Metro, as previously announced, made cuts to its service yesterday. Bus service will be reduced by 44 percent, MetroLink by 32 percent, and the call-a-ride service by 15 percent. Also, the call-a-ride service will no longer provide transportation to those who reside west and south of I-270. Metro predicts that job access in Saint Louis County will fall from 98 percent to 71 percent.

This could cause the unemployment within Saint Louis County to increase in the medium run, especially when added to the 600 employees that Metro itself plans to terminate. In testimony before the Metro Board of Commissioners, Show-Me Institute policy analyst David Stokes contributed possible alternative solutions to cutting services while still making the budget. He found that one potential solution to avoid making the cuts would be to “increase the cost of individual tickets more than the cost of monthly passes. That way, regular riders who depend on mass transit would not be priced out of the system, and would still be able to purchase affordable monthly passes.”

In short, it seems there is an alternative revenue source method, and — as Stokes suggests — Metro could have avoided the service cuts and minimize the costs of restructuring. Overall efficiency should be at the heart of the debate.

This post in Political Fix immediately reminded me of this classic Onion article. Sometimes government officials have no idea how funny they are. Try to guess which lines are from the news article and which are from the joke article:

• Some suspect that the rise is the result of a citywide “Hey, Elkhart, Come To Your Census!” campaign.
• Assistant Regional Census Manager Craig Best brought out census-themed gear, including coffee mugs, pens and a bag.
• No one lives in St. Louis.
• Members of the committee — mostly government officials and community organization members — threw out ideas such as tapping into Facebook.com to reach college students, and Simmons brought up the possibility of Tweeting.

Just hysterical. I don’t think I would want to go on living without my home subscription to the Onion. Thanks for Combest for the catch — you know he loves the Onion, too.

The St. Louis Language Immersion Schools, which I mentioned in this op-ed about charter schools and foreign language instruction, have a new video up here. The schools offer both full language immersion and the International Baccalaureate curriculum, a combination not to be found in any other elementary school in the state.

I expect to see more innovation like this from charter schools as that sector of the education market continues to grow.

Katy Steinmetz writes about exotic pets in the Missourian. She comes down squarely on the side of the St. Louis County chickens. (Chickens are exotic? Only in St. Louis County.) However, she’s not in favor of allowing larger, potentially dangerous animals as pets.

The column elicited some interesting comments about the downsides of exotic pet regulation, not all of which I agree with. Such as:

While on the surface your logic seems quite appropriate, but may I point out that all species, even your golden retriever, started out as a “wild animal” in some form or another.

Yes, but it’s been a really long time since our ancestors were coaxing wolves to come closer to the fire. The average golden retriever is ready to be a pet. The average wolf isn’t.

Any pet, regardless of species, can be a good pet, as well as be a bad pet. It’s all dependent on the humans involved.

Even lions? I don’t think so. Some big, dangerous, undomesticated animals are just objectively bad pets.

The commenter anticipates my thought about lions:

You may think a lion, tiger, bear, or chimpanzee may seem terribly dangerous, but they actually account for such a miniscule amount of deaths and injuries each year per capita.

Not convincing, because so few people keep those animals. I can accept that a wild cat roaming the mountains and avoiding people by nature isn’t dangerous, and a bear confined in a zoo isn’t dangerous. But it would be dangerous to allow these animals in residential neighborhoods. If more people had them in their houses, they would “account for” more deaths.

This is a good point:

One problem with regulation is it creates a lack of new people learning the regulated skills. The fewer people that live in areas that are “allowed” to own a species, the fewer can have enough contact with the animals to learn to be able to handle that species.

But I still don’t think that outweighs the safety issue. If people want to learn to handle exotic animals, they should work in a zoo, and learn the skills in an environment where they’re less likely to endanger others.

This Southeast Missourian article (link via Combest) opens up discussion on the state of public pension funds in light of the economic downturn. Public pension funds are problematic right now, because defined-benefit plans promise individuals the same amount of return from an unstable economy as they would receive from a stable economy — regardless of how much the investment has lost value.

Investment losses have turned a source of revenue into a deficit, which has hurt the pension funds. As a result, current public employees could see a rise in contribution payments.

