File this under “Creative Revenue Streams”:  Missouri lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow school districts to sell ad space on their buses as a way of raising revenue, and at least one school district is already taking the idea very seriously (emphasis mine).

The people who have researched the idea said it wouldn’t bring in a ton of money, but many districts are in a position where every little bit helps.

Parents and school officials in the Lee’s Summit School District met and discussed the idea Thursday evening.

Parent Keith Asel said it could make about $500,000 for Lee’s Summit schools.

“With all the budget cuts we’ve had, if we can just incrementally move the needle through things like school bus advertising, we can get to a number that really makes a difference,” he said. “We’ve got to think outside the box. The traditional means, I mean, we’ve already put such a burden on taxpayers.”

As it turns out, 17 states already allow districts to implement such an advertising program. Parents at the meeting reportedly did not have a problem with the idea, either, so long as the advertisements are age-appropriate. Supporters said ads for “alcohol, tobacco and even sugary foods” would be “restricted,” which I assume means effectively or explicitly “banned.”

My take? It is a great idea. Until I saw this story I had not realized that such a bill was floating around the Capitol, but apparently the bill has support from both sides of the aisle. Like the parent in the report says, we have to “think outside the box” if we want to improve education and reduce tax burdens. This, to me, is a great proposal that seems like it would promote both objectives.

In yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Frank LoMonte writes that teacher tenure reform might result in public school journalism teachers being punished for helping students report on contentious topics.

LoMonte writes:

But there can be no debate on how ending tenure will impact the teaching of journalism in public schools. It will effectively end it.

As a graduate of the University of Missouri’s journalism school, I cannot help but sympathize with LoMonte’s fear. But I am not sure that it is grounded in much reality.

Free speech is already limited in schools. LoMonte does not mention this, but high school newspapers are not forums for free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that originated in Hazelwood, Mo., no less)  ruled in 1988 that school administrators could censor drafts of the high school newspaper if they can demonstrate that there is an educational purpose for the censorship. Currently, students cannot freely report on any topic they wish.

Administrators already can (and do) punish journalism teachers. LoMonte lists several ways that journalism teachers can be punished for encouraging students to question the operations of their schools. He writes that teachers can be fired, demoted, or transferred as punishment. But arguing that these options will become available if teacher tenure reform is passed is incorrect. Demotion and transferal are already available to school administrators if they want to punish teachers. Firing is as well, though it is very difficult.

The following cases that LoMonte recounts are deplorable:

Teachers like Darryl Adams, who was stripped of his journalism duties after his principal questioned his loyalty for refusing to censor an editorial critical of the school’s random student searches. Teachers like Teri Hu, who was reassigned — and whose students were threatened with discipline — after the newspaper accurately revealed that the school was out of compliance with district regulations on the use of teaching assistants.

But they are all possible under Missouri’s existing teacher tenure law.

Journalism teachers are a small fraction of the total teaching force in Missouri. Perhaps some marginal number of journalism teachers will be fired if teacher tenure reform passes. And, perhaps their firings will be due to encouraging students to pursue meaningful and contentious journalism. I agree that this is a disturbing possibility. But many of our smallest districts likely have no student paper. Elementary, middle, and high school math teachers, for example, certainly outnumber journalism teachers significantly.

In life, there are always difficult trade-offs. And we have to consider whether preserving the jobs of a few good journalism teachers is worth keeping teachers who have a track record of failing students in the classroom.  I would argue that illiterate students and students who cannot do simple arithmetic are problems that we need to address first.

Student speech exists outside of the classroom. Sadly, LoMonte ignores the possibility that students can exercise their right to free speech openly and outside of the classroom. When I was in high school, I was part of a group of students that started a monthly print newspaper during our free time — because we knew that the student paper could, thanks to that Supreme Court decision, be censored.

We wrote about high school dropouts, janitors who had been hired despite having a criminal record, and other topics that likely would have been tough to have printed in the official school newspaper. Given the rebellious nature of most teenagers, and the ease of online publishing, I trust that students will continue to express their right to free speech, even if they cannot do it within the pages of a district-financed paper.

