My last post responding to charter school criticisms elicited even more criticisms, so it’s time for another installment in the series. The following ideas have been expressed in the comments on this blog and around the Internet. I’ve included my arguments in favor of charters:

Charter schools need to prove they’re good enough before they receive public money.

Charter schools are public schools. It may look like they do things differently, but that’s just because they’re more willing to experiment than the traditional districts. Charters don’t do anything that’s illegal for a non-charter public school to do. Your run-of-the-mill public district could behave like a charter if it wanted to (or, more accurately, if it faced similar incentives to improve).

It’s not right to hold charters to a much stricter standard than other public schools. No one says, “SLPS isn’t meeting expectations — no more state funding for SLPS!” And we shouldn’t tell that to charters either. If anything, traditional districts should be held to a higher standard than charters, because kids can be forced to attend traditional districts if they have no other options, whereas no one need attend a charter school. Charter school students are free to return to their traditional district schools at any time, if their families aren’t satisfied. There’s no comparable check on the district.

Some charter schools don’t do as well as traditional districts on state tests.

Some charter schools are good. Some, from the vantage point of standardized testing, are less than stellar. No reformer expects charters to be uniformly excellent. The good news about bad charters is that word spreads and people aren’t eager to get into them. If they can’t attract students, they close — a mechanism to root out the bad that never applies to traditional districts. In practice, most charter schools improve in order to avoid exiting the market. They may do so by hiring new leadership, or learning from more successful charters.

Charter school supporters are just interested in reducing the tax burden.

As I mentioned above, charter schools are public schools. Students who enroll in charters aren’t leaving public education — they’re switching to a different kind of public school. In the long run, I suppose it’s possible that charters could help reduce the tax burden, if they are able to educate students more efficiently than the wasteful traditional districts. That would be great if it happened, but it’s a long way off. I, for one, am interested in charters because they can help kids now, not because of any potential tax savings in the future.

Feel free to disprove any of my arguments in the comments — or to bring up new objections and give me a head start on my next charter school post.

The Wall Street Journal ran an excellent editorial yesterday, by Brendan Miniter, pointing out that school choice has become a bipartisan issue. It’s inexcusable to leave children trapped in public school systems that are failing them, and an increasingly large number of politicians of every ideological stripe are working together to bring about real educational freedom.

From the article:

[Senator Robert] Ford was once like many Democrats on education — a reliable vote against reforms that would upend the system. But over the past three and a half years he’s studied how school choice works and he’s now advocating tax credits and scholarships that parents can spend on public or private schools.

He’s not alone. Three other prominent black Democrats in South Carolina have publicly challenged party orthodoxy. In 2006 State Rep. Harold Mitchell Jr. crossed party lines to endorse Republican Karen Floyd for state education superintendent. “We have to try something different,” he told me at the time. That same year, Curtis Brantley defeated a state representative in a primary fought over education reform. And last year, Ennis Bryant ran (unsuccessfully) against an anti-school-choice state representative in a primary.

These men are the most visible part of a movement joining black Democrats and political conservatives in a common cause. In recent years, school-choice candidates (black and white) have taken the seats of more than half a dozen antichoice legislators, and there have been two mass rallies for school choice at the state capitol that included black leaders.

Charter and private schools geared toward impoverished black children also are cropping up, and no wonder. There are about 700,000 students in public schools in South Carolina, more than a third of whom — 247,000 — are in schools considered to be failing based on test scores. Nearly 60% of the kids in these failing schools — about 146,000 — are African-American. Blacks make up about 39% of public-school students.

In March, a Pulse Opinion Research poll of 1,000 black voters in the state reported that 53% agreed that school choice would improve public education (28% disagreed). Support for school-choice legislation increased to 61% when Mr. Ford’s name was attached to it.

Giving children access to the quality educations they so desperately need is simply a common-sense position, and if Missouri’s leaders genuinely care about providing opportunity for the state’s young students, they’ll help ensure that parents can choose the best available schools for their children.

Yesterday, Andrew J. Coulson — director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom — wrote in the Washington Examiner:

Thousands rallied in DC earlier this month to save a federal program that helps low-income families afford private schooling. On the same day, President Obama signaled that he opposes school vouchers, but will seek funding so that students already attending private schools may continue to do so through the end of high school. When they’ve graduated, the voucher program would die. That isn’t good enough.

Not only is it not good enough, it’s disgraceful to deny children the freedom to escape failing public schools so that they have a real chance at a better life. Every day that children are denied this freedom, the nation’s future grows dimmer.

Coulson suggests, however, that rather than relying on the fickle political whims of Congress and the president, the District of Columbia should take matters into its own hands:

But there is another option: The District of Columbia can create its own scholarship program.

