When I was a freshman in high school, I read Kurt Vonnegut’s classic novel Slaughterhouse Five. I didn’t fully understand the book at the time, but it introduced me to non-linear narrative and opened me up creatively to more innovative fiction. Pretty soon, I was devouring Catch-22, On the Road, and One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (among others), and it was Vonnegut who first set me on the path to my favorite writers, without whom I doubt I would be where I am today.

So I was distressed to hear that the school board of Republic R-III in Republic, Missouri voted unanimously to remove Slaughterhouse Five from its curriculum. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the decision was “based on the complaints of Republic resident Wesley Scroggins, a professor of management at Missouri State University, and the father of several home-schooled children,” who “complained that the books advocate principles contrary to the Bible.”

This is paradoxical. Scroggins home-schools his children, presumably because his values conflict with those he believes the public school instills. He is exercising his right to choose how his children are educated. I’m sure he would object if the state board of education told him what books were suitable for his children to read. How then can he justify restricting what other students can study in school?

The real solution to this problem is more choice, not less. If we had a real market in education, parents who disapprove of Vonnegut and other authors like him could send their children to schools that don’t teach their works, while other schools could offer a more contemporary curriculum.

The district model for schooling is outdated. If it was ever a sensible model for educating students (I have my doubts), it was when the country was primarily rural and the technology to deliver the world’s information to every household did not exist. We have long since progressed past the need for these archaic bureaucracies that limit parental, student, and teacher choice. One district removing a single book from its curriculum may seem insignificant, but it illustrates how the current educational system limits rather than facilitates access to knowledge.

For any Republic High School students who want to understand the headline — or just spite their board of education — click here.

During the past few weeks, this sound has become familiar to many Missourians, particularly those who live on or south of Interstate 70. That’s because the Great Southern Brood of cicadas has emerged to reproduce and fulfill its 13-year life cycle. The creative minds at Sparky’s Homemade Ice Cream, a local institution in Columbia, thought they could use this as an opportunity to experiment with a new ingredient:

Yum. Despite many people’s instant aversion to the insects, people have eaten cicadas for decades — but typically grilled, and never before in ice cream, to my knowledge. Nonetheless, the concoction proved a hit — so much so that Sparky’s sold out of it before it even officially debuted. Unfortunately, the health department warned Sparky’s against making more, likely ensuring that this will be the only batch of cicada ice cream ever sold there:

Sparky’s approached the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services and asked about the use of cicadas in the ice cream, Gerry Worley, environmental health manager for the department, said.

“The food code doesn’t directly address cicadas,” Worley said. “We advised against it.”

Despite the fact that people are free to eat cicadas on their own and frequently do so, the city has recommended that food service professionals avoid using this highly demanded ingredient. Everyone loses in this situation. Sparky’s loses business and publicity. Consumers lose an exotic experience. The only winner is a climate of senseless regulation.

New Orleans’ schools are improving, and they can teach districts in Missouri a valuable lesson about the importance of choice in education. When Hurricane Katrina turned the city upside down, New Orleans reorganized its school system by turning most schools into charters and giving more autonomy to those that remained traditional public schools. Furthermore, parents can now choose between these different models of schools thanks to largely open enrollment across the city. I have written about the successes of these policies before, and although New Orleans’ schools are still struggling, they continue to improve under this system of accountability through choice. From last Tuesday’s Times-Picayune:

Since 2007, the proportion of students in the district scoring “basic” — essentially at grade level — or better has now more than doubled from 23 percent to 48 percent, rising faster than any other district in the state.

Test scores from students that still fall under the Orleans Parish School Board, which held onto a small group of high-performing schools, improved as well, with 82 percent of students scoring basic or better, up 2 percentage points from the year before.
[...]
Still, the proportion of RSD students scoring at basic proficiency in state testing climbed 5 percentage points to 48 percent this spring from the year before. That figure combines results from state LEAP, iLEAP and graduation exit exams.

The latest results compare with growth of just 1 percentage point to 66 percent across the state as a whole.