For more detailed information regarding public pension funds, be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s policy study on the subject, “Missouri’s Challenge: Managing Long-Term Employee Benefit Costs,” by scholar Richard C. Dreyfuss.

Last week, the Journal reported on a comedy troupe that’s being hounded by regulators. Today, there’s another article about regulators overstepping their bounds, this time to put obstacles in the path of potential tour guides. The city of Philadelphia requires tour guides to pass a history test and get a license — and that applies to anyone who talks about history in exchange for money.

Here’s the best sentence in the article:

As Robert McNamara, a lawyer who took on the case, distills his argument, “Government can’t make sure you understand the Constitution before it has to abide by it.”

Read the whole thing. And feel free to leave a comment, if your municipality allows you to discuss current events without a license.

Every single county in Missouri should follow Jackson County’s lead and allow people to file personal property tax declarations online. This is one of the simplest ways for local officials to save residents time and money (either the cost of a stamp, or through lower taxes because fewer government employees would be needed to sift through the mountains of declarations). If any other counties are doing this, please feel free to let me know.

The idea that Saint Louis County should have an elected assessor (thanks to Combest for this Business-Journal link) in Saint Louis County is a very good one, for reasons you can find in minute detail in my recent study of Missouri government. Let’s just say that the reasons involve logarithms. Fancy, eh?

The plan to require an actual vote in order to lower the tax rate ceiling in South St. Louis County (the Mehlville Fire District) is terrific. I think this has an excellent chance of passing, and it will go a long way to limit the unnecessary spending that fire districts have been engaging in for far too long. My concern is not that the current Mehlville board will spend too much. Rather, the ceiling decrease proposal would ensure that future boards have to go to the people for tax increases, instead of just automatically spending to meet the existing (high) rate ceiling. More local governments in Missouri need to examine this idea. From the article in the Call:

[Board President Aaron] Hilmer continued, “… One question people ask is: If the board can decide what the tax rate is, why let voters decide on this? All it would take is a vote of two Board of Directors members next year to, in effect, double the taxes that people are paying to the fire district. This is a chance for voters to ensure that never happens in the future …”

In fairness, I would not write about this if I didn’t live just down the street and drive by it nearly every day, but I am sad to report that the Historic Pevely Dairy building suffered a devastating loss to fire on Sunday.

I have no historic context for the loss, having grown up in north county and being no connoisseur of dairy, but I feel the tragedy on some level. I’m sure that the building was, at one time, the livelihood of many, though it’s been unused recently. According to the article, it was shut down last November and the site was scheduled to be sold.

This brings me to my point. There is and always will be tragedy and unexpected loss in the world. We can never escape this. But people fight the hardest to overcome and return to “normal” when their livelihood is on the line. When property is the sole responsibility of one person — or, occasionally, when owned by a few people — with a vested interest in its proper functioning, they will go to great lengths to maintain and preserve it. One (perhaps unpalatable) logical extreme of this insight that a friend proposed to me is, “If environmentalists want to save endangered species, they should find a way to commercialize them.” They could be pets, or have some industrial application, whatever it takes to make it in the interest of firms or individuals not only to preserve them, but to proliferate them. No one worries that cows, dogs, or cats will disappear. Indeed, many are concerned about overpopulation of dogs and cats.

I am not saying that this building burned down because it was abandoned or nationalized, only that if it were an active concern, it would be rebuilt in short order. The sad scar of loss would be healed with the revitalizing touch of a new and modern factory, perhaps producing Pevely milk and butter more cheaply and benefiting customers and workers alike. At present, I don’t anticipate a speedy rebuild. More likely, the lot will languish awaiting a buyer interested in owning one more vacant lot, this one with some singed rubble included. The lesson rings in the background: If you want to save it, create a market for it.

The Post-Dispatch ran a story yesterday about how Chesterfield is considering an ordinance that would tackle the growing menace of urban chickens. The article looks into the phenomenon of chicken husbandry in residential neighborhoods, and also discusses how municipalities across the metro area have addressed the chicken question, all of which is kind of interesting. But my real reason for pointing out the article is to direct your attention to all the commenters who (at least where chickens are concerned) share my thoughts about property rights.

