Despite spending more per student than all but two states, maintaining a 14:1 student-to-teacher ratio, and offering among the higher teacher salaries in the nation, Washington, D.C., has long had the absolute worst public school system in the nation. The District’s schools rank dead last in math and reading, as assessed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress evaluations. Washington has struggled for decades to change this culture of academic failure, but to no avail.

But, as Newsweek recently reported, the District is now in the midst of a paradigm-shift regarding the way that schooling is done. The first break from tradition came with the District’s successful introduction of dozens of charter schools. Shortly thereafter, Congress authorized a scholarship program that allows more than 1,800 low-income students (the program had four times that many applicants) to attend the best available schools, whether public or private. Then, shortly after his election in 2006, Mayor Adrian Fenty stripped authority from the school board and appointed Michelle Rhee as the chancellor of Washington’s public schools.

The article does an excellent job of highlighting how the city’s schools had been paralyzed by the teachers’ unions’ staunch opposition to any changes that would have made it easier to remove ineffective administrators and educators, and it gives a snapshot of how D.C.’s leadership is making its first concerted effort to transform the city’s public education landscape in a fundamental way. In addition to their willingness to consolidate underpopulated schools and fire ineffective-but-popular administrators, Rhee and Mayor Fenty have raised the possibility of nearly doubling the salaries of the city’s teachers, provided that they are willing to abandon the security of tenure. These changes are terrifying for the educational establishment, which has mobilized an enormous effort to try and maintain the status quo, but these are precisely the kinds of fundamental reforms necessary to ensure that public schools are more focused on meeting the needs of their children than they are on creating job security for education professionals.

Given that St. Louis shares many of the same challenges facing Washington, D.C., the city would be wise to watch Washington’s progress as we evaluate the future of our own school system.

It has been a little more than two months since Pine Lawn Police Chief Rickey Collins began enforcing the anti-sagging ordinance that the municipality’s aldermen passed. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The ordinance calls for fines of up to $100 for those 17 and older who wear pants below the waist that expose underwear or skin. [...] Parents of those 16 and under face up to a $500 fine or 90 days in jail if they knowingly allow their children to wear pants in such a manner.”

Personally, I think sagging is uncongenial, representing the antithesis of a gentleman. Despite my views, I believe that government does not have the right to enforce family values by acting like the fashion police. Besides being difficult to implement and patrol, this policy is also unconstitutional. There are many forms of expression that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as fighting words, libel, commercial speech, and obscenity. While some try to place sagging under the umbrella of obscenity, it would be relevant to put it through the “Miller Test,” which is the standard for determining whether material is obscene. In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that material is legally obscene if:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would conclude that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.
2. It depicts sexually explicit conduct, specifically defined by law, in a patently offensive manner.
3. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I believe tha sagging passes the ‘Miller Test’ with flying colors. For young people who are part of our country’s inner-city hip hop culture, it is a form of rebellion and identity. To some, it is just plain fashionable. This ordinance in Pine Lawn is just another example of how our liberty and freedom of expression are in danger today.

Other cities around the country, most recently Flint, Mich., are also taking stride to incorporate the same ordinance in their efforts to restore family values and ethics. I do applaud the importance of ethics in American society, but how ethical is it for government to deny our freedom of expression?

The Commission that was charged with reviewing the capital needs of the county and recommending solutions has issued its final report. (My testimony about it begins on page 226.) The recommendations are a little long on tax increases, but I also recognize that, in the end, it is up to the voters of the county to decide. I like the commission’s recommendations to consider resources outside of central Clayton in certain situations (nobody wants to move the bulk of county facilities from Clayton), and, of course, I really like the support for public-private partnerships to meet some of these needs.

The list of final recommendations on page 14 is the key part of the report (aside from page 226, obviously). It is interesting that the County Council acted against the recommendations of the commission, and placed this use tax on the November, 2008, ballot instead of waiting for April 2009. No further comments — it’s just interesting.

As of right now, it appears that county voters will get to vote on three tax/bond issues this Novermber. As it stands right now, I am in favor of the bond issue, against the use tax, and undecided (leaning in favor) on the Metro tax increase. I live near MetroLink and use it, so a very careful cost-benefit analysis of the service probably benefits me. I have to doubt it would work out that way for most people.

Briefly back to the commission report: Every member of the volunteer commission deserves thanks for dedicating their time to it. Especially Skip Mange, the chairman, who took time away from his grandkids to once again serve the people of the county.

