After years of status quo, "throw money at it" solutions to difficulties in public education, Missouri is finally moving forward with some more constructive politicies. The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch has an article discussing the changes, as well as some proposed ideas that were ultimately left out of the final legislation. We have already written pretty extensively about methods for improving the schools, so I won’t rehash old arguments too much. However, I would like to suggest a few more systematic changes that might help as well.

First, open enrollment within and between the city and county districts could increase competition for students between schools and districts. The prospect of losing students, and the funding that comes with them, should spur schools to rethink failed programs and develop new ones to better meet student demand. This does not mean dismantling public schooling as we know it, only dismantling some of the artificial boundaries we’ve created between schools and districts. Our loyalty should be with the students, not the institutions.

To further encourage innovation and creativity amongst teachers and administrators we might consider "Chartering" all public schools. "chartering" does not mean removing public oversight of schools, only giving more power to individual schools to set their own direction. Eliminating some of the bureaucratic red tape inherent in public institutions will make it easier for schools to specialize to meet particular student needs. At this point, all options with any potential for success should be on the table. The steps taken by MO legislators in HB265 are a good start. Hopefully they are but the tip of a very large education reform iceberg.

Over at the Columbia Daily Tribune they have a depressing article about the corruption of a bill to expand the otherwise top-notch "Quality jobs" program blogged about here back in February. The bill was initially intended to expand the program by increasing the available funds. Unfortunately, a host of other pet projects, TIF proposals, and other fun political handouts were added, creating another bloated piece of political hackery likely to have a difficult time making it through the legislature.

Particularly troublesome are the TIF provisions. This alleged tool for economic growth has been used quite often in STL, most notably in the construction of the new Busch Stadium and the promised Ballpark Village development. This means of spurring growth in struggling parts of the city has been touted as the most important tool cities have for this purpose. However, the policy is not without its critics, and one particular study about the practice in Chicago has called into question the cost-effectiveness of the measure.

I would argue that the best means for a city to spur growth lies not in its ability to hand out tax abatements to specific developers, but rather in its ability to provide an overall fertile business climate. Providing good infrastructure, secure property rights, and strong returns on investment (i.e. lowering the costs of doing business for everyone) encourages balanced and fair competition, whereas TIF projects only serve to spur the further erosion of the barrier between public officials and private interests by encouraging the latter to cozy up to the former in hopes of securing the TIF privelege.

There are two things MO legislators need to do: first, they need to untangle the "Quality Jobs" legislation from everything else, and make sure this program is as strong and effective as it can possibly be. Second, they need to seriously think about the real costs and benefits of TIF spending as relates to MO, the political convenience of such projects aside (I’m not holding my breath on that last point).

On an otherwise unrelated note, big props to my colleague Mr. Stokes on his post regarding gov’t surveillance, particularly those cameras atop every intersection. I’m pretty sure the standard of justice is "innocent until proven guilty." Putting cameras at every intersection undermines this principle and replaces it with the Orwellian maxim that we’re all guilty, and that justice is only a matter of who gets caught. Big Brother is watching…

At the risk of sound horribly self-serving, Tim is right. The Show-Me Institute intern is no ordinary intern. Though I did spend some time chained to the copier/fax machine, it was not time spent in vain. Not only did I get credit hours and valuable experience in the realm of state government and public policy, I also gained first hand exposure to an underreported political philosophy of which I had no previous knowledge, but is nonetheless gaining in popularity and relevance in today’s increasingly polarized and, well, silly political climate.

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity. Anyone with specific questions requiring a more candid answer should feel free to contact me here anytime.

Looks like Gov. Blunt and friends will get their MOHELA money after all. At this juncture, pointing out just how ridiculous this bill is has become something akin to beating a dead horse. Except this horse won’t die, and instead just keeps mutating into something, well, less horse-like and more closely resembling the gross piece of political waste it truly is. So let the beating continue.

