documentaries, and spent all sorts money to eat out. And, I loved it, not because it was subsidized activity that otherwise wouldn’t occur in this state, but because it was central Missouri doing something central Missouri does well: Hosting an intimate film festival to screen documentaries about such disparate subjects as tween NASCAR, the war in Afghanistan, and the inventor of the floppy disk.

And, for clarification, I called Paul Sturtz, one of the founders of the festival. True/False, which is run by a nonprofit organization, does not receive any state tax credits or local tax incentives.

This is true for industries other than film, as well. For example, American Express decided to locate a new $600 million data center in Greensboro, N.C., without receiving a cent of assistance from the state or local government. This is a stark contrast from Missouri, whose state legislature proposes offering generous incentives to data centers as a means to lure them to the state, and also gave $28 million in state tax credits to IBM for locating a service center in Columbia.

Furthermore, when officials don’t offer tax credits, the state benefits because new businesses contribute revenues from sales and property taxes, none of which has to be reimbursed or abated by the state.

The optimal way to attract business to Missouri is to eliminate the uneven playing field that exists in the status quo and reduce marginal tax rates for all individuals and businesses — not just some.

The post States Can Entice Businesses and Industries Without Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1990, in one of the most innovative developments in modern American education, the Milwaukee public schools created a parental choice system. Some low-income parents got vouchers that could be used to send their children to private schools.

It was a richly promising idea. The new option would let disadvantaged kids escape wretched public schools. Competition would force public schools to improve or close. Students would learn more.

Twenty years have passed. Last week, researchers at the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas published their latest assessment of the results.

What did they find? Something unexpected: Kids in the program do no better than everyone else. “At this point,” said professor Patrick J. Wolf, “the voucher students are showing average rates of achievement gain similar to their public school peers.”

Although I agree with Chapman’s main point, I think he is too critical here.  Voucher students score basically the same as public school students, but the graduation rate for students receiving vouchers is 77% to 65% for students without the voucher, which is hardly insignificant. Even more striking, especially in such a lean fiscal year, voucher students attain the same level of education as their public school peers for less than half the cost — $6,400 a year for voucher students against $14,000 for public school students. In other words, the private schools are doing the same job with half the resources. Cutting costs without substantially improving educational outcomes is not worthy of a standing ovation, but it at least deserves mild applause. The same point can be made about charter schools.

That said, Chapman’s conclusion is incredibly wise:

What should we learn from these experiences? Not that nothing works, but that few if any remedies work consistently in different places with different populations. We shouldn’t expect that broad, one-size-fits-all changes imposed by the federal government—such as those offered by the Obama administration—will pay off in student performance.

From the local school district to the federal Department of Education, humility, caution, and open-mindedness are in order. Because right now, the main thing we know about improving schools is that we don’t know very much.

This is why changes in the educational system should come from the bottom up. Students, parents, and individual schools and districts should be encouraged to experiment and imitate those experiments that work. Grandiose nationwide (and even statewide) plans, on the other hand, have a tendency to ignore local and individual particulars. Ignoring those particulars all too often leads to general failure.

The post The Possibilites and Limitations of Educational Alternatives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although colleagues long thought they had him pegged, he made an abrupt about-face on vouchers in the most recent issue of City Journal, the [Manhattan Institute]’s magazine, saying there was little evidence they had done much to improve public education across the country. […]

“Milwaukee’s public schools still suffer from low achievement and miserable graduation rates, with test scores flattening in recent years,” Mr. Stern wrote. “Violence and disorder throughout the system are as serious as ever. Most voucher students are still benefiting, true; but no ?Milwaukee Miracle,’ no transformation of the public schools, has taken place.”

And here is the St. Louis Public Schools’ response to a teacher’s effective math program:

"He knows what works for him. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a program that works well for his students. But he doesn’t have the research base yet to implement what he is doing on a larger scale," said William Parker, an assistant superintendent for elementary education.

In each of these cases, a small portion of students is enjoying the success of a new idea — parental choice in Milwaukee, and a curriculum in St. Louis. But there’s opposition to expanding these ideas, because they haven’t helped everyone yet. It’s true, we wouldn’t want to implement a policy or a curriculum on a wide scale if there’s no indication it works. But if it’s helped a few students — the students who were exposed to it — that’s a good reason to expand it to a few more students and see whether the strong results continue.