The 16 schools that remain under the Orleans Parish School Board, some of them magnet schools with admissions requirements, continued to perform well above the state average.

This last bit undermines the oft-repeated notion that charter schools only prosper by “stealing” the best students from public schools. New Orleans’ experience shows that all schools can improve when parents are allowed to choose the schools that best fit their students’ educational needs. There’s a great deal of evidence that charter schools in Missouri improve educational outcomes, but in order to realize gains anywhere close to what New Orleans has witnessed, Missouri will have to allow for expansions of both the number and the geographic scope of charter schools.

Link via Marginal Revolution.

George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux wrote a post earlier this week describing a hypothetical world in which groceries are distributed the way that we currently offer public education:

Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. A huge chunk of these tax receipts would then be spent by government officials on building and operating supermarkets. County residents, depending upon their specific residential addresses, would be assigned to a particular supermarket. Each family could then get its weekly allotment of groceries for “free.” (Department of Supermarket officials would no doubt be charged with the responsibility for determining the amounts and kinds of groceries that families of different types and sizes are entitled to receive.)

Except in rare circumstances, no family would be allowed to patronize a “public” supermarket outside of its district.

Residents of wealthier counties – such as Fairfax County, VA and Somerset County, NJ – would obviously have better-stocked and more attractive supermarkets than would residents of poorer counties. Indeed, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in determining people’s choices of neighborhoods in which to live.
[...]
Does anyone believe that such a system for supplying groceries would work well, or even one-tenth as well as the current private, competitive system that we currently rely upon for supplying grocery-retailing services?

You should read the whole thing, but I’d like to expand on Boudreaux’s analogy to show that such a system of public supermarkets would not only be inefficient, but also inherently inequitable.

Because people would try to buy houses in districts with good stores, much of the price of groceries would be built into the price of housing. The price of housing would rise, but not uniformly. Areas with relatively good supermarkets would become more expensive while areas with very poor supermarkets would become cheaper. Less expensive housing would attract people with lower incomes, and they would quickly become locked into a system of bad supermarkets.

Even if one of the supermarkets in a low-income area managed to improve drastically and become one of the better supermarkets, this likely would not benefit those low-income residents in the long run. The improved supermarket would attract people with relatively high incomes and slowly drive out those with low incomes through increased housing prices. Considering that housing is already the single largest expense for most Americans, tying rents to supermarket service would only further restrict the already limited options for buying food that those with low incomes currently face.

The analogy to education isn’t perfect, obviously. The biggest difference is that people without school-age children don’t usually consider a district’s school system when deciding where to live. That might help to explain why more young professionals are choosing to live in Saint Louis, but the city is losing population among almost every other group. As long as lower- and middle-class residents of cities like Saint Louis and Kansas City cannot choose from a number of quality schools, they will continue to stagnate or decline, trapping the worst in their failing institutions.

One of the projects I have been working on lately is a unit about the Great Depression for junior high age students. It is designed to correct a number of popular myths associated with the worst economic disaster in our nation’s history. These myths are legion (the idea that the free market caused the crash, that the New Deal brought the country out of the Depression, etc.), but perhaps the most popular is the notion that President Herbert Hoover (1929–33) instituted a do-nothing policy in response the crisis. In fact, Hoover intervened in the economy more than any president up to that point.

Nevertheless, economist Robert Murphy catches several writers — who should know better — repeating this hoary old myth. For instance, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman recently compared the current Republican position on federal spending to Hoover’s during the Depression:

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” That, according to Herbert Hoover, was the advice he received from Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary, as America plunged into depression. To be fair, there’s some question about whether Mellon actually said that; all we have is Hoover’s version, written many years later.

But one thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.

