There are currently no figures available for how many Missouri students opted out, but the Wall Street Journal reported that 20 percent of students opted out of New York state tests this year.

A recently released survey showed that despite lobbying from an eclectic group of advocacy organizations (including Tea Party Republicans, Black Lives Matter activists, and teachers’ unions), 59 percent of Americans are opposed to parents deciding whether or not their child takes a standardized test. At the same time, the 2015 Education Next poll indicated that a large number of Americans do not believe state governments do a very good job of measuring what students learn in math and reading.

So while Americans may want to know how students are doing at the state and national level, state governments may want to rethink how they hold schools accountable.

NPR Education highlighted four alternatives to standardized testing that were featured in Anya Kamenetz’s book, Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing, but You Don’t Have to Be, as follows:

(1)   Sample. Instead of every student taking a test, only a small, representative group does. This alternative wouldn’t require changing anything about the testing process or the actual test itself, but it would give many kids a break from testing year after year.

(2)   Stealth assessment. Students are tested throughout the year using low-stakes evaluations such as quizzes. The data shows which skills students have mastered at a particular moment as opposed to measuring all students in all skills at the same point in the year.

(3)   Multiple measures. This is just what it sounds like. School districts are evaluated using graduation rates, discipline, demographic information, teacher created assessments, and post-graduation outcomes. 

(4)   Social and emotional skills surveys. Studies show that students can be evaluated using nonacademic measures. Some districts are using measures like hope, for example, as a way to evaluate their students’ high school and college potential. In 2014, 64 percent of Rockwood students reported feeling hopeful.

(5)   Inspections. This type of policy places an emphasis on student assessments, as well as presentations, performances, and reports. In the United Kingdom, for example, inspectors observe lessons, evaluate work, and interview students and staff members.

What should Missouri’s public school accountability system look like? Is it really necessary to test all students every year? Are there better measures than just reading and math proficiency? These are tough questions, but taking a long look at alternatives to standardized testing might provide answers.

The post Opt Out? Or Opt In to Other Accountability Measures appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here we go.

Question 1: Who said the following – a union, or the Tea Party?

[F]or two years we have sought from the Administration and Congress interpretations to the ACA [Affordable Care Act] that merely allows us keep the health plans we currently have: nothing more, nothing less. No special treatment. …

Question 2: Union … or … Tea Party?

[T]he unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40 hour work week, higher taxes …

Question 3: Union … or … Tea Party?

[T]he Congress and the Administration have demonstrated they have the authority and power to make dozens of other corrections to the ACA, including taking care of big business and well-paid Congressional staff members…

And Question 4: Is this a union … or the Tea Party?

[T]hat [this group urges] Congress and President Obama to undertake immediate changes to the implementation and regulation of the ACA.

If you answered “Tea Party” to all of these, you would be … completely wrong. The statements come from a resolution that the Nevada chapter of the AFL-CIO passed last week “Urging the President and Congress to Uphold Their Promise for Unions to Keep their Current Healthcare Plans Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

As it turns out, even if union members like their plans, they may not get to keep them, thanks to provisions in the ACA that incentivize employers to dump some workers into the exchanges rather than provide them health benefits. Indeed, union health care benefits are a big reason many members join a union in the first place; without the robust health benefits that the union negotiates, union membership would become considerably less valuable and paying union dues would become less attractive to union members. Less union power means fewer union members means less union power … you get the picture. Let’s just say unions should have read the bill more closely before they supported it.

But at least it seems like we’re all in agreement on one thing: it’s time to reopen the law. The question now is, when will the obstructionism in Washington, D.C., end so real health care reform can begin? How long will Americans, union and non-union, have to stomach the ACA before the ACA’s architects concede they made a lot of mistakes and that the law needs to be overhauled? Stay tuned.

The post Time For A Game Of ‘UNION… OR… TEA PARTY!’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to watch the video of the event.

