Thanks are due to Combest for linking to this article about Missouri’s minimum wage, which slowly continues to go up. The new minimum will be $6.65 an hour.

That doesn’t seem like much, and I’m not predicting mass layoffs in response. But little changes can add up to make a difference. For example, employers might respond to a small minimum wage increase by requiring their employees to be a little more productive, perhaps by spending less time training them to do new tasks. In the short term, the employee earns a little bit more an hour. But he could miss out on learning new skills that would have enabled him to earn much higher wages in the future.

The Post-Dispatch reports that the St. Louis Public Schools are seeking input from parents — and that we shouldn’t consider this to be deja vu all over again.

Virtually everyone involved with the St. Louis Public Schools is well-intentioned. But the system doesn’t work. The only progress the district has achieved has come from charters and magnets, the schools whose entire purpose is to try new things. The district has received dollars and advice, but it can’t put new ideas into practice. It’s like a big semi-trailer truck on the highway. It’s been going in one direction at high speed for a long time, and it’s built up a lot of momentum. It can’t just stop and turn around.

People quoted in the article talk about creating a sense of urgency, but there’s been a sense of urgency for several years and we haven’t seen results. It’s like district officials think that if they get stressed out enough, something good will happen. What we really need is less urgency and more calm willingness to experiment and be flexible.

I’m not the only one with little faith in the process. This quote by Melanie Adams sums it up best:

"We have to convince them that this is not going to be like the other seven times they were asked to come into a room and brainstorm," she said.

I was surprised that Forbes gave St. Louis excellent grades for public schools, while the area’s libraries earned only a C+. Now Edudiva points out a ranking that gives St. Louis high marks for its libraries, and wonders how the two studies reached such different conclusions:

One difference between the two is that the Central Connecticut State University library study just looked at St. Louis city; whereas, the Forbes report looked at the entire metropolitan area. [...]

I couldn’t find the specific methodology for the places ranked (Forbes) study, but it discussed number of volumes and turnover. It looks like the CCSU study looks at a wider variety of factors by adding in accessibility and number of librarians.

The St. Louis Public Library does have some great resources (watch the video in Edudiva’s post to learn more) but you have to know exactly what you’re looking for. Some things are off in special reading rooms. Most books are in the closed stacks, so you can’t just wander around and browse. I guess the library does that for safety and to protect the books, but I’ve always appreciated the county library’s open stacks policy.

I’m not sure how this affected the rankings, though, because the study that considered only St. Louis city was much more positive about library services than the study that included the county. Maybe the county’s many bookstores compete with the libraries and bring circulation statistics down.

The Post-Dispatch is featuring Lift for Life Academy in a deservedly glowing aricle. It’s fun to read the quotes from all the happy kids and parents. What’s even more impressive is the solid progress the students have made:

For instance, just one of last year’s 45 eighth-graders entered sixth grade doing grade-level math. But, over three years, 80 percent of them progressed at least two grade levels. And well more than a third finished eighth grade doing ninth-, 10th-, even 12th-grade work.

The article notes that the school is quick to adopt improvements suggested by its sponsor, Southeast Missouri State. I think this charter school’s flexibility and ability to learn and change play a big role in its success.

The Post-Dispatch adds:

Five charters opened this year alone. Now 15 campuses serve 7,700 students. This story is the first in a periodic series profiling each.

I’m looking forward to the rest of the series.

I’m happy to point out a public education success story. The New York Times profiles this school that teaches disadvantaged students — and I don’t just mean eligible for reduced-price lunches. Ninety percent of the students are minorities, many of them refugees from civil wars and natural disasters. When they first enrolled, they knew no English.

For several years in a row, the school has made "adequate yearly progress" under No Child Left Behind. In fact, the academics are so good that upper-middle-class parents are choosing to send their kids there.

The word "choosing" might sound out of place when discussing a public education success story. But the International Community School is a charter school, one good enough to appeal to both white suburbanites and former goat herders from Mauritania:

“The fact that we don’t have anything in common is what we all have in common,” said Shell Ramirez, an American parent with two children at the school.

Too bad we can’t do this in Hazelwood.

Before I take off for the holidays, I wanted to link to this article in the Post-Dispatch about an assessment task force made up of residents of the Lindbergh School District. This task force has really done some good work and come up with some excellent ideas. In particular, the parts on capping the district’s reserve funds, reconsidering the heavy use of TIFs, and standardizing the assessment process are worthwhile goals. My own ideas on assessments can be found in this op-ed, which was carried today by the St. Louis Business-Journal, for which we thank them.

That’s it. I am out of blogging until January 2nd (probably). Don’t forget to pay your property taxes by December 31 — leaving aside for now the issue of how high they are. Happy holidays to all of our readers. I wish all three of you the very best.

Here’s another Internet harassment city ordinance, just as vague and hard to enforce as the others that have been in the news lately. The ordinance makes it illegal to communicate "through the Internet of any other telecommunication medium anonymously or using a false identification" [sic] in order to frighten or disturb someone else.

