Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about Missouri’s education leadership shake-up and what comes next. They discuss how to find the right commissioner of education, why outside reformers tend to succeed where insiders struggle, what the dismantling of the US Department of Education means for state accountability systems, why public complacency about poor academic outcomes persists, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much, Andy Smarick, for joining once again on the Show-Me Institute Podcast. We love having you on and I appreciate you taking the time. You’re a busy man, so it’s really wonderful to have you back.

Andy Smarick (00:06):
I love being here. It’s a treat. Thank you for having me. I always like talking to you, but also anytime I get to talk about state-level education policy, it’s a treat.

Susan Pendergrass (00:19):
Well, I know that you have experience serving on a couple of state boards, both K-12 and higher ed. Just to bring you up to speed on what’s happening in Missouri: we have a relatively new governor, about a year in, and we had a state board of education where people stayed in expired seats, rubber-stamped decisions, and were very complacent, I feel comfortable saying. Our governor shook up that group and appointed new people who came in and said, what do you mean we don’t have bylaws? It was like, this is bananas. At the same time, the governor issued an executive order requiring letter grades on schools and districts, new school report cards. I don’t know exactly how everything went down, but our Commissioner of Education resigned, our Deputy Commissioner resigned, and our president of the state board of education resigned, all in about one week. So we are now straightening things out and there is a new board president. But this new, relatively new board now has the task of finding a commissioner. The way things have happened in Missouri is we always get a new commissioner from the ranks of the state education agency, maybe from the legislature, always from Missouri. Just a real this-is-how-we’ve-done-it mentality. And we have not been big reformers. No Chiefs for Change in Missouri. Like a lot of states, our reading scores for young kids are tanking, forty percent below basic for third and fourth graders. We have a state accountability system called the Missouri School Improvement Plan in which 516 of our 520 districts are fully accredited and about four are provisionally accredited, none unaccredited. So we have this meaningless accountability system where every district is fully accredited, even St. Louis, which I can’t even go into. So here we are, and I want to know a few things from you. Number one, if you were on the Board of Education in Missouri, how would you go about finding a new commissioner? What would you look for? And then later I want to get into what’s happening at the national level. We are not doing well academically, we have never had a bold reformer in charge, we keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. What would you do if you were in their spot?

Andy Smarick (02:59):
So in education, I’m going to wind up to this answer, so just bear with me for a second. Conservative can mean two different things. One is the traditional conservative view, which is to preserve, to stand athwart big, swift, dramatic, perpetual change. You’re trying to keep things the way they are because there’s a lot of wisdom that has gone into it and people are accustomed to it. In education, there’s also this other right-of-center conservative view, which is we have to be much more open to choice, competition, accountability metrics, and so on. And it seems that Missouri has been one of those very red states that has tended to believe in the first kind of conservatism: protect our traditional school districts, protect the hierarchies we have, protect the tradition of you grow up as a professional, as a teacher, then a superintendent, then maybe go to the state education agency. A lot of people believe that’s the way to do it.

There probably is an ethic among a lot of people to keep it that way. The only way you get out of that is if there’s a recognition among leadership that we can’t continue to preserve the status quo, that we have to change some things. That is a big step for a place that has elevated the idea of preserving for a very long time. If they get to that step, then they have to do the very tough things, which is start to pull out the Jenga pieces of that conservatism. The most important one is having board leadership and having a state superintendent who come from outside the state, and then having a board chair or board president who is not going to just do what the staff of the state education agency says or what the district superintendents say. We saw this work quite well about fifteen or twenty years ago. There was a big movement nationwide in educational reform led at the state level, and a number of states chose out-of-state superintendents and commissioners of education who did a terrific job of shaking things up and advancing a bunch of important proposals. The downside is a lot of them were so brash and so young, and I have to say so cocky, that they made unnecessary waves and kicked a lot of people in the shins in the states where they landed. So my view is a place like Missouri should pick someone from out of state for a state chief, someone with a long track record of success, but someone who isn’t so green as to think he or she knows everything. Someone with enough humility and enough time on task to know what they don’t know, and who can come in and be bold enough to make some changes, but not think that everyone in the state is a dummy who needs to be ignored. That’s how I would think about it. And if you have a board chair and board membership who get all of this, it makes things a whole lot easier. But that might be the hardest part of all. Who is your board president? Who are the board majority going to be? They have to be the ones with the backbone.

Susan Pendergrass (05:57):
Yeah. I feel like we’ve had people come in and say, well, I’m only the commissioner, it’s not my fault that the kids don’t read. And then people say, well, we’re a local control state, so it’s really the local guys’ fault that the kids can’t read. Then the legislators are like, well, who’s supposed to be making sure the kids can read? And technically, kind of they are, but them plus the board, and there’s just fingers pointing every different direction with nobody really taking responsibility. If we had the capacity for hard things, we would not have all of our districts be fully accredited. There’s even pushback on the letter grade idea because folks will say, well, then the teachers in those F schools feel bad and the parents feel bad and the kids who go there feel bad. I’ve seen some states change it to colors or something where nobody feels bad. I’ve also heard folks say it’s racist because a lot of the D and F schools enroll large percentages of students of color. So there are just all of these reasons to resist. It’s going to happen because there’s an executive order, but I feel like we’re going to have a hard time finding somebody who’s willing to do those things.

Andy Smarick (07:17):
Well, your state, like every other state, has a state constitution that makes the state ultimately responsible for education. Your state, like others, has both tradition and some laws that give a number of powers to local districts. The weird thing, and I’ve seen this in a lot of different states, is the state government ends up in a very weird position. The state can get sued and state leaders can get criticized if kids aren’t learning, because the state actually has constitutional authority to make sure kids are learning. But as a matter of practice, and often of state statutes, a lot of this power is delegated to districts. States then try to recapture some of that power through the accreditation system. It’s the way the state can say, okay, districts, you have the power to do these things, but we’re going to hold you accountable for results and we’re going to accredit you or not. And then it turns out it’s virtually impossible to take away the accreditation of these districts because of legislative pushback, and the state typically doesn’t have the capacity to run a district if it does take away accreditation. It just becomes a complete hot mess. That’s why you need state leadership who has some experience but also some backbone to say, this is how we’re going to thread the needle of state authority, state responsibility, local control, and still making sure that kids learn. This is not easy, other states have gone through it, but it isn’t the kind of thing that someone who has lived in Missouri all their life and grown up professionally there can do easily. It’s going to be hard for that person to get out of that box. Having someone from the outside who can start to do some bold things, including hiring smart, tough lawyers, having board leadership who’s going to stick by it. But I just want to emphasize this point: every state I ever talk to begins by saying, well, you know, we’re a local control state, our districts have all the power. Everybody says that. Go back to your state constitution. The state is the one that’s going to be responsible. And if the state has the backbone, it can do a whole lot. But whether it has the backbone is the operative phrase.

Susan Pendergrass (09:41):
Yeah. So about seven years ago we developed our own school report cards with letter grades, called MOSchoolRankings. I’ll just plug it. It was with GPAs, and this year for the first time I just took the GPAs and converted them to letter grades because folks found GPAs tricky. I put up the methodology. I took all the data from our state education agency, DESE, and just tried to make it a map you can zoom in and out on, easier to navigate. And my thinking is you have to do these things, make sure you say how you do it, and then people can argue with you and debate whether it’s right or wrong or good or bad. And many people have. A lot of people don’t like that the average is a C. I’m open to discussing why the average should be anything other than a C, but you have to at some point just make the move and then be confident enough in what you did that you can defend it and change it if people point out flaws. But this is where I think we struggle at DESE. They struggle to just put that out there because they worry about every negative outcome and consequence. And it’s like, yeah, but at some point to not do it is worse than to do it.

Andy Smarick (11:10):
For sure. And I’ve gotten to the point of realizing that if you have been in a system at different ranks for thirty or thirty-five years, all of your friends, your reputation, your pension, your income, everything about your identity is wrapped up with that system. Expecting these folks to suddenly turn the corner and say, you know, we’ve messed up, tens of thousands of kids are not learning right now today in classrooms, and we have to start holding the adults accountable for that, including teachers and principals and local school board members and local superintendents, and we have to be courageous about it. That’s asking a lot of people who are of, by, and for the system. It can be a whole lot easier if you just get someone from the outside with the courage to do it.

Susan Pendergrass (11:54):
Yeah. So can you think of an example of a state that has done this well?

Andy Smarick (12:02):
Definitely during the late No Child Left Behind era and then the Race to the Top era, a number of states found people from outside. Tennessee was famous for this. Arne Duncan ended up going to a couple of different places, including Rhode Island. New Jersey ended up picking Chris Cerf. There was a movement where probably ten or fifteen states did this quite well. My state, Maryland, brought in the superintendent of Mississippi after Mississippi had had so many gains, so she could carry some of those especially reading reforms to our state. This is not uncommon. Texas did something like this for a while. Louisiana became very famous during the John White era for doing this. But in all of these cases it began often with a governor, and then some members of a state legislature who said, we just can’t keep doing things the way we’ve done in the past. We have to do things differently. Once the governor says something like that, he or she can appoint people to the Board of Education who will do things differently, and the legislature, at least his or her party, will start to fall in line, and the media then starts to understand how serious it is. It is hard to do this without the governor leaning forward and giving the blessing to the bureaucracy to do things differently. So the question for you is, is your governor going to spend any political capital on this and say things are messed up and we have to do things differently?