The post Donnybrook: Audrey Spalding Reappears on KETC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I thought that we as a state were making steady progress toward that end. As I see it, there have been a number of real pluses:

• Over the past couple years, the Missouri legislature responded to a challenging fiscal environment with responsible spending cuts, as opposed to harmful tax increases;
• Missouri is home to a robust Tea Party movement; and
• Missouri fielded a bumper crop of candidates espousing strong free-market principles during the November 2010 mid-term elections.

But now I am wondering how much progress we have really made — given what seems to me the complete abandonment of principle by some self-described conservatives in the legislature. These so-called conservatives have thrown their support behind the proposed bill to grant $360 million in tax credits for the supposed purpose of creating a “China Midwest Hub” or “Aerotropolis” at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

This legislation — which may be considered at a special session of the legislature in September — would spawn the largest tax credit subsidy in Missouri history.

The proposed bill is also the epitome of bad public policy. Let me count some of the ways that it fails the test of serving the public good:

• It would take from the many (basically, all Missourians who pay income taxes, as individuals or businesses owners) and give to the few (mostly to owners or developers of warehouses and real estate in designated areas near the airport, some of whom have already received or are in line to receive substantial tax credits);
• The legislation is being rushed to a vote in the absence of anything resembling a serious cost-benefit analysis — and in the absence of any proof the Chinese government or ANY major air carrier is committed to a plan to turn Lambert into a major air cargo hub;
• It therefore represents a huge (and completely misplaced) leap of faith in the ability of our legislators to outsmart and outthink the marketplace in putting taxpayers’ money at risk.

In a positive development earlier this year, top business leaders in the Kansas City metropolitan area called on the governors of Missouri and Kansas to declare an armistice in a senseless “border war” over the use of economic development incentives to poach jobs from one side of the state line to the other. The two-way traffic of companies chasing tax credits has depleted tax revenues in both states without a net increase in wealth or employment. We should all give thanks for this outbreak of common sense.

Now, however, supporters of the Aerotropolis legislation would have us believe that it will create thousands of jobs in the Saint Louis metropolitan area and generate nearly $34 billion in economic activity over a 20-year period — paying back the original investment in taxpayers’ money more than 100 times over. Why, then, is the smart money (private capital) staying on the sidelines? Why hasn’t it acted on its own — given the supposedly fabulous returns cited by supporters?

The answer is clear: The underlying economics is not there. Heavily promoted “investment opportunities” predicated on tax credits or other subsidies are almost always accidents waiting to happen.

A dozen or so years ago, we were told that subsidizing a new runway at Lambert would bring new traffic, and it didn’t. We were also told the Mid-America Airport — deeply subsidized on the Illinois side — would bring huge traffic. Now there is just one subsidized cargo flight a week out of the entire airport.

Karl Marx (not normally someone I quote) said that history repeats itself, “first as tragedy, then as farce.” Let’s hope that history is not about to repeat itself with the misconceived and hugely expensive Aerotropolis legislation.

R. Crosby Kemper III is chairman of the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post ‘Aerotropolis’ Bill: A Giant Step Backwards in Public Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But when it comes to a whole host of development issues, too many politicians find their inner Nancy Pelosi and — Eureka! — discover that this latest project they’ve stumbled upon is about one thing and one thing only: “Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.”

So it is for Missouri’s latest big idea project. This session, the Missouri legislature took up a bill to build a Saint Louis “Aerotropolis” — a kind of “international trade hub of the future” — that would have given away more than a third of a billion dollars in tax breaks, mostly to warehouse developers.

The project, quietly snaking its way through the halls of the state House, takes money out of the pocketbooks of all Missourians and transfers it cross-state. That’s the state picking winners and losers. In this case, almost all of Missouri loses big.

If the chambers hadn’t run out of time on a compromise, a bill — supported by legislators throughout the state — would have been signed into law. This may still happen: A coalition of Democrats and Republicans are lobbying hard to bring the legislature back into a special session and pass the bill once and for all.

