Susan Pendergrass speaks with Braxton Steele, intern at the Show-Me Institute and student at Missouri State University, about his summer research on crime and public safety in St. Louis. They discuss his personal experiences living in the city, how crime in St. Louis compares to other Missouri cities and peer cities across the country, the gap between reported crime data and public perception, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Public Safety in St. Louis
01:01 Braxton’s Experience Moving to St. Louis
04:06 Crime Statistics and Perceptions
06:08 Comparative Analysis of Crime Rates
08:48 Motor Vehicle Thefts and Clearance Rates
11:10 Unreported Crime and 911 System Issues
13:05 Public Perception vs. Reality of Crime
14:39 Conclusion and Future Directions

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Crime, Public Safety, and Perception in St. Louis with Braxton Steele appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From each of your specific vantage points, what are the most important things for Missouri policymakers to consider when it comes to school choice?

Thank you Dr. Siddiqi for the question and thank you to the Hunt Institute, the secretary of state’s office and the planning committee for putting on this important event. It is an honor to be with you today talking about a topic that I am very passionate about–school choice.

The question asks about the most important things for you to consider when it comes to school choice. And I think there is nothing more important than this—choice is good. It is inherently good.

Now let me make sure you don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying private schools are inherently good and public schools are bad. I am a product of Missouri public schools. I went to K-12 in the Meramec Valley School District. I then took my bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Missouri Southern and Missouri State, both in elementary education. It was during this time, while I was teaching first grade in the Republic School District, that I became a supporter of school choice.

Yet, when I looked around at my students, at my colleagues, and at my community I was met with the unmistakable realization that the local public school is not right for everyone. It does not and cannot meet the needs of every student and the desires of every family.

Republic, coincidentally, will be playing for its first state football championship on Friday. Go Tigers.  Now, I was a soccer player, but even I can see the beauty of a town rallying around a football team. Public schools are, in many cases, the lifeblood of a community and they provide a valuable service. We can’t dismiss that.

So let me come back to what I started with—school choice is good. I do not mean that it is good because it will lead to better academic outcomes, although I think it will, and I think there is evidence for that. Rather, I mean that educational freedom—the ability to choose your children’s school is a good thing in and of itself.

We have grown accustomed to talking about education policies as utilitarian tools to something else. The science of reading is good because it leads to better reading acquisition. Trades programs are good because they prepare students for meaningful trades in the workplace. This policy or that policy is good because it will lead to increased test scores.

If we did look at school choice this way, we might say:

School choice is good, because, on average, there are small academic benefits for participants.

Or

School choice is good, because 26 of 29 studies showed that these policies led to positive competitive effects for those not participating in the program.

Or

School choice is good because parents love these programs.

All of that is true, but it is the wrong way to look at school choice. We might say school choice is good AND it does those things.

School choice is about empowering parents to make the best decisions for their children. It is about equipping individuals with their constitutional rights and with freedom of conscience to direct the upbringing of their kids. This isn’t a left issue or a right issue—it is a human issue. School choice is about freedom.

Now look, we don’t say “Free speech is good because it will lead to . . .” or “The ability to vote is good because it will lead to . . .” We say “free speech is good, therefore people should have it.” “The ability to vote is good, therefore citizens should have it.”

Educational freedom is good; therefore, people should have it.

Choice allows every parent to decide what is best for their kids and their family.

The post School Choice Is Good – Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Loyalty oaths” can mean a lot of things, but here I mean “loyalty oath” to be an ideological attestation required for public employment. Want to work at Missouri State? UMSL? UMKC? You might have to toe the DEI line first, even though doing so (1) is prejudicial to applicants, (2) undermines the free inquiry objectives of government colleges and universities by homogenizing professors, and (3) could deny Missouri students the best teachers by biasing hiring toward ideologues rather than experts.

Here’s another example: a University of Central Missouri job listing for a librarian features this remarkable sentence that starts reasonably and spirals from there:

The Cataloging and Metadata Librarian identifies and addresses metadata remediation needs, as well as the adoption of new or updated standards and vocabularies in support of James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ commitment to incorporating social justice into our work, focusing on the James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist efforts.

A math professor listing for Mizzou notes that an applicant who can “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” to their work would be a preferred applicant.

Taxpayers should be paying to “decolonize” math, huh?

Employees of America’s higher education system have long been left of center on average, but taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize this special kind of nonsense. Compelling librarians and math professors to commit to the Left’s preferred politics is viewpoint discrimination that encourages groupthink and creates an academic environment where everyone who’s hired to educate is part of some political in-group. That’s unhealthy if you want an academic environment that challenges biases rather than affirms them.