Susan Pendergrass (13:29):
I don’t know. I hope so. But I haven’t seen evidence of that. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that they’re looking more internally than externally. However, I just want to add one wrinkle to this context that we’ve been thinking a lot about at the Show-Me Institute. If you’re following the US Department of Education, I believe you used to work there. Is that right?

Andy Smarick (13:54):
Yes, back in the day.

Susan Pendergrass (13:55):
Last week they moved the Office of Special Education over to the Department of Health and Human Services. They moved the Office of Civil Rights over to the Department of Justice. The building where the Department of Education used to be is now vacated. All those people are over at an old Department of Energy building. It’s a significantly reduced staff. Without touching the Every Student Succeeds Act, they are effectively dismantling most of the structure over there, at a time when the current president said that sending education back to the states was one of his priorities. I’m particularly concerned that at a time when Missouri has this vacuum, we could be looking at the apron strings being cut, states being told to sink or swim from the federal perspective. You don’t have to maintain the accountability systems. The Secretary is encouraging states to submit requests to waive parts of the law. I don’t really know exactly where it’s headed, but that concerns me. Do you think they’re going to let off the gas on mandated accountability systems in exchange for flexibility?

Andy Smarick (15:15):
Such a good question. To begin with just some editorializing: it is astonishing that Congress has allowed this to happen. In general I’m a big fan of decentralizing education power to the states, but that they’ve been able to administratively dismantle a department without Congress doing anything about it is just shocking to me. Even members of the Republican Party twenty years ago, let alone forty or sixty years ago, who jealously guarded the prerogatives of the legislative branch to create departments and fund departments, would have been appalled at this. There would have been unanimous consent to stop this from happening. So that says a lot that Congress has just sort of excused itself from the discussion. It has been remarkable the extent to which that building where we used to work, and the thousands of people there, is just empty, and they are handing off all the tasks to other places. I don’t know how this is legal, but I guess they’re figuring out a way to do it.

Now, the people who are leading this from inside genuinely believe that education will be better off if Uncle Sam isn’t meddling in it so much. That requires a theory of action, or at least a theory, that the reason why things are bad is that Uncle Sam is causing them to be bad, as though if Uncle Sam backs up there’s going to be a sunnier future ahead. Or it requires believing that it is just morally wrong for Uncle Sam to get involved, and whether states sink or swim after he gets out, that’s up to them. That’s a theory, it’s an ideological approach, and they have the right to pursue it. Donald Trump was elected and he gets to hire who he wants to. But then, to your point, it starts to implicate the Every Student Succeeds Act, which still requires the federal government to do some things related to state accountability systems. And if you believe you have the power administratively to undo a cabinet department, I suspect you probably believe you have the power to ignore some federal accountability provisions and just allow states to do what they want. So we’re going to be left in this position of saying, all right, the federal government is getting out of the business of accountability, therefore the states need to do it well. And then anyone who cares about kids learning will ask, okay, are states going to do this well? And so I turn to you as a state leader. Is Missouri going to

Susan Pendergrass (17:23):
Yeah.

Andy Smarick (17:47):
kick butt and take names?

Susan Pendergrass (17:48):
I’m concerned. I mean, No Child Left Behind was difficult and a lot of people didn’t like it, but test scores went up. Strict accountability, test scores went up. As we backed off, the Race to the Top era with waivers, and then Every Student Succeeds, which allowed more waivers, states were able to lower a lot of bars. Some states raised bars, like you mentioned, Mississippi and Louisiana. Some states are doing a great job, especially with early literacy. Others are not. And so Missouri, I think of it like this: you have a college student and you’re paying all their bills. You’re writing the checks, ordering their textbooks, doing all that work. Then one day you say, you know what, instead of that, I’m going to give you $3,000 a month: you pay your rent, your utilities, get your own books. There are going to be kids who step up and do fine. And there are going to be a lot of kids who take that $3,000 and immediately go to Cancun. We know this. It kind of depends on what you’ve done with the kids so far. And I feel like we have lulled the states into a feeling of compliance. If we just tell you how we spend our Title I dollars, fill out this form, and report that our test scores keep going down, no one cares. There’s no stick. They don’t withhold the money. We just say our test scores this year are lower than last year, and they say, good to know, here’s your

Andy Smarick (19:14):
Yep.

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
check. So if that’s how you were raising your kids so far, why would you expect them to step up and become suddenly responsible?

Andy Smarick (19:31):
Okay, I have to admit that I have learned a hard lesson in my years doing education policy, which is that I was wrong that the political system of its own volition will always push for big action to make sure schools are great. I believed that if we had accountability systems showing that schools were underperforming, there would be a perpetual energy within the public to say we have to fix this, that it was just a matter of making the knowledge available and then everything else would take care of itself. It turns out it just doesn’t work that way. You need leaders at the top to constantly push and say, we are not doing well enough, we have to do dramatic things to make sure kids are going to be better off. Otherwise, No Child Left Behind is in place for a while and then people get sick of it. Or you have some interesting testing regimes and then there’s pushback to that, or just resistance to Uncle Sam in general. And people like the two of us say, but kids aren’t learning anything anymore. We are seeing a cratering of student learning since the peak of No Child Left Behind’s learning gains. This is horrible. Kids just aren’t learning anymore. The Andy of twenty years ago would have assumed the nation would revolt and say, how dare we do this to our schools and our kids, we have to do something differently. Instead, I don’t want to say it’s crickets, but there has not been a major wave of energy to change things again. The only way to do this is for governors or presidents to say this is not good enough and keep pushing. It is the ultimate dog that didn’t bark. The story is why something isn’t happening. If things are so bad in student learning, why is there not a dramatic energy within the public to do things differently? So maybe I look to you. In Missouri, are people just satisfied? Do they just not want the hassle?

Susan Pendergrass (21:28):
Why do you think? Yeah, they are like, we love our schools. All the time: we love our schools. We love, love, love our rural schools. It’s hard, kids show up with a lot of baggage, it’s just hard. But we love our schools. God forbid we have tiny districts getting below fifty kids. We love it. There isn’t an appetite to say, well, thirty-some percent of our rural high schools don’t offer calculus, and we don’t think we need it. It’s like, well, those kids are going to join a world where a lot of other kids had access to these things. It’s just, I don’t know the word. Complacency for sure. And it gets exhausting to continue to talk about it because it feels like

Andy Smarick (22:20):
Yeah. So this is why it can feel that way. And listen, if I were a state superintendent, based on the things I have learned, I would always begin a big reform movement by saying, first, all of the things you just said, but sincerely, because I believe this. I would say I love our public schools. I know how much they do for kids. I know that we love our teachers. I know that these schools are part of the community. I know that they help shape young people in ways beyond reading and math scores. I know that we love to go to these sports events. I know that we love to go to our fifth-grade graduation. This is an important strand in the fabric of our community. We love these schools, we love our teachers, we need to protect them, and we have to do better. What I found in that previous movement of big, dramatic out-of-state actors who came in and took over is they were awesome at the we-have-to-do-better part and absolutely lousy at the we-love-the-schools-and-teachers part. And that just caused a lot of anger. It was toxic in the long run. It is so important to a state to hear the we-love-our-schools message. That’s why they end up picking leaders, board presidents and superintendents who are of the system, who sincerely love their schools and say that. But they’re bad at the second part: we have to do things differently. The key to leadership right now is finding someone who can say both. We love these schools. We love public education in our communities. But Lord, our kids deserve a whole lot better than this. We have to do some things differently. That’s a rare leader.

Susan Pendergrass (24:00):
Yeah. Well, I think that’s a great place to end, because what else can you say? That’s awesome. That’s what we’re looking at. We’re going to find out soon, and not just Missouri. Many states have the same problems. I would love to have you come back again, Andy. We love having you.

Andy Smarick (24:16):
I love getting emails from you or Zach asking me to come on. I’m happy to give my bad opinions on anything.

Susan Pendergrass (24:23):
No, you have such a good, crystallized view of these things, and your experience on state boards is invaluable. I do appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time. I know you’re busy and hopefully you’ll come back soon.