Like so many big government projects, the promises being made to get the bill passed aren’t that far of a cry from the days of traveling salesmen and talismanic tonics. Need your cattle flown overnight to China? Aerotropolis. Want your city to “seize the opportunity” and act on your “vision” for the future? Aerotropolis. Want your hair darkened, your teeth whitened, your wife to love you, and your children to praise you in song?

What makes the situation in Missouri particularly strange and disheartening is that substantial conservative — and arguably tea party — majorities exist in both of the state’s legislative chambers, and yet … $360 million in special tax breaks is still on the table for the project, a high-stakes experiment with your checkbook that’s based on highly dubious economics.

This is to say nothing about the mechanics of the legislation itself, which in the end has little to do with encouraging international trade and everything to do with awarding taxpayer money to the politically connected business elite in Saint Louis.

We all want our cities in Missouri to grow, but to do that, governments should be relying on the free market to make those decisions, rather than leaving it to the wrongheaded and expensive big ideas of its politicians. Missouri’s legislators should know better.

Patrick Ishmael is a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Join the fight for liberty in our state. Become a Show-Me Institute supporter.

The post The Next Big Government Handout: ‘Aerotropolis’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post The 2010 Midterm Elections: A Tipping Point in U.S. Politics? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Watch the entire speech, including Roper’s warnings about government spending and the federal deficit.

The post Making Sense of the Midterm Elections appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

In the recent election, a surprising number of tax issues were passed by the voters. Perhaps the most discussed of these was Proposition A. Passage of Prop A raises sales taxes by a fraction of a dollar. Much of those new funds are earmarked to restore many public transportation services that were shut down because of budget shortfalls.

Reaction to the outcome was predictable. Tea Party sympathizers viewed the results with outrage, though they couldn’t seem to muster enough votes to defeat the proposition. Supporters claimed victory for the people, especially those who rely on subsidized public transportation for work or school. Both positions have some validity.

Public services like mass transit simply are not cost effective. If they were, a private firm would probably be offering the services. But that does not mean that they offer no public benefit. Numerous studies show that, for the poor, the disabled and the young public, transportation is a vital service for gainful employment. If there are few job opportunities in the inner city, how do those people get to the jobs in the county? At entry-level wages, making a 50-mile round trip by cab is prohibitively expensive.

The dialogue about Prop A revealed efforts at misinformation. One anti–Prop A pundit argued that if passage helps one family get to work but, because of the higher tax, five families are unable to meet their monthly mortgage payment, then on net it is harmful. That would be true if based on fact. While making a good sound bite, I seriously doubt that there is evidence to support such hyperbole.

Such exaggeration is not unique to this one tax issue. The ongoing debate over the Saint Louis city earnings tax is another example of an issue where misdirection should not guide policy.

Two analyses are being publicized in the swelling debate over the earnings tax. Several years ago, the Show-Me Institute published a study examining whether an earnings tax affects economic growth. The question asked was very specific: Does an earnings tax like that of Saint Louis city drive businesses to the surrounding area? In other words, does the tax diminish the economic growth of Saint Louis city relative to its neighboring cities and counties?

The analysis, conducted by Joseph Haslag, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri–Columbia, found that the answer is yes. His statistical analysis of more than 100 similar municipalities showed that having an earnings tax is likely to push businesses out of the taxed area into nearby untaxed municipalities. This finding helps explain the slow growth of Saint Louis city relative to the county.

But this conclusion was recently dismissed in a study conducted by Jack Strauss, director of the Simon Center for Regional Forecasting at Saint Louis University. Writing in the Kansas City Star, Strauss and his coauthor argue that earnings taxes have no negative effect on economic growth. Does this mean that cities like Saint Louis could increase the tax without limit and not face negative repercussions? That is absurd, but it is consistent with Strauss’ finding.