Hiring practices like those required in these “loyalty oaths” could discourage highly qualified subject matter experts from even applying for jobs that have no, or should have no, political or social justice component. Florida is in the process of uprooting this sort of caustic academic culture entirely, dismantling DEI programs in colleges and universities statewide. All other things being equal, are Missouri taxpayers really willing to cede qualified conservative and moderate professors to states like Florida? I don’t think so.

Missouri institutions of higher learning should focus on creating a welcoming environment by treating employees and students as individuals instead of trying to engineer campus-wide groupthink through the way that they hire teachers. Woke loyalty oaths have no business in the state’s hiring documents.

Update: University of Missouri President Mun Choi responded to this post with the following statement:

University of Missouri President on faculty recruiting practices:

The UM System does not have loyalty oaths

——-

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A recent post from the Show-Me Institute references “loyalty oaths” related to faculty hiring at higher education institutions. I want to be very clear — we do not have loyalty oaths of any kind at the University of Missouri System.

We strive to ensure that every UM System university has employees who are committed to an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone. Currently, we have students and scholars from every county in Missouri, all 50 states and more than 50 countries, among them individuals from various walks of life, including from rural and metro areas, military veterans and first-generation students — each with a different point of view.

———–

We hire the best faculty who exemplify the highest standards of teaching and research, and we do not compromise on quality.

The post “Loyalty Oaths” in University Employment Should Be a Non-starter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. James V. Shuls will serve as Director of Research and a Senior Fellow and Elias Tsapelas as Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy

 St. Louis, MO – Dr. James V. Shuls has been named the new director of research and senior fellow and Elias Tsapelas the director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute. Previously, Dr. Shuls held the title of distinguished fellow of education policy at the Institute and Tsapelas was a senior analyst.

“I am honored to serve the Institute in this new role,” Shuls said. “While the opportunity to focus on policy areas beyond education is new to me, the goal remains the same—to provide high-quality research that helps promote free markets and individual liberty for all Missourians.”

“Research is at the center of everything we do at the institute,” Show-Me Institute CEO Brenda Talent said. “James and Elias bring knowledge and experience to their respective roles that will be invaluable as we continue to address the challenges facing our state.”

James V. Shuls is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Arkansas. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Missouri Southern State University and a master’s degree from Missouri State University, both in elementary education. Prior to pursuing his doctorate, James taught first grade and fifth grade in southwest Missouri.

Elias Tsapelas earned his master of arts degree in economics from the University of Missouri in 2016. Before joining the Institute he worked for the State of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development and Office of Administration, Division of Budget & Planning.

Dr. Susan Pendergrass, who previously served as director of research, has returned to the role of director of education policy in order to focus on education research.

Tsapelas is the institute’s first director of state budget and fiscal policy.

Media Contact: Zach Lawhorn

Zach.Lawhorn@ShowMeOpportunity.org

The post Release: Show-Me Institute Names Two New Directors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post We’re Number Four? With James V. Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mr. Pratt is plainly wrong on both counts.

As the Kansas City Public School District has admitted and as we’ve demonstrated repeatedly over the last few months, critical race theory (CRT) and its associated concepts are appearing in curricula and teacher trainings across the state. The Columbia Public School District can misrepresent what it is teaching all it wants. The Springfield and St. Louis Public School Districts can hide what they’re teaching all they want. But we know these materials are showing up in classrooms across the state—in both big districts and small districts—and in diversity, equity and inclusion training materials with many teachers.

It is bizarre that a Missouri State diversity official would assert that CRT is “not being taught in the public schools, it’s not even being trained in the public schools.” Like I would for anyone interested in exploring CRT issues, I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Pratt so he can see the sorts of materials we’re finding. It may not be helpful to the audience he told otherwise, but finding out the facts late is better than never.

The post Yes, Mr. Pratt, Critical Race Theory is Being Taught and Trained in Missouri K-12 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Magnet schools are public schools that have a specialized focus, like STEM or the arts. They will often have admission and retention requirements, such as a minimum test score or GPA for students. Charter schools are another form of public school choice; they are granted autonomy and accept all students who apply. If a magnet school can get millions of dollars and support in Springfield, why does Missouri stifle the growth of charter schools, which could serve students outside of Kansas City and St. Louis?

I bet there have been many other ideas from would-be school leaders across the state on how to create new opportunities for students with an innovative school, but Missouri has been hostile to expanding school choice. Students in Springfield are fortunate enough to soon have access to another option. Unfortunately, many other Missouri students don’t have the chance to pick an education that’s right for them.