This article in the Post-Dispatch is a perfect example of the issues Josh considered in his great post about public goods a few weeks back. The St. Louis Zoo, and other entities in the zoo-museum district, are clearly non-rival, because the person standing next to me at the zoo who does not pay taxes to the district in no way diminishes my capacity to enjoy the zoo. However, the zoo, art museum, etc., are also fully excludable, because it is pretty easy to keep someone out who didn’t pay, if that is what you desire to do. So, they are not the type of pure public goods that Josh discussed.

Should people from surrounding counties tax themselves to pay for the district like people in St. Louis county and city do? Or should the free riders just be allowed to continue enjoying the zoo without paying for it? I support the bill before the legislature requiring counties like St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson either to tax themselves or face having their residents pay an admission fee when they go to the zoo, history museum, et al. If they don’t want to pay the property tax, that is fine, but then say goodbye to free admissions for people outside St. Louis County and city.

I think the St. Charles county executive makes a fair point, though:

[...] Steve Ehlmann said his constituents would be unlikely to vote to join the district unless some of the tax money is earmarked for some institution or service in their county.

I think it is very reasonable to add one park or institution in each county that elects to pay the property tax into the fold of entities supported by the tax. We could add the Daniel Boone home in St. Charles, the historic Washington riverfront park in Franklin County, the first meth lab ever busted in Jefferson County, and — if Illinois got in the game — Pops could be included.

P.S. — Just kidding, Jeff Co., you know I love you. …

Over at Prime Buzz, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver — who represents Kansas City, in case you didn’t know — is quoted making a simply amazing statement of regret over his recent vote regarding AIG (link via Combest). Apparently, there has been some sort of scandal over bonuses, or some such?

Kidding aside, this reminds me of the time Sen. John Danforth took to the Senate floor to admit he was wrong and change his vote on the flag-burning bill. Whether you agree with these votes or not, Rep. Cleaver’s honesty, candor, and willingness to admit he was wrong is impressive.

Recently, the Show-Me Insitute has received a striking amount of media attention:

• March 26, St. Louis Post-Dispatch — “Kick Anti-CWIP laws to the curb”
• March 23, Columbia Missourian — “Kick advance-financing laws to the curb”
• March 23, Southeast Missourian — “Missouri ranks 8th in number of government entities”
• March 23, Missourinet — “Show me big government”
• March 22, St. Louis Beacon — “Do away with CWIP restrictions”
• March 22, St. Louis Post-Dispatch — “Tweaking for hacks”
• March 18, Missouri Political News Service — “Kick Anti-CWIP Laws to the Curb”
• March 15, St. Louis Post-Dispatch — “Two factions will debate smoking ban”
• March 12, Carthage Press — “Economist details federal package”

Also, be sure to check out the original Policy Pulse news articles we’ve published this month:

• March 23 — “Advocates Push for Changes to Missouri Open Records Law”
• March 19 — “‘Quality Jobs’ Tax Credit Expansion Stalled in Committee”
• March 13 — “Bill Would Replace Missouri’s Income Tax with Sales Tax”
• March 3 — “Legislation Aims to Allow CWIP Billing by Missouri Utilities”

For years, Arizona has been a national leader when it comes to helping students take advantage of the best available educational opportunities. Fifteen years ago, the state adopted open enrollment for public schools and introduced charter schools to the state. A couple of years later, Arizona added a tax credit scholarship program that encouraged taxpayers (and, more recently, businesses) to make charitable donations for scholarships that would help families send their children to schools they might not otherwise be able to afford. And, three years ago, the state passed two limited scholarship programs designed to help special needs students and students in foster care. As a result, tens of thousands of families have had educational options that are denied to families in other states.

Unfortunately, Arizona’s array of educational options has also made it a hotbed of litigation as teachers’ unions and other school choice opponents have brought legal challenge after legal challenge in a desperate effort to force the scholarship recipients back into the public school system. The legal arguments focus primarily on the meaning of two sections of the Arizona Constitution. Article 2, section 12, states in part that “[n]o public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.” Article 9, section 10, states that “[n]o tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation.”