There is another, more subtle, reason to suspect the applicability of the Saint Louis University study as a foundation for tax policy by cities like Saint Louis. Strauss’ investigation essentially tests whether an earnings tax by a city located within a metropolitan area impacts the aggregate growth of the entire region. In other words, does the earnings tax in Saint Louis city affect the economic growth of the 15-county metropolitan area?

That is not the question addressed in the Show-Me Institute study.

Basic economic theory predicts that if the city significantly raised its earnings tax, businesses would likely move to nearby cities or counties within the metro area. If this is true, Saint Louis city loses economically — Haslag’s finding. But this scenario also explains Strauss’ findings: The economic impact of the city’s tax increase simply washes out across the region.

Simply put, Strauss’ study focuses on the wrong geographical area. Even so, his analysis will provide those who favor the city’s earnings tax with false support.

If the policy discussion is how to improve Saint Louis city’s future economic condition, let’s first get the facts straight. As we witnessed in the debate over Prop A, unfortunately facts lose to exaggeration when the topic is taxes.

Rik W. Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Lesson From the Election: Examine Claims on Both Sides of Tax Issues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent email sent to drive traffic to Slay’s campaign site with one of its inane polls referred blithely to “your tea party friends.” Slay’s team seems to want to send the message that government-hating right wingers are welcome here. No wonder the Show-Me Institute set up shop in the city.

There is, of course, only one legitimate reply to this, and, not surprisingly, it was said by Homer Simpson. From the fourth season, episode 14 — you’ll find the video here. The line comes at about the 0:48 mark. Definitely one of the best lines in one of the single best episodes of the best TV series ever.

Thanks to St. Louis’ own Bart Simpson for the article link.

The post “That’s Right, and Who Might You Be?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that the First Amendment does not permit the government either to ban certain speakers from engaging in political speech or to restrict the amount of money that a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign. Many commentators nationwide are extremely concerned that this influx of cash will distort the political process, allowing wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions to purchase political influence and degrade the ability of ordinary citizens to affect the political process.

While the fallout of this case is not likely to be as dire as many are predicting, there is reason for voters to be concerned about the degree to which these moneyed interests might influence the political process. As the system currently exists, politicians have every incentive to prioritize fundraising because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the more they spend, the more votes they will ultimately receive. Thus, particularly as elections draw near, they spend a large percentage of their time soliciting contributions for their campaign’s “war chest,” and many focus on paid advertisements more than on debates.

But despite these concerns about wealthy interests’ ability to commandeer the political system, ordinary Missourians have at their disposal the wherewithal to neutralize the influence of campaign contributions without spending a dime — if only they demonstrate the doggedness and cooperation necessary to do so. You see, regardless of how much money a politician or interest group spends, only a voter can control their vote. If enough citizens believe strongly that the influence of money in political campaigns should be limited, they can use their most valuable assets — their votes — to change the incentive structure for politicians.

My proposal is that such a group of concerned voters could pledge to ignore party, ideology, and rhetoric, and to cast their ballots based solely upon how much money each of the candidates raised — and the lower the amount of contributions, the better. If as few as 5 percent of registered voters (which in many elections could constitute a decisive margin) committed to voting for the candidate in each major race who amassed the third- or fourth-largest “war chest,” I’d wager that politicians in close races would quickly respond by de-emphasizing the importance of fundraising.

Yes, this is a radical solution. At least in the short term, it depends on the idea that no single candidate is worth electing if doing so will only perpetuate a political system that depends more on the power of the checkbook than on the power of ideas. Many may be unwilling to make a commitment that might result in casting a ballot for a Green Party candidate, a Libertarian, or even an independent, “tea party” candidate. But the formation of this sort of voting block is the most immediate, most direct way for those concerned to send a message that when it comes to campaign financing, perhaps less is more.

Dave Roland is a constitutional law expert and a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Missourians Can Combat the Political Influence of Moneyed Interests appeared first on Show-Me Institute.