I see two problems with this part of the statute. First, you have to determine whether someone’s intention was to disturb. In the case of Megan Meier, the people who talked to her online claimed they were just trying to find out what she was saying about them. Whatever their intention was, we can all agree it was childish and irresponsible. But in other cases that will come up, we may have a hard time discerning the intentions of a misunderstood email or ambiguous text message.

Second, I’m guessing that everyone who has used the Internet has employed an anonymous or false identification in some context. It’s not convenient — and probably not safe, either — to fully identify yourself in all Internet communications. In fact, when I was a kid, teachers advised us to make up random screennames or change aspects of our identities online to avoid predators. I don’t think that was the purpose of the people who harassed Megan Meier. But when so many people present false identities on the Internet, how do you decide which are legitimate precautions and which are intended to hurt others?

Governor Matt Blunt has requested federal disaster relief aid for 42 Missouri counties affected by December’s winter storms.

On the surface, federal disaster relief sounds like a wonderful idea. Shouldn’t the federal government (with its deep pockets), be called upon to help communities affected, through no fault of their own, by natural disasters? Surely no one would object to such a magnanimous act of charity, particularly not in the richest country in the world.

Yet it always reminds me of an old Davy Crockett story (forget about George Washington and his cherry tree — growing up in Texas, we learn stories about the "real" Founding Fathers, who all died at the Alamo).

When Davy Crockett was a congressman from Tennessee, he voted for a bill which appropriated $20,000 to assist with a rebuilding effort in Georgetown after a fire. Two years later, while campaigning for reelection in Tennessee, a farmer criticized him for his charitable appropriation, to which Davy Crocket responded:

"Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did."

To which the farmer replied:

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. … The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a [tax], which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be. … So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

"If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. … You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

So maybe you think the government should have the power to assist with disaster relief; that’s fine, and I don’t necessarily disagree. But I’ve always liked this story because I think it illustrates an important point about the proper role of government. All too often, we turn to the government to fix our problems. A dollar here, a dollar there — who is it hurting if it’s for a "noble" cause?

But who decides what’s noble and what’s not? And how much should be spent on such acts of "charity"?

The power to spend other people’s money is one of the most dangerous powers a government is entrusted with. Missouri’s request for $28 million is just one example of the flippant attitude we take toward our tax dollars. How many jobs could that $28 million have created? How many people could it have helped it if was donated to charity instead? And how many struggling families’ pockets did we tap so that we could relieve the suffering of others?

At the very least, we should be asking ourselves those questions with every tax dollar spent.

I just stumbled across this blog: The World Is Your Campus. The author, Maya Frost, is writing a book about creative ways to get an education. Some of her posts deal with school reform issues, too (like this one about combining middle schools and high schools). So I optimistically followed her link to Top Ten Global Trends That Force Us to Rethink Education, expecting to feel validated for all the hard work I put in here, writing and blogging about reform.

It starts out OK, pointing out that skilled workers are essential for our knowledge-based economy. I’m nodding my head. Then it starts to degenerate into truisms, like: "Jobs that exist today will not necessarily exist when today’s students finish school." Yeah, but so what? There’s no policy implication.

The worst is at the end of the list:

The Singularity is almost here: Human-surpassing intelligence will guarantee that the future is far more different than we can imagine. Are we supplying students with the creative skills required to thrive in a future that demands routine human creativity?

Beam me up, Scotty.

There is an interesting article in the Post-Dispatch this morning about taxicab regulations in St. Louis, a subject we have written about before. There are some insane statements in the story, as well as some very promising ones from a practical perspective. First, the crazy ones (emphasis added):

Louis Hamilton, chairman of the taxicab commission, said he suspects there are still too many cabs for the St. Louis market, and Mundy’s study should either confirm or dispel that notion.

You know what does a good job of determining the proper number of cabs? It’s called the free market, something the taxicab commission apparently has very little faith in or knowledge about. Here’s another commissioner, who works for the largest cab company in the area (emphasis added):

Rudawsky said the cab industry is "always feast or famine." When there are major events in town or on holidays such as New Year’s Eve, there are times when there aren’t enough cabs, he said. "But the majority of time, you could say there are too many."

This reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s writings on population control, which I believe he titled, "Just Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You." What are the odds that when Mr. Rudawsky says there are too may cabs, he means too many of his competitors’ cabs?

We have been discussing this issue around the office today, think-tank style. It seems that this new report they have commissioned is going to attempt to answer the question of whether there are too many cabs, but I doubt it will even consider the idea that a commission like this should not be setting any number at all. That said, there are some promising statements from the researcher, including this one about the fact that airport cabs can only take people away from the airport, but not to it:

"It’s not efficient at all," Mundy said. "And sadly enough, it’s not as unique as it should be. But most communities around the country are starting to realize that … it really makes no sense to have one-way traffic in either direction."

The best thing the Metropolitan Taxi Commission has done is remove the restrictions for driving between county and city lines. Now, if they would get rid of those restrictions at the airport, too, that would be real progress — even if they continue to think it is their job to determine the "correct" number of taxis.
   