To which Murphy responds:

To his credit, Krugman acknowledges that this quote comes from Hoover’s own memoirs, written well after the fact. But to his discredit, Krugman fails to notify us that on the very next page of Hoover’s memoirs, after he explains the liquidationist advice he got from his treasury secretary, Hoover wrote,

“But other members of the Administration, also having economic responsibilities — Under Secretary of the Treasury Mills, Governor Young of the Reserve Board, Secretary of Commerce Lamont and Secretary of Agriculture Hyde — believed with me that we should use the powers of government to cushion the situation.“[2]

If you read Hoover’s memoirs in context, you see that his whole point in bringing up the Mellon doctrine was to tell his readers that he rejected the advice. Hoover was trying to show people (and of course I’m paraphrasing here), “Hey, I did everything I could to get us out of that awful downturn! You should have seen the crazy laissez-faire stuff my treasury secretary was recommending.”

And Hoover was not exaggerating when it came to his expansion of the government. It’s relatively well-known that Hoover endorsed and signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff into law, causing American exports and imports to decrease by more than 60 percent by the end of his term. However, Hoover’s meddling was hardly limited to the sphere of international trade. He increased federal spending by almost 50 percent and dramatically increased taxes, including raising the top income tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. Perhaps most disastrously, Hoover urged businessmen to keep wages up, which they did even amid serious deflation. These artificially inflated wages forced businesses to lay off workers. Soon, the country experienced the greatest mass unemployment in history, with a quarter of the labor force out of work.

It was Hoover’s dramatic interventions into the economy that turned what would have been a severe recession into the Great Depression. In a 2009 article, UCLA economist Lee Ohanian estimated that Hoover’s high-wage policies accounted for two thirds of the 27-percent drop in GDP from 1929 to 1931. Unfortunately, Franklin Roosevelt built on Hoover’s mistakes instead of learning from them. Rexford Tugwell, a leading member of FDR’s brain trust, later remarked that “[t]he ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover’s aegis.” Not surprisingly, the continuation of bad policy did nothing to remedy the economic situation, and the country stayed mired in depression until after World War II.

In the second half of this short 1967 video about the first personal computer in Britain, the narrator describes how the owner’s son uses the computer to learn reading, writing, and mathematics. The owner, Rex Malik, imagines “a future world where children could be virtually educated by computer.” For all the praise of technology in education, this is still the basic model for technology in the classroom: The student receives information from the computer and sends back answers, but there is little in the way of interaction. This model works just fine for smart, driven students, but its appeal is fairly limited.

Now watch Salman Khan discuss his online Khan Academy at this year’s Technology Entertainment and Design (TED) conference:

Khan Academy gives students engaging instruction in an expanding number of subjects, right now primarily those in mathematics and economics, befitting Khan’s background as a hedge fund manager. Of course, this makes it easier for self-motivated students to teach themselves linear algebra, but I think the real innovation of Khan Academy is the way in which it can supplement more traditional courses.

Instead of receiving a lecture at school and working on problems by themselves at home, students using the Khan Academy can watch the lecture at home online and then work through the problems at school, where the teacher can work one on one with any students who are struggling with the material. Khan Academy’s mastery assessment software also makes it easier to identify who those students are and what particular topic they are struggling with, so the teacher can use his time most efficiently.

And it’s all free! Khan started developing these courses for his cousin and discovered that he had a knack for it. Now the Khan Academy is a nonprofit, where he works full time. Even with virtual schooling programs that are developed by for-profit companies, the fact that they can be used by millions of students simultaneously means that the per-pupil costs are extremely low. We need greater experimentation in our school systems to allow more innovations like Khan Academy to spring up and spread across the world.

A study (non-gated, working version) in the latest Journal of Labor Economics shows that students attending charter schools are significantly more likely to graduate from high school and attend college than similar students in traditional public schools. The authors examined students in Florida and Chicago and used a myriad of controls to ensure that the charter school students it compared to other public school students were, in fact, comparable. They found that “among students who attended a charter middle school, those who went on to attend a charter high school were 7 to 15 percentage points more likely to earn a standard diploma than students who transitioned to a traditional public high school. Similarly, those attending a charter high school were 8 to 10 percentage points more likely to attend college.”

