Recently, the Show-Me Institute 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.