Just in case you didn’t know, Missouri is among the worst states in the country when it comes to eminent domain abuse. The Missouri Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, which will likely determine whether the state Constitution presents any barrier whatsoever against government officials who would trade their citizens’ constitutional liberties for private developers’ promises of tax revenue.

Several weeks ago, the Show-Me Institute filed a brief in that case to remind the Court that property rights are at the very heart of the Missouri Constitution, despite the disregard they have been shown by recent court decisions. The brief also highlighted the fact that during the last five years, non-charter cities have threatened at least 1,500 properties with eminent domain, more than three times the number of properties threatened across the entire state from 1999-2002.

Thanks to Bill McClellan’s fantastic work in recent weeks, readers of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have been getting a glimpse of what life is like for the thousands upon thousands of Americans whose homes, businesses, and houses of worship are threatened with eminent domain. Valley Park, a non-charter city in the St. Louis area, has for months been considering the creation of a redevelopment corporation that would have the authority to take property from some of the city’s current citizens and hand it over to new owners that the city would prefer. McClellan has done an excellent job of capturing the constant struggle of the threatened owners to make their voices heard and hold on to what rightfully belongs to them in the face of city officials who would demand the sacrifice of their citizens’ property rights on the altar of "redevelopment."

In a stunning turn of events, however, the regular protests of the property owners appears to have finally made an impact on the city’s officials. At its last meeting, the Board of Aldermen not only announced that it would no longer seek the creation of the redevelopment corporation, but that it would also pass a city ordinance banning the use of eminent domain for private development!

It is very important to note that Valley Park residents are still potentially at risk, even after the passage of this new provision. It doesn’t take much to change the law again, and, at any rate, cities frequently say they are using eminent domain to clear "blighted" areas rather than to promote economic development. But it is heartening to see at least a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this will allow that city’s property owners to sleep a little easier.

As for things that don’t surprise me …  In 2006, the General Assembly modified its eminent domain laws somewhat to require that a finding of "blight" must assess properties on a "parcel-by-parcel" basis, rather than using the broad snapshot of an area that had previously enabled findings of "blight." Under this new provision, an area may only be declared "blighted" if a preponderance (more than half) of the area is determined to be blighted. This change was exceptionally weak, because cities still have extreme discretion to decide what constitutes "blight" — meaning they could rig the findings by setting their own standards — but it at least imposed a restriction on the use of eminent domain that would presumably add some protection to well-kept neighborhoods.

On Tuesday, however, a three-judge panel in the Missouri Court of Appeals gutted even this meager level of protection. An ordinary reading of the new law suggests that those evaluating targeted areas must determine the number of properties in an area that meet the definition of "blight," and that they may only use eminent domain if more than half of those properties are determined to be "blighted."  The judges, however, held that the law merely requires surveyors to look really closely at an area before stamping it with a "blight" label. Where the law requires a "preponderance" of the area to be blighted, in practice it just means "to the court’s satisfaction." Oh, and it’s perfectly acceptable for the surveyors to rely on records from 1994 to determine whether an area should be considered "blighted" in 2007.

If Missourians are ever to be truly assured that their homes, businesses, and houses of worship cannot be taken from them for someone else’s benefit, someone — and perhaps a large number of people — must make a stand for the proper enforcement of constitutional protections. Thus far, the General Assembly has failed to do so. Despite some small successes, dozens of cities have failed to do so. And, most importantly, the courts have failed to do so. Valley Park’s citizens have learned a lesson that should be taken to heart across the state: Eternal vigilance truly is the price of liberty.

Seriously, how can you not imagine the leadership of Springfield City Utilities hiding their worst employees in the basement when the state auditors came by to inspect the plants? Then they would have to send them off to remedial utility training at Missouri State, where they would do battle with the nerds and a crusty old dean who is clearly a stupidhead. I could go on and on, but you can just click here instead.

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

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

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

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

Today’s Post-Dispatch covers the ongoing drama in Missouri’s midwife legislation saga. Eric Dixon, the Show-Me Institute’s editor, published an op-ed on the benefits of legalized midwifery earlier this year.

Missouri is one of 10 states that prohibit midwives without medical or nursing degrees from assisting with prenatal care. Last year, a late addition to Missouri’s historic HB 818 health reform bill legalized the practice of midwifery for those who obtained a “tocological certification” from a private accreditation group specializing in pregnancy-related services.

The provision was a source of controversy and led to the removal of Senator John Loudon, who had sponsored the midwife provision, from his position as chairman of the Senate Small Business, Insurance, and Industrial Relations Committee.

Senator Loudon is now being restored to his prior leadership position, under the condition that he work to repeal HB 818’s midwife provision. This is an unfortunate twist in the saga. Many Missouri mothers are better off using midwives than traditional hospital care. And, as was pointed out in our op-ed on the subject, it’s already legal for anybody to help deliver a baby in Missouri. It’s only when money is involved that it becomes a problem.