The Kansas City Police Department recently completed a study of the city’s red light camera program, detailed in the Kansas City Star. The study’s focus? Whether red light cameras have improved safety on Kansas City streets since they were installed in January 2009. The conclusion? No.

Since January 2009, accidents increased at 11 of 17 monitored intersections, and fatal crashes increased at 13 of those locations. Kansas City is not the first to see this happen with its red light camera program. The Star interviewed University of Illinois at Chicago Assistant Professor Rajiv Shah, who studied a red light camera program in Chicago:

“I’d say [Kansas City’s results are] very consistent with what cities across America have found . . . There’s really not a hard connection between reducing accidents and red-light cameras.”

The results of this study should have red light camera proponents reevaluating their positions. As we have pointed out before, red light cameras have many problems: they invade privacy and create a constitutionally suspect presumption of guilt. They are also prone to mistake. Brenda Talent, executive director of the Show-Me Institute, was fined for a violation she did not commit in Kansas City last year, and 1,000 lucky drivers were falsely accused of running red lights in Arnold, Mo., just two weeks ago.

Not surprisingly, American Traffic Solutions, the company that runs the program, publicly criticized the police department’s findings. ATS identified weather patterns, impaired drivers, and cell phone usage as the cause for increased wrecks. In other words, ATS identified anything but the red light cameras, which the company receives $1.6 million a year to operate, as the culprit for the increased crashes.

Despite the police study, it is likely that camera proponents will not rest. The Star editorial focused on a study by city engineers that found a decrease in total violations at monitored intersections. The Star praised the decrease in violations and declared that “red light cameras are working in Kansas City.” Fewer people running red lights, maybe; but if more accidents are occurring at monitored intersections, it is a stretch to conclude that red light cameras improve safety just because total violations have dropped.

Much to the dismay of proponents like the Star, the police study just confirmed what we already knew. Red light cameras are not about public safety, they are about generating revenue through traffic enforcement. The program has been very lucrative in Kansas City. The police study reports that officers have written nearly 200,000 tickets at $100 per ticket — adding $20 million to the city coffers.

Legislators can rename their new tax credit programs if they want, but it is utterly absurd to suggest that a “tax rebate” for data centers — as it has been portrayed and presented in the Missouri House of Representatives — or a tax credit for sports events is anything other than business as usual in the Capitol. State officials are picking yet another set of presumably hot new industries on which to bet their development roulette chips. Giving special tax breaks to special interests is the history of Missouri development policy over the last few decades. Every year or two, a new flight of special big ideas is enshrined in the law, with a new round of fresh special interests ensconced in the state’s pantheon of practically untouchable tax credits. The Missouri Department of Economic Development’s own tax credit documents outline the timeline of Missouri’s nearly imperishable tax credit growth with exquisite clarity. (Click the image to enlarge.)

Lobbyist detente on tax credits is not a sustainable status quo, and continuing to carry old tax credits forward while instituting new ones is a failure of leadership. That state officials would try to re-brand a failed system and grow the development tax credit leviathan beyond its current confines is hugely disappointing. It is just more of the same, and Missourians deserve better than that.

Parents continue to demand solutions to failing schools in Missouri. As an example, five Saint Louis firefighters recently sued three suburban school districts for failure to enroll their children under the Missouri Supreme Court’s Turner decision. One of the firefighters is spending $20,000 per year in Catholic school tuition just to avoid sending his children to Saint Louis public schools. This is in addition to taxes he has paid to fund the very school district that has failed him and his family. Like many families in similar situations, this family pays twice for securing the benefits of the “free public schools” that are guaranteed in our state constitution.

My post last week discussed a lawsuit between the Kansas City Public Schools and five suburban school districts regarding the implementation of the Turner decision. In a nutshell, Turner requires surrounding districts to enroll students who live in unaccredited (failing) school districts (i.e., the Saint Louis and Kansas City public schools and the Riverview Gardens School District). In effect, this is a limited school choice option under Missouri law.