This week, I have been very intrigued by all of the coverage and media attention received by college and university administrators and their efforts to mitigate some of the behavioral issues on campuses throughout the country. Some of the most publicized attempts by groups such as the Amethyst Initiative, which consists of chancellors and presidents from universities and colleges, have been targeted at lowering the drinking age from 21 years of age to 18, to prevent the culture of binge drinking. While opening up debates about lowering the drinking age is fine and dandy, I must say that I was tickled pink when I read an AP article at the Post-Dispatch site titled “Universities try to control students off campus.”

Many campuses across the country are starting to monitor the off-campus activities of students much more closely, because of the large number of students that pursue off campus living arrangements. Large schools, such as the University of Washington, Penn State, and the University of Colorado–Boulder, have enforced such laws, and have seen progress. According to the article, “Being cited for breaking the city’s noise regulations is enough to score an invite to the [University of Washington's] student conduct office.”

Granted, a college or university has the right to create a code of conduct that is conducive to the educational environment on campus. If colleges do not want noisy, disruptive students to attend their school, that is their right and academic freedom. The only concern I have is in how they would investigate these occurrences. If a student were to receive a citation for a noise violation, would the school wait to see if the ticket is actually challenged? At Duke University, for instance, the campus codes only require that a student report misbehavior to campus officials. This could easily represent another example of administrators punishing first and asking questions later. There is no liberty in just being accused of something and then reprimanded — there must be due process.

This only leaves a few choices for students in the future: accept these strict regulations; voice their concerns and seek change in the institution; or withdraw and attend a more lenient college or university. For the men in Old School and Animal House, this would be an easy decision.

One of the more radical (and controversial) ideas in education reform these days is to offer students cold, hard cash in exchange for performance. The idea is that, although some students might not be motivated by the sheer joy of learning, their priorities might change if they are offered concrete financial rewards for academic achievement.

The New York Times has a story today discussing the mixed results of a recent pilot program in New York City. The privately funded program, which included several thousand students in 31 high schools (25 public schools and six Catholic schools, all chosen based on criteria including minority enrollment and prior student test performance), sought to encourage students to take and pass Advanced Placement exams by offering them up to $1,000 for earning passing scores on those tests.

In 2007, 4,275 students from these schools took AP exams, which are graded on a 1–5 scale with 1 being worst and 5 being the best. Of those students, 174 (4.1 percent) attained the highest score, while 403 (9.4 percent) scored 4, and 904 (21.1 percent) scored 3, the lowest passing grade. Overall, 34.6 percent of the test takers in 2007 earned passing grades.

In 2008, knowing that a good score could mean a lot of money, 4,620 students took the exams. Of those, 207 (4.5 percent) scored 5, 398 (8.6 percent) scored 4, and 871 (18.9 percent) scored 3. So, just on the surface — and in the absence of any additional information — the monetary incentive seems to have encouraged an additional 345 students to take the test, as well as spurring a slight increase in the percentage of test takers earning the highest possible score. But the rest of the story is that a smaller percentage of these schools’ 2008 test takers (32 percent) performed well enough to pass.

This was just the first year for this incentive program, and the monetary incentives were announced after the school year had already begun and class assignments were set, so it’s hard to say whether we can learn much of anything from these results. While I know that the idea of paying students for academic performance is somewhat controversial, as a matter of theory I do believe that these sorts of financial incentives are likely to lead to improved student performance. I am also aware that theory does not always translate into reality, so I will be very interested to see future studies assessing the impact of this and similar programs.

What do you think about rewarding students for academic performance?

My heart sank when I read this story from the Post-Dispatch today. A commercial developer has targeted a neighborhood in Affton for a new development and has started contacting the area’s property owners with offers. The area’s elected representative on the County Council is already talking about creating a TIF district to subsidize the developer’s efforts. Of course, creating a TIF district also opens the door to eminent domain. This is a textbook example of how eminent domain abuse begins, all over the country.

My advice to the good folks in Affton (and anywhere else where a developer is looking to assemble property) is to immediately read the Eminent Domain Survival Guide offered by the Institute for Justice. It offers invaluable information for those who find themselves in a situation where the government might take away their property. Second, I urge you to contact Anthony Martin, Missouri’s Property Rights Ombudsman. His job is to help Missourians understand the way that eminent domain is pursued in this state. And, finally, contact us at the Show-Me Institute so we can help tell your story and, hopefully, help save your home or business.