The post Why Does Missouri Make it So Difficult? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In math, the percentage of students who scored Proficient or Advanced was the same for both the 2017–18 and 2018–19 school years in 5^th grade and 7^th grade, a percentage point lower this year in 3^rd grade and 8^th grade, and a percentage point higher this year in 4^th grade and 6^th grade. The results in reading are similar, except that no grades between 3^rd and 8^th showed improvement.

But it’s really not helpful to just look at two years. Let’s go back further. Clearly, the years between the dashed lines in the figures below were periods of upheaval in Missouri testing—new standards and new tests—and DESE would tell you that they’re not comparable to anything before or after. Even if we take those years out, the fact remains that we have not been able to get more than half of our public school students to be Proficient or above in either subject. We’ve been stuck in the forties since the Cardinal’s first game in Busch Stadium.

So now money is being poured into developing new science and social studies assessments and creating the new Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) 6 to replace MSIP 5. What are the chances that any of that will impact the nearly 500,000 students in the state who can’t seem to achieve proficiency in the core subjects? Moreover, if more than half of our students have been starting high school with below grade level skills in reading and math for nearly 15 years, should we be surprised when families and jobs move elsewhere?

Source: Missouri State Report Card, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2019 at https://apps.dese.mo.gov/MCDS/Reports/SSRS_Print.aspx and Missouri Board of Education August Board meeting agenda item

The post We’re on the Road to Nowhere . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Not only is this policy good for Missouri’s youth, it is also a more effective use of tax dollars. According to Dr. David Mitchell from Missouri State University, compared to teens who are incarcerated in adult prisons, teens that go through the juvenile system have better earning potential and are much less likely to return to crime. Embracing this policy is a step in the right direction for Missouri’s teens and communities. Congratulations to the General Assembly for a job well done.

The post Missouri Poised to Raise the Age appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Giving judges this discretion should reduce concerns that offenders will be let off the hook too easily. Repeat offenders, or those whose crimes are especially serious, could still be dealt with appropriately. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system could handle the others, which could benefit both the teens and the state.

One concern about this policy is the cost. Based on the fiscal note for similar legislation introduced during the last legislative session, placing more teens in the juvenile system would cost an additional $6.715 million per year. Dr. David Mitchell, an economics professor from Missouri State University, used an alternative cost calculation in a paper he presented at a recent Raise the Age panel discussion.

He argues that even though the per-person/per-year cost is higher in the juvenile system than in the adult prisons, 17-year-olds sent to adult prison spend more time behind bars, on average, than they would if they were in juvenile detention centers. Thus, the cost savings would be higher for the Department of Corrections than originally estimated and the net burden on the state would be closer to $2.432 million per year. He also points out that this amount is only .008% of the state’s budget.

So the cost of this policy to the state would be less than previously assumed. The benefits, however, could be large according to Dr. Mitchell’s estimates. Based on several factors, there could be long-term economic gains from placing most 17-year-olds in the juvenile system.

First, teens convicted of crimes have better earning potential if they go through the juvenile system. Studies have found that teens who have been in adult prison have a 20 percent lower chance of being employed after they are released and work 25 to 30 percent fewer hours if they do manage to find a job. On the other hand, teens who were convicted of a crime but did not go to an adult prison had almost as good a chance at finding a job as teens who did not commit a crime at all.

Second, there is a large disparity in recidivism rates between the juvenile system and the adult system. In Missouri, the recidivism rate for youthful offenders coming out of the adult prison system is about 67 percent, whereas the rate for those coming out of the juvenile system is 15 percent.

With these two factors in mind, placing most 17-year-olds into the juvenile system could be fiscally beneficial to the state. They would be more likely to have a job and be paying taxes (money gained for the state) after serving their sentences, and less likely to end up back in jail (less money being spent by the state).

It’s impossible to know exactly how much raising the age could save the state, but Dr. Mitchell’s analysis indicates that it would be a worthwhile investment. With such a small upfront cost and  potentially large long term gains for the state—not to mention positive impact on these teens’ lives—shouldn’t Missouri join the vast majority of states with this sensible reform?

The post What Is the Cost of ‘Raising the Age’? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Default Rates among Missouri Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The practice of government using tax dollars to lobby other governments appears to often be a lose-lose proposition for taxpayers. In many cases, if the lobbying succeeds, government expands; if it fails, government wastes tax dollars. The authors hope that this paper and the disclosure of existing contracts will subject taxpayer-funded lobbying to greater scrutiny, transparency, and accountability in Missouri.