Andy Smarick (24:40):
Whenever you call. Have a great summer.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Case for an Education Outsider in Missouri with Andy Smarick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Learn more about the book here: www.cato.org/books/fighting-freedom-learn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with James Shuls, fellow at the Show-Me Institute and head of the Education Liberty Branch at Florida State University, and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute about their new book, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. They discuss how the fight for educational freedom long predates modern debates over public schooling, why early advocates viewed schooling as a family and community responsibility, and how today’s school choice expansion connects to America’s founding principles. The conversation covers the history of the common school movement, the roots of residential school assignment, and why educational freedom has always been central to the American story, and more.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction

02:33 The Genesis of ‘Fighting for the Freedom to Learn’
05:41 Historical Perspectives on School Choice
08:04 The Evolution of Common Schools and Their Impact
10:59 The Role of Religion in Early Education
14:01 The Shift Towards Standardization in Education
16:43 The Need for School Choice in Disadvantaged Areas
19:29 The Historical Context of Property Taxes and School Assignment
22:17 The Recent Surge in School Choice Movements

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Certainly looking forward to this conversation with two very, very smart people: Dr. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Dr. James Shuls of Florida State University. James, can you first tell us about this new center that you are in charge of at Florida State University? I think it’s innovative and really cool, and I’d like to hear a little bit more about it before we talk about your book.

James Shuls (00:21)
Absolutely. So I’m with the Institute for Governance and Civics, and it was created by the legislature a couple years ago. And while I would like to take credit and say I’m in charge of it, as you sort of said there, Susan, I’m not in charge of the Institute, but I’m one of the branch heads. So the IGC, as we call it, has four branches. We focus on economic liberty, constitutional liberty, conscience liberty, and education liberty. I’m the head of the education liberty branch.
And so part of what we’re doing is outreach to K–12 schools, helping to focus on civics instruction, improving knowledge and preparation for teachers as it relates to civics and governance and those sorts of things. At the same time, we’re writing about issues of educational liberty from a school choice perspective, which is exactly the topic we’re talking about today.

Susan Pendergrass (01:12)
Yeah, so you guys have a book that you just co-edited, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. How did you come up with this idea, and why did you decide to put this book together?

Neal McCluskey (01:27)
Sure, I’ll go with that. The idea behind the book stems from just about everything I ever do, which is I got angry about something, and I was like, well, somebody ought to do something about this. If you work in school choice advocacy for more than a day or so, you’ll quickly hear that school choice started by people trying to avoid desegregation in the South. And that’s always given as the origin. And even if somebody wants to say, well, you know, Milton Friedman wrote this essay in 1955—and he really wrote it before 1955—we know that that was really just taking advantage, at the very least, of this backlash against desegregation.
And it just drives me nuts. There is a very long, rich history of the idea and practice of school choice. So I thought, you know, somebody ought to do a book on that, and we can hit, sort of semi-chronologically, all the different eras in which this happened and the ebbs and flows. The Cato Institute and the Center for Educational Freedom, which I direct, also had something called the School Choice Timeline—this interactive online timeline that I put together also because I was angry. In particular, I wrote a chapter about the gap where not much was going on in school choice, and I wanted to explain the gap.
But we have lots of chapters—one on how progressives were really into school choice for a while, and how schooling worked before the common-schooling movement, and all sorts of stuff like that. The genesis was aggravation on my part, at least, about always hearing this narrative that school choice stems from efforts to avoid desegregation. And then I said, you know, James Shuls—there’s a guy who probably is angry a lot, too. Maybe he’d like to get in on this.

James Shuls (03:17)
Yeah, that’s right. Susan, I’ve been on the podcast before talking about some of my scholarship related to Virgil Blum. He was a real strong school choice advocate starting in the ’50s, did a ton of work, and gets absolutely no credit. I was angry that Friedman gets all the credit—he wrote this paper in 1955, yada, yada, yada—and then in the 1990s we get school choice programs. It’s like, well, a lot happened in that yada, yada, yada period that we’re not covering.
I had been writing about that when Neal came along with the idea to do the book. Part of what we’re doing as we frame this is saying: looking at school choice today through the current lens we have is the wrong way to do it. We think of school choice today as opting out of the public school system—but that only works to frame it that way if there is a public school system. Before common schools were around, people were still advocating for their kids, still trying to get schools created. So there was lots of stuff that wouldn’t fit the framework we have today.
What we’re saying in this book is these impulses for educational freedom have always existed, and we’re essentially tracing them from colonial times to today.

Neal McCluskey (04:36)
James’s stuff on Blum was also a major reason I thought, here’s a guy who could really contribute to this. I just stumbled on Blum in large part because of what James wrote. I was like, why do people not know about this guy?

Susan Pendergrass (04:41)
We did a whole podcast on it. I’ll tell you what makes me mad is that in the last month or two, tops, there have been articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post talking about low-income families—both in Florida and Arizona—generally Black and brown parents, who are participating in this right-wing conservative movement to kill the public school system because they think they deserve to be able to choose where their kid goes to school.
Even locally in political groups, people say, well, that’s a MAGA person, which means they support charter schools. When those two things get put into a sentence, it really makes my blood boil because I’ve been working in this space a long time. As we’re going to find out more, school choice is not a new thing at all. The latest iteration of it is not a MAGA thing or five years old or a COVID thing. Since at least 1990—at least 35 years—parents and activists like Howard Fuller were saying, hey, this isn’t right. We’re literally assigning kids to the worst schools and not letting them out. We ought to let them out.
Somehow this has become the Republican agenda to kill teacher unions and break up the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. That makes me mad. That’s why I’m really glad you guys put this book together. Let’s go back—not to the very beginning of the country—but pre–industrial revolution, pre–John Dewey, before standardized schools, attendance zones, and district lines. What did it look like, say 150 years ago? Did parents decide where their kids went to school, or did you have to go to a certain school because that was the one you helped pay to create? How did it work back in the day?

James Shuls (06:50)
I’ll jump in here because I’m awfully angry about this. Before common schools, there was a wide mixture of different types of schools. You had dame schools, private schools, public schools, and publicly funded private schools.
What you get in Charles Glenn’s chapter, “Emergence of the Common School Ideology,” is an understanding of the movement towards common schools. The impetus behind them was really to separate schooling from the family and the community and to use schools for social change. That’s the difference that comes in here—schooling would be used for social change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:29)
Mm-hmm.

James Shuls (07:35)
—to create and form Americans. Some people look at that and say it’s a good thing, but there are certainly negative side effects as well when you separate the impact of community and families. An interesting element that comes out in this book is that the common school ideology and the public school system that has come in its wake was created to form a certain kind of American citizen.
Then we get into Neal’s chapter, where Neal talks about the sort of gap where things aren’t happening. It’s because these systems were under attack. You see a reemergence in the 1950s—not just because of Brown and segregation—but because you start to have a return to some of these values and a return to trying to connect schooling and the family and the church.
When you look at school choice with this longer arc, rather than looking at the ’50s as your starting point, you see the various impulses that were leading pre–common schools, how common schools helped to squash some of those things, and how we’re starting to come back to a decentralized and pluralistic system.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50)
Certainly the common schools—also called public schools before 1900—were Protestant. They absolutely taught religion. They didn’t stop teaching religion until the Catholics started showing up. Then it was, yeah, maybe we get religion out of schools, right? Because we don’t want Catholicism in a public school. Public schools taught Protestantism; they just didn’t want to teach Catholicism. People think there’s always been separation—no religion in public schools—and that’s not true.

James Shuls (09:16)
That’s a key point in Matthew Lee’s chapter: Catholics turned to private schools. He would say it’s not necessarily school choice because the Catholics were saying you had to go to the Catholic schools—so no choice among Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic schools came up because the public schools were Protestant. Protestants went in—though not all in. There were some segments, which Neal could talk about, with the Lutherans.
By and large, Protestants supported the common school movement. Then there was a movement to secularize public schools. Again, that’s part of what happens in the 1950s with the return of Protestants starting to support school choice—because their capture of the public school system had been weakened and there were no longer Protestant schools.

Neal McCluskey (10:10)
Just as a pitch for the book: there’s so much good history in here that we won’t be able to talk about. You definitely want to get the book. It’s worth noting that for much of our early history—colonial period, early republican period, even into the common-schooling period—there wasn’t a separation people would recognize if you say, well, this is a public school and this is a private school. There were schools. There was education.
Government was sometimes involved in assisting private schools. Going back to British traditions, someone would provide—usually from the proceeds of owning land—funds to help maintain a school. In America, land was the one thing in superabundance, so that wasn’t as profitable. Governments would sometimes say, look, you’re running a school here; we’ll give you a little money to do it. There was often cooperation between government and schools.
The first voucher program that we’ve at least been able to catalog was in 1802 in Pennsylvania—specifically in Philadelphia. So this is not new. Go back more than two centuries and you had people like Paine and John Stuart Mill talking about helping people to consume education by funding parents so they can choose, not by funding schools.
Even as we have common schools, they were extremely localized. Think of the one-room schoolhouse—it was also the meeting house and often the church—serving pretty homogeneous communities. Even within what eventually became common schooling, there was a lot of differentiation where people could get the schooling they wanted. It’s only as progressives consolidate control that we move far away from that community-level, very small schooling.