Ten years ago, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Kotterman v. Killian that the tax credit scholarships did not violate these provisions. The court specifically rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that offering a tax credit for charitable donations to scholarship organizations was the same as cutting a check from the state treasury. Instead, the court noted that citizens’ money only becomes the property of the state once the state collects it in the form of taxes — so funds that the state chooses not to collect can never properly be classified as “public money,” as contemplated in the Arizona Constitution.

The Kotterman decision went even further, however, saying that even if the programs at issue involved the use of public funds, the resulting “benefits to religious schools are sufficiently attenuated to foreclose a constitutional breach.” The court pointed out that the students and the taxpayers were the beneficiaries of the program because they were the only ones who could claim any rights under the program’s provisions — any benefit to a private or religious school was entirely dependent on the decisions made by others, and could not be attributed to the state.

Despite the Kotterman decision, opponents of school choice have continued to bring lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s various programs. Last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals correctly rejected yet another claim that the state’s tax credit scholarships were unconstitutional. Today, however, the Arizona Supreme Court departed from the sound reasoning offered in Kotterman and held instead that the state’s scholarship programs for special needs and foster care students violated the Arizona Constitution.

Cain v. Horne, the case dealing with the special needs and foster care scholarship programs, once again brought attention to Article 2, section 12, and Article 9, section 10, of the Arizona Constitution. The primary difference between the facts in Cain and the facts in Kotterman is that the Cain scholarships were drawn from the state treasury, as opposed to being the result of private donations. This being the case, no one disputed that these were public funds being offered for the students’ use. While the Cain court made brief reference to the question of whether religious schools’ participation could render the programs invalid, it never offered an answer to that particular question. Instead, the court focused on Article 9, section 10, determining that the scholarship programs were unconstitutional because they “transfer state funds directly from the state treasury to private schools.”

Thus, according to the court, any program that would result in public funds running to a private organization (whether religious or non-religious) would run afoul of the Arizona Constitution. As pointed out above, the Kotterman court had specifically rejected this argument because the scholarships were offered for the benefit of individuals, not schools. But the Cain opinion never even referenced that part of the Kotterman opinion, nor did it offer a basis for rejecting Kotterman’s reasoning.

Unfortunately, this case is not likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The interpretation of a state constitution is the sole province of that state’s courts unless a decision implicates rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. Given that the Arizona Supreme Court very carefully avoided using the Arizona Constitution’s religion clause to strike down the programs (which would have raised a legal question under the United States Constitution), the U.S. Supreme Court would likely say that it has no jurisdiction to reconsider the outcome of this case.

The positive note for Missouri in all of this is that the most serious school choice proposals in this state are more similar to the tax credit scholarships that Arizona’s courts have upheld. Even though the Arizona Supreme Court ignored part of Kotterman’s reasoning, it seemingly reaffirmed Kotterman’s position that tax credit scholarships do not involve the use of public funds and, therefore, do not violate the Arizona Constitution. As I have said before, if Missouri were to adopt a tax credit scholarship program, Missouri’s courts should similarly find that such a program is permissible under our own state constitution.

I’d like to point out that the first deadline in the Policy Pulse news coverage contest for Missouri students is coming up tomorrow! If you, or another Missouri high school or college student of your acquaintance, is interested in participating, it’s not too late. A $500 monthly cash prize is nothing to sneeze at, especially if you’re a student. Not to mention the chance for an additional $750 grand prize.

The full contest rules are available online. Keep in mind that we’re running this contest for three months, and tomorrow is only the deadline for the first round of entries. So if you can’t make tomorrow’s deadline, don’t despair — you can also enter in April or May. But why not enter in March, April, and May, and increase your chances of success? The rules don’t specify a limit on per-person entries.

We’ve already published some stories of the type that are likely to win — so take a look at them and try to follow suit. Remember that we also accept video and audio entries, and the fact that we’re partnered with the Missouri Broadcasters Association and the Missouri Broadcast Educators Association for this contest means that your coverage may well receive a widespread audience.

So don’t delay. Read all about it and enter today! Or tomorrow! Or next month! You get the idea.