Practically speaking, one issue is, how can the suburban districts in Kansas City and Saint Louis handle the potential influx of urban students? A recent survey estimates that approximately 13,500 students may flee Saint Louis schools for Saint Louis County under the Turner law. That is close to one quarter of school-age children in Saint Louis city. Pressure to abandon the Saint Louis public schools is apparently growing.

While it is easy to get caught up in the apparent chaos, why don’t we disengage for a second and reflect on the deeper issues; specifically, the failure of urban education in the Saint Louis and Kansas City public schools. Perhaps the Turner decision is a blessing of sorts, compelling both the legislature and the courts to address head-on comprehensive school reform, not only for our urban districts, but for all districts in Missouri.

Teacher tenure reform, collective bargaining, charter school expansion, school closure, and expanded school choice are on the table. The legislative session is just beginning to heat up. Perhaps Turner was merely the first act in an unfolding multi-act drama. If so, the script should promote an increase in accountability for teachers and school districts, and an expansion of school choice, including choice of private and parochial schools for students in failing public schools.

The St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) met today to consider offers to purchase vacant property. The LRA, part of Saint Louis City government, is the largest owner of vacant property in the city.

Our research showed in 2011 that the LRA had a track record of frequently rejecting offers to buy city property, often for no discernible reason. The agency would cite “lack of aldermanic input” when rejecting offers, or plans for “future development” that would fail to materialize.

I have written here about improvements to the LRA’s practices that were made in the wake of the publication of our research and the resulting media attention.

This month’s meeting went pretty well – most offers to purchase property were accepted or countered (meaning the LRA asked for a higher purchase price or change in contingencies). However, I still cannot help but think that Saint Louis City aldermen still have outsize influence over whether the agency accepts or rejects offers to purchase property.

An offer from Transformation Christian Church and World Outreach Center to purchase four properties illustrates this well.  LRA staff members recommended that the church’s offer be rejected. However, former Alderwoman Irene Smith (ward 1) spoke on behalf of the church during the meeting and managed to sway the commission. It seemed that the decision of whether to sell the property hinged on whether the area alderman was supportive of the sale.

Smith, speaking to the commission, noted that the church had spoken with Alderman Sam Moore, saying that after “swapping” some property with him, he had agreed to provide a letter supporting the sale of LRA property to the church.

But LRA Chairman Mark Wells initially would not recommend moving to sell the property, saying that “Based on the information we got from Alderman Moore, I think more discussion is needed.”

Smith responded: “We’re taken aback by that. We sat down with Alderman Moore.”

Ultimately, the commission moved to counter the church’s offer instead of rejecting it. And I am glad — the church has a history of purchasing, maintaining, and rebuilding LRA property.

But, I wonder: If the church has a track record of being a strong community resource and has the funds to buy the vacant city property, why does it matter what the alderman thinks? The LRA does not have to consider the input of an area alderman. The agency’s authority was established under state law, and the LRA law does not suggest that the agency consider the input of any political officials. Saint Louis government has implemented this practice by choice.

You can download the LRA’s meeting agenda (with a few of my notes) here.

This article in the Kansas City Star is a must-read for anyone interested in payday lending. Here are some of the details (emphasis mine):

Central Bank has agreed to make old-fashioned signature loans (that means no collateral from the borrower) of $300 to $2,500. That’s also what payday and installment lenders do. Except Fair Community Credit will lend money for slightly longer durations and at a double-digit interest rate, not a triple-digit one. That way borrowers will have a better shot at paying off their loans, rather than defaulting.

What makes that possible is Fair Community Credit’s promise to cover any loan losses from a $200,000-plus loan guarantee pool donated by foundations and individual donors.

The market is creating relatively cheap short-term credit alternatives to payday loan shops. It is incredible to watch society tackle perceived problems through voluntary interaction without the forceful hand of the state. It will be intriguing to see the results of this venture.

A hat tip to John Combest for the link.

Two failing charter schools in Saint Louis City will be closed at the end of this school year. You may remember the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s somewhat sordid saga of Imagine Schools that was recently published.