Anyway, read our our op-ed on the topic. It says it better than I can.

Andrew Leigh links to a new Progressive Policy Institute policy report about the Earned Income Tax Credit. While I haven’t read the whole thing yet, and I don’t concur with all of their political analysis, I think the EITC is a smart policy to help the working poor. This SMI study explains why expanding the EITC could be more effective in that regard than increasing the minimum wage.

Related research that looks interesting is this working paper by David Neumark (author of another SMI study) and William Wascher about the effects of the EITC and minimum wage laws on employment and earnings.

The panel on autism has released its report. I don’t know enough about current autism support services to say whether their recommendations about consolidation and restructuring are good, but I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal:

Amending the charter school law to allow charter schools for children with autism to be built outside of St. Louis and Kansas City.

That would be a win for everyone. The autistic children would benefit, and the usual objection to charter schools made by public school districts — that they draw children and resources away from traditional public schools — wouldn’t apply. Right now, many districts struggle to educate autistic children, who in some cases need a lot of individual attention from specialists.

St. Louis makes an ignominious appearance in an article by Andy Smarick in Education Next:

Charter competition has caused one unexpected and fascinating phenomenon. When facing a growing number of charters, districts turn to advertising. [...] In May 2007, the St. Louis district awarded a no-bid contract to a marketing firm to “drive the message of the negative impact of charter schools.” Seemingly unable to improve results, districts rely on public relations to stem the migration of students to other schools.

Kansas City also earns a mention, because 20 percent of public school students there attend charter schools.

Smarick raises the question of why districts don’t improve more in the face of competition from new charters. He concludes that traditional districts are so wedded to the old order that they can’t adopt innovations. The solution he suggests is to crowd out the districts by enrolling a majority of students in charters — as is happening in New Orleans, where most public schools were reopened as charters after Hurricane Katrina.

I like the idea of all public school students (rather than a lucky few) choosing between competing charters. But I don’t think the transition will be as easy to effect as Smarick predicts. His idea is that when charters have a majority of the market, this is what will happen in the traditional districts:

As chartering increases its market share in a city, the district will come under growing financial pressure. The district, despite educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided adult-to-student ratio, the district’s per-pupil costs will skyrocket.

Wow, that sounds exactly like … what is going on right now in the city of St. Louis! According to Smarick, at this point everybody in the city is supposed to "demand fundamental change" and we’ll transition to an all-charter system. I’m not holding my breath. Public school monopolies are hard to shake. So far, the only public school district that’s given most of its market share over to charters is the one that was obliterated by a natural disaster.

As the Christmas saying goes: Every time a mouse clicks, a blogger gets more page view hits. With that holiday spirit in mind, we wish to celebrate the Show-Me Institute’s first year as a blog by sending merry Christmas wishes to our fellow bloggers who have been so much a part of our tremendous respectable above-average water-treading success.

We shall start with the two largest papers in our state. Both the Prime Buzz blog in the Star and the Mound City Money blog in the Post-Dispatch have been frequently linking to our posts or articles. We are lucky in Missouri to have great newspapers serving our two largest cities, and we thank both of them for the links.

The proprietors over at Missouri Political News Service have enthusiastically posted many of our studies and op-eds this year, as well as plenty of links to our blog posts. They have been a big part of getting the word out on our work, and we wish them continued success and a great holiday season.

Every time the Show-Me Institute makes the papers, Missouri Pulse has been the site that consistently asks why we are always labeled as "conservative," while other groups get the "non-partisan" moniker? It’s a good question — and, for the record, we think "free-market" is the most accurate label, if one must be used.

Arch City Chronicle and Blog KC have given us a mention on occasion, for which we thank them, while Jason Rosenbaum and the others at the Columbia Daily Tribune politics blog have given us some much-appreciated coverage lately — particularly regarding the education conference we hosted.

Fired Up! has linked to us a few times, and I am sure I am missing a few other blogs out there as well. Being that there now more blogs than people on the planet, it would probably be impossible to note all the ones that have mentioned us. But we appreciate it every time, whether it’s a link, a critique, or a compliment.

Well, that’s just about it. I can’t think of any that I might be missing. … Oh, wait — how could I forget Mr. John Combest, the esteemed maitre d’ of johncombest.com. His links have played a huge part in letting people know about us, and we wish him and everyone else listed here a very happy holiday season.

Local education blogs are sprouting up all over the place! I’m happy to announce the appearance of EduDiva, which intends to write about "educational issues with a St. Louis perspective." In a few posts EduDiva has already covered girls and math education, the achievement gap, school rankings, and white flight, responding to my post on Hazelwood.

EduDiva points out that test scores in the St. Charles public schools aren’t much better than Hazelwood’s. I agree, but the only reference to St. Charles in the article was in a quote by one person, who commented that most of her neighbors had left for St. Charles. It could be that people who value higher scores are moving somewhere else. On the other hand, it could be that test scores have nothing to do with the "white flight." But given Hazelwood’s struggle to meet state standards, the article should have at least considered the possibility that the schools are causing people to leave.