Bill Schrier has a post up about potential uses of Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites in local government. He thinks the technology isn’t ready yet. Here are some of his (paraphrased) reservations about the sites, with my comments:

1. Facebook isn’t a good way to organize community efforts like neighborhood watches because it would require sharing too much personal information with casual acquaintances.

I’m not sure why he thinks neighbors would have to share all their information with each other on Facebook. If you start a group on Facebook, the members can communicate with each other even if they’re not “friends” and don’t see each other’s profiles. You can also control which friends see what on your profile. I’m less familiar with other social networking sites, but I know there are some out there that people use for more specific purposes and not to share every intimate detail — for example, some people use LinkedIn just for employment networking and keep the personal stuff on MySpace or Facebook. It’s possible to use social networking without revealing your closest secrets.

2. If local governments used Twitter, they would be overwhelmed by the volume of responses.

Maybe, maybe not. I guess it depends on what we mean by local. How many people are eager to communicate with their municipalities on Twitter? It would probably be the same dozen who show up at council meetings. But even if a state government would get too many replies to respond to them all, that doesn’t mean the technology isn’t useful. A one-way exchange of information from government to constituents can still serve a purpose. If someone wants to comment or make a suggestion, they can use all the traditional ways of contacting the government, like letters and phone calls.

3. Government use of social networking sites would deepen the digital divide between those who have access to these sites and those who don’t.

I agree that governments should not assume everyone has access. Twitter isn’t a substitute for those sirens that go off when a tornado’s coming, and we’ll continue to need printed notices and forms. On the other hand, computers are available in public libraries for anyone to use. Local governments shouldn’t forgo email because not everyone has it, and the same goes for social networking.

This is completely unfair. A comedy group that pokes fun at professional wrestling is being hit with regulations by the state of Washington as if it were a real sport:

Washington state’s Department of Licensing takes the high jinks seriously. Earlier this month, it classified the performances as “sports entertainment.” The ruling means the spoofers must meet safety regulations and could force the league to post a $10,000 bond, station medical personnel at events and buy a regulation wrestling ring.

The justification given for harassing them is that professional wrestling, which is subject to regulations, is also fake!

People sometimes ask, “What’s the harm in a regulation if it’s reasonable and all the relevant people agree to it?” Besides keeping out competition, these requirements end up being applied more broadly than was originally intended, in cases where they just don’t make sense. The group’s lawyer points out that if the regulations include them, they should also include a wide variety of activities, including swordfights in a Shakespeare production. Think of all the high school plays that would be shut down if every drama teacher had to pay thousands of dollars to the state.

The Cascade Policy Institute is sponsoring a school choice video contest, and many interesting entries are popping up on YouTube. I enjoyed watching this one about Rachel’s experiences at her charter school:

Now, charter schools are still public schools, and taxpayers do fund them. But aside from that inaccuracy, I think it’s a great video. Exploring equestrian careers is definitely an opportunity most traditional public schools don’t give their students. I also liked the father’s comment that you can’t push every student into the (traditional) public school box.

Adam Schaeffer talks about universal preschool on the Cato Daily Podcast. A few of his main points:

1. It’s hard to scale up successful preschool programs. If a program succeeds with 150 kids, that doesn’t mean you can replicate it across your state and get the same results.
2. Districts see preschool as a growth opportunity. Ninety percent of K–12 students attend public schools, but there’s more competition at the preschool and college levels.
3. Talking about preschool shifts the focus away from criticisms of the K–12 system.
4. Tuition tax credits would open up more preschool choices for low-income families without growing the K–12 monopoly.

I especially like the third point. I can imagine districts complaining, once they offer preschool, that they can’t educate the three- through 18-year-olds well, because they don’t have custody of the kids from birth.

Listen to the whole thing!

Bill Schrier comments on Missouri’s Second Life presence. He thinks spending time on Second Life is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Even though Second Life activities don’t cost much in terms of dollars, they’re a drain on state employees’ time.

Schrier has an interesting idea about the potential benefits of Second Life for consumers. If people buy things on Second Life instead of in the real world, that could reduce conspicuous consumption and free up resources for more important uses.