The only students who will benefit directly from a parental choice program are the students who get to change schools. Caroline Hoxby has shown that competition can improve public schools too, and that’s a welcome side effect, but we can’t throw out every choice program because it hasn’t transformed the public schools yet. 

Likewise, if a curriculum works in a classroom of 20 kids, you don’t throw it out because it hasn’t yet been demonstrated to work for an entire district.

The post Sol Stern and SLPS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

During the past few weeks, commentators across the country have reported that a conservative policy group issued a study finding that school choice is failing in Milwaukee. In this case, the old adage is correct: You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers.

The report in question, which was published by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, actually didn’t say anything at all, either positive or negative, about Milwaukee’s private school choice program. It only attempted to answer two questions about the city’s policy of open enrollment among its public schools: First, which factors do parents consider when deciding to send their children to one of the city’s public schools? Second, how involved are those parents in their children’s educations?

Even though there was an obvious way to answer these questions — conducting a survey of the parents — the author arrived at his conclusions with a roundabout method. He first collected public statistics about the race, ethnicity, living arrangements (one-parent or two-parent households), employment status, and educational attainment of Milwaukee’s public school parents, then matched those statistics to the findings of a national survey about demographic trends for parent and family involvement in education.

Given the number of single-parent, minority, under-educated, or disadvantaged families in Milwaukee, the author concluded that few of these parents were likely to choose a public school based on its academic reputation, or to actively participate in their children’s educations, and so the open-enrollment policy was unlikely to improve educational outcomes in Milwaukee’s public schools.  The author reached this conclusion because he assumed that national demographic trends would hold true for Milwaukee parents, despite the city’s unique 18-year history with school choice. Because most disadvantaged parents nationwide have no experience with educational freedom, there is ample reason to believe that the Milwaukee parents’ educational decisions and academic involvement may deviate significantly from national norms.

As I have described, the Wisconsin report does not address the impact of private school choice on academic achievement. Contrary to some concerns voiced in the wake of the report, rigorous scholarly assessments during the past decade have repeatedly confirmed that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program has improved educational outcomes for both students receiving scholarships and those remaining in the city’s public schools.

While the report’s questionable methodology casts doubt on its usefulness, it is also important to note that the author seems to miss a fundamental point about the value of school choice. He assumes that educational freedom is only important if parents’ choices are motivated primarily by academic concerns. In fact, many parents — across all demographic categories — would prefer schools providing safety, community, discipline, and values-based education over an academic powerhouse that lacks those other attributes. The power of choice is that families are given the opportunity to make decisions based on their own values, rather than the things that are important to academics or convenient for bureaucrats.

Dave Roland has litigated school choice issues in state and federal courts and has offered expert testimony on school choice programs before several state legislatures. He is an education policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post School Choice Is Working, After All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central‘s immensely popular faux-conservative talk-show host and sometime presidential candidate, coined the term "truthiness" to describe things that people "know" intuitively without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. The idea would be funnier if not for the real-world consequences of allowing prevailing opinions to overwhelm evidence to the contrary.

On Nov. 6, voters in Utah decided to stay the course with the state’s underachieving educational status quo, voting down a program that would have granted need-based scholarships (valued between $500 and $3,000) for any student whose parents chose to send them to a school other than their government-assigned public school. Professor David Webber took the vote as an occasion to argue that states should abandon education reforms that would provide immediate solutions for parents through the use of public funds that would help them send their children to the schools best suited to address their families’ needs. His rationale? A perceived lack of public support for "vouchers" — a term that studies show people
disfavor, even when they support the underlying idea of school choice.

Webber’s arguments, however, are the same "truthiness" that the National Education Association, the NAACP, and the ACLU have trotted out prior to the adoption of each of the 19 K-12 school choice programs that remain active throughout the nation. As those programs have progressed, it has become increasingly clear that the doom-and-gloom predictions made by school choice opponents are utterly divorced from reality. Fourteen states (including Utah and the District of Columbia) currently maintain at least one school choice program, each of which is steadily growing and proving its value to the communities supporting them. These programs almost invariably attract more applicants than they are allowed
to serve, and no legislative or electoral vote has ever discontinued a school choice program once voters have been allowed to test it for themselves.