Can DC afford it? Average tuition at voucher-accepting schools is about $6,600, according to a federal study released last month. By contrast, the city is currently spending about $1.3 billion on k-12 education, for fewer than 49,000 students.

That works out to well over $26,000 per pupil — comparable to tuition at the prestigious Sidwell Friends school to which the president sends his own daughters, Sasha and Malia. So DC could easily offer a voucher even larger than the one currently provided by the federal government.

I should reiterate here that tuition tax credit programs can be structured so that they actually save taxpayer money — providing a fiscally sound and sustainable alternative to the crippling system in which so many children are currently trapped, both in our nation’s capital and right here in St. Louis.

Anybody who’s skeptical about the wisdom of school choice should take a few minutes to watch this video of the rally to save D.C.’s scholarship program:

These children are our future, but the political and public education establishments are fighting harder every day to leave them behind.

I’ve discovered (via the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice) that the Grand Canyon State has approved legislation expanding school choice. The state’s governor, Jan Brewer, signed the bill into law today.

The Friedman Foundation’s president and CEO, Robert Enlow, said in a release that the new law “creates a new tax credit scholarship program for children with special needs and children in foster care.” He also pointed out that that the program replaces an earlier voucher program that the state’s courts discontinued:

This tax credit scholarship program was enacted in response to a State Supreme Court ruling declaring that a voucher program serving these children was unconstitutional. The new legislation offers priority to the children who received vouchers under the earlier program, ensuring that the educational needs of these children will continue to be served.

Sarah Brodsky, former Show-Me Institute policy analyst and still regular contributor to this blog, suggested last year that tuition tax credits are the best solution for Missouri’s autistic students, who generally don’t have access to the special educational programs they need in Missouri’s traditional public schools. Insurance plans generally fail to meet these students’ needs, as Brodsky points out:

Kids with autism may need up to 30 hours each week of behavioral modification, help with social skills, music therapy, and personal attention — in other words, a special school environment. Health insurance companies are set up to pay for medical treatment — which is only one part of the services autistic kids need — not to pay tuition.

Tuition tax credits are an especially useful solution in this case, because — as pointed out in an early 2008 Show-Me Institute study, “The Fiscal Effects of a Tuition Tax Credit Program in Missouri” — tuition tax credit programs can be constructed in such a way that they actually save the state money, so even more existing educational funding can be devoted to traditional public schools:

Opponents argue that such legislation would “cost” the state a significant amount of money, because it would decrease funding to public schools by the amount of the lost tax revenue from the credit. We demonstrate, however, that the net fiscal cost of a tuition tax credit program would actually be considerably lower than the lost tax revenues, and might even raise net revenues for the state. [...] If such savings occur, it means that additional revenues will be available for students who remain in public schools, for other state programs such as Medicaid, or for tax reduction.

Congratulations to the people of Arizona for obtaining a little more educational freedom. Here’s hoping that they expand their program still more, to include all willing students, and that Missouri follows suit in bringing a new variety of educational options to all children throughout the state.

The Schnucks grocery chain faces some tough challenges regarding its plans to open a store in a Ballwin neighborhood, as a growing number of local residents voice rejection of the proposal. The Post-Dispatch ran a story about this yesterday, reporting that an attorney for Schnucks attempted to explain to residents the usefulness of the project.

The noise disturbance, the rezoning, and the (at least temporary) loss of property value are certainly among the reasons that residents might choose to protest, even though these reasons might be counterbalanced by the long-term growth in economic activity that would occur as a result of such a store opening. Today’s protesters could be tomorrow’s shoppers. As Nobel laureate economist Ronald Coase observed, projects of this type would have a much smoother process if developers could focus on economic factors like compensation for property owners with legitimate complaints, rather than having to jump through political hoops.

One issue we have talked about here before is the pervasive and unfortunate practice of governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments, usually for more aid or more authority to raise taxes. As if to celebrate Josh’s and my visit to the St. Louis city Board of Aldermen this morning (for the simple purpose of attending a meeting of that body, which we had never done before), the Post-Dispatch is reporting that the board cut money for the police department that would have been used to hire a lobbyist.

I commend the board for this. The police commissioners have other St. Louis–elected officials, not to mention their own standing as police officials, to engage legislators in Jefferson City. They don’t need to spend taxpayer dollars doing that. (And I say this even though I agree with the police board regarding the local control issue, which the Post article suggests was the rationale for hiring a lobbyist in the first place.)

Local officials who need assistance at the state or federal levels have their own respective elected officials and their staffs to help them. I have nothing against private organizations or individuals hiring lobbyists, but governments should not spend tax money in efforts to get still more tax money.