I’m not sure I agree that Second Life spending is a substitute for real-life spending. Many companies are on Second Life, presumably because they believe it helps their real sales. Trying out a product on Second Life might lead people to buy it when they’re offline. (Uh oh, advertising. Don’t tell Consumers International.)

But if Schrier is right about that, then Second Life activity by Missouri state employees is better than I originally thought. I’ll be happy if Missouri spends on Second Life for a fraction of the cost, and takes it easy in the real world.

I often complain that traditional public school systems assign students to schools based on where they live. Disadvantaged students, who can’t afford to move to other districts or pay for private schooling, are forced into schools that have no competition. There’s another downside of the system, which won’t inspire much sympathy, but which shows that it’s failing people across the board: Wealthy families in high-density neighborhoods can be shut out of their local schools. (You don’t see that in Missouri, but it happens in Manhattan.)

This model of matching kids with schools works poorly. Some schools are operating under capacity, and districts have to go to a lot of time and trouble to consolidate — and risk alienating parents along the way. Others, like the Manhattan schools mentioned in the article, can’t accommodate all the children in their zones.

Severing the tie between residence and school would allow greater efficiency, and it would also reduce parents’ stress from trying to get into the “right” neighborhood near the “right” school.

Thank you, Combest, for linking to this fantastic op-ed by Katy Steinmetz about the Missouri Scholars Academy. Steinmetz argues that the state should cut funds to the camp, and she responds to several criticisms of the cuts. I want to just copy and paste the whole thing here because it’s all worth reading, but I have to make a choice about which part to quote, so I’ll show you what she says about the Scholars Academy’s social benefits:

The academy certainly did provide tear-inspiring social acceptance when I was there, but it is not the state’s responsibility to pay for creating that environment. Nerdy outcasts should by all means huddle together and support one another in the summer months, but they should pay for that privilege – just as young Christians and overweight children and aspiring astronauts do at their respective camps.

She also discusses alternative sources of funding for the camp, which could allow the good times to continue without more appropriations.

It’s clear from the op-ed that Steinmetz’s lighthearted tone didn’t come about by accident. It was the result of careful cultivation; when she was a student at the Scholars Academy, she majored in humor.

The Post-Dispatch’s Savvy Consumer blog linked to this website, which would be amusing if some people weren’t so serious about it. It’s Consumers International, dedicated to protecting some vague “rights” that consumers supposedly have to safety, information, etc. World Consumer Rights Day took place on March 15. I totally forgot to have a party celebrating that, but maybe I’ll put it on my calendar for next year.

If I were starting a consumer rights organization, there are several issues I would want to focus on. For example, parents’ ability to choose their child’s school. Or patients’ ability to choose medical treatments without being subjected to state rationing of services. Or consumers’ ability to buy products from outside their city or region.

Needless to say, those are not the applications of consumer rights that Consumers International cares about. To find out what they do care about, I looked around their website and related blogs. Marketing junk food to children is a major concern. Take a look at this post about Lucky Charms. It describes a complicated legal dispute with General Mills over advertising, a taste of which (pun intended) can be seen in these two paragraphs:

The General Mills Canada Corporation created an actual advertising system to promote its sweet cereals, Lucky Charms, among children. The website for which the complaint was made was advertised on the product packaging (which is in itself a form of advertising, but is subject to an exemption according to the regulations for implementation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)).

The many appeals of the website particularly speak to the child’s appetites, in order to capture his interest. A wealth of games and animations featuring Lucky the Leprechaun were available on the site. With their fantastic and magical nature, these “webisodes” were clearly designed and aimed at an audience younger than 13, something that is defended in Section 248 of the CPA. As well, advertising messages automatically appeared on the screen: “Lucky Charms Chocolate cereals are now available in Canada”.

First, they point out that product packaging is a form of advertising. Well, yes it is, but what’s wrong with it? If a child sees an ad on a package, that’s because his or her parents already bought the product. Kids don’t wander around grocery stores reading the backs of random cereals.

The package advertised a website for kids. To me, that sounds like a good thing. Many parents are worried about their kids seeing adult content on the web, or coming across information they’re not ready for. If a cereal package directs them to a site that’s just fun and games for kids their age, it’s doing parents a service. Advertising children’s cereals and toys is the impetus for developing kid-friendly websites. Few organizations would develop elaborate Internet content for kids with no hope of remuneration.