Yesterday, representatives of the National Senior Citizens Law Center (NCSLC) hosted news conferences in Kansas City, Columbia, and St. Louis to bring attention to the dubious quality of many of Missouri’s long-term-care nursing home contracts.

The group argues that many of these contracts violate minimum care obligations, which are mandated by state and federal law. For example, many nursing home contracts limit the facility’s responsibility for their residents’ health or personal items, and also require a resident’s family or friends to accept personal financial liability for long-term care. Though these requirements do not necessarily violate existing law, they are fine-print issues that trap the families of many residents with unexpected bills.

I have no doubt that there are nursing home abuses. But I always question why the most effective response to such abuses is a legislative one. There are two negative effects that come out of every "minimum care" piece of legislation Missouri passes: 1) It mandates certain levels of service that may or may not be important to actual nursing home residents and their families, thus driving up overall nursing home costs; 2) It encourages many nursing homes to lower their standards to the "minimum state requirement," adversely affecting the overall level of nursing home care.

Many violations highlighted by the NSCLC are well-publicized issues that consumer groups have encouraged families to be aware of. There are also elderly law consumer advocacy groups that offer pro-bono legal advice for help in finding nursing home contracts that properly meet a family’s individual needs.

The St. Louis Business Journal reports that St. Louis nursing home costs are the second-lowest in the country, with an average annual cost of $42,877. Nationally, the annual cost of nursing home care is $65,200, with average annual costs in some states reaching as high as $191,385. These are not small fees, and I would expect that many residents struggle to stretch their savings to cover that cost during 10 or 15 years of potential care. By passing additional minimum care laws, we risk pushing those costs even higher, forcing many elderly Missourians to forego nursing home care altogether.

I sympathize with the NSCLC — it’s disturbing to think of nursing home abuse. But passing new legislation (or even enforcing existing legislation) is not the answer. It’s great to promote consumer advocacy and raise awareness. It’s important to provide legal aid to families that helps ensure they enter nursing home contracts that properly reflect their needs. But mandating minimum levels of service will only increase costs that are already inflated, while ensuring an overall decreased level of care. And that will do nothing to provide better care for Missouri’s elderly population.

Yesterday, oral arguments were heard in a lawsuit in Jefferson City about a language change in a 2008 Missouri ballot initiative. The initiative will address state-based affirmative action programs, and will appear on the November 2008 ballot.

The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), the plaintiff in the case and defender of the initiative’s original language, argues that the new language is politically biased and misleading.

The article quotes the original ballot language submitted by MCRI as follows:

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring, ‘The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?’"

The Missouri Secretary of State’s office, however, changed the language to read:

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

1. ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and

2. allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"

I think you could argue that both wordings are somewhat misleading. But I sympathize with the MCRI’s argument. The original language is clear: the Missouri Constitution should be amended "to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state." That would include ending any existing affirmative action or race-based preferential treatment.

The new language says the same thing, but in a much more emotively-charged way. By explicitly including buzz words such as "affirmative action," the initiative immediately polarizes voters. I think that the MCRI’s argument that this language will unfairly sway the election is valid. Moreover, it appears that the Secretary of State’s office took tremendous liberty with the submitted language from the MCRI.

Preferential treatment, whether positively intended or not, is problematic and invites all kinds of race-based politics. A truly "color-blind" society should value its citizens based on their merit, not on the color of their skin, their place of birth, or their sex. I think that the MSCI strives to achieve such a society.

Springfield is a company town, and that company is City Utilities. Later today, the state auditor will be releasing an audit of CU, as it is known. The News-Leader has the preview. So, yes, I will return to this subject later after I have read the audit, but I find it very interesting that City Utilities still operates all the utilities in Springfield, instead of selling off the assets to a private company decades ago, like most larger cities. How big is CU? From the article:

CU employs 1,030 people and provides electricity, water, natural gas and public transit services to the public. The utility also operates the SpringNet computer network facility and a radio communication system for public agencies.

Electricity, water, gas, and the computer network could easily be managed just as well — and probably better — by a private utility. And (this is key) Springfield government would make a fortune selling off its assets to that private provider. That windfall could be used to lower taxes, improve services in other areas, and invest in capital projects such as transportation. Even the public transit part could be competitively contracted out, which is different from privatization but similar. Here is an op-ed I wrote on this subject for Kirkwood.

I will return to this issue after I have a chance to read the audit. That is known in the media as a "teaser." Pretty cool, huh?

David Nicklaus has published some quotes on his blog from Eric Dixon’s op-ed about price gouging. I’m impressed by the economic knowledge displayed by the second comment to the post (I’m not even going to bother addressing the first comment):

It’s also appropriate for government to perform its normal role in assuring that people affected by disasters get the services that they contract for — for example, that if they pay a contractor to repair their roof, he will actually do so for the price agreed upon.