David Stokes and I just attended the weekly Board of Aldermen meeting for St. Louis city. It was actually quite enjoyable. For one thing, David’s extensive personal experience with local government made him a great resource and a wealth of information. He had a fast answer to every question I asked, and volunteered a great deal of information about the aldermen, as well as explaining some of the processes involved in moving a bill through the board’s approval process.

The board considered a number of bills today, and we heard the reading of a number of bills which would declare properties around town “blighted.” A couple of bills designated federal grant money for Lambert Airport, and a few dealt with approving financing for the Kiel Opera House.

At one point, when the proceedings had moved along rapidly for quite some time, Alderman Joe Vaccaro of the 23rd ward stood to move for approval of a rezoning bill he’d sponsored. For the first time in the meeting, roll was called for votes, and nearly every member in turn voted “no.” Every previous bill had passed without hesitation, and Stokes and I really wondered what was up. As soon as the votes were tallied, a revote was called and this time it passed unanimously. Suddenly, David understood and explained to me: This is a relatively new alderman, and they were playing a prank on him. We both found it pretty funny.

Much less funny was Resolution #50, calling on the Post-Dispatch to “reject the predatory practice of job outsourcing and keep St. Louis area jobs in St. Louis.” There was some discussion of the matter. Alderman Stephen Conway of the 8th ward in particular took the opportunity to admonish the hypocrisy of those who shout down outsourcing while driving foreign-made cars, and a third alderman who spoke on the matter agreed with these anti-outsourcing views.

During this discussion, the viewpoint I hold was completely unrepresented, although it is also largely the stance held by the economic profession as a whole. Outsourcing is only bad in the short term for the specific people laid off. But it also means that customers continue to get the things they were getting before (often for cheaper prices), and a mobile labor force allows both new and existing businesses to find potential employees more easily.

If you read only one critique of protectionism, let it be this.

There was also some heated discussion about a resolution “to convene hearings of the Public Safety Committee for the purpose of reviewing the conditions of the City jails in relation to the report of the ACLU-EM [...]” At least one member of the Board of Aldermen has a personal distaste for the ACLU, and it showed — but ultimately the resolution passed.

Much of the time I spent there, I was struck with how civil and efficient the whole process appeared, and reminded of a blog post by Clovis Ouangraoua discussing how remarkable a peaceful government is. For any St. Louisan interested in seeing the process of local government in action, I honestly recommend visiting your Board of Aldermen for a meeting. The biggest praise I can give is that the whole affair was very efficient in terms of time, an attribute I chalk up largely to the guidance of Board President Lewis Reed, who wasted no time while officiating the proceedings.

The Post-Dispatch ran an article today discussing the construction of Centene’s new headquarters building here in Clayton. As the article points out, there was a time when Centene claimed that it could not pursue this project unless the city used eminent domain to get rid of a neighbor who demanded more money for their property than Centene wanted to pay. The case went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, which created what many developers and city officials consider to be a nightmare scenario by ruling that eminent domain could not be used to force the reluctant neighbor to give up their property.

So what happened? Did the project collapse? Has Centene been forced to go elsewhere? Absolutely not! When the courts rejected the use of eminent domain, Centene simply ponied up the selling price (via a third party, because the owner took a principled stand against giving the property directly to Centene) that the neighbor had been asking for all along. This is a perfect example of how development can be done without sacrificing anyone’s constitutional liberties. Sure, Centene had to pay more for the property than they would have preferred — but if their development turns out to be as valuable as they expect, the additional money spent will still be well worth it.

Two and a half years ago, while I worked for the Cascade Policy Institute, I was lucky enough to be exposed to the wisdom of Dr. Howard Fuller, director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University and cofounder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). And, back in October 2006, I posted to YouTube a video of a speech that Dr. Fuller presented in Portland, Ore., at an event cosponsored by the Cascade Policy Institute and BAEO.

Dr. Fuller delivers a powerful message about the necessity of providing real educational choice for all children and parents, and it applies to St. Louis and Kansas City just as much — if not more — than it does to Portland. Please take a few minutes to watch it:

An article I wrote for the latest issue of Atlas Highlights, published by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, is now online. The article spotlights some of our work here at the Show-Me Institute, and outlines the importance of working together with the broader think tank community, to share ideas, resources, and strategies in order to achieve a more lasting impact. We’re particularly thankful for all the valuable support that we’ve received from Atlas during these past few years.

I’m pleased to note that the article directly preceding mine in this issue of the magazine is by the venerable Tom Palmer, who I got to know 12 years ago when I was an intern at the Cato Institute. It’s a brief chronicle of some of his recent journeys abroad, spreading the ideas of liberty and free markets to bright young students and other activists throughout formerly communist regions of Central Asia.