And because kids usually aren’t able to do a lot of shopping independently of their parents, advertising to them can’t have much effect, anyway. It’s not like kids can get a job, drive to the store, and buy whatever cereal they want. I think the “advertising” is more about responding to parents‘ wants than trying to convince kids to buy something. Parents like to see their kids engaged in the world around them. They’d prefer to buy a cereal with cute mascots on the front of the box, puzzles on the back of the box, and online games.

Of course, my arguments wouldn’t reassure Consumers International. They’re unhappy with anybody encountering advertising for junk food, not just children. They do have an alternative in mind for you to eat: street food. Here’s a description of how street food is served, from the “What is street food?” page:

It is served with the minimum amount of fuss in individual portions dished into take-away containers.

These containers come in a variety of materials such as disposable plastic, paper and Styrofoam plates, bowls, cups and utensils.

Is that environmentally sustainable consumption?

Virtual schools, like the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program, give families for educational choices. I think that’s a good thing. But should online classes be mandatory? This article in School Reform News discusses Alabama’s new requirement that every student take an online course in order to graduate.

The reasoning behind this isn’t clear. The people quoted in the article talk about equalizing education across the state and giving everyone opportunities to take specialized courses. Those are great reasons to offer online courses — but not to force anyone to participate who doesn’t want to.

It seems like some reformers see promising new opportunities and reflexively conclude that everyone has to take advantage of them, or else. It’s this pattern that led to my concern about imitating Asia, which I briefly mentioned in this post. I’m happy about virtual schools, bilingual programs, and other reforms and innovations. Let’s keep them voluntary, and let people choose them if they wish.

Edspresso links to this column by Danny Westneat, about merit pay for teachers. Westneat’s concern that teachers may favor short-term test results over long-term learning is a legitimate one. (For example, teachers would have a greater incentive to help their students cheat on assessments.) But the parallel he draws between merit pay for teachers and bonuses for CEOs had me rolling my eyes:

For Wall Street bankers, the gauge was profits or stock prices. For classroom teachers, it’s usually student test scores [...]

[O]n Wall Street it was a disaster.

Nobody suggests giving a teacher a million dollars if students’ test scores rise. The proposals I’ve seen involved bonuses of at most a few thousand dollars — a small fraction of a teacher’s salary. This isn’t like CEO bonuses; it’s more like giving tips or commissions in addition to salary, a type of pay structure that exists in many different professions without wreaking havoc.

Westneat asks why we have to “incentivize” the teaching profession. My answer is that we already do. It’s just that the current incentives don’t all contribute to student learning. The typical public school salary schedule rewards graduate degrees and seniority, not good teaching. So a dynamic young teacher earns less than an aging mediocre one. That’s probably responsible in part for the high attrition rate among young teachers. And a teacher who gets a master’s degree in theory receives a bigger reward than one who gains skills from practical workshops.

In fact, any professional faces a multitude of incentives on the job, not all of which even have to do with money. Instituting merit pay wouldn’t bring in an incentive where there used to be none. It would, however, slightly change the incentives that teachers face, and perhaps lead to better outcomes in the classroom.

Kansas City is considering changing the way it operates its ambulances. Currently, they are managed by an independent entity, MAST, and some in city government would like to bring the operation in-house. I don’t know whether or not this is a good idea. Generally, closer cooperation between a fire department and emergency medical techs is a good thing, and if combining them into one agency achieves that, then go for it. However, the Star article does not make it clear whether or not the two entities would be merged, or whether the ambulances would remain separate from the fire department — in which case, I would be less supportive. (Note: Since first writing this, I have found this PrimeBuzz link that says it would be a merger.)

The real point I want to share is how commonly this issue is debated. New York City debated it, and I believe moved forward with it in 1995. Boston is considering doing the same right now. Each of these articles, about New York and Boston, cites St. Louis — which merged its ambulance service into the fire department in 1997. This turned out to be very successful, from everything I can tell. This same issue has been similarly debated in St. Charles County.