Related Links

Commentary: “Missouri’s Taxpayers Lobbying To Pay More Taxes?” by Mary Kate Hopkins

Public Documents: Missouri State and Local government lobbying contracts, searchable

The post Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying: Government Lobbying Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, the plan for obtaining a $107 million loan from state universities to help fund a department that gives a lot of money to . . . well, state universities, seems odd. If the state is facing a shortfall, it needs to make the tough decisions to balance the budget (i.e., cut spending and NOT raise taxes). What happens if the state faces a similar situation in fiscal year 2014? Will Nixon ask for ANOTHER loan?

There are other places in the budget that can be cut (granted, these cuts alone will not make up the amount of money needed, but they are a start) before even thinking about cutting money from the DHE, never mind resorting to this loan plan. However, that is not to say that cuts cannot be made in DHE. The DHE budget is not sacrosanct.

For example, in fiscal year 2012, the DHE gave more than $400 million ($366,765,401 from general revenue) to the University of Missouri system. If Gov. Nixon wants a $63 million loan from the University of Missouri-Columbia, why doesn’t he ask the legislature to cut $63 million from the University of Missouri system. Lawmakers can always appropriate more money in future fiscal years (not that they necessarily SHOULD). Why ask for a loan?
Prudence is a virtue for a reason. Before engaging in plans meant to avoid the task at hand, wouldn’t it be better if the state actually finds out what it is paying for and truly decide what it NEEDS to pay for, and what people can do without?

The post College Loans: It Seems We ALL Have Them Now appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So I was distressed to hear that the school board of Republic R-III in Republic, Missouri voted unanimously to remove Slaughterhouse Five from its curriculum. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the decision was “based on the complaints of Republic resident Wesley Scroggins, a professor of management at Missouri State University, and the father of several home-schooled children,” who “complained that the books advocate principles contrary to the Bible.”

This is paradoxical. Scroggins home-schools his children, presumably because his values conflict with those he believes the public school instills. He is exercising his right to choose how his children are educated. I’m sure he would object if the state board of education told him what books were suitable for his children to read. How then can he justify restricting what other students can study in school?

The real solution to this problem is more choice, not less. If we had a real market in education, parents who disapprove of Vonnegut and other authors like him could send their children to schools that don’t teach their works, while other schools could offer a more contemporary curriculum.

The district model for schooling is outdated. If it was ever a sensible model for educating students (I have my doubts), it was when the country was primarily rural and the technology to deliver the world’s information to every household did not exist. We have long since progressed past the need for these archaic bureaucracies that limit parental, student, and teacher choice. One district removing a single book from its curriculum may seem insignificant, but it illustrates how the current educational system limits rather than facilitates access to knowledge.

For any Republic High School students who want to understand the headline — or just spite their board of education — click here.

The post Republic, Missouri Has Come Unstuck in Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The documentary (you can watch the trailer at the film’s website) examines the failures of New Jersey’s public school system, which spends more per student than that of any other state but is still home to a frighteningly large number of failing schools. Director Bob Bowdon traces how money is frequently diverted from classrooms, and flows instead to administrators, union coffers, and political patronage positions. Although Bowdon focuses on New Jersey, the problems he uncovers are often the same as those we find here in Missouri and across America.

The special screening will be followed by a panel discussion featuring two Missouri State representatives at the forefront of the education issue in our state: Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R), the chairman of the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education, and Rep. Tishaura Jones (D), assistant minority floor leader and also a member of the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education. They will share their views on the issues that come before this important committee, and on which of those may find their way into legislation during the 2011 session.

The event is free, but if you would like to come, please RSVP to our public relations representative, William Kay.

The post Celebrate National School Choice Week With Us on January 27! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was not the role of the audit to ask whether Springfield should be providing these utility services in the first place, which is unfortunate. A 1970 study by University of Missouri economists demonstrated that public electric utilities that produce their own power are less efficient than private utilities. Unfortunately, we had to pay for our copy of the study, so I can’t link to it online. But here’s a passage from its conclusion:

The tax-interest subsidy, however, does not explain why some municipalities invest in new generating equipment when their costs, even after adjusting for capital costs and taxes, are still higher than alternative purchase arrangements. Such action appears to depend on other explanations, e.g., bitter rivalry, legal barriers, incorrect information, etc.

Here is an op-ed I wrote on this issue, as it affects Kirkwood. Kirkwood, though, merely distributes the water and electricity it purchases wholesale from private utilities (which the above-mentioned study showed was more efficient than a municipality producing its own power). Springfield is much worse — it still produces and treats its own water and electricity. Here are the stats. There are very few large cities left that still do this, for reasons detailed in the study.

Springfield should sell its electricity, gas, and water systems to the private sector. That would bring in a huge amount of money for Springfield, and allow the city to focus on things the private sector does not also provide, like police and local roads. It should sell its computer network, too, while we are on the subject. Then City Utilities can concetrate on transit and the 911 call center it operates. The leadership of CU, though, remains deluded by the idea that a government-owned system is somehow better for the citizens than a private system.