A quick look at the available evidence suggests that the same holds true here in Missouri. Although it does not contain the same rigorous controls as the study of Florida and Chicago charters, a 2010 study by the Missouri General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Education reported that seven of eight charter schools in Kansas City and Saint Louis city achieved higher graduation rates in 2009 than the surrounding school districts, and six of eight beat the state average. Critics often accuse charters of skimming off the best public school students, but in Missouri that is emphatically not the case. The charter law requires one third of charter schools to actively recruit and serve dropouts and high-risk students.

With regard to college attendance, a quick look through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s data indicates that, with the exception of two schools in Kansas City, all charter high schools send graduates on to college at a comparable or higher rate than their public school counterparts. It should also be noted that if a charter is sending graduates to college at the same rate as the public schools they supplement, but have higher overall graduation rates, students who attend those schools are still more likely to attend college than are their public school counterparts.

The evidence in Missouri appears clear: Charter schools improve educational attainment for students in Kansas City and Saint Louis. Perhaps it is time to expand charters beyond those narrow confines.

Right now, I’m reading The Rule of Empires by Washington University history professor Timothy Parsons (who was my history advisor when I was an undergraduate there, incidentally). In it, Parsons describes how foolish economic regulations and excessive taxation in the late Roman Empire drove people from the cities:

Emperor Diocletian tried to arrest this inflationary spiral in A.D. 301 with an unenforceable decree fixing wages and basic commodity prices. Faced with significant shortfalls in the western half of the empire, tax collectors concentrated on the cities and towns, where magistrates faced fines and confiscations if they failed to produce sufficient revenues. Not surprisingly, the wealthy and privileged fled to the countryside, where the reach of imperial authority was inherently shorter.

This exodus helped ingrain feudalism in the countryside as the rich bought up large estates. For the record, I don’t think city earnings taxes, no matter how high, will lead to a resurgence of feudalism, but incentives still change the way people behave now just as much as they did 1,700 years ago. If people can avoid a tax — and the rich can avoid them most easily because of how mobile they are — many of them will do so. Although we don’t know precisely the level of taxation in Roman cities, it was almost surely higher than 1 percent. Nonetheless, all else being equal, higher taxes tend to drive people away, whether we are talking about early 4th-century Rome and Londinium (London) or contemporary Kansas City and Saint Louis.

Over the weekend, I attended the 2011 International Students for Liberty (SFL) conference in Washington, D.C. Although I have participated in a number of similar conferences over the past decade, I found this one the most inspiring. That’s not primarily because of the speeches from figures like television host John Stossel, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and George Mason University economist and polymath Tyler Cowen. As impressive as most of the speakers were, I have seen their equals before. I was inspired by the 500-plus students that gladly gave up a weekend to spend hours in lecture halls in the hopes of advancing liberty.

Several of the speakers have since noted the growth in both the quantity and quality of young liberty activists over the last few decades. In his Washington Examiner column, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy recollects that when he founded a college libertarian group in the early 1990s, “we considered ourselves lucky when we could get a couple of dozen socially awkward malcontents together to grumble about the government.”

But economist Bryan Caplan probably summed it up best: “Twenty years ago, a pack of libertarian students would have been roughly as awkward and freakish as attendees at Comic-Con … or, say, me. Now I see hundreds of students who aren’t just smart, but smooth.”

My college experience was not nearly as benighted as Healy’s or Caplan’s. I helped lead a libertarian group at Washington University in Saint Louis from 2001 to 2005, and we were extremely active: holding weekly meetings, bringing speakers to campus (sometimes multiple times per semester), debating other student groups, helping to publish a biweekly conservative-libertarian student newspaper, etc. The group was a major force in campus political life, but we were still outnumbered and isolated. There were only a few other large and active libertarian college groups across the country (Loyola New Orleans, Hillsdale College, and George Mason University spring to mind), so we felt like the last of a dying breed, a remnant of brighter days.