Famed Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt will be giving a free public lecture next month, co-sponsored by Saint Louis University and the Show-Me Institute. From the press release:

Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What makes a perfect parent? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? These are questions that Steven D. Levitt asks in his controversial, critically acclaimed book FREAKONOMICS: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Levitt will expand on his book’s inquisitive premise during an address on Tuesday, Sept. 23, at Saint Louis University.

Levitt’s speech is part of the economic policy series presented by the Show-Me Institute in conjunction with Saint Louis University and its John Cook School of Business. He will be the third lecturer in the series, which began earlier this year.

If you, or anybody you know, is interested in attending, be sure to register sooner rather than later. Seating is limited, and we expect that demand will likely exceed supply.

Not content with the Missouri Municipal League putting the good of government over the good of the people by trying to block much-needed reforms to our eminent domain laws (yeah, yeah, I know that the “government” is “us” — would somebody please tell the muny league that?), the St. Louis County Municipal League is attempting to pass a use tax on county citizens and businesses. From the article in the Post-Dispatch:

Dooley said he was acting on behalf of the St. Louis County Municipal League, which wrote to Dooley last week seeking his support of the tax.

Here is my testimony on the subject, which I gave in June to the county commission considering these issues. The imposition of a use tax on county businesses will wipe out one of the competitive advantages that St. Louis County has, and just add incentives for businesses to move to St. Charles. Perhaps I shouldn’t care. The county (and, even more so, the cities within it) can always just give away more tax breaks to favored businesses once they pass the higher taxes on to all of them. That certainly sounds like the basis for good policy …

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that cities across the state were creating a war chest to try to prevent Missouri’s voters from ending the eminent domain abuse that currently threatens our right to keep what rightfully belongs to us. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of state ruled that, despite the hundreds of thousands of signatures turned in by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR) in support of their proposed constitutional amendments, the issue would not be on the November ballot.

Last week, MO-CPR filed a lawsuit challenging the secretary of state’s decision and asking the court to allow citizens to have their say on the issue. And, yesterday, the Missouri Municipal League — an organization that collects taxpayer dollars and purports to advance the interests of Missouri’s local governments — moved to block MO-CPR’s lawsuit.

A few choice tidbits from the Municipal League’s filing should allow citizens to evaluate the merits of its “concerns”:

• The league’s members argue that they should be allowed to intervene because they “have exercised the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for conveyance to private entities for commercial or other development to fight blight and other decay, and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.”
• The league opposes the amendments because they might require local governments to pay “just compensation for local land use regulations.” In other words, the cities would have to pay you if they passed a regulation that decreased the value of your property. While not included in their filing, a previous Municipal League analysis of the proposed amendments also worried that they would “significantly increase the amounts of condemnation awards” to citizens being dispossessed of their homes and businesses.
• The league is concerned that the amendments would require cities to get a court order before they destroyed or condemned property that they thought was a nuisance. While not mentioned in the league’s filing, the amendment would also require cities to give owners an opportunity to fix the problems themselves. I mean, why in the world should cities allow property owners the chance to remove the government’s pretext for giving their property to someone else? Honestly.
• The league doesn’t like that the amendments would “limit the use of eminent domain to the State or political subdivisions whose officials are directly responsible to elected officials.” This would, of course, allow voters to hold those responsible for using eminent domain accountable for their actions — a radical departure from current law, which allows many unelected, unaccountable organizations to take away private property.
• Despite justifying its involvement in part by complaining that confirming the number of proper signatures will be expensive, the league calls for the court to recount all 400,000+ signatures, not just the ones challenged by MO-CPR.

MO-CPR issued a press release in response to the Municipal League’s filing. Among the excellent points made in the release, my favorite is where Bevis Shock (a member of the Show-Me Institute’s board of directors) asks, “I wonder if the politicians who approved this legal action have considered how many residents of their cities signed our petition?”

For all of you Mizzou Tiger fans, please don’t get your hopes up. This No. 1 ranking has nothing to do with college football. According to an article in the Southeast Missourian, a Ball State University study has ranked Missouri as the No. 1 state for manufacturing in the country. Of the 20 categories that the 2008 National Manufacturing and Logistics Report Card took into account, Missouri was placed at the top for low long-term health care costs, health care premiums, and property taxes.

These high marks in health care costs and premiums can be attributed in part to the passage of HB 818, which helped the Show-Me State show the rest of the nation how free-market health insurance reform is done. This bipartisan solution to the state’s health policy dilemma helps put employees in charge, freeing them to choose their own insurance policies, and puts employers in positions where they can now contribute directly to employees’ plans without the burden of mandated contribution amounts. Furthermore, health savings accounts and individual health plans are portable, so employees are protected even in case of employment changes.