But it’s not necessary or useful for government to attempt to repeal the laws of supply and demand for dealing with disasters. One doesn’t need to be a die-hard libertarian to recognize that that will only slow recovery efforts and cause people to suffer longer.

It’s important to keep in mind that this isn’t a question of whether or not the state should take action after natural disasters. As this comment highlights, the state can either help recovery efforts with wise policies, or it can make things worth through misguided policies like punishing "price gouging."

Here’s another Internet harassment case. This time, a woman complains that she’s been harassed by a kid. A high-school boy took some pictures of his language arts teacher, then posted them on Facebook. He was suspended for three days and is no longer allowed in the teacher’s classroom.

From the information in the article, I don’t see what the fuss was about. The pictures aren’t even completely in focus, and they don’t show any inappropriate behavior. If a parent had walked in and taken these pictures, then put them in the PTA newsletter or on the school website, no one would care. But Rockwood Superintendent Craig Larson makes the boy’s action sound like a betrayal:

"He’s being moved at the teacher’s request because she felt like her trust with him was pretty clearly violated," he said.

If this was her boyfriend, posting nude photos of her on the Internet, then I’d say: Yeah, the trust was violated. But how much does any teacher trust a 15-year-old boy? I would expect a boy that age to, at the very least, Photoshop the pictures and make it look like something gross was going on. The fact that he posted a few inoffensive pictures doesn’t seem like a big deal. Of course, it could be that he’s said derogatory things about teachers on his Facebook profile, but the article doesn’t mention anything like that, and notes that the pictures had no captions.

I also don’t understand how this is an example of sly or nefarious technology use, as this quote implies:

"Kids are so good with technology that it’s like they’re always one step ahead of teachers," said DeeAnn Aull, a spokeswoman for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association. "And sometimes that technology can be misused."

Taking a picture and putting it on the Internet is "one step ahead"? What technology is the teacher using? Is she still trying to preserve images with a pinhole camera?

Unless there’s evidence that the boy meant something bad by this, I think this teacher should be flattered that she’s cool enough to go on a kid’s Facebook page.

The school claims that the punishment was so harsh because taking the pictures disrupted class. The boy is suing, saying that his free speech rights were violated. I’ve got to side with the boy. Taking a picture could disrupt class for at most a few seconds. That’s the sort of thing you send a kid to the office for — you don’t suspend him for three days. And even if it was kind of disruptive, once a student has taken some innocuous photos of normal school activities, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with posting them on the Internet.

I’d like to respond to Justin’s excellent critique of integrated math. I think we are mostly in agreement about integrated math’s faults. My position is that parents should be able to choose integrated math for their children if they want to, not that integrated math is good.

I think Justin is 100-percent correct (see, I can use numbers in real-life situations!) that math classes treating all answers as equally right aim only to fluff up students’ self-esteem, not to teach them anything. And when students go through school without learning math facts and formulae, they miss out on a basic part of education.

But I think parents should still be able to choose integrated math, for a few reasons. First, there’s disagreement about which curricula constitute integrated math. One of my brothers attended an elementary school that used Everyday Mathematics, by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. My brother hated this curriculum, and I thought it had several disadvantages. It encourages calculator use at a young age, some of the activities are pointless, and it presents some concepts in a more complicated way than necessary.

On the other hand, the curriculum emphasizes practice and getting the right answer. And although many critics object to it because the algorithms it teaches aren’t the same ones they learned in school, no one could accuse it of foregoing algorithms altogether, or of allowing students to make up answers. Is Everyday Math "integrated math"? This Wikipedia article says yes. Personally, I think Everyday Math isn’t so bad as the other integrated programs out there, and parents who choose it aren’t necessarily dooming their children to ignorance.

Justin’s suggestion to encourage computer programming, which uses set theory, is a good idea. But some people consider teaching set theory before college to be a "new math" scheme itself. I’ve seen traditional math books that eschew set theory entirely, even at the high school level.

Even curricula that are indisputably integrated might not be harmful in the long term. I went to a public elementary school that taught integrated math. We were always doing creative projects that were only tangentially related to arithmetic. But when I switched to a private school that taught only traditional math, I didn’t really miss anything, because the traditional sixth-grade math curriculum was basically a review of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade arithmetic.

What about my peers who stayed in the public school? They started using a more traditional curriculum around that time, too. Several of them went on to major in science at college. Sure, our time could have been put to better uses in elementary school, but the fact that you don’t learn long division in one grade doesn’t mean that you’ll never learn it in any other grade. If parents choose integrated math for their kids in the early grades, their kids could still study all the traditional topics when they’re a little older.

In fact, given the pressure some parents put on their five-year-olds to memorize lots of facts, study textbooks, and prepare for first grade, I imagine I would request integrated math if I had little kids in kindergarten. I probably wouldn’t choose it for later grade levels. But if parents want to put off teaching traditional math until second or third grade, I think that should be up to them. And as for the parents who want their kids to study integrated math through high school? I think they should be free to choose that, even though I disagree with them.