Susan Pendergrass (12:13)
I thought it was so odd that Maine and Vermont have had town tuitioning of high schools for a couple hundred years. Where the town didn’t want to build a high school, they just paid tuition for their high school students to go to a different school the student picked. In some cases it’s a boarding school, even overseas. They were challenged in the Supreme Court within the last couple of years, even though those programs have existed for hundreds of years.
All of a sudden, people who don’t like the voucher idea went after Maine for town tuitioning, even though that program has been in place for so long.

James Shuls (12:53)
That radical right-wing bastion in Maine.

Susan Pendergrass (12:55)
—decided at a town meeting to do it. I think as you get into the earlier or middle part of the last century, you start building up this industrial education complex: we’re going to be the great equalizer; everyone’s going to have the same kind of school; 20 kids and a chalkboard and teacher; separate kids by age, not ability; common standards; and we’re going to be in charge of it.
Anyone who disagrees with what’s being taught there is seen as a radical who wants to break the system and doesn’t understand the importance of it. That’s what I feel has been happening lately, where any parent—my own experience: I homeschooled one of my kids and was considered a radical because why wouldn’t I accept that the public school to which he was assigned would be best for him? The idea that uniformity is what we need.
I still think there are a lot of people within the public education establishment who say uniformity is the key. We are clearly seeing a backlash, but the uniformity principle—maybe 75 years, maybe the 1950s—would you say?

Neal McCluskey (14:15)
It depends. In the early republican period, people like Benjamin Rush said we need schooling for everybody to make them into good citizens—into “republican machines,” his term. Horace Mann certainly wants to standardize people. Not because of Catholics at the beginning—they hadn’t come in at great numbers—but because he saw people coming in from the countryside.
New England industrialized first—relatively poor farming area, but lots of rivers to run factories. These early factories with big water wheels. Mann saw parents coming from the countryside and thought they were all idiots. He thought we needed to take their kids away from them and standardize them. So we started it even at the very beginning.
It gets even more standardized as more immigrants arrive and people get scared of them. One overarching theme of the history of school choice: it’s about people who do not fit into whatever mold the elites decide. Catholics didn’t fit the Protestant mold. In my research, Germans were most disturbing for people because they spoke German—people said, they really need to speak English. We have a thread of fear of Germans going back to colonial Pennsylvania.
The chapter on African Americans is particularly powerful: it talks about a system that never wanted to incorporate them. They needed freedom to get the education people were denying them. That’s the big theme—people who don’t want to be standardized or who are refused help need school choice to get something out of education.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13)
I’ll only say that’s true today. It’s ironic that the kids with the least options—the most disadvantaged kids in the worst schools—are the ones people openly talk about denying options to. Even in Missouri, when public school choice is considered, some of the lowest-performing districts say, okay, but not us. We can’t let kids out of our district because we’re one of the worst in the state and everyone will leave and take money.
They want to draw a line and say, whatever unfortunate child got assigned to this school, we cannot let them leave. That’s flipped on its head. That child needs choices as much as every other kid. They say, no, we have to lock those kids in and strap them to the deck of a Titanic. Why do you think that is, James?

James Shuls (17:07)
I’d say Ron Matus’s chapter on the progressive movement toward school choice is terrific for the points you’re making. There was a tremendous progressive move for school choice in the ’70s and ’80s that culminated in the early voucher programs.
They were making exactly the cases you’re making: we should not assign students to failing schools; school choice was progressive in that it allowed disadvantaged students to opt out and get the type of school that would meet their needs, and to bring competition into the marketplace. The progressives were making the case for school choice exactly because the most disadvantaged students needed it the most.
That’s why the recent idea that school choice is a MAGA movement is off. The progressives got there first, as Ron and others explain.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
One last thing. I have a hard time articulating to folks who believe there’s an ironclad connection between property taxes and school assignment that goes back to the beginning of time and must continue until the end of time: if you pay property taxes here, your kid goes to school here; if you don’t, your child doesn’t get to go to school there. I don’t want any kids coming into my kid’s school if their parents didn’t pay property taxes.
I think that is particularly strong in Missouri. In St. Louis County we have dozens of school districts within one county. People feel very strongly—even supporters of school choice—about this property tax/school assignment idea. They can’t get past it. What would you say to that? You lived in St. Louis, James; what do you say?

James Shuls (19:13)
We didn’t write the book through this specific lens, but if you read closely you see this: the system evolved over time. You had a radically decentralized system. Horace Mann and the common school movement advocated for state structures and more organization. Over time it evolved to the system we have today.
From the founding, the idea of residential assignment where local property taxes only follow the kids—and the high level of state and federal regulation—was not anyone’s early vision. It’s not the system most people would advocate if they could design it from scratch. We get wedded to the structures we have.
What we have to do is step back and ask, is this the way it should be? I think the answer is no. We shouldn’t have systems that restrict resources to small local communities and assign students, because we get the problems we all see: high-poverty districts with struggling schools and students assigned to terrible schools with little opportunity for the types of coursework and experiences that lead to success. The system we have isn’t inherently good just because it’s the system we have.

Neal McCluskey (20:57)
We probably needed a chapter on the history of taxation to answer this directly. My suspicion is that for a lot of our history we didn’t have a lot of income tax or other taxes, and drawing on the English tradition, we probably funded things at the community level with property taxes—very local and democratically controlled.
It’s not until the industrial era, with consolidation, that communities stopped running their own schools. My guess is that’s the history of a lot of this property-tax and local-tax funding. But things have obviously changed.
My colleague Colleen Hroncich always points out: it might have made sense to have local public schools when nobody had a car and most people walked places. You couldn’t travel 10 or 20 miles every morning to drop your kid off. That doesn’t make sense now—we have modern transportation—so we don’t have to be shackled to the school a mile or two away.

Susan Pendergrass (22:04)
See you next time. I also think that starting in the 1950s—partly because of Brown v. Board—states and then the federal government started tinkering with the distribution of tax dollars to districts to give more money to poorer districts and less to wealthier districts. That’s been going on with funding formulas. I’m not sure any of them have had an impact on poor kids or reducing achievement gaps, but they thought that moving levers at the state and federal level would get a different outcome.
In my opinion, wealthier districts with higher property tax bases and more local funding aren’t really impacted by those. Now they say, you can move kids around—but not from us—because we’re not part of that system where you move money around. We’re happy with what we’ve got. If you can afford to live here, fine; but they want to be left out of it.

James Shuls (23:10)
Sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to weigh in on that last point, because—reason to listen to the podcast and get the book—this is not in the book, but Virgil Blum had some correspondence with Milton Friedman back in the ’50s and ’60s. They weren’t closely associated; they were operating in different circles. But Blum sent Friedman something he had written and asked for feedback. Friedman responded.
One thing he said was, when it comes to the voucher idea, he thought it should start at the higher education level, not K–12. Then he said it should be at the level where the taxation or the money is supplied. So in K–12, that probably means vouchers should come from the local community, not from the state or the federal government.
So to your point: we had a system that relied more on local tax dollars, and Friedman was saying the vouchers should be local. But we’ve shifted over time to a system that provides a lot more money from the state and federal government than it used to. If you look across the country, every school choice program is a state system—very rarely do you have a district creating a voucher system. It almost always comes at the state level. Even Friedman was wrong from time to time.

Susan Pendergrass (24:44)
On that note, I know you have a chapter on this, but what about this explosion of school choice? Now it feels unstoppable. We have more than a dozen states with universal-ish programs. At least five states have truly universal school choice systems. Why now? Why has it picked up steam so fast after barely making progress through the ’90s and early 2000s?

Neal McCluskey (25:17)
Jason Bedrick has a particular take on it—which I think is probably right—but I think it has deeper roots. Generally, the idea is people are unhappy and increasingly unhappy with how they’re being served by public schools.
My theory—and I think a lot of people hold this—is that COVID made people realize that in a public school system, if a powerful minority or majority wants X and you want Y, someone loses. Many parents who wanted in-person school—generally well-heeled and used to getting what they want—suddenly couldn’t get it. They realized the system didn’t work for them even if they liked it in theory.
Anecdotally, in rich places like Montclair, New Jersey, people were at each other’s throats because many wanted mutually exclusive things. Then you had ideological battles over vaccination and mask requirements. Many say that virtual school let parents see what their kids were learning, and they didn’t like it—books like Gender Queer, how African American history is taught, etc. We haven’t shown concretely that anger was because of peeking into the classroom via Zoom, but it certainly coincided. People were angry.
Jason argues that, yes, people were unhappy, but it wasn’t really COVID; it was the strategy of reaching out to red-state parents in environments where you could get school choice, saying: public schools are teaching stuff you don’t like; you don’t want your kids trapped in that. All the big school-choice gains were in red states—the red-state strategy worked. Now the future is moving into purple and blue states. I think that’s right too, but the underlying driver is people realizing one system can’t fit everyone.