Consider Milwaukee, home of the nation’s first modern parental choice program. During the past 18 years, multiple studies of that program have shown performance improvements in Milwaukee public schools. Low-income parents have been so pleased with their newfound educational freedom that the program had to be expanded to accommodate the overwhelming demand for scholarships. Schools have sprouted in disadvantaged neighborhoods to serve parents who otherwise would have seen their children bused to public schools that were not meeting their needs. Graduation rates at scholarship schools are nearly double the graduation rates at traditional public schools. And contrary to preliminary concerns about the expense of non-public education and the threat of bankrupting public schools, Milwaukee public schools currently spend $12,000 per public school student while the government spends only $6,500 to educate each scholarship student. The city is saving $5,500 per scholarship student (each of whom would otherwise require the full $12,000), while also allowing thousands of families to enjoy schools of their choice. Milwaukee’s experience proves that choice can and does work to improve the lives of families.

Webber’s objection to school choice is especially perplexing, because he agrees that "parents should be able to select a particular local school that fits their transportation and teaching needs [… and] parents should have wider choices of education services." Indeed, many studies of the nation’s choice programs confirm that education improves when parents and children have the freedom to choose their schools. Alas, Webber insists — without citing any facts or studies to support his position — that choice should be limited to public schools. These things happen when "truthiness" takes hold.

Missourians — especially those living with the consequences of failing public schools — should pay careful attention to the success of choice in other cities and states. Talk to families participating in the programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, Arizona, and Washington, D.C., and you will hear parents tell amazing stories about the improvement in student achievement levels, and voice their markedly increased satisfaction with their children’s schools. Equipped with the evidence that school choice is succeeding elsewhere, we can move beyond "truthiness" and develop a plan to offer Missouri’s families the kind of educational freedom that has already helped so many students realize their potential.

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

On Nov. 6, voters in Utah decided to stay the course with the state’s underachieving educational status quo, voting down a program that would have granted need-based scholarships (valued between $500 and $3,000) for any student whose parents choose to send them to a school other than their government-assigned public school.

The defeat of Utah’s universal choice program was, in essence, a triumph of misinformation. The most commonly voiced concern about the program was that it would destroy public schools, abandoning thousands of poor and minority kids to educational oblivion and forcing the public to subsidize private-school educations for wealthy white families. The National Education Association, the NAACP, and the ACLU sounded that alarm again and again in millions of dollars’ worth of advertisements preceding the election, and that message ended up resonating with Utah’s voters.

Unfortunately, the message was patently false. You see, those organizations have trotted out the same stale arguments for nearly 20 years, ever since Milwaukee began considering what would become the first modern school choice program. Choice opponents repeated them ad nauseam prior to the adoption of each of the 19 programs that remain active throughout the nation. In practice, however, not one of their doom-and-gloom predictions has come to pass.

Multiple studies of school choice programs have shown no decline in the academic performance of impacted public schools, and a recent study published by the anti-choice Economic Policy Institute even acknowledges that Milwaukee public schools’ performance improved when that city’s program expanded to accommodate parents’ overwhelming demand for scholarships. And, contrary to all the concerns raised about bankrupting public schools, Milwaukee public schools currently spend $12,000 per public school student while the government spends only $6,500 to educate each scholarship student. By saving $5,500 per scholarship student (each of whom would otherwise require the full $12,000), the city is actually saving a great deal of money while also allowing thousands of families to enjoy schools of their choice.

It is tragic that choice opponents’ misinformation successfully persuaded Utahns to deny thousands of low-income children their first chance to attend the best schools available. A $3,000 scholarship might not have allowed every low-income family to afford a private school education (the average private school in Utah costs between $3,500 and $4,000 a year), but it would have at least put that opportunity in reach for parents desperate to help their children achieve a better, more prosperous life, and it would have done so without harming public schools. The vote against this scholarship program ensures that those children will continue to have only two choices: remain in the public schools that are failing them, or drop out altogether.

Fortunately, choice programs nationwide are steadily growing and proving that educational freedom helps children succeed. Despite the vote, Utah remains one of 14 states (including the District of Columbia) with an active school choice program. These programs almost invariably attract more applicants than they are allowed to serve, and no legislative or electoral vote has ever discontinued a school choice program once voters have been allowed to test it for themselves.

