When six failing schools close in an unaccredited school district, where do the students go?

That is the question facing Saint Louis officials and one that may have significant implications for state education policy. At the end of the school year, the six Imagine charter schools in the City of Saint Louis will close. The Imagine Schools have had a host of financial and academic troubles, with some reports raising questions of financial misconduct.

When the Imagine schools close, they will leave 3,000 or more students searching to find a new school. The NAACP, in a letter to state Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro, estimates that there are only 500 open seats in city charter schools. The remaining Imagine school students’ only publicly provided option is to attend a school in the city’s public school district. The problem is, Saint Louis Public Schools (SLPS) have been unaccredited for years.

Though the Missouri Supreme Court recently ruled that students in an unaccredited district like SLPS must be allowed to transfer to an accredited district, the Imagine school students are not being given the option to attend nearby suburban districts.

Recently, the Saint Louis City firefighters filed a lawsuit to allow their children into nearby accredited schools. It now looks likely that the NAACP will join the fight for expanded educational choice in the Saint Louis area.

The NAACP is strongly advocating that the Imagine students be given a chance to choose a quality school in an accredited district. Adolphus Pruitt, the local NAACP’s director, has said that litigation is likely, and that attorneys are being interviewed.

When will the pressure in Saint Louis be enough to convince state legislators that a solution is needed? Saint Louis would not be mired in this situation if public funding for education could follow students to any school of their choosing. Instead, public education dollars in Missouri are tied to school districts, and subject to a convoluted and outdated funding formula. If legislators do not bring forward a solution, it seems likely that educational choice will be forced through more litigation.

The Pew Center on the States has published a review of the transparency of state tax incentive programs. Some Missouri legislators, of course, are big fans of tax credits — the Missouri government issued about $500 million last year, and during the 2011 legislative session, some legislators pushed very hard for legislation to create nearly another $400 million in tax credits.

Perhaps because these handouts consume so much of our state budget, our government does pay some attention to where the money is going. As such, Missouri ranked high as one of the states that is “leading the way” in the Pew Center’s study.

While tax credit transparency is a laudable goal, it has accomplished little. Many of our state politicians call for tax credit reform, and then support tax credit programs soon thereafter. Consider Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who made news last year when he told journalists that it was time for tax credit reform. And yet later that year, he urged legislators to pass expansive tax credit legislation.

Our state may have a somewhat transparent tax credit system, but taxpayer dollars continue to be misused. Just last week, Missouri Journal reported that Brown Shoe received $2.4 million in jobs training tax credits this year — and is laying off 132 workers. Missouri Journal has also reported that Ford Motor Co. received $1.85 million in job training tax incentives, despite plans to lay off more than 1,000 Missouri workers temporarily. This would have been surprising, if it had not happened before: Despite issuing many of its employees pink slips, Liberty Mutual remained eligible for job creation tax credits.

And, regular Show-Me Daily readers certainly are familiar with the state-level reviews of tax credits with a 2010 audit report that found that the state Department of Economic Development had inflated some job creation numbers associated with tax credit awards, and another 2010 state audit report that found that tax credits are more expensive than advertised. The Governor’s Tax Credit Review Commission report had all kinds of strong recommendations for tax credit reform, but those have, perhaps predictably, not been implemented.

I wonder, if Missouri is considered to be “leading the way,” what is going on in states that Pew considers to be “trailing behind”? It seems we have all kinds of accountability problems with our tax credit programs.  Sadly, transparency seems to have given our politicians enough information to provide tough talk about reform, but not the gumption to implement it.

I do not smoke. But I am curious about radio ads that are advocating for stronger anti-smoking laws in Saint Louis County. The ads, which come from a group called Let’s Face It, are creative – and alarming. Consider this line from one of the ads:

There are still workplaces in St. Louis County that legally allow smoking. . . . let’s truly eliminate second-hand smoke in the workplace. It’s better for all of us.