James Shuls (28:32)
I’ll weigh in here too. Friedman made the free-market case for school choice in the ’50s, and that case continued to today—choice, competition, rising tides lift boats. You also had the progressive case in the ’70s and ’80s—students shouldn’t be trapped in failing schools; create programs to help the most disadvantaged. Those arguments kept creating small, targeted programs, but not a wider audience.
A third element—cultural, right-leaning values—added a new coalition. It layered on top of the free-market and progressive cases. I wouldn’t say the movement is completely going to the right; it’s making arguments that appeal to those individuals.
If you go to a rural Missouri voter and say “choice and competition,” with one local public high school and one elementary school, that doesn’t land. If you say the most disadvantaged students in St. Louis and Kansas City need choice, the rural voter may not care. But if you weigh in on some conservative values, you reach a new audience. Maybe that’s part of what’s happened.

Susan Pendergrass (30:24)
Just a bigger tent. It’s clear we’ve only scratched the surface of your book—this is only a 30-minute podcast and there’s so much more in there. A lot of it is so intriguing—going back to the history of this country and realizing the system we have now is relatively new compared to the various systems we’ve had.
Parents don’t really care what the name is on the outside of the school. They care about how their kids come home at the end of the day—how much they appear to be learning. They want them challenged; they want them safe. That’s universal. Whatever system gets them there, they don’t care what it’s called or what it looks like. If they thought they’d get it out of a uniform system and now they don’t…
There’s so much in this book. You picked a lot of great authors—12 leading education scholars. When will folks be able to buy this book and read it themselves, and where?

Neal McCluskey (31:37)
It comes out November 11th. I think it’s available online—online bookstores everywhere—as well as the Cato website, Cato.org.

Susan Pendergrass (31:43)
And can folks reach out to you guys if they have any comments or questions?

Neal McCluskey (31:53)
As long as it’s nice stuff, they can reach out to me.

Susan Pendergrass (31:55)
I can’t promise them.

James Shuls (31:55)
The nice stuff can reach out to me; the negative comments go to Neal.

Susan Pendergrass (32:00)
Well, it’s great. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It’s a fantastic book, and I highly recommend folks get it and read it themselves.

James Shuls (32:09)
Thank you.

Neal McCluskey (32:09)
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Long Fight for Educational Freedom with Neal McCluskey and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I find this very troubling.

Let’s backtrack a bit. Alderwoman Pihl, and Mayor Jones, have been very explicit about their desire to create more affordable housing in St. Louis. (St. Louis doesn’t actually have an affordable housing problem, and even if it did, government low-income housing programs would not be the way to remedy it; but that is a post for another day.)

In pursuit of that objective, Alderwoman Pihl appears to have a habit of “requesting” donations to affordable housing from developers who have projects in her ward. According to the Post-Dispatch story, Pihl also “requested,” and received, $1.8 million from the Steve Smith City Foundry in return for her support for its development project adjacent to the Aptitude site.

Now, I have made no secret of my distaste for the tax subsidies that municipalities routinely grant to developers that supposedly incentivize them to build certain projects. And I suppose if St. Louis is going to continue that practice, it makes sense to get as much as possible from the developers in return.

Yet, if the Post-Dispatch article is to be believed, Aptitude isn’t requesting any tax subsidies, which suggests that the alderwoman is using her control over development in her ward to exact funds from a private developer—not to pay for public expenses directly associated with the Aptitude project, but as a cost of doing business in the city.

In my opinion, that’s wrong. If the Aptitude project is consistent with previous rezoning requests and similar changes within that area of the city, it ought to be approved without requiring any supposedly voluntary contribution. Most importantly, the project will add housing options to the city, which will lead to an increase in affordable housing, even though the housing being built in this project is on the more expensive side.

I’m not suggesting that the alderwoman is making these requests to feather her own financial nest. I think she’s trying to accomplish a goal consistent with the duties of her office.  But practices like this are characteristic of countries without the rule of law; once they become routine, they lead inevitably to threats and backroom deals and eventually outright corruption.

Here are a few questions for our leaders. Why is it necessary to alternate between bribing private corporations with tax subsidies and extorting “contributions” from them? Why should private development projects, or public goods like affordable housing, turn on the success or failure of deals negotiated by individual lawmakers? Might it instead be possible to improve the city by creating good policies, incorporating them into law, and applying the law consistently for the benefit of the public?

In other words, why not try some good government for a change?

The post Asking Developers to Make “Voluntary Donations” is Troubling appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis County, Saint Louis City, and Brentwood have decided to mandate that new construction and major renovations for several types of properties (residential and/or commercial, depending on the jurisdiction) must be accompanied by EV charging stations. None of these mandates consider the $5,000-per-charger cost businesses will face, and some of these regulations impose a substantial fine for being a day late and an EV charger short.

Some places—like apartments and office buildings where people park for hours at a time—are a good fit for EV chargers. But for other places, a charging station could actually be a liability. Think of places like diners or convenience stores, whose business models rely on getting people in and out quickly. The last thing the owner of a small diner needs is someone who comes in and occupies a table for an hour or longer, nursing a coffee while his car charges. That’s why decisions about where the chargers should be installed are best left to businesses rather than being determined by a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

If local officials want more EV charging stations, perhaps they should first clarify where they can be built rather than dictating where they must be built. Ironically, the municipal codes for the Saint Louis jurisdictions mandating chargers are mum about where chargers can be built outside of the areas where they are mandatory. This lack of clarity results in several weeks of permitting and site plan reviews, which often vary by jurisdiction. This is backwards. Dozens of municipalities nationwide have amended their codes to allow EV chargers to be built wherever property owners see fit and have fast-tracked the permitting process to finish, in some cases within a day. For example, Kane County, Illinois, and Bellevue, Washington, allow EV chargers to be built in all zoning districts. Several states, such as New Jersey, New York, and Oregon, have classified the installation of EV chargers as “minor work,” which helps speed up installation times and cut down on permitting costs. Chicago grants EV charger installation permits within a day and even provides a guide for the installation process. These are all simple ways to speed up the proliferation of EV chargers without twisting anyone’s arm.

Local officials are right to recognize that fueling an EV is different than fueling a traditional car. Due to the time it takes to charge, EV drivers won’t be waiting in lines at centralized “electron stations.” Rather, they’ll incorporate charging into their everyday life. As more Missourians buy EVs, it will make good business sense for more businesses and property owners to install EV charging stations, either to retain current customers or attract new ones. What EV driver wouldn’t the option of charging his or her car while at the grocery store or while typing away at work? Likewise, charging stations at apartment complex could become an appreciated—or even expected—amenity for prospective tenants.

Policymakers could also make it easier for Missourians to buy EVs. Currently some uncertainty exists about the validity in Missouri of the direct sales model that many EV companies use to sell their cars. Several years ago, Tesla was taken to court over the legality of selling its cars to customers without using a franchised dealership. While Tesla eventually won, it’s not clear if other EV companies would be granted the same freedom to sell. With many more EV companies using direct sales entering the market, ensuring they can operate in Missouri can bring EVs to thousands more residents.

EVs come with many benefits. They help improve local air quality and reduce the transportation sector’s overall environmental impact. For Saint Louis EV drivers, charging their EV at home can lead to hundreds of dollars of fuel cost savings each year compared to a gasoline-powered car. EVs have lower lifetime maintenance costs than gasoline-powered cars. EVs can succeed on their own merits; forcing the hand of property owners is the wrong way to speed up the EV adoption process.

The post EV Charging Stations Don’t Need Mandates to Succeed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The twelve states with occupational licensing reciprocity are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Notably, only one of Missouri’s border states and very few midwestern states have adopted this policy.

Being on the forefront of this movement gives Missouri a competitive advantage. We’ve significantly decreased the red tape that burdens workers when they relocate. Many licensed workers can move to Missouri and continue working much more easily than if they moved to Kansas or Illinois, for example. It’s the legislative equivalent of a giant arrow above Missouri telling workers to move here.

Though there is still more work to be done, occupational licensing reciprocity was a step in the right direction. It’s icing on the cake that Missouri was one of the first states to adopt this legislation, giving us a huge advantage over surrounding states.

The post Hey Licensed Professionals: It’s Time to Move to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian free-market organization, wrote of the study in a recent newsletter and addressed two concerns likely to be raised in Missouri:

One of the most important is the idea that a system using GPS would “track” everywhere the vehicle goes. He [the author of the study] points out, correctly, that GPS is a one-way system: it enables the car to know where it is at all times, but the GPS satellite and its operators do not know. The basic concept is that an on-board unit on the vehicle would total up the miles driven (and which states those miles occurred in) and transmit the totals to the relevant jurisdictions (e.g., New York and New Jersey) so each can levy per-mile charges.

Another oft-heard concern is that because rural residents drive longer distances, they would be made worse off by a miles-charged system. Drawing on research from Rand Corporation and others, Rob’s report explains that rural residents tend to own older, gas-guzzling vehicles compared with urban residents, so most of them would be better off paying by the mile rather than by the gallon. Detailed TRB research papers bear this out. Similar data call into question the equity argument; Rob reminds us that lower-income households tend to drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles compared with wealthier people. Like rural residents, most low-income urban-area residents would be better off paying by miles driven than by gallons used.