If everyone sent their kids to private schools of their choice, we wouldn’t have this dispute about what schools should teach. The math wars (and reading wars, and spelling wars, etc.) are a product of our one-size-fits-all public school system, which forces a few educational approaches on all families. Opening up the system to choice would lead to more diversity, and less arguing.

Most brainstorming about education reform centers on urban districts. We hear about failing inner-city schools, discipline problems, and social issues. Suburban districts, with their relatively high test scores and upper-class constituents, seem like bastions of achievement in comparison. But we often overlook the rural districts. When I’ve asked people about this, they usually say, "Well, rural communities are satisfied with their schools. They just don’t have the same problems as the city districts."

That viewpoint may be overly optimistic. This article in the Southeast Missourian reports that some students in rural areas have a lot of trouble when they go on to higher education:

At Springfield-based Ozarks Technical Community College, 2,200 out of 3,000 incoming freshman needed a remedial algebra class and another 1,200 needed help in English last year. Only 35 percent passed a remedial math class.

"It’s an epidemic," said Ellen Newby-Hines, director of the academic achievement center at the community college that tutors students who need help in order to pass basic algebra, English and other classes.

The number of students in remedial courses isn’t necessarily an indication of a problem. Sometimes, students want to review after a summer away from school, or are unsure they’ll do well in college-level courses and take a remedial course during the first semester, just in case. But if large percentages of them can’t even pass the remedial courses at a community college (which employs tutors to give them extra help), that’s scary.

The article notes that a new state program that pays tuition for some community college students has attracted students who wouldn’t have gone to the schools otherwise. Maybe those students aren’t as well prepared. But failing remedial courses doesn’t only mean students aren’t ready for college — it means they aren’t ready for high-school-level coursework, either.

I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague’s tacit approval of "integrated math," which is not an "intuitive or interesting" approach to mathematics. Rather, it’s a tool to justify falling academic standards and low test scores, and the district should seriously consider abandoning the program.

The same logic was used to justify the teaching of Ebonics in several California school districts in the late 1990s. Whatever your opinion may be regarding the defining characteristics of a lexicon, I think it is safe to argue that teaching Ebonics as the primary form of English in urban schools did a disservice to students. Teachers marginalized their students’ opportunities for success by teaching them a language with dubious credibility and zero applicability to the world in which they lived.

Mathematics is a language just like any other language, and it is imperative that students learn how to speak that language correctly if they want to be able to communicate effectively in society. The language equivalent of "integrated math" would be teaching Spanish that emphasized hitting the "high points" of the language, with no regard to grammar, conjugation, or syntax. As long as the basic message was clear, that would be all that was important.

Yes, mathematics can be a difficult subject, just like learning any language can be. But the idea of a "flexible" math curriculum invites the criticism that the curriculum is focused more on student self-esteem and higher test scores than actual learning. And as an article in today’s Southeast Missourian suggests, the fact that Missouri students are increasingly unprepared for college-level mathematics courses implies that academic standards have dropped. Students that sail through grade school with high grades from well-meaning teachers find themselves completely unprepared for college. Shouldn’t we be more focused on whether students are learning than whether they make straight A’s?

In my opinion, a far more effective approach to making math more accessible is to encourage and expand the pursuit of studies in math-heavy subjects, such as physics, statistics, and even computer programming (which relies on logic and set theory), rather than teaching "integrated math." Although students may fail to see the value of learning traditional algebra by itself, if they view algebra as a tool for understanding a subject which they enjoy, they will be more likely to excel in it.

Integrated math is not about "kids learning in different ways." It is a deliberate attempt to inflate math test scores by dumbing down the subject in the interest of "accessibility." And while that may be a short-run gain for school administrators focused on the metrics of individual school success, it is a long-run failure for their students’ future academic progress.

The Kansas City Star has an interesting article on why property taxes keep going up despite the downturn in the housing market, which would presumably lead to assessments going down. The reason is that property values are supposed to be set at their January 1 value, so the last 11 terrible months in housing values don’t count. Also, the comparable sales method used to set values can come from any time since Jan. 1, 2005. The hope would be that the 2009 assessment would capture much of the housing downturn of the past year, but how much do you want to bet it doesn’t?

On the same subject, the Sunday Joplin Globe had a very reasonable editorial on the assessment situation in Jasper County and around the state. While I don’t agree with the Globe that we should replace property taxes with higher income or sales taxes (particularly income taxes), it was nice to read their well thought-out editorial. I do agree with them on the importance of having a general debate about how we tax and spend here in Missouri. We have not agreed with the Globe’s editorials much here at SMI, with their opposition to toll roads and support of Internet taxation, but this was a good one.

For my own ideas on how we can change the assessment system in Missouri, here is my recent article on the subject. Also, don’t forget that your property taxes are due by December 31! And the above links came from Combest, so let’s give him a Christmas shout-out!