Saint Louis County recently passed an expansive anti-smoking ordinance; the law includes exemptions for bars and casinos. The owners of those establishments felt that if smoking was not permitted, they would go out of business. I attended one of the hearings when the Saint Louis County Council was considering the partial ban. Several bar and restaurant owners told officials they feared their businesses would close or they would have to lay off employees if customers were not allowed to smoke.

Well, it turns out that more than $7.5 million in federal stimulus money is funding those radio ads and advocacy efforts to eliminate exemptions. According to the Recovery.gov website, federal stimulus money has gone to Let’s Face It’s anti-exemption campaign. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It noted that it hopes to “place amendment on council agenda,” “remove exemptions from current ordinance,” and  ”increase the number of County municipalities that enact smokefree [sic] policies that exceed the comprehensive County-wide policy. . .”

The group has also partnered with the St. Louis Rams, and ran anti-smoking advertisements during the Rams’ Dec. 18, 2011, home game. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It claims to have created 38.16 jobs associated with this campaign. Some of those jobs are associated with $2 million that went to Fleishman-Hillard (four jobs) and $175,000 that went to the St. Louis Cardinals (actually, no jobs are claimed to be created with the money directed to the Cardinals).

The Show-Me Institute has made the case that customers (and employees) have the freedom to choose what bars and restaurants they frequent. The argument that customers or employees are somehow trapped at a venue that allows smoking is a smokescreen, at best.

But federal funding of advocacy efforts goes even further. If the anti-second-hand smoking argument is a good one, then why aren’t private associations and nonprofits stepping up to make the case? Why does the federal government have to fund an advocacy campaign?

What is next, Fannie Mae funding an organization that advocates for land banking legislation? Or federal stimulus money being used to fund similar advocacy campaigns throughout the United States against soda?

Missourinet reports today that a “watered-down” teacher tenure reform bill is moving through the state Senate. The bill would make it more difficult for teachers to gain tenure. Under the new bill, it would take teachers 10 years to gain tenure, instead of the five years it takes under existing law.

This may have a marginal positive impact, allowing school districts more time to weed out ineffective teachers before they gain tenure. But frankly, I am skeptical that this provision will do much. Many of the school districts we highlighted on this blog earlier this week that had terminated just one or no teachers since the year 2000 also reported low non-renewals of teachers who have not attained tenure status.

For example, the Belleview School District, which reported not terminating a single teacher since the year 2000, reported only three non-renewals. The DeSoto School District, which reported terminating one teacher, reports zero non-renewals since the year 2000. The Potosi School District, which employs about 170 teachers and has not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000, reports 10 non-renewals.

However, I do think a provision in the Teacher Multiyear Contract Act may give school districts the latitude needed to terminate poor-performing teachers when needed. Under existing law, if a school district needs to lay off teachers due to budgetary concerns, the district is required to lay off its newest teachers.

The Multiyear Contract Act would change that. The legislation states:

Seniority or years of service shall not be used as criteria for reduction in force; effective teacher performance shall be the deciding criterion.

This provision would allow districts facing financial distress to keep the best teachers — not those who have stayed on the longest. This would certainly help struggling school districts prioritize providing a good education to students, instead of being required to provide employment to those who have been there the longest.

A bill in the Missouri House of Representatives would, if passed, prohibit anyone from operating a food truck without a license.

At first, I thought this legislation was a bad idea. After all, it will certainly make it more expensive to operate a food truck. The bill would require every food truck (and restaurants and warehouses that store food truck supplies) to pay $100 each year to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

Costs associated with complying with the proposed licensing law could result in some food trucks closing or increasing their prices. Some would-be food truck entrepreneurs may even be discouraged from ever trying to open a food truck company in Missouri.

This law would also require food truck operators to list, on their applications, the location of all warehouses or restaurants that supply their food and where they repair and store their food trucks. Perhaps some restaurant owners or food truck operators who have the right connections could get a sense of how best to undercut their competition with this information.