At one point, we tried to launch a national libertarian student group, much like what SFL has become. When we started planning for a conference, we thought 100–200 student attendees would be phenomenal, but we never achieved that because there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the idea outside of those few groups. If someone told us that, less than 10 years later, there would be a pro-liberty student group hosting a convention with more than 500 attendees (and many others turned away because of a lack of space), we would have laughed in his face.

I don’t think it has ever felt this good to be wrong. (Maybe in 2006, when the Cardinals surprised even me by beating the Tigers and winning the World Series, but I’m pretty sure this is better.) Students and young people in general are listening to the message of freedom being articulated by talented writers, filmmakers, artists, etc. — and by groups like the Show-Me Institute. I get dispirited on an almost daily basis when I see the government grow and grow, seemingly without end, but I have seen real changes in people’s beliefs since I first started tilting at these government windmills. That’s no guarantee that things will change for the better, but it is something. It’s hope.

I appeared on “McGraw in the Morning” on KTRS today to discuss my recent commentary about Albert Pujols’ economic value (you can listen to the interview here). We got into a discussion of how much Pujols would pay in taxes on his new salary, assuming he eventually negotiates a contract with the Cardinals that is to his liking. If Pujols’ contract is for $30 million annually, he will pay in the neighborhood of $12,450,000 on his salary.

Pujols falls into the top federal tax bracket with a 35 percent marginal rate, so his federal tax bill will come in a little below $10.5 million. (It’s lower than that because of the lower rates he pays for the first few hundred thousand dollars and his ability to write off his Missouri income tax on his federal tax return.) The state of Missouri’s take is easy to determine because it is a flat 6 percent, clocking in at $1.8 million. The Saint Louis earnings tax is for 1 percent of income, but it only applies to games he plays in Saint Louis, so it will be half of 1 percent in his case, or $150,000. (He will have to pay earnings taxes in other cities that have them, like New York City and Kansas City, for the games he plays there, but if I were to try to tabulate his tax bill exactly, it would be absurdly complex, and I’d demand to be paid like his accountant.)

In short, it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that Pujols might make $30 million a year, because after paying the various taxmen, he will end up with closer to $17 million — or less than 60 percent of his gross income.

On Wednesday, lawyers from the Institute for Justice will argue before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Saint Louis on behalf of Jim Roos, whose anti–eminent domain mural has become familiar to most of us in the Saint Louis metro area.

Roos painted the mural to protest the city’s decision to use eminent domain to seize numerous properties from his low-income housing nonprofit organization, Sanctuary in the Ordinary. After Roos completed the mural in 2007, the city cited him for violating its sign code and ordered Roos to remove the mural. Roos refused, and fought the case in federal court on First Amendment grounds. Last March, a U.S. District Court ruled against Roos, remarkably claiming that the mural would be legal if it were devoid of political content, like a fleur-de-lis or a Cardinals logo. This turns the First Amendment on its head, because it was explicitly added to the Constitution with the intent of protecting political speech.

The case also illustrates the unity of property rights and civil rights. If the government can legally regulate away Roos’ most effective platform, it will have the same chilling effect on free speech as direct censorship. Similarly, freedom of religion is useless if zoning laws prevent groups from building places of worship; freedom from search and seizure only applies if your home is your castle; and freedom of the press will not get you very far if the government can block access to all the presses. Many people think of property rights and civil rights as fundamentally different things, but if the government places enough restrictions on how you can use your property, it must necessarily interfere with our fundamental political rights. Let us hope that the appeals court will understand this connection and allow Roos to speak his mind.

Headline allusion here.

Most of Missouri, including much of the Kansas City and Saint Louis metropolitan areas, are still covered in snow. The recent storms that swept through the region left many schools closed — even here, in the Saint Louis area, where the snow was not as bad as predicted. However, for any of the hundreds of Missouri students enrolled full time in one of the state’s virtual schools, their education can continue as scheduled (provided they still have power and Internet access, of course). Nor do they need to wait outside for the school bus in arctic temperatures. Full-time virtual schooling isn’t for everyone, but for self-motivated students who don’t like dealing with terrible weather conditions, it’s a viable alternative to traditional schools that deserves more attention.