The one-day flowering of peace and safety in St. Louis city has ended, with the city police purchasing 540 guns from its citizenry as part of a one-day gun buyback program. At least, it might have been citizens of St. Louis; it could well have been people from anywhere who had a worthless gun to unload and found a way to get $50 for it. The Post-Dispatch story is here. It would appear from the totals that they got very few, if any, assault-type weapons off the street. The budget was $20,000, with a price of $100 per assault-type weapon and $50 for handguns and shotguns. A total of 540 guns at $50 each is $27,000, so that did not leave much money for any assault weapons. And what about the guns that were bought with taxpayer dollars? From an article that originally appears in the Chicago Tribune:

The weapons turned in during buy-backs overwhelmingly are older guns, such as revolvers, which in some cases don’t even work. A Harvard study of buy-back programs in Boston in 1993 and 1994 found nearly three-quarters of the guns recovered were made before 1968. In Seattle, one-quarter of the guns collected were inoperable.

Basically, the city is doing nothing more than giving people tax money to go purchase newer, better guns. If the city is trying to become the living embodiment of Robert Heinlein’s statement that "An armed society is a polite society," than I would call the buyback program a success. Somehow, I think the city was going for something else — mostly stemming from a delusional belief that this program was going to improve safety in the city.

The best thing to say about this program is that it only lasted for one day. A study I linked to in last week’s post on this subject found that long-term programs actually increase gun ownership as they lower the overall costs of gun ownership. Among the ways it would do this is by creating a floor value of $50 for any gun, no matter how low the market value, if any, for that gun. Come to think of it, if we could change all stupid government programs from permanent fixtures to one-day events, that would be real progress!

What are "contextual and situational situations"? It has something to do with integrated math, the latest topic of discussion at Schoolhouse Talk:

Integrated math allows students to learn the same content that is taught in algebraic math, but in a different context, with an emphasis on contextual and situational situations rather than formulas and algorithms.

Integrated math (or "new math," or whatever you want to call it) provokes heated discussions in Missouri and around the country. Edspresso has published an essay titled, "Traditional Math Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry." There’s even an entire website, Weapons of Math Destruction, which has published 85 cartoons on the topic of integrated math.

Anyway, the latest development in Missouri is that some parents are complaining about the Columbia Public Schools’ integrated math curriculum. The district uses integrated math at the elementary level and gives high school students a choice between integrated math and a traditional math track. I haven’t been able to find out whether the middle schools use only one program, or both. Some Columbia parents supplement their kids’ schoolwork with Singapore Math, one of my favorite math curricula. (Yes, I actually have favorite math curricula.)

I’m sympathetic to parents’ objections about new math, but that doesn’t mean the district should necessarily get rid of it. Kids don’t all learn the same way; for many, an integrated approach could be more intuitive or interesting. Columbia Public Schools already give parents a choice about math at the high school level. If they allowed parents to choose traditional math at the elementary level too, more people would be satisfied with the curriculum. Some elementary schools allow parents to choose between single-sex and coed classes; a choice between traditional and integrated math should be even easier for schools to offer, because it affects just one subject rather than the entire school day.

Let me start by saying that I love the St. Louis Business-Journal and read it every week. It plays a great role in our community and does it very well. They are also generous to SMI, carrying our op-eds at times — including today — which we greatly appreciate.

That said, I have to strongly and respectfully disagree with their editorial today. I can’t link to it, because it’s not available on-line, so you’ll just have to trust me on the quotes. In short, they commend the St. Louis County Council for NOT lowering the tax rate by 2 cents, as was proposed by Councilman Greg Quinn. They state that it demonstrated political courage NOT to lower taxes, dismissing the notion of saving homeowners $7.60 per year, on average. They write:

Hefty increases in property taxes throughout the county have fueled a taxpayer revolt. If the council decides to dramatically reduce property taxes, the action should come as part of a studied budget plan that would include new sources of revenue to balance the monies raised by property tax.

So if you are going to cut property taxes, make certain that you raise other taxes, to keep overall tax revenue the same — even if the property tax increases are the result of reassessment, which (and this is the key) are not supposed to raise taxes. The editorial buys into the popular government notion that everything government does is so important that it should never reduce services, or even just hold back the growth rate of services.

It is not "pandering," as the editorial says, to slightly roll back property tax rates for citizens. As the title of this post says, taxes rise incrementally (a slight sales tax increase for fireman pensions here, a property tax increase from reassessment there, a business license fee hike tomorrow) so why shouldn’t they decrease incrementally? Especially when they result from reassessment, which — I repeat — is NOT supposed to result in a tax increase.

St. Louis County government is not legally required to roll back its rate, which is far enough below the authorized cap. The fact that the rate is low is a good thing, but it is really just a loophole in the law. It does not mean they should treat assessment increases as a windfall every year, dismissing a moral obligation to roll back rates. A small rollback says to taxpayers that the county understands the reassessment tax increases people face, and is going to address the issue responsibly — not just take all the new tax money and spend it.

It is not politically courageous to refuse to lower tax rates. St. Louis County has an obligation to lead by example, demonstrating to the many other nearby taxing districts that a rollback after reassessment is the right thing to do, even if it’s not required.