Food truck operators would even have to make sure that records of the “specific locations of the specific itineraries” for the food trucks are readily available for inspection. Could food trucks that announce their lunchtime locations, like @PiTruckSTL, @falafelwich, and @whereschacha, submit those tweets as the required “itineraries”?

This law does sound bad for food trucks.

But, then I read the provisions of the food truck law that require inspections. Did you know that food trucks would have to provide “samples of food, drink, and other substances…as often as may be necessary” to inspectors to determine if the food is “unwholesome?” Or, that inspectors would be granted “access…to the interior of all mobile food units…at such times as the department considers necessary?”

Department inspectors could have access to Pi Pizza, Falafelwich, Cha Cha Tacos, and a litany other of food trucks as often as “necessary.” They might be able to participate in ridealongs if they demand to have access to the interior of a food truck while it drives.

You know, this legislation does not sound so bad. Where do I sign up to be an inspector?

By the way, check out our video about city regulation of food trucks.

Missourinet reports today that legislative attempts to reform Missouri teacher tenure laws are being stopped in the Senate. Missouri Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Dist. 3) is concerned that proposed changes to teacher tenure go too far, saying “I think we should probably revise tenure . . . but I don’t know if we should just get rid of it.”

The Show-Me Institute is in the process of researching the impact of Missouri’s existing teacher tenure laws. We have made hundreds of information requests to school districts throughout the state to discover just how many teachers have been terminated in the past decade. Generally, we are seeing few — and in some cases no — teacher terminations. Clearly, some of these school districts continue to employ bad teachers.

I have listed teacher termination statics that we have received from school districts that fall within Engler’s Senate district. Three districts report that they have not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000.

Senator Kevin Engler’s Area:

Arcadia Valley R-III: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Belleview School District: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

DeSoto School District: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

East Carter County R-II: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Potosi R-III: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

Van Buren School District: The superintendent writes that “There were no teachers [since 2000] that were asked to leave, terminated, or were fired by the district.”

Legislators should remember that the purpose of public education is not to employ as many teachers as possible; it is to provide education to Missouri students. As we have pointed out on this blog, we must acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that not all teachers are above average. A consistent finding in academic studies is that teacher quality matters. In fact, a study by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University found that students can learn three times as much from a good teacher than they do from a bad one.

Restricting school districts’ ability to fire bad teachers ensures that some Missouri students are receiving a poor education. As shown in the school districts from the area Engler represents, some districts rarely terminate teachers. Is this practice the best for Missouri students?

Albert Munoz, who works as a mechanic and a construction worker, bought a 2-story building in Kansas City, Kan., in the hopes of rehabbing the property. According to Fox 4 Kansas City, Munoz invested more than $400,000 in the building in the hopes of turning the upstairs into apartments and the downstairs into space for his business.

However, in February 2011, Wyandotte County and a wrecking company destroyed the property. Munoz is suing for damages.

The story seems like a shocking outlier. But, just months ago, there was a similar demolition east across the state line, in Missouri.

Show-Me Daily readers may already be familiar with the Jackson County Land Trust, the government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. State legislators have criticized the Land Trust for not selling much property. But, in at least one case, the Land Trust sold a property to a buyer, only to have to deal with the consequences when Kansas City accidentally demolished the property.

During its January 2012 meeting, the Land Trust noted that:

. . . an elderly non-English speaking gentleman purchased 3914 E. 46^th Street from Land Trust. Unbeknownst to the buyer, about 30 days subsequent to his purchase, the city demolished the structure on the property. . . . the buyer is interested in 3227 Garfield as a potential alternative and that the buyer may be approaching Land Trust for resolution.

Sadly, when local government gets enthusiastic about demolishing properties in an attempt to mitigate “blight,” property owners can lose their homes. An example in Montgomery, Ala., provides another cautionary tale. There, homes were bulldozed for ordinance violations. To add insult to injury, property owners were then billed for the cost of the demolition.