Former Show-Me Institute analyst Joe Miller addressed the issues facing the Missouri Department of Transportation in a 2016 paper, which included consideration of user fees such as mileage-based fees. As Poole points out, the ITIF policy paper is too heavy on top-down federal and state mandates. Instead, he urges states to experiment with ways for drivers to track their mileage and report it to private-sector service providers rather than state or federal agencies—as drivers will likely view it a violation of privacy.

Advances in technology such as more fuel-efficient cars pose a challenge to the old ways of raising infrastructure funds. Technology also permits us many more ways of addressing policy needs. It should be no surprise that there are likely more efficient ways for governments to collect the revenue necessary to provide for basic services. Policymakers should be open to considering those opportunities.

The post Are Mileage-Based User Fees Good For Missourians? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a researcher, I can’t stress enough that correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I’m still struck by the following graphic.

This graphic was created by the Urban Institute for their 2015 report, Breaking the Curve: Promises and Pitfalls of Using NAEP Data to Assess the State Role in Student Achievement. The states in the bottom left quadrant are those that both performed in the bottom half of all states on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2013, and also saw their NAEP scores decline between 2003 and 2013, after controlling for student demographics. And the states in this bottom left quadrant are mostly states with little or no school choice. The states in orange had no charter schools in 2013, and those in blue only allowed charter schools as punishment for low performance. Oklahoma gave up using charters as a last resort for low-performing districts in 2015, but Missouri has not. Iowa and Wyoming had fewer than 400 students in charter schools in 2013. By contrast, Florida and Texas had over 200,000 students enrolled in charter schools that same year. Pennsylvania had almost 120,000 charter school students and New Jersey and Massachusetts had about 30,000 each.

If school choice killed public education, this graphic would look a lot different. I’m perplexed that the states in the bottom left quadrant, including Missouri, think that taking a strong stance against school choice is a winning strategy.

The post States with School Choice Reap the Benefits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s why news broken by Samantha Liss at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch should be very welcome to patients in Missouri and elsewhere, as it appears the market for at least some pharmacy services is about to grow:

Throughout the past year, and without much fanfare, Amazon.com Inc. has gained approval to become a wholesale distributor from a number of state pharmaceutical boards, according to a review of public records….

According to a review of records by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Amazon has received approval for wholesale pharmacy licenses in at least 12 states, including Nevada, Arizona, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee.

An application is currently pending in the state of Maine.

An Amazon spokesperson told the Post-Dispatch via email that the company does not comment on “rumors and speculation.”

It’s a little complicated, but one of the big questions surrounding the Post-Dispatch report is the ultimate aim of the Amazon filings—that is, whether Amazon wants to open up a pharmacy benefits management business only, or whether a soup to nuts model is also in the tech giant’s future. Does Amazon want to be Express Scripts? Does it want to be Walgreens? Or does it want to be both? I would welcome all of the above, actually, and I suspect millions of Amazon customers would feel likewise.

And despite the failure of our Federal representatives to actually do what they said and repeal Obamacare, there is still reason to be optimistic about the trajectory of care in this country. Along with the reform initiatives above, tech innovations like 3D printing of prosthetics, and much more, the potential entry of Amazon into the pharmaceutical space reiterates that the future of health care as some government product remains anything but assured. After all, people are markets, and markets are powerful things.

The post Is Amazon Getting into the Pharmacy Business? Let’s Hope So appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Moore is correct that metropolitan areas are falling over themselves to lure Amazon. In doing so, many will offer all sorts of taxpayer subsidized goodies such as tax credits, property tax abatements and tax-increment financing.  Philadelphia offered to forgo property tax for 10 years; New Jersey is offering 7 billion dollars of tax incentives. Here in Missouri, Saint Louis and Kansas City areas have both submitted proposals—but won’t share them with the public. If the past is any indication, they will likewise be loaded with such taxpayer giveaways.

Therein lies the problem. Big companies seek and get a great deal of public assistance. Using the online subsidy tracker developed by Good Jobs First, one can see that the companies constituting the executive council of TechNet have received at least $1.2 billion in state and federal subsidies—almost five times more than the $250 million Moore calls for in additional federal education funding.

Like any company, Amazon doesn’t want to pay any more taxes than it has to. The problem is that subsidies such as those being offered for their new headquarters actually divert money away from schools, libraries and other basic services funded by property taxes. The size of the various Amazon proposals only multiplies the effect. Most of those hired to work at the new headquarters would likely be drawn from elsewhere, placing additional demands on school districts in the form of hundreds of new children—while granting the districts no additional resources. This is in addition to the stresses placed on infrastructure and other services, such as and policing.

Because federal funding for education makes up only a small portion of any school district’s budget, the terrible irony is that even with the increase in federal funding Moore calls for, the school districts in the city that “wins” Amazon’s second headquarters may still be worse off because of the loss of local property taxes.

Seventy-three civic organizations responded to these realities by writing an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos demanding that Amazon pay its taxes—including on “building materials, machinery and equipment.”  The letter also includes the following:

If you want a highly-educated local talent pool you must pay all of your property taxes to fund our schools, public safety, infrastructure and other public goods and services.

If tech leaders like those at TechNet want to increase education funding of any kind, they should stop asking national, state and local governments to subsidize their companies and start contributing their fair share to public coffers.

The post TechNet Companies: Want More Education Funding? Then Pay Your Fair Share. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Star editorial board has been critical of the secrecy, noting in an October 6 column that the agreement is

aimed at keeping a lid on Amazon’s proprietary information — not the cities’ best arguments about why they would be perfect for HQ2. Other contender cities that are playing by the same Amazon-imposed rules have managed to make more information public.

The state of Missouri, without favoring either Kansas City or Saint Louis, issued what can best be called a brochure for doing business in the Cave State. (It’s been called a proposal, but that is a generous description of the 13-page slide show.)

Until we know the details, we’ll just have to sit and wait to see what commitments municipal leaders have made on behalf of taxpayers. If the past is any indication, they will include generous taxpayer subsidies in the form of abatements, tax credits, and tax-exempt freebies wherever possible. Philadelphia is offering ten years of property tax abatement. New Jersey’s bid included $7 billion in tax incentives.

The question for taxpayers will be whether the benefit is worth the investment. Research suggests this is rarely the case. One economist from Mizzou, Saku Aura, put it bluntly:

As a Missouri taxpayer, I really hope Amazon doesn’t come here. The place that most grossly overestimates the benefits from a large company moving is going to be the one who’s going to get it. If they choose to come to Missouri, to me that would almost imply that we ended up being the biggest sucker among the 50 states.

Is Missouri being played for a sucker? Richard Florida, an urban studies theorist focusing on social and economic theory seems to think so. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Florida said, “the cities I talked (to) all know they are being taken and resent it.” Among those cities would be Kansas City, as Florida was a paid consultant to its effort

The post Are Kansas City and Saint Louis Getting Taken? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

More than 40 years after that song was released, the state of Connecticut is learning a lesson from  policies that heavily tax the rich. According to the Associated Press:

New figures released last week show tax revenue from the state’s top 100 highest-paying taxpayers declined 45 percent from 2015 to 2016. The drop adds up to a $200 million revenue loss for the state…

This latest drop in tax revenues paid by the wealthy, a problem for the past several years, has exacerbated Connecticut’s current budget woes. The projected deficit for the new fiscal year beginning July 1 has now jumped from about $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion, while the deficit predicted for the second year of the state’s two-year budget is now about $2.7 billion. The state’s main spending account, the general fund, is roughly about $18 billion annually.

As the headquarters of several hedge funds, Connecticut is especially sensitive to changes in that industry. Recent fund failures have meant that investors have sought to protect themselves from risk, meaning less profit and a double whammy for the Nutmeg State.

The commissioner for the state’s Department of Revenue Services conceded to the AP that “part of revenue decline can also be attributed to ‘a handful’ of wealthy individuals who moved to more tax-friendly states.” Imagine that. If your state levies higher taxes on the wealthy than other states do, the wealthy leave. The AP story also cites a similar example in New Jersey last year.

Soak-the-rich tax policies may seem great on bumper stickers and in song lyrics, but they are no way to run an economy. As we have written, in Missouri and elsewhere governments must compete against one another. Rather than penalize producers to cover for profligate spending, government should only tax what is needed to provide basic services effectively and efficiently.

To their credit, even Ten Years After wasn’t convinced of the merits of their proposal, ending with the refrain,

I’d love to change the world
But I don’t know what to do
So I’ll leave it up to you

The post What’s the Matter with Connecticut? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The chart below plots the average annual growth rate for each of the 50 states and for the United States as whole for the period 1997 through 2015. The good news is that Missouri’s average annual growth rate increased from 0.93 percent when computed over the 1997 through 2014 period to 1.02 percent when computed over the 1997 through 2015 period. Missouri reported a 1.29 percent growth rate in its real GDP between 2014 and 2015. No one really jumps for joy when growth rates are reported at 1.3 percent for a year; however, Missouri did manage to stagger its way one rung up the ladder, from 49th-fastest to 48th-fastest growing state economy over the period from 1997 through 2015.

