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.