Is it too much to ask for local government to do a little more due diligence before knocking down someone’s property?

Today, the Missouri House of Representatives approved a $24 billion state budget. What remains to be seen is whether that budget will pass the Senate.

Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Dist. 27) made waves when he spoke out on Wednesday against gimmicks that legislators are using to avoid tough budgetary decisions. The Columbia Missourian reports that Crowell blocked a vote that would extend the amount of time the legislature has to replenish the state’s “rainy day fund.”

Crowell also argued that the proposed state budget counts on uncertain sources of revenue ($70 million that is estimated to be received from delinquent taxpayers), and one-time sources of funding (a $40 million settlement that the state has not yet received).

In a very passionate speech, Crowell stressed the need for tax credit reform, something he has called for repeatedly. Crowell has sponsored several bills to subject tax credits to the appropriations process. Tax credits currently are not subject to appropriations, meaning that tax credit money (which has consistently been more than $500 million in recent years), comes straight out of state coffers, without consideration of whether the state can afford the expense.

During the hearing, Crowell asked Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Dist. 19), the budget chairman,  ”When are you going to pick Mizzou over Jeff Smith? That’s what this is all about, Senator.”

Crowell was referring to a developer who the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board has called out for benefiting greatly from the state’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and alluding to the cuts that have been made to state higher education. These are the kinds of trade-offs that could be considered if tax credits were subject to appropriations; instead, legislators continue to passively give priority to tax credits.

Indeed, St. Louis Public Radio reports that Crowell promised to filibuster uses of one-time funding unless serious overhauls of the tax credit system, prison spending, and state pensions are considered.

Good luck.

During a hearing of Senate Bill 795, a bill to create a land bank in Kansas City, the sponsor, Missouri Sen. Victor Callahan (D-Dist. 11), told the committee that the Jackson County Land Trust (the entity that currently deals with vacant property in Kansas City) had sold very few properties. Kansas City officials prepared information and distributed it to the committee at the meeting; the information showed that the Land Trust had sold just 97 properties in 2011, 41 properties in 2010, and 31 properties in 2009. These numbers are wrong.

Since 2005, the Land Trust has sold more than 1,700 properties for more than $1.5 million. Due to a data error, Callahan and other legislators were presented with incorrect information that made the Land Trust appear to have sold very few properties in recent years.

The correct sales data, which the Land Trust itself provided, is listed below. You can also download a spreadsheet of all addresses sold (and purchase prices) here:

2011: 200 properties were sold

2010: 137 properties were sold

2009: 154 properties were sold

2008: 181 properties were sold.

A big part of the narrative that is being used to advocate for the land bank legislation in Jefferson City is that the existing Land Trust is not selling enough property.

The truth is that the Land Trust sales rate in recent years is as good as, if not better than, the sales rate of any land bank I have researched — including the longest-standing land banking experiment in the United States, the 40-year-old Saint Louis land bank.

Indeed, the very land bank that proponents hold up as the gold standard of land banking (the Genesee County Land Bank in Michigan) continues to amass property. Where, exactly, is the story of success that land bank proponents hope to replicate in Kansas City?

I will admit it: I just do not understand why legislators are in a rush to create a land bank in Kansas City. Why pass legislation that would create an entity similar to what has a long-term track record of failure in Saint Louis? Why create a land bank that could incur unlimited debt with the power to say “no” to people who want to buy vacant, city property? And, why cast aside the Land Trust, which cannot discriminate when selling property and has a reasonable sales record?

The Kansas City Star reports that a bill to create a land bank in Kansas City is one step closer to becoming law. If the bill passes, the land bank would have the power to incur unlimited debt, bid against private buyers at tax auction, and — most disturbingly — be able to say no to private buyers who want to buy vacant city property.

The legislation has out-of-state advocates. Dan Kildee, the head of a nonprofit that has advocated for land bank legislation in numerous states, is quoted in the Star extensively. Kildee told the Star that a land bank could acquire abandoned property in order to keep it out of the hands of private speculators. This statement ignores the fact that if a land bank is acquiring property because it thinks a better buyer will come along in the future, then the land bank itself will be acting as a speculator.