It might sound harsh, but this is exactly what is supposed to happen with charter schools: We should let the good ones flourish and try to replicate their success, and close schools that are not meeting students’ needs.

Just because a school is a charter school does not guarantee student academic success. It is important to close failing schools, whether they are traditional public schools or charter schools. Nobody benefits from keeping open a school that is failing its students.

For more on the Imagine closings, check out our latest Show-Me video below.

It is no secret that Missouri Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R-Washington, Mo.) is not a fan of Missouri’s teacher tenure law. Last year, he filed legislation to require annual teacher evaluations. Under that bill, the public school teachers who perform best would receive four-year teaching contracts, and those performing the worst would receive single-year contracts. If poor teachers failed to improve, they could be terminated.

There also was good news for some teachers in Dieckhaus’ 2011 legislation. The proposal called for the best teachers to be paid at least twice as much as the poorest-performing teachers. While this may seem like common sense (why not pay the best teachers more, as a reward for their effort?), it runs contrary to the current system of paying Missouri public school teachers.

The 2011 legislation did not pass. However, Dieckhaus is considering submitting tenure reform legislation again this year. The bill is not yet available, but I have listed two areas of reform that are needed to help improve student academic achievement in Missouri. Our priority should be educating  children, not rewarding those who happen to have been teaching for the longest period of time.

Let’s pay good teachers more: In Missouri, teachers are paid under what is known as a “teacher salary schedule.” Broadly, teachers who have more years of experience and higher levels of education are paid more (here is an example). At many school districts, these are the only components of teacher pay — teachers who teach difficult subjects, at-risk students, and teachers who have the best track record of helping students learn do not get a pay boost.

Teachers who do a poor job of teaching students can actually earn more than the good teachers if the poor teachers have a higher education level and/or more years of teaching experience.

Dieckhaus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2011 that ”It’s time we move away from paying people based on how long they’ve been teaching and what piece of paper they have hanging on the wall.” I certainly agree.

Paired with the issue of teacher compensation is the question of how to deal with teachers who have a track record of failing to teach students. Right now, those teachers can stay at a district for years, if not indefinitely.

Let’s help school districts get rid of bad teachers: State law awards teachers “indefinite contracts” if they have taught at the same school district for at least five years. These “permanent teachers” can be terminated, but only through a lengthy process. If a school district terminates a teacher (after going through all of the notification requirements specified by state law), that teacher can appeal the termination, triggering a court case. If the teacher wins in court, the school district must pay that teacher all of the compensation he or she would have received had he or she stayed at the district during the period of appeal.

I suppose that if you are trying to discourage teacher termination, the above makes sense. But, as a state, our concern should not be to hire and keep on as many teachers as possible. We should instead be concerned with how to provide quality education to students. Allowing failing teachers to continue to teach students does nothing to help students, and may be hurting them.

It is an uncomfortable truth, but one we must acknowledge. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it, “We can no longer pretend that all teachers or all principals are from Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average.” Many academic studies have shown that teacher quality matters. Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University, has shown that good teachers can teach students three times as much as bad teachers — in a single year. Improving student academic achievement can be achieved in part by attracting more good teachers to the profession, and encouraging the bad teachers to leave the field.

I hope that the 2012 teacher tenure reform legislation can help enable school districts to have more autonomy when it comes to rewarding good teachers and terminating the worst teachers. When the full text of the bill becomes available, I will post my take on it here.

Now that Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has delivered his State of the State address, legislators in Jefferson City are prepared to tackle spending in their own way. The Missouri Legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would cap state spending increases to the annual rise in the Consumer Price Index plus population growth. Any excess money would first go to paying down public debt, then a special reserve fund (not a bad idea considering some of the potential natural disasters this state faces), and then any remaining money would go towards temporarily reducing income taxes.

Along with the Hancock Amendment, this amendment would restrict the power of the legislature. Therefore, the legislature should be commended for proposing this amendment. Constitutional amendments like this, along with a balanced budget requirement (which Missouri has), give legislators an easy way to say ”no” to special interests.