Overall, the story for Missouri is little changed compared to a year ago. Since the late 1990s, Missouri’s economy has increased at half the rate of that of the United States as a whole. Eighteen years is not a terribly long time, and we all hope that Missouri’s future will be brighter. But the question remains: Why has the Missouri economy reported such slow growth over the past eighteen years?

The answer is not simple. Note that the ten fastest growing states are: North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, California, Idaho, Arizona, and Oklahoma. There is no one clear feature shared by these ten states that can account for their economic success. Some of them do have natural resources and have benefitted from being able to dig a hole in the ground and extract things that are valuable to the rest of the world. But that is not the only explanation. For example, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah (at least) do not fit the oil/natural gas story. Alternatively, the ten states with the lowest growth rates are Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, West Virginia, Maine, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, and New Jersey. No single attribute these states might have in common would account for their struggles, either.

Income tax rates cannot, alone, explain the differences in growth rates. The nine states with no earned income taxes (followed by rankings) are: Alaska (40), Florida (20), Nevada (16), New Hampshire (25), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (30), Texas (2), Washington (13), and Wyoming (11). The nine states with the highest marginal income tax rates (followed by rankings) are: California (7), Hawaii (37), Oregon (4), Minnesota (17), Iowa (23), New Jersey (42), Vermont (26), New York (29), and Maine (46). The mean rank for the nine states with no income taxes is 17.8 while the mean rank for the nine states with the highest income tax rates is 25.7.

Overall, the evidence does not prove, but does suggest, that income tax rates do matter for economic growth. Of course, a host of other factors matter as well. In order to assess the role of income tax rates on growth, the ideal test would involve holding everything else constant. In other words, you would want to examine a parallel version of New Jersey, for example, but one with a lower income tax rate. Holding everything else constant, economic theory suggests that New Jersey would grow faster.

The broader message is that lots of factors that influence a state’s economic growth rate. Each state is an experiment in which tax rates, school quality, and various government services are provided endogenously by state policymakers. The bundle of policies and regulations is too large and complicated for us to identify how each one matters. And on top of the political attributes, there are the things that lie underground, or on the ground itself (or the ocean front—or lack thereof), that people living in each state can consume. All policymakers can do is to try and manage the factors they can influence in a way that will help their state grow faster.

In case you are wondering, Kansas ranked as the 29th-fastest-growing state over this period. So, why can’t Missouri grow at least as fast as its neighbor? It’s a frustrating question, because we have a Gordian knot of regulations, laws, and policies that make it difficult to determine specific causes of our stagnation. Not only have policymakers failed to move Missouri in the right direction in the 21st century, but the complexity of our state’s problems prevents us from understanding why various initiatives have failed to produce their intended results. In my view, it seems like a good time for Missouri to review its entire spectrum of policies. For instance, we have not had a constitutional convention in this state since 1947. Maybe it is time for an institutional overhaul.

The post It Could Be Worse. Not Much Worse, but It Could Be Worse. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Far from it. Of the 77 U.S. cities that KPMG ranked (which was not exhaustive of all major metros), Saint Louis ranked 45th and Kansas City ranked 46th. Among the cities cheaper than Saint Louis (and Kansas City) are regional competitors like Nashville, Omaha, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Worse yet, Saint Louis was more expensive than all 18 Southeastern cities KPMG looked at, from Atlanta to New Orleans.

So where did the Post-Dispatch get a top ten ranking for Saint Louis? If we only consider regions with populations greater than two million (of which KPMG ranked 31), Saint Louis is the 9th cheapest. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Saint Louis should pat itself on back for being cheaper than New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, when it has higher costs for businesses than Nashville, Memphis, and just about every other regional competitor. But if we do decide to use population as criteria, it seems more justified to look at metros with populations similar to those of Saint Louis and Kansas City (between two and three million residents). When we do that, Saint Louis is 7th and Kansas City is 8th out of 14 such cities. That seems awfully middling.

That’s probably why, if one reads the study that the Post-Dispatch reports on, they’ll find that it does not claim that Saint Louis is among the most competitive cities in the country. KPMG didn’t even break down cities by population in the study, choosing instead to do so by region.  The Post-Dispatch story (while citing the study) is actually based on an ancillary KPMG press release, which lauds Cincinnati, and is careful to note context.

Titling an article “St. Louis among most cost-competitive cities for business, report says” when the report in question says no such thing is a questionable decision for a newspaper of record. But this is not just a problem with the headline. The article itself is equally misleading, and it was not a headline writer who placed this story front and center on the Post-Dispatch’s website less than a week before a vote on multiple tax issues (where the city’s business climate is an issue). 

The post Report: Saint Louis, Kansas City *Not* Among Most Cost-Friendly Cities for Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Much like with the NFL, civic daydreamers pine for MLS teams. City officials hope pro soccer can revitalize neighborhoods, bring in tax revenue, and draw hip residents. That’s what Bridgeview hoped when the city covered the entire cost of Toyota Park, at the cost nearly $100 million. Unfortunately, promises went unfulfilled. Bridgeview is now in dire financial straits, $225 million in debt with a population of just over 16,000.

None of this should come as any surprise. While the phenomenon of cities spending money on MLS teams is new, cities have long subsidized stadiums for other professional sports. The evidence is clear that building these stadiums does not increase economic growth, spur urban revitalization, or increase tax revenue sufficiently to cover large subsidies. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the cost of soccer-only stadiums has risen over time, along with the subsidies:

So what of the MLS in Saint Louis? With the Rams leaving for Los Angeles, the push to land an MLS team is on. A bill in the Missouri legislature proposes sales tax increases in Saint Louis City and County for a new stadium, likely near Union Station.

But much like the Rams’ riverfront stadium plan, there is little reason to believe that an MLS stadium will do any more for the city than it has done for Bridgeview. Furthermore, private owners have funded their own MLS stadiums, as was the case with Crew Stadium, in Columbus, Ohio. Saint Louis, if MLS officials are to be believed, is a strong soccer town. If the “beautiful game” is so appreciated here, an entrepreneurial owner should be able build a stadium, bring the city an expansion team, and make money. If Columbus doesn’t need to buy a soccer stadium, Saint Louis shouldn’t need to. And if no such owner is to be found, soccer supporters could use crowdfunding like Kickstarter to fund a stadium, if such a proposition is so popular. Given the city’s issues with its existing stadiums, perhaps we should make sure we can afford what we have before we bring in a new pro team.

The post MLS to Saint Louis: On Whose Dime? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s also why I do a facepalm when someone compares Missouri’s teacher salaries to the average salaries in other states.

In a recent press release promoting a new study on teacher salaries, Bruce Moe, executive director of the Missouri State Teacher’s Association, said, “Missouri ranks 42nd nationwide for average classroom teacher pay. That translates to $8,896 less than the national average.”

Let’s do a little test. Here is a cost-of-living map from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC). It provides an index for each state. Missouri’s cost of living in the 3rd quarter of 2015 was just 91.2% of the national average. Using just this information, what states would you bet have the highest teacher salaries?

Did you guess New York, Washington D.C., or California? Give yourself a gold star!

According to the Digest of Education Statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (Table 211.60), the average teacher salary in each of these places was over $70,000. Massachusetts and New Jersey also have average salaries higher than $70,000, but each of these places has a cost-of-living that is much higher than the national average (including 149.3% of the national average in D.C.!).

According to MERIC, “Missouri had the 11th-lowest cost of living in the United States for the third quarter of 2015.” We should expect the average teacher salary in Missouri to be below the national average, because the cost-of-living in Missouri is below the national average.

Just as teachers in Saint Louis and Kansas City make more than teachers in Mt. Vernon and Niangua, teachers in New York and California make more, on average, than teachers in Missouri. This is not a bad thing—it simply reflects that it costs a lot less to live here. Not taking that into account yields wildly skewed results, and the MSTA should know better.

The post Comparing Teacher Pay by State Offers Heat, but Little Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why is his opinion important?  Because he is the author of one of the most influential studies touted by those promoting an increase in the minimum wage.

Together with David Card of the University of California–Berkeley, Krueger analyzed the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on employment in fast-food restaurants. In 1992 New Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 while Pennsylvania did not.  Their analysis found that fast-food restaurant employment growth in New Jersey was not adversely affected by the change.  This isolated case study from several decades ago has become, even though it is much criticized, the go-to piece of research touted by minimum wage advocates ever since. 

A proponent of raising the minimum wage, even Krueger recognizes that increasing it to $15 would likely do more damage to workers than good.  Especially to those workers at the low end of the pay scale.  Especially to those workers who live in a city like St. Louis, which is not a high-wage/high-cost city.  Increasing the minimum wage to $15 in St. Louis, as some have proposed, would devastate low-income workers in two ways.  First, some businesses would decamp to surrounding areas with lower minimum wages. And of the businesses that stayed in Saint Louis city, many would cut employees or reduce hours in order to control their labor costs. The trade-off for increasing the minimum wage to $15 is just too great to be sensible.