Another key factor associated with our manufacturing job growth (which might easily be overlooked) was the massive tort reform legislation that was passed in 2005. The Ball State rankings represent tangible evidence that good things happen when states reform and alter legal systems in an effort to shut down abuses that lead to “jackpot justice.”

In the midst of a poor economic climate and recent cutbacks in various plants, the great state of Missouri still prevails. Great job, Missouri … let’s keep up the good work!

With all due respect to my colleague, Sarah, the most ridiculous regulation imposed on the food industry comes from the recent decision by the Los Angeles city government to ban new fast-food restaurants from opening in poor neighborhoods. There was an excellent piece on this regulatory nightmare written by William Saletan at Slate.com, and another for the Los Angeles Times by Joe Hicks, but I want to reiterate several of the reasons why this is such a terrible idea:

• The fast-food ban assumes that poor people can’t be trusted (and therefore have no right) to make decisions for themselves. This is paternalism at its ugliest, because it says that people’s freedom can and should be stripped from them if the majority believes their choices might prove to be unwise.
• The ban ignores the realities of these communities. As unhealthy as fast food can be, it is the most convenient, most affordable way for many people to get a meal. Even if someone in a poor community had the time to shop at a grocery store and fashion home-cooked meals, it is far more expensive to purchase fresh foods and the means to prepare them than it is to swing by a local fast-food restaurant. Especially with the escalating cost of food, families worried about day-to-day survival can’t always afford the luxury of securing the most nutritious meals.
• Fast-food restaurants provide jobs for unskilled workers. While, as Dave Chapelle’s satirical take on this issue points out, these sorts of jobs aren’t likely to end poverty, they do bring money into the community and offer a first step toward more profitable types of employment. The fewer fast-food restaurants in the community, the higher that area’s unemployment level will be.
• The ban prevents competition in the fast-food market. Los Angeles has only banned new fast food restaurants, insulating the existing businesses from competition. Not only does this alleviate some of the pressure to keep menu prices down, it also allows the existing companies to pay rock-bottom wages because workers have fewer alternative employers.

Unfortunately, as with many ill-advised government schemes, this one seems to be catching on.

Being an environmentalist opposed to nuclear power is like being a vegetarian who is starving but still refuses meat. The solution to all your primary goals and needs is right in front of your face, but you still refuse to alter your mindset to see it. Let’s see here: Fewer carbon emissions? Check. Clearner burning energy? Check. Reduced use of fossil fuels? Check. Add in the benefits of more affordable energy and a decreased use of foreign energy sources, and I have never understood the opposition to nuclear power.

A short time ago I half-jokingly wrote about how the disaster movies of the 1970s helped fuel the safety-obsessed society we now live in. Smarter people than I have already constructed this equation: One overrated movie + one poorly timed, frightening, but ultimately minor accident + an enormous amount of activism from certain types opposed to nuclear power = a halt on expanded nuclear power in America + more dependence on the exact thing (oil) that environmentalists don’t like in the first place + higher energy costs for everyone.

What is the point of all this? AmerenUE wants to expand its nuclear plant in Cab Callaway County. The Fulton Sun has the story here, about a recent public hearing on the proposal. One of my neighbors showed up to oppose it:

Drey claimed that a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a terrorist attack would cause massive ecological and health problems for a very large area.

“Someone could get in with a plastic explosive through a metal detector and drop it into the plant and that would be the end of Callaway County and the rest of us,” she said.

Where to begin? First of all, the plant is already there (thankfully). It’s not like a terrorist is going to say, “Well, now they have two reactors instead of just one, so let’s target it. Why would we have wasted our time trying to detonate just one nuclear reactor? But now that there are two, it is worth our efforts!” The same goes for earthquakes, but I trust that the engineers who built it — and will build it — have, you know, considered that.

Everything has a cost and a risk. The extensive use of nuclear power has shown that it is safe — except, perhaps, when you let it be run by communists. Congressman Todd Akin (definitely not a communist, but an engineer) has proposed major revisions to American’s energy policy that include expanding the use the nuclear power:

“I have always been a supporter of nuclear energy,” Akin said. “The rewards are substantive as far as its low cost energy and its cleaner.” He noted that nuclear power becomes a more attractive energy source in the context of global warming.

I could not agree with him more.