Not surprisingly, these disputes often involve a union element, with representatives of both firemen and EMTs trying to preserve their respective turf. This is where strong leadership is needed, to overcome the natural bureaucratic opposition to such changes. I wish Kansas City’s Mayor Mark Funkhouser good luck in that regard — although I should be clear that I have no idea whether the current head of MAST should stay or go.

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an editorial against making changes to Missouri’s judicial selection system, suitably enough known as the “Missouri Plan.” I agree with much of this very good editorial (and we always appreciate being cited by others), but I did want to clarify a few things about Show-Me Institute study by Professors Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel that the editorial refers to, along with our other writings on this subject.

I support the Missouri Plan, but many of the changes to the plan debated by the editorial board are very close to what I called for in a commentary piece I wrote almost two years ago. Altering the terms of the commission members, reducing (but by no means eliminating) the influence of attorneys, and adding legislative confirmation of commissioners to the selection process would all be well within the framework that Hall and Sobel examined in their Show-Me Institute study. They were careful to note at the end of their study that they did not consider smaller reforms that would simply change the structure of the commission, though they warned that going too far in such changes would negate the point of the commission. States that use the Missouri Plan but add legislative confirmation to the process score just as well in the rankings Hall and Sobel considered as our current system does.

Our editor, Eric Dixon, wrote a useful piece about ways to interpret Hall and Sobel’s study. We appreciate the Post’s editorial board using our work, but the study that the Show-Me Institute released does not suggest that all of the recent suggestions for altering the Missouri Plan are poor policy.

A recent article by Jo Mannies in the St. Louis Beacon (link via John O’Combest) reports:

The executive board of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association says it has officially endorsed red-light cameras “as part of a comprehensive traffic safety enforcement toolbox that should remain available to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads.”

This stance runs counter to that of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which came out earlier this month against the cameras.

I would really like to see why the state’s police chiefs believe red-light cameras are actually a safety tool, despite the contrary conclusions of several studies. Either way, it is a very interesting split among the people enforcing the tickets. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on any and all movement that we see on this issue.

Something fun for a Monday morning …

My buddy Mike Sweeney, over at STL Hops, is having a “Best Missouri Craft Beer Challenge.” It’s a bracketed tournament that is set up like much like the March Madness tournament, in which you vote for one beer over another and whichever one has the most votes moves on to the next round.  Currently, they are on Round 3, so get over there and vote.

My personal pick to go all the way is the O’Fallon 5-Day IPA. The site attracts a large proportion of hopheads (fans of the ingredient that bitters the beer — not dope smokers), so that bodes well for O’Fallon. Plus, I always favor the underdog, and since they are a 52 seed out of 64, you can’t get much more underdog than that.

As long as a pumpkin beer doesn’t win, I will consider it a valid tournament. Enjoy.

School districts eager to fill gaping shortages of math and science teachers might consider hiring teachers who have earned alternative certification, which usually means a modified certification process involving more hands-on experience and abbreviated theory coursework. However, some districts are going further off the beaten path in their search for new teachers. This article in the L.A. Times focuses on California public school districts’ recruitment efforts in the Philippines. The districts bring the teachers to the United States on three-year visas, train them in the intricacies of California public school culture, and then let them teach.

It’s interesting that states are so set on the requirements for a teaching license that they would rather hire people from the other side of the world who meet those requirements than scientists in the U.S. who know their subject but haven’t taken education courses.

Some will object: Don’t the education credentials ensure that teachers will be able to relate to students and teach effectively? Not always. The L.A. Times article notes that the teachers met all California requirements, but had difficulty adjusting to U.S. schools. They were used to classroom procedures in the Philippines, where students are deferential to authority and risk getting kicked out of class for missing a homework assignment. Their education course credits hadn’t prepared them for the culture shock, and I doubt the crash course on life in the United States helped anyone adapt quickly enough.

Bringing foreign teachers here could be beneficial to everyone involved, if the districts support the teachers throughout their stay as they face the challenges of teaching in our public schools. I hope states will also realize how many potential teachers are already here, familiar with our culture, and barred from teaching only by bureaucratic regulations.