As I pointed out in my own piece, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman once wrote that “Stimulating independent thought, and examining alternatives to the present crippling governmental system badly needs doing, and is being done by all too few individuals and institutions.” Here at the Show-Me Institute, we’re focusing our efforts on Missouri — studying and proposing public policy solutions that work. It’s always nice to be reminded that people like Tom Palmer are spreading similar ideas throughout the world.

Andrew Coulson is blogging about interior design regulation. I highly recommend the Reason video at the end of his post, too.

Missouri’s law isn’t as bad as some states’ in this regard. You can call yourself an interior designer here without a license. You just can’t call yourself a “registered interior designer.”

Just two days after the New York Times published an article about teenagers sending tens of thousands of text messages a month, it reports on remedial college courses. It’s interesting that a lack of communication is cited as a cause of the problem:

More than a million college freshmen across the nation must take remedial courses each year, and many drop out before getting a degree. Poorly run public schools are a part of the problem, but so is a disconnect between high schools and colleges.

The experts quoted echo this sentiment, complaining that high schools and colleges don’t talk to each other and that they should adjust expectations so that fewer students need remedial help.

Given that teens are able to maintain constant contact with their peers using cell phones, it doesn’t make sense to say that adults in the education industry just can’t share enough information with each other. Communication tools are ubiquitous. The information is available. High schools and colleges have the information they need about student achievement and course expectations; the gap exists because high schools don’t act on that knowledge.

The goal of education is learning. Avoiding remedial work is not a goal in and of itself. So, colleges shouldn’t have to cut out the remedial courses or dumb down their general course offerings to “align” themselves with poorly performing high schools.

High schools should improve. But high schools are held to arbitrary, low state standards — when they’re held to any standard, that is (it takes years to strip a district of accreditation). Parents and students can’t hold them accountable, and they don’t suffer consequences when they fall short. It’s not surprising that there’s a gap between monopolistic high schools and competitive colleges.

The St. Louis Beacon reports that concealed carry will be legal on the Arch grounds this coming February.

This policy change is not generating the kind of outrage that the MU concealed carry proposal did. The article quotes the deputy superintendent, who says the policy won’t have much practical effect, because people could be carrying conealed weapons all over the grounds now and no one would know. (That’s true of any public place.) At the few points where visitors are screened for weapons, park officials don’t necessarily confiscate guns even under the current law — to the dismay, I’m sure, of some MU students.

The change looks like wise policy to me. I’m not sure what it has to do with credit cards, though.

A journalist is convicted of espionage by a foreign nation after a short, secret trial. She starts a hunger strike in protest. Her civil rights have been violated. Freedom of the press is at stake.

Contrast her plight with the following situation: A large, bureaucratic school district is forced to lay off some teachers for financial reasons. The teachers … start a hunger strike. Am I missing something, here? I don’t see any breach of justice to warrant that degree of protest.

Teachers in Los Angeles have come face to face with one of the major drawbacks of the near-monopoly of public education. When the monolithic employer lays people off, there are few other entities to take up the slack and hire people. Proponents of a diverse education market usually emphasize the benefits for students, but the fact of the matter is, teachers are also better off when schools compete.

Schools in a competitive market fight hard to hold on to their best teachers, because otherwise those teachers would be snapped up by other schools, giving them an advantage in the race to attract students. And, when some schools do have to downsize, they’ll be balanced by more successful schools that are expanding, or by new schools that are opening.

Los Angeles teachers should give up their overwrought protests and call for market diversity instead.

Since its inception, the Show-Me Institute’s scholars have made a point of opposing “corporate welfare.” As pointed out in the institute’s statement concerning “corporate welfare” policy, “The Show-Me Institute develops policy recommendations to protect property rights and promote economic growth without caving in to demands for corporate welfare. Secure property rights encourage investment and entrepreneurship. Trying to create economic success through government intervention is a formula for failure.” With this philosophical underpinning, institute scholars such as Timothy Lee and myself have taken strong stands against governmental policies that allow the powerful and well-connected to secure subsidies and tax breaks that are not available to all, and have vigorously opposed the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another.

In the ideal system, businesspeople would compete against each other on a level playing field, with their success or failure to be determined exclusively by those to whom they are marketing their products. This would mean that if an entrepreneur has an idea for a venture, they would either have to risk their own money by funding the project out of their own pocket, or they would have to generate seed money by convincing private investors that the prospects of success outweigh the potential for failure. If private investors don’t believe that the venture is likely to succeed, they won’t put their money at risk. On the other hand, if a few investors are willing to risk losses, they will be handsomely rewarded if the venture turns out to be successful. Thus, the risks of failure and the rewards of success are borne only by those who choose to participate in the venture.