Krueger recognizes that there is a viable alternative to a minimum wage hike: the earned-income tax credit.  This tonic to the plight of the low-income family has been recommended by those on the left and the right as a better solution to the poverty problem than the use of a blunt tool like the minimum wage.  Christina Romer, another University of California–Berkeley professor and one-time chair of president Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors wrote in The New York Times in 2013 that the earned-income income tax credit “is very well targeted—the subsidy goes only to poor families—and could easily be made more generous.”

Krueger warns that the possibility of negatively affecting employment for low-income workers by raising the minimum wage to $15 “is likely to become more severe, and the risk greater.”  If proponents will not listen to the warnings of free-market economists, will they at least consider Krueger’s counsel before acting rashly?

The post Even Krueger Agrees: $15 Minimum Wage Too High appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, this might strike you as odd when you hear over and over that charter schools are destroying public education.  Kansas City and St. Louis each have more than one-third of their students enrolled in charter schools, and yet, the traditional public school districts seem to be getting better.  How can this be?

It’s possible that either by stirring competition, more efficiently sorting students into options that serve them, or relieving pressure from school districts, charter schools are helping once struggling districts turn a corner.  Whatever the reason, it is hard to look at these numbers and see charter schools harming either district.

I should also point out that both districts started in very bad places.  In 2011, Kansas City had a graduation rate of 50 percent and St. Louis was at 54 percent.  Even with their gains, the Kansas City School District sits at only 67 percent and St. Louis at 68 percent. This puts them on par with cities like Newark, New Jersey (68 percent) and Compton, California (65 percent). They perform worse in absolute terms than neighboring cities like Little Rock (75 percent) and even Chicago (70 percent).  Inauspicious company. Clearly, there is still a long, long way to go.

Around the rest of the state, there was both good news and bad news.

The overall graduation rate in Missouri is up, from 81% in 2011 to 85.7% in 2013. That gain represents the 6^th best growth rate in the country over that time period. At the same time, though, Hispanic students in the class of 2013 graduated at a rate of 81 percent, low-income students graduated at a rate of 78 percent, and African-American students graduated at a rate of only 72 percent.

The report also broke out the performance of districts with at least 15,000 students:

• Around Kansas City, North Kansas City saw a graduation rate of 91 percent and Lee’s Summit clocked in at 94 percent.
• In greater St. Louis, Hazelwood saw an 86 percent graduation rate, Ft. Zumwalt 89 percent, Francis Howell 92 percent, Parkway 93 percent, and Rockwood 94 percent.
• Columbia had a graduation rate of 86 percent and Springfield had one of 87 percent.

All in all, a very interesting report that should inform conversations about education around the state.

The post If charter schools are ruining education in Missouri, more please! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Funds raised from our Fourth Annual Soiree will fund the gap between public dollars and the true cost of educating every SLLIS student,” reads the invitation for an upcoming fundraiser for the St. Louis Language Immersions Schools.

Because SLLIS is a charter school, it does not receive the same amount of public dollars as a traditional public school. In 2011, on average, Missouri charter schools received $3,800 less than traditional public schools.

“Missouri’s charter public schools are living up to their end of the bargain and demonstrating the ability to provide a high quality education. It’s time to move past ‘stepchild’ funding and ensure every public school in Missouri receives equitable funding,” Missouri Public Charter Schools Association Executive Director Doug Thaman wrote in the Missouri Times.

While some argue that charters are able to fill the gap in funding through fundraising, a recent report found that charitable donations do not eliminate the funding gap between charters and traditional public schools.

Buckets of Water into the Ocean: Non-Public Revenue in Public Charter and Traditional Public Schools found that revenue from nonpublic sources (non-public food service, investment revenue, philanthropic fundraising, etc.) totaled almost 6.4 billion for traditional public schools and nearly 400 million for charter schools in the 15 states included in the study.

Interestingly, the authors found that traditional public schools receive most of their non-public revenues from selling meals to their students and investment profits. Charter schools receive most of their non-public revenue through philanthropy. Still, charitable donations do not make up the difference—adding as little as $74 (New Jersey) and as high as $1320 (Hawaii) to total per pupil revenue.

The findings of this report may change the conversation in Missouri as revisions to the way schools are funded are considered. One of the authors of the study, Arkansas Professor Patrick Wolf said:

If students in public charter schools are to receive funding on a par with students in traditional, district-run, public schools, it will have to come from more equitable public school funding laws.  Saying that charitable donations can make up the funding gap between district-run and charter schools is like saying that throwing buckets of water into the ocean will change the tide.

The post Equitable Funding For Charter Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“‘I can think of no better place to host the Super Bowl than Kansas City, the best football town in America,’ [State Senator Paul] LeVota said in a statement. ‘We’ve got incredible fans and a city more than capable of handling such a huge event.’

“Not only would the fans love it, but the economic impact would be enormous, he said.”

Ah, there is that elusive term, “economic impact.” It is thrown about to justify all sorts of government spending, but it is little examined by media and little understood by the taxpayers whose money will be used. We recently reviewed similar claims about Kansas City’s effort to attract the GOP convention. In that piece, we cited a Daily Beast story about the recent Super Bowl in New Jersey:

“So, there’s no economically sound way to predict a Super Bowl’s impact before the event and those that try have been proven wrong again and again. But don’t expect that to stop the cheering from the few with the most to gain. When asked for a more detailed analysis of Super Bowl XLVIII, the host committee demurred, but assured in a statement, ‘Super Bowl XLVIII is expected to be an economic boom [sic] for the region.'”

A 2006 study conducted by the College of the Holy Cross, “Mega-Events: The effect of the world’s biggest sporting events on local, regional, and national economies,” analyzes past Super Bowl impacts. The report concludes with a sobering warning to those who would embark on such expenses:

“The most important piece of advice that a local government can take regarding mega-events, however, is simply to view with caution any economic impact estimates provided by entities with an incentive to provide inflated benefit figures. While most sports boosters claim that mega-events provide host cities with large economic returns, these same boosters present these figures as justification for receiving substantial public subsidies for hosting the games. The vast majority of independent academic studies of mega-events show the benefits to be a fraction of those claimed by event organizers.”

Hosting a Super Bowl in Kansas City would be a great opportunity to show off our city to the rest of the world. Afterall, the term “Super Bowl” was coined by Chiefs owner and American Football League founder Lamar Hunt. But regional boosters need not wear blinders. At what cost does such an event cease to be worthwhile, especially when so many basic services in Kansas City already seem to be falling by the wayside? If we’re going to bring people to the City of Fountains, let’s at least make sure we can afford to operate the fountains.

The post Of Super Bowls and Economics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

FOX 4 reporter Macradee Aegerter also asked about the claims of economic development that come from such conventions. I said in the interview that such claims are speculative, the bid committee often employs the economists that make the claims, and that the real impact rarely lives up to the hype. (This segment aired in the 6 p.m. version of the story, which is not yet online.) In the segment, a member of the bid committee claimed that the convention would have an economic impact of $250,000,000. That’s a quarter-billion dollars.

We don’t believe it. (Or, perhaps more delicately, we want to verify those numbers before we believe it.)

Certainly, having such a convention in Kansas City is a good thing, and not just for the money it will bring to the area. As a matter of pride, I would love to see Kansas City host again on the 40th anniversary of our last convention. But the idea that having the convention here amounts to a net gain of $250 million is absurd, and it casts a light on how calculating the economic impact of other items is the economic equivalent of alchemy.

The host committee is likely assuming that without the convention, hotel occupancy would be zero. Spending downtown would be zero. Travel in and out of Kansas City would be zero. Then it still probably over-estimates what will be spent here because of the convention. In reality, a hotel that would have had 70 percent occupancy without the convention may have 95 percent occupancy because of the convention. One can claim the difference as “economic impact” but not all of it. But we won’t know how the committee reached the quarter-billion number until it reveals how it calculated a $250,000,000 impact. (If the committee releases the estimate and it proves to be legitimate economic analysis with a multiplier effect below two, we will gladly admit we are wrong.)

As written in the Daily Beast story about the recent Super Bowl in New Jersey:

So, there’s no economically sound way to predict a Super Bowl’s impact before the event and those that try have been proven wrong again and again. But don’t expect that to stop the cheering from the few with the most to gain. When asked for a more detailed analysis of Super Bowl XLVIII, the host committee demurred, but assured in a statement, “Super Bowl XLVIII is expected to be an economic boom [sic] for the region.”

We’re not asking the committee to reveal anything legitimately embargoed about its bid. We just want to know how the committee arrived at that estimate for the impact should the convention occur in Kansas City. Certainly, Republicans would agree that the sound economic policies they advocate require sound economic assumptions — otherwise, how are they supposed to be any more responsible with taxpayer money?

The post Kansas City Republicans’ Absurd Claims appeared first on Show-Me Institute.