The post Springfield and City Utilities Audit Cries Out for Simpsons References appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The University of Missouri?Columbia has won approval to drop the hyphen from its name, in all but its most official communications.

This name change follows a series of identity crises suffered among Missouri universities. The University of Missouri?Rolla recently changed its name to Missouri University of Science and Technology; Southwest Missouri State University is now Missouri State University; and Central Missouri State University is now the University of Central Missouri.

OK, good — I’m glad that we’ve got that all cleared up now.

This name change bothers me. Yes, Mizzou, we all realize that you’re the flagship school of the University of Missouri system, but do you really have to change your name to prove it? UM?Columbia fears that the hyphen gives it the appearance of being a “regional” school.

Yes, in the same way the University of California?Berkeley is a “regional” school. Or how about that regional school, the University of Michigan?Ann Arbor. And UNC?Chapel Hill?

Maybe now that the “University of Missouri” has solved its name issue, it can concetrate on competing with those other “regional” schools in the most recent U.S. News and World Report rankings.

The post Mizzou 38, OU 35 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The lesson had groups of students studying different types of invertebrates such as insects, millipedes, arachnids, segmented worms and crustaceans. It also asked students to find out whether Missouri had a state invertebrate, and make a case for why a particular one should represent the state […]

After the crayfish won the class vote, students contacted state representative Dennis Wood, R-Kimberling City, who agreed to meet with them.

I think it’s inappropriate to put students in the role of lobbyists, under the guise of studying the legislative process. When Missouri State University asked a student to lobby on a more controversial subject, legislators took that as an opportunity to try to regulate course content.

Furthermore, school assignments should not force political positions on sixth-graders. These kids are not mature or knowledgable enough to consider the pros and cons of legislation. And most 12-year-olds won’t go against their peers and argue that a new state symbol is a bad idea. The assignment didn’t even allow for conscientious objection. Everyone had to vote on one invertebrate, then everyone lobbied for what the group had chosen. From the remarks of the children who were quoted in the article — the more state symbols the better, because we study them in fourth grade — leeches are bad for the environment. You can see that they’re not thinking about this in a serious way.

The post State Invertebrate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

require all public institutions of higher education to report how they are safeguarding the free exchange of ideas on campus

Or so says an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune. The article concerns a report from MSU regarding the school’s Social Work program. Accordign to the Tribune:

The future of the School of Social Work at Missouri State University is in doubt after an external review of the program found a “dysfunctional and hostile” environment where faculty colleagues are disrespectful to one another and students fear voicing their opinions.

MO legislators contend that this kind of disfunction within one of the state’s largest universities will be prevented by an "intellectual diversity" law, because such a measure would force faculty and staff to accept and express any and all ideas while not advocating any one idea specifically. This sounds all sweet and nice, and in the interest of promoting "diversity," but the fact of the matter is this: while its your right to believe whatever you wish, in the world of academia, some ideas carry more weight than others. Honest professors advocating the best ideas on their academic merits is largely how the enterprise of human knowledge moves forward; not by giving equal voice to unequal theories in the interest of protecting someone else’s sacred cows. With that in mind, students and professors alike should be free to challenge the bases and conclusions of those theories, and to advance their own theories and beliefs for the rigors of serious academic discourse to validate.

Further demonstrating the frivolity of this bill is an article in the Springfield News-Leader showing the effectiveness of the University in policing its own. This is proof positive that our best and brightest, working honestly and openly in the marketplace of ideas, is the best garauntee against intellectual dishonesty and close-minded demagoguery. No legislation is needed to augment the marketplace of ideas.

The post ID Bill unnecessary, MSU debacle demonstrates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While requiring professors to leave their political affiliations at the door is vital to preserving academic integrity, requiring institutions to monitor the "intellectual diversity" of classrooms would only serve to obstruct the principles of free inquiry and expression upon which higher education is founded. The key to intellectual diversity in classrooms and institutions lies in permitting dissenting views to be heard, and treating those views on their academic merit. That does not mean requiring professors to fully air both sides of a controversial issue, nor does it mean permitting those professors to evaluate student performance based on their adherence to that professor’s beliefs. What it means is that professors and students should be allowed to freely challenge one another’s beliefs and assumptions on academic grounds with no recourse to grades or other performance evaluations. This will insure intellectual diversity in our universities, without undermining the concepts of free inquiry and expression that have made our Missouri schools great in the first place.

The post Free inquiry, not legislation, should insure intellectual diversity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.