Somewhere along the way, however, the government involved itself in the process. It began offering to subsidize certain ventures — or even entire industries — utilizing tax dollars, so that people managing subsidized businesses no longer had to persuade as many private individuals to put their own funds at risk. This is a negative development, for several reasons:

First, it gives an unfair competitive advantage to business owners who have the money or connections to influence those public officials who decide such matters. Receiving a subsidy may have less to do with the entrepreneurial merit of a proposal than with the number of elected officials with whom the businessperson has influence.

Second, it assumes that politicians will be adept at distinguishing ventures that will succeed from ventures likely to fail — a challenge even for experienced businessmen, much less for elected officials who may have no clue about how to make such evaluations (Ballpark Village, anyone? Sunset Hills?).

And, third, it gives both government officials and private developers a license to gamble with other people’s money and/or private property in what they perceive as a low-risk, high-reward situation. If a subsidized venture fails, developers are insulated from the risk because they will lose far less, financially, than they would have without the subsidy. Similarly, a politician might face some political backlash from a failed venture, but the politician can always deflect blame toward someone else. The politician won’t suffer any personal financial loss, and it is not very common for politicians to be voted out of office following such fiascos. On the other hand, if a venture is successful, the developer will personally realize enormous financial gains, despite their lessened personal investment, while the politician will claim credit for its success and may be able to parlay his role into a profitable or influential position once he has left office. As far as taxpayers are concerned, even if a subsidized venture succeeds, the government itself will reap the financial benefit — rather than the individual taxpayers from whom the funds were obtained.

Despite these downsides, governments continue to insert themselves into the world of economic development and these policies only spur more demands for governmental handouts. Just last week, we saw the unveiling of a proposal that, if successful, would completely reshape a gigantic swath of North St. Louis. In accordance with the incentives created by these policies, the developer’s plan calls for a massive commitment of taxpayer dollars, the creation of a TIF district, and the use of eminent domain to accomplish the developer’s vision. The General Assembly has already played a role by approving a $95 million tax credit that will assist the developer, and this developer is now pursuing a hefty chunk of federal stimulus funds, as well as support from local officials for the potential use of eminent domain in pursuit of the project. Thus, the policies that our government officials have created are fueling ongoing misuse of governmental authority and taxpayer funds, all of which works to the detriment of both ordinary citizens and market participants who believe it would be wrong to take advantage of these flawed incentives.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Redevelopment can and does happen without corporate welfare and eminent domain abuse. My hope is that, as government officials and developers continue to consider the plan to redevelop North St. Louis, they will consider alternative approaches that will respect the rights of other citizens. Rather than committing public funds and tax credits, city and state officials who believe in the plan’s promise could work with the developer to identify private investors who are willing to invest in his vision. Instead of pursuing eminent domain, the developer should present offers that will entice local residents to part willingly with their homes and businesses — or, alternatively, he should figure out how to incorporate the remaining homes and businesses, intact, into his larger plan. If the North St. Louis redevelopment plan is as promising as its proponents suggest, it can and should be accomplished without resorting to corporate welfare or sacrificing citizens’ property rights.

This is a follow-up to my last green jobs post. Matthew Kahn, green economist par excellence, asks some questions about green jobs:

I’m still trying to understand what are the exact details of how the “green jobs” push translates into specific policies? Is this simply a relabeling of Keynesian public works projects? Is this a justification for a ramp up in basic research funding (I would support this!)?

I vote for the Keynesian public works option, but feel free to convince me otherwise in the comments.

When I said we should stay calm about education, this is the kind of unnecessary panic I was warning against. (Thanks to the ever-resourceful Panama City Renaissance School for the link.) Victor Davis Hanson has had to deal with some unhelpful customer service reps, and some of his bills got sent to the wrong address in a mix up, and somebody forged his checks. Here’s his response:

A highly complex society, staffed by those who are unable to read well and compute at basic levels, can be terrifying. One mathematically inept transcriber or an American receptionist who cannot speak fluent English can do the public a lot of damage.

A highly complex society is going to entail some errors no matter how literate the customer service reps are. Besides, if you give all those receptionists the best educations possible, they’ll go off an become scientists or programmers — they won’t stick with their low-level jobs.

Every time I have to make this kind of phone call, I hear, “Your call is being recorded for quality control.” Businesses keep their customer service staff under a lot of scrutiny. Workers aren’t left to their own devices, “embedding” their mistakes into the software of our society, as Hanson claims in the op-ed.

Of course, there are compelling reasons to strive for education reform and improvement. But we shouldn’t expect those reforms to eradicate annoying customer service moments, nor should we fear a global collapse because someone wrote down the wrong address.

In my recent study of government in Missouri, I wrote about the potential advantages of disincorporation for Missouri municipalities. I wrote:

While contracting with the county is a far more efficient use of tax dollars than would be entailed by every municipality using its own employees to perform every service, residents of certain cities in the county could get the same level of service, for less tax money, through disincorporation.