For a good synopsis of how it all went down, go here. Basically, those politicians who opposed the bill, on whatever grounds, had their projects stripped and the funds redistributed to more politically friendly districts. No political soup for you, conscientious objectors! However, the most egregious example of wasted political capital lies in the still unfavorable appraisal of pro-life groups who so effectively derailed the original plan to drive Missouri’s budding biotech industry. Blunt and Co. claim the bill’s passage as a success, but as the Springfield News-Leader so accurately surmises:

What the state’s universities still need is a commitment from lawmakers that funding levels — including for much needed construction projects — will match the important role our institutions of higher education play in being a driving economic engine in Missouri. What our colleges and universities need is a commitment that Democrats and Republicans from all corners of the state recognize their incredible value. The passage of SB 389 didn’t accomplish that goal. Victory is still out of reach.

Indeed. Missouri has so much potential to be a future leader inthe life sciences, its almost unfathomable that the state’s leaders could be so ineffective as catalysts in realizing that potential. As a recent editorial in the STL P-D proclaimed:

It’s difficult to think of another state in a better position to lead research into bio-energy and agricultural defense. We have some of the nation’s leading research institutions — the Danforth Center, Washington University, St. Louis University and the University of Missouri-Columbia. We have agricultural powerhouses like Monsanto and energy companies like Peabody Coal. And, of course, we sit astride the most productive farmland the world has ever known.

It’s not too late for legislators to set aside money that only could be used if the federal research grants are awarded to Missouri companies and universities.

The question is whether they want to invest in the future, or run from it.

At this stage of the game, "run from it" seems to be the preferred strategy. But where exactly are we running to? Straight into the arms of whatever is most politically expedient, apparently. That means pet projects for the legislators willing to play "follow the leader" with Gov. Blunt, elmination of the most universally beneficial provisions at the behest of special interests, and the perpetual disappointment of those sincerely trying to help Missouri before they help themselves.

There’s recently been a sort of backlash in the local media regarding the state and federal govt’s efforts to  subsidize the ethanol industry and build expensive plants all over the midwest and elsewhere. An article from the STL Post-Dispatch summarizes the general concerns fairly well, and an article in the Southeast Missourian gives a taste of the unease in a city near such a plant. However, the best synopsis of the real issues confronting the current ethanol push can be found over at the Kansas City Star, which makes several good points about the economic difficulties surrounding it. According to the Star:

More water, pesticides and land are being used to grow corn for ethanol, raising environmental concerns. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, which, when blended with gasoline, gets fewer miles per gallon than gasoline alone.

The federal government continues to hand out an extravagant 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy for domestic ethanol while slapping a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, such as that made from sugar cane in Brazil.

The first paragraph presents an efficiency problem: corn-based ethanol is simply not cost-effective. While ethanol does burn cleaner than conventional gasoline, there are other hidden externalities, such as the water issues discussed in this STL P-D article and the rising costs of feed for animal stock, which in turn drives up the price for associated goods like meat and dairy products. The second paragraph demonstrates how the gov’t, eyes aglow with the political possibilities inherent in helping agribusiness, only serves to exacerbate this inefficiency. If politicians were really concerned about cheap, independant, clean energy, we’d eliminate both the subsidies for the domestic stuff and the tariffs on the imported stuff.

The Brazilians are old pros at the ethanol game, and it’s likely we could benefit from their expertise. Furthermore, let’s not forget basic economics and the gains from trade. If the Brazilians make cheaper ethanol that we can, and we can in turn provide some good or service better than they, then it’s in both our best interests to trade. The KC Star sums up this notion nicely:

Congress should eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol, and reduce or eliminate the federal subsidy for domestic ethanol. Both moves would be positive blows for free markets, making it easier to evaluate the true costs of corn-based ethanol.

It seems a little foolish to be dumping millions of tax-payer dollars into a largely unproven technology. Rather, we should wait for the unfettered decisions of a free market to determine the best alternative to imported gasoline, and then, maybe, look to gov’t to facilitate the transition. As stated in the STL Post-Dispatch:

As the United States — like many other countries of the world — hastens to find ways to curb its dependence on oil, we must make sure we don’t trade one set of environmental, political and economic problems for another.

I couldn’t agree more.

There’s an interesting op-ed regarding vouchers over at the Columbia Daily Tribune this morning. The author argues that one possible solution for improving education for those stuck in the unaccredited SLPS would