Missourians — especially those living with the consequences of failing public schools — should pay careful attention to the success of choice in other cities and states. Talk to people who live in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, Arizona, Washington, D.C., and other places where school choice has been active for years. Rather than the dire consequences predicted by choice opponents, observers will find improved levels of overall student achievement and markedly increased satisfaction for hundreds of thousands of parents. Equipped with evidence that school choice is succeeding elsewhere, hopefully we will not succumb to the fears that have cost so many children their best chance for a high-quality education.

Dave Roland has litigated school choice issues in state and federal courts and has offered expert testimony on school choice programs before several state legislatures. He is an education policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute.

The post Learn From Others’ Experience With School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The most fascinating thing about this report is that it explicitly acknowledges the choice program’s positive impact on public schools: "[T]he observed improvement in public school test scores associated with the implementation of a greatly expanded voucher plan in 1998 was probably a response to the threat of increased competition." According to the researchers, the problem is that — by their measurements — the improvement in the public schools appears to have been a one-time phenomenon, because the improvement plateaued once the scholarship program’s expansion was completed. Sure, the program seems to have created improvements, they argue, but it’s not clear that competition is generating the steady upward trend in public school performance that choice advocates anticipated.

The authors conclude, "If choice can, at best, produce a one-time improvement, particularly an improvement due to schools taking standardized tests more seriously, this is an effect that can probably be produced by other (possibly lower cost) policies and incentives."

The first important point to make is that, although the authors do not concede the success of choice for those students using the program to attend private schools (they claim those impacts are too difficult to assess absent a state-mandated evaluation), they plainly acknowledge that, far from crippling the Milwaukee Public Schools in the way choice opponents had threatened, the choice program resulted in unambiguous improvement in the public schools’ performance. The scholars are merely struggling to explain how public schools might be able to accomplish similar results without school choice. The point they want people to ignore? However you want to explain it, school choice in Milwaukee has improved the public schools!

The second important point is that there are now more than 17,200 low-income students enjoying educational choices that they would previously have been denied. Before the choice program was implemented, only wealthy parents got to choose where their children would go to school. Now those options are available even to those who need them the most. School choice in Milwaukee has given thousands of families educational freedom!

The third important point is that the authors try to put the burden of explanation back on choice advocates. I love this one. The authors say, "for the choice argument to be convincing, advocates need to show more consistent and sustained improvements in student learning and should be able to explain at the operational level how choice induces schools to improve student performance." Are you kidding? They acknowledge the improvements, acknowledge that the choice program is the source of those improvements, but then effectively say that unless we can explain to their satisfaction why school choice worked, they’ll continue to try and take educational choice away from those poor families." Choice opponents are willing to abandon a program that has improved the public schools simply because they don’t understand why it works!

The final important point I’ll address is that for all of the billions of dollars spent by public school systems nationwide in desperate efforts to improve their schools without disturbing the status quo, it was a low-cost choice program in Milwaukee (the city spends $12,000 per public school student, but only $6,500 per choice student) that has shown the most promise for improving public schools. Opponents of choice may argue that the upward trend in public school achievement was temporary, but the gains are significant and have been sustained. Choice opponents are happy to demand billions of dollars for the status quo, but vehemently oppose demonstrably successful reforms that could actually result in less educational spending!

The post Public Schools Improve! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While commenters have repeatedly suggested that this report demonstrates the failure of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program, it is vitally important to note that the report was limited to an attempt to guess the levels of parental involvement in the public schools, and the decisionmaking process of parents exercising public school choice — all based solely on the demographic characteristics of parents in the school district. These guesses were based on data for Milwaukee supplied by the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, and on demographic-based trends for parent and family involvement in education reported by the National Household Education Surveys Program. The NHESP data amounts to demographic assumptions about the effect of parents’ educational attainment, race, and ethnicity, household composition (single-parent v. two-parent), and mothers’ employment status. The author of the WPRI report simply applied these assumptions to the census data for Milwaukee families.

The report concluded that less than half of Milwaukee parents whose children are in public schools consider more than one school when deciding where their children will attend, and only two-thirds of those who do consider two or more schools factor academic performance into their choices. The author further assumed that only about one-third of Milwaukee public school parents are highly involved in their children’s schools, and that less than half are projected to participate at home in their children’s educations. According to the author, because Milwaukee’s demographics suggest that the city’s parents are unlikely to be involved with their children’s educations and unlikely to consider academic credentials when choosing among public schools, the city’s public schools should not be expected to realize significant improvements from the impact of public school choice.