Now it looks like the financial crisis in making me quite the seer. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal and today’s Washington Independent both have articles about municipalities around the country that are looking at disincorporation as a way to escape financial situations that are no longer sustainable. These decisions are being forced by economic reality, while my analysis of some smaller towns in Missouri (mostly in St. Louis County), entailed the benefits of a more reasoned decision to look at the costs and benefits of being a small city in a big county.

There is one important difference between disincorporation in St. Louis County and the examples given in these articles.

In California and many other states, the county or state must approve such a move, he said. Most counties are ailing as badly as cities, and are unlikely to readily approve a disincorporation, he said.

With St. Louis County’s unique sales tax pool, disincorporation would automatically mean more money for county government, because the pool is divided by population, and St. Louis County’s share is determined by its unincorporated population. If cities disincorporate, that means more people in the unincorporated area and more sales tax money for the county to provide services like police and roads.

I don’t know of any Missouri cities that are on the verge of disincorporating, and in areas other than St. Louis County it would probably be a more burdensome process for the remaining governments. But it is an important option for cities in Missouri to consider, and for taxpayers to keep in mind, every time some tiny city tries to enact another tax increase.

From the Post-Dispatch article about Clayton’s imminent smoking ban:

Alderman Judy Goodman, among others, said that public health was the main issue in support of the ban. “Continuing to allow smoking in Clayton seems incompatible with our priorities and our duty to protect the health and safety of this community,” Goodman said.

In other words, allowing consumers to make choices goes against Clayton officials’ mission of protecting everyone’s health.

Protecting health doesn’t seem like a bad priority; it’s a goal that many people, both in and out of government, share. But we need to ask: Is it right for a municipality to work towards a goal like this, trampling personal freedoms on the way? Imagine when Clayton makes progress, and all public businesses meet officials’ ideal standards of health. Will they next bring their regulations into private homes, in the name of a sacred priority?

If we write off liberties for something uncontroversial like health, those freedoms won’t be there to protect us if someday officials adopt less-appealing priorities.

If people choose to buy locally grown food, that’s great. I just have a problem with them when they try to force that preference on the rest of us through subsidies and regulation. Activist locavores allege that their way of life is more “sustainable,” and use this assertion to justify their lobbying efforts. This chart illustrates why they’re wrong. Notice that no products are available in January or February. A practice that can’t even be sustained for eleven months straight isn’t all that sustainable.

An article comparing the educational performance of students in different countries has sparked some discussion on the Columbia Daily Tribune’s Homeroom blog. The article’s conclusion, with which several of the blog’s commenters agree, is that students in the United States aren’t doing as poorly as the critics would have you believe.

I’m all in favor of staying calm about education. Politicians say we need a “sense of urgency,” then use that agitation to their advantage as they push through huge spending increases. It would be wiser to weigh the pros and cons of different policies without giving in to hysteria.

But staying calm doesn’t mean ignoring the facts. For example, this is from the first section of the article:

Only about one-third of U.S. students could read and do math at current grade levels on national tests in 2007, the most recent figures available.

I’m not reassured that a few other developed nations do comparably poorly on international math and science exams, especially given that some countries do a lot better while spending less money.

There are a few legislators in our General Assembly that could really benefit from this article in the Wall Street Journal about what happened when Maryland raised its state income tax to fill budget gaps. Believe it or not, tax revenues decreased as — get ready for the big shock — some rich people actually moved out of Maryland! Maybe Maryland can pass a law making it illegal to move out of Maryland. …

Bill Schrier blogs about public service jobs, and the belief that they’re like diamonds (i.e., that they last forever):

For one thing, there’s an expectation that government is stable and long-term in its operations and its employment. It has to be. Despite the situation with the economy at large, water and electricity have to keep flowing, streets and parks need to be repaired and cleaned, 911 calls answered, cops and firefighters dispatched.

What’s missing from this analysis is the fact that technology changes. Yes, municipalities have to provide the same services year after year, but as time goes on they should become more efficient. That means employing fewer people to provide basic services.

A couple of weeks ago, David Brooks wrote about charter schools run by the Harlem Children’s Zone. The comments on his column now number in the hundreds, and several of them are suspicious of the research Brooks cites. Similar arguments can be found in the comments to a recent post of mine, “How to Compete With Charters.”

Here are a few of the criticisms of charters that come up time and again, each followed by my answers:

Charter school students’ gains are a result of their intrinsic motivation, not superior schools.

I don’t want to dismiss hard work on the part of students; obviously, learning can’t be forced on anyone and the children should rightly take credit for their own accomplishments. However, we observe that some schools allow children to succeed through hard work and others do not.