We have seen this model fail in Saint Louis. The Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority, has existed for more than 40 years. In that time, it has amassed about 10,000 parcels of vacant land. My research showed that during the past eight years, the Saint Louis land bank rejected almost half of all formal offers to purchase its property. The most common reason for rejection was that the property was being “held for future development.” Sadly, the hoped-for development rarely materializes.

Instead of taking heed of the 40-year-old failure in our own state, legislators are willing to bet Kansas City’s future on glorified accounts of a land bank’s operations in Michigan. That land bank, the Genesee County Land Bank, has been trying to sell vacant property for less than a decade. When I have testified about the failure in Saint Louis, legislators and lobbyists quickly state that Saint Louis is “different” than Kansas City. Why, exactly, is the short-term record of a land bank that is more than 500 miles away more relevant than the long-term failure of a land bank in our own state?

At a Show-Me Institute policy breakfast, Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams noted that it is very difficult to fire bad teachers. In fact, it is even more difficult to fire bad teachers in Saint Louis than it is in the rest of the state.

Adams said:

It takes 100 days to remove a teacher after you give a teacher a plan. In every other city or county in the state of Missouri, it takes 30 days. So if there’s a bad teacher in the classroom, I have to work with that teacher for 100 days with a detailed plan, called a PIP, a professional improvement plan, to remove that teacher . . . I’m not talking about the hearing process, I’m just talking about getting them out of the classroom. No other place has that in the state of Missouri but Saint Louis.

You might find Adam’s statement difficult to believe. But he is correct. According to state law, if a teacher is doing a poor job, that teacher cannot be dismissed quickly. Instead, in Saint Louis City, the teacher needs to be notified in writing at least one semester before the superintendent can even present the charges against the teacher.

Actually, after looking over the statute, I think that Adams is being kind. One school semester is 87 days (half of the 174 required school days), and the law requires a 30-day notice before any hearing can occur. Once you start counting weekends, holidays, and everything else, it looks like it takes a lot more than just 100 days to remove a bad teacher from the classroom.

The city school district is struggling to boost student academic performance. It is one of the small number of unaccredited school districts in the state. And, it is common knowledge that teachers can have a large positive (or negative) impact on their students’ education. That is exactly why laws that severely limit districts’ ability to remove bad teachers hurt students.

Just think: Thanks to state law, an ineffective teacher could continue teaching students for more than 100 days. That teacher might have a little more job security, but those students will continue to receive a mediocre education. It is time to focus on helping students, instead of teacher job security.

Kansas City officials announced today that Bank of America will be giving the city 75 vacant properties. The bank may provide cash as well — up to $20,000 for rehabs of the properties or up to $7,500 for each demolition.

City leaders are touting the transfer of these vacant properties as a “gift.”  The Kansas City Star’s headline today reads: “Bank of America gift of vacant houses will aid KC’s urban core.”

But this gift comes with many risks. Kansas City will have to pay to maintain the properties until they are sold. Presumably, Bank of America was paying property taxes on the properties that it owned — taxes that will not be paid if the city takes ownership. The transfer could be a gift, but if Kansas City fails to sell the properties quickly, that gift will soon turn into a liability.

Though I may disagree with their proposed solution, city leaders and area legislators have openly stated that it is difficult to sell vacant property in the city. It is a real possibility that some of the so-called donations will remain vacant, and in city ownership for a very long period of time. That is the risk of owning vacant property, regardless of whether you are a city, or a private investor: There is the chance that no one else will want to buy your property.

For the sake of Kansas City residents and taxpayers, I hope the city finds private buyers who can put the property to productive use as quickly as possible. But I think, given the foreclosure crisis and associated risks, a better headline would have been: “Kansas City’s acceptance of low value properties will aid Bank of America’s bottom line.”