Now, this is not a full-throated endorsement of the proposed amendment. There are a couple of things that bother me. First, there was an amendment that passed setting the cap at fiscal year 2008, the so-called “high water mark” of state revenues. Considering that the general revenue is expected to increase 3.9 percent  from $7.3 billion this year and that net general revenue for fiscal year 2008 was slightly more than $8 billion ($8,004,309, to be exact), the cap probably will not matter for . . . a while. Second, the spending limits will expire in five years unless lawmakers extend the time limit. So even if the voters approve the amendment, there is a distinct possibility that the cap can expire before it ever has the chance to restrict spending. Finally, the cap only applies to general revenue, which is where lawmakers have the most leeway in regards to spending, but it is not hard to imagine lawmakers putting down in statute specific spending items they want preserved and directing specific monies to funding them.

Despite my issues with the proposed amendment, the legislature should be commended for trying to push spending restrictions. However, it is unfortunate that such restrictions would have to be so watered down before it can pass.

An unpopular item in Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s budget proposal is the 12.5 percent funding cut to higher education. Considering there are more frivolous, untouched state expenses like tax credits for wine or beef production, I can understand why. What I cannot understand is why one of the first things individuals consider is more taxes. Grover Cleveland offers a lesson for such thinking:

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. . . . Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Although Cleveland was talking about federal aid during a drought, the lesson is applicable to our current situation: Charity should be preferred over taxes. After all, taxes do not lend themselves to a “kindly sentiment.” And is charity such a radical option? Don’t universities already receive such donations? It seems that if the state believes citizens want to support universities, the government should let the people voluntarily display their support.

But suppose charity falls short – what then? Tuition increases should be considered. After all, let’s not forget that students are the ones choosing to attend college. When the price of education goes up, there is nothing wrong with charging a higher fee. And for those who cannot afford the higher fee, there are alternatives: scholarships and student loans. If both those options do not work, there is the alternative of a less costly education at a community college. Finally, if all else fails, college can be deferred. I have known several individuals who have put off college in order to accumulate savings for it. All options should be exhausted before reaching into the public purse.

Last night I was in Cape Girardeau, Mo., to talk tax credit issues. I noted that the Missouri Legislature could eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of failing tax credit programs and basically wipe out the corporate income tax if it assigned the tax credit savings toward the tax’s elimination — shifting the state from a system where the government picks winners and losers in business to a system whereby all businesses benefit equally with a reduced or extinguished tax. (I have discussed this before.) Missouri’s tax credit problem is titanic, but its enormity also offers an opportunity to change the game when it comes to giving Missouri a competitive advantage in the national economy.

The good news? It seems the idea is picking up some steam with at least one Kansas City area legislator, who is considering a veritable tomahawk chop to some of the worst offending programs (via The Missouri Record):

[Sen. Will] Kraus’s bill would eliminate certain tax credits and apply the savings from the programs to lower the corporate income tax rate. Kraus said he hoped there would be enough additional revenue to get rid of the corporate income tax all together.

“This would make Missouri a much more business friendly place for businesses to come. It eliminates the picking of winners and losers by different tax credits,” Kraus said.

The measure would lower the low-income housing and historic preservation tax credits to 25 percent of their current value by 2016. The low-income housing credit costs the state $60 million a year, while the historic preservation costs $140 million.

The legislative session just began, so certainly a lot can change in the next few months that may temper my optimism. But in terms of policy, it is satisfying to see that the right, liberty, and free-market ideas are moving to the forefront of the state’s agenda. The state must realign its economic development program to reflect that in practically every circumstance, the best allocators of capital in the market are the participants in the market themselves.

As my colleague Michael Rathbone noted, there are only three states in the country that do not have a corporate income tax or a gross receipts tax, and none of them border Missouri. It would be a great way to get a leg up on our regional competition by telling businesses that Missouri is not only business-friendly, but that its tax laws are simple, predictable, and unencumbering. It also means that the unseen cost of the corporate income tax — higher consumer prices that compensate for the taxes that companies pay — would disappear, lowering costs of Missouri goods and making Missouri corporations more competitive.

It would be the right thing for Missouri, and I hope Missourians give the idea serious thought.