This is from an article about KIPP:

Typically students are two or three grade levels behind when they enroll at KIPP as fifth graders. A KIPP study shows that the average fifth-grade student beginning in KIPP scores in the 40th percentile in math and the 32nd percentile in reading based on norm-referenced exams, which compare a student’s performance to their peers nationally. After four years in KIPP, the youngsters tend to score in the 82nd percentile in math and 60th percentile in reading.

If KIPP’s success could be attributed solely to motivation, why were those extremely motivated students so far behind to begin with? The motivation was probably there in fourth grade as well as in fifth grade, right? So the traditional public schools could have taken that motivation and run with it, before these students ever set foot in KIPP. And not every city has KIPP schools, so we should see large groups of traditional district students making sudden, large gains during middle school in the cities where KIPP can’t siphon off the motivated children. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen.

You don’t have to take my word for it — researchers like Roland Fryer and Caroline Hoxby take the motivation problem into account. When they look at student achievement, they compare students who attend charters with other students who entered charter lotteries, but who randomly were assigned to traditional public schools. Their studies find that students who attend charters do better than students who were equally motivated to apply to charters. The only difference between the two groups is that some had the luck of the draw.

It is possible that attending a school your family chose increases your motivation over time. Maybe at the beginning of the study, the charter school kids are no more motivated than their counterparts who lost the lottery. But after a few years in a charter school, they feel a sense of ownership about their schools. They could always choose to go back to their assigned district, so there’s no attitude of “I have to be here, but I don’t have to like it.” Instead, students may think, “My family made this choice, and now it’s up to me to follow through and do my part.” If it turned out that charter school students actually have extra motivation stemming from this reason, that’s an argument in favor of more charters and choice.

Charter schools can be super-selective and set strict rules, while traditional public schools have a disadvantage in that they must accept all comers.

Charter schools are public schools, and they don’t do anything that public schools can’t do. Remember the Clyde C. Miller Career Academy? I wrote a post about how wonderful this “charter” school is, only to find out it’s a district school. If the Career Academy can make students write essays and do interviews before they’re admitted, other district schools could do that too.

Traditional districts like SLPS have the talented people they need to succeed, but political forces just don’t allow them to realize their potential.

I agree completely. As competition with the charters heats up, we’re going to see more district schools like the Career Academy that are just as good as charters. SLPS has the necessary raw materials; choice is the catalyst. The district should view charter schools as its partners in battling political inertia — they’re not enemies.

There’s more justification for a law against texting while driving than for helmet or seat belt requirements. A driver who doesn’t wear a seat belt is risking his own life in the case of an accident; a driver who writes text messages may endanger the lives of others.

However, if the state deems this activity too dangerous to permit, it should be illegal for everyone, not just for young drivers. We wouldn’t say that people can’t drive drunk unless they’re at least 21 years old.

Information is a scarce resource: There’s a cost to gathering it, analyzing it, and promulgating it. Human attention is also scarce. Not even Stephen Wolfram can process all of the information that’s out there.

That’s why requiring businesses to provide data to consumers isn’t always sound policy. It’s like a tax. Well-established businesses will be able to pay upfront and pass on the cost, in the form of higher prices, to its customers. Businesses with fewer resources will be forced to close. And those that would like to enter the market will have to meet this additional expense besides all the usual costs of entry.

This analysis applies to calorie posting requirements, including the one proposed in New York state. A posting requirement would limit entry into the chain restaurant business, restricting consumers’ choices. People might even have fewer healthy options as a result of the law, if new chains that would have offered healthier menus can’t break into the market.

Then there’s the question of what consumers do with the data. Calorie counts by themselves aren’t that informative if people don’t understand what they mean or how many calories they need a day. And healthy eating involves more than just calories; consumers would also have to consider variables like protein and vitamins to make good choices.

For some people, being bombarded with calorie information could actually hurt their health. For example, Harvard discontinued its practice of posting calorie counts in dining halls over fears that it could exacerbate students’ eating disorders.

The following argument would be amusing if it weren’t marshaled in support of a potentially destructive policy:

Studies show that most people find it difficult to guess the calorie counts of typical restaurant meals; one study showed that less than 15 percent of New Yorkers could guess the lowest or highest calorie menu items at any chain restaurant in the survey.

I’m reminded of those surveys they do every now and then, that find most people can’t name the vice president or a member of the Supreme Court. People are generally bad at identifying things for surveys, and we shouldn’t conclude from a survey that they have no idea fast food is unhealthy.

There will probably be more debate about this policy here in Missouri, too. This is the bill that our state legislators proposed for calorie counts.

An article in the Springfield News-Leader reports on a labor law that has more to do with retaliation than with sound economic principles:

Twenty-two states including Illinois, Iowa and Oklahoma, have laws that restrict Missouri laborers from working on public works projects in those states during high unemployment.