This report’s methodology renders it practically worthless, for several reasons:

1. The report makes no effort to describe realities in Milwaukee. The author points to no local study that demonstrates how Milwaukee’s parents might mirror (or diverge from) the results of the national research. Put simply: the author’s report isn’t about Milwaukee, it’s about what you might expect from a nationwide random sample of people whose demographics roughly match those of parents with children in Milwaukee’s public schools. One of the reasons this assumption should be challenged is the fact that the city has had a school choice program in place for nearly twenty years, whereas the vast majority of parents nationwide still have no choice. Given this unique history with school choice, why would the author assume that Milwaukee’s parents’ decisionmaking must still conform to national norms? Because it is completely divorced from the reality of Milwaukee’s situation, this report would have yielded exactly the same results even if Milwaukee had no school choice program.
2. The report provides no basis for comparing the current levels of educational attainment in Milwaukee Public Schools with those prior to the adoption of the choice program. The author shows that the city’s public schools currently lag behind the rest of the state, but fails to point out that the achievement gap is narrower today for schools exposed to competition than it was before the introduction of competition.
3. Similarly, the report does not compare academic outcomes between schools insulated from competition, and those exposed to competition, which improved. This report has absolutely nothing to say about how competition and choice has affected Milwaukee’s public schools.
4. The report suggests that public school choice should be considered a failure if parents place more value on non-academic factors when deciding where their children should attend. Parents prefer schools based on a huge array of considerations, and many families believe themselves to be best served by schools that are conveniently located, safe, or values-based. The power of choice — and the reason that choice programs routinely have long waiting lists — is that parents can make decisions based on what they think is best for their children and family, not what is important to or convenient for bureaucrats.

The fact of the matter is that the best available research — and there is a lot of it — shows that school choice in Milwaukee has been fantastic for kids who are given the chance to attend private schools, but that it has also driven improvements in public schools as well. School choice is no longer an unknown commodity, and two recent books make a compelling argument that choice is remarkably effective at generating improvement in failing public schools. Because I live in the St. Louis Public School District, I can only hope that Missouri will accept the wisdom of school choice by the time I have school-age kids.

The post “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means…” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Herbert pointed out that the most common way of evaluating teacher quality these days is to look at credentials, instead of evaluating (and rewarding) teachers’ success in helping their students learn. This leads to the popular obsession with requiring teachers ? even elementary school teachers ? to have earned certain degrees or certificates, while almost entirely disregarding the question of whether they are actually effective at imparting knowledge to the children with whom they are entrusted. One of the persistent “insults” hurled by opponents of choice is that private and charter schools rarely face the same “high standards” for teacher qualification to which public schools are held. Of course, this simply means that private and charter schools have the freedom to seek out teachers who can be both highly effective in the classroom and more affordable to employ, resulting in much greater efficiency for the school and, consequently, for the people paying to maintain that school. Herbert wisely notes that emphasizing teachers’ in-class performance would allow the identification of excellent teachers, the dismissal of inept teachers, and would generate tremendous improvement in the nation’s classrooms.

Herbert’s second point addressed the exceptional success of certain alternative school models, which are almost exclusively the province of private and charter schools that are unbound by the regulations that handcuff traditional public schools. He observed that programs such as the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) have “consistently gotten extraordinary academic results from low-income students” in urban and rural areas alike. One of the strongest arguments for school choice is that equipping parents to send their children to the best available schools would also allow them to seek out (and spur demand for the creation of) schools that specialize in educating children in situations that traditional schools are ill-equipped to address. For example, schools could specialize (as we have already seen in Milwaukee and elsewhere) in meeting the educational needs of children who are autistic or homeless, developing and implementing strategies uniquely suited to those groups, and allowing parents to find the best possible situations for their children. A perfect example of this sort of specialization is the Urban Prep Academy that I referenced in last week’s entry. By committing itself specifically to the educational needs of low-income African-American boys, Urban Prep has achieved astonishing success for its students.

These kinds of educational innovation are already available, if only parents are given the means to seek them out for their own children. That prominent educational thinkers are beginning to recognize the benefits of such innovation suggests a continuing growth in the momentum toward school choice.

The post School Choice: A 21st-Century Model for Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.