Accordingly, Missouri Law states that during such periods, public works projects may only employ Missourians or workers from nonrestrictive states.

The other states that have restrictions in place are hurting their own taxpayers through protectionism. Missouri shouldn’t imitate them.

The first reason is that Missouri shouldn’t waste its tax money just because other states are doing it. Second, beyond the adverse effects of the policy itself, this kind of retaliation makes it less likely that other states will do away with their protectionist laws. If we ignore another state’s bad law, the citizens of that state might eventually learn from our example and realize that their policy is short-sighted. If we instead copy them, they’ll take it as validation of their unwise law. Even worse, states can get locked into a protectionist arms race in which no state will reform its labor laws unless other states act first.

Ever since Maine banned novelty cigarette lighters last year, some lawmakers in other states have been eager to follow suit. The bill introduced in Missouri didn’t go anywhere, but I’m sure the idea will return in future sessions.

As you can guess, the rationale for a ban is increased safety. Kids like to play with things that look like toys, so they’ll play with novelty lighters and start fires.

The Missouri bill would have limited the ban to novelty lighters that would appeal to children younger than age 18. To achieve their goal of lighter safety, legislators would have to ban all lighters that would appeal to anyone, adults included. Toddlers think anything small and movable is a toy; they don’t check to see whether it looks like something from Toys”R”Us before playing. And that’s why parents shouldn’t leave any lighter, novelty or otherwise, within the reach of children.

It takes a lot of legislation to substitute for a little bit of common sense.

Missouri has no single-sex charter schools yet, although a few charters do offer single-sex classrooms. So we haven’t run into the legal dilemma single-sex charters in Illinois may face. The Illinois charter school law prohibits charters from discriminating in admissions based on gender, as does Missouri’s law. This article (link via Edspresso) mentions a possible situation that administrators in Illinois are anticipating:

The School Board’s administration said Tuesday the school can’t, by law, discriminate against female applicants, and if a girl applies and is chosen by computerized lottery, she’d be a student there, too.

It seems that the charter schools don’t expect students of the opposite sex to apply. The two single-sex high schools in Chicago have been open for several years without problems. I doubt any teenage boy would want to attend the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School of his own initiative, but it could be that adults will decide to challenge the schools’ legality.

In addition to my involvement with the Show-Me Institute, I have also worked part-time as a licensed taxicab driver for Chesterfield Car Service, for a little more than three years. Apart from licensing drivers, the cabs themselves also require a license, which must similarly be renewed annually. Earlier today, I reported to the company parking lot where an inspector was going through the routine on some of our company’s cars. As I understand it, the inspector is an employee of the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission who performs inspections year-round on taxis in St. Louis. Between 8:00 a.m. and noon, today and tomorrow, all 30 or so taxis in our company will be inspected.

The inspection largely consists of giving the exterior a once-over glance and checking a few necessary things, such as brake lights and blinkers. Some cabs get a more thorough inspection than others, but it seems that the inspector is mostly looking for glaring defects or safety hazards. The inspector also verifies that the car’s meter has been recently inspected by a third-party meter inspecting agent, and that the car has proper insurance. The meter inspection is another required annual appointment, usually completed a week or two prior to the vehicle inspection. 

If the inspector finds a defect, it must be repaired before the car can continue to operate as a taxi in the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) district (both St. Louis County and city — other areas have their own taxi certification agencies and processes). I’m pretty sure this is why the inspection is typically scheduled over two days, so that defects spotted on day one can be repaired and ready for day two.

Show-Me Institute scholars have spoken out a few times about the subject of professional licensing. This is certainly another example of an area where market forces, rather than government bureaucracy, would most efficiently produce the quantity and quality of services that people want. The MTC limits both the number and quality of taxis in its district, as well as the prices these taxis can charge. Limiting number or quality leads to increased prices, as basic economics would indicate. Price ceilings lead to shortages, made worse by the other limitations on quantity and quality. If you’ve ever been to Mardi Gras in St. Louis, participated in New Year’s Eve festivities, or even attended a Blues or Cardinals game, and tried to get a taxi, it is likely that you had to wait a long time — especially during those once-a-year holidays. Granted, I and other taxi drivers working at those times make a terrific hourly rate — especially for an occupation requiring practically no special training, education, or experience — but I care more about fostering a market in which customers get the taxi services they want than I do about making good money a few days per year.

Like most other businesses and services, you can get a pretty good idea about what kind of taxi you’re stepping into with just a superficial examination. Also like other businesses, it is difficult for taxicab companies to persist in the market if they don’t engender repeat business by offering good quality and reasonable prices. Market forces push toward price equilibrium, and entrepreneurs predictably exploit arbitrage opportunities, bringing people what they want more often in more efficient ways. The market would be a better steward of taxi services in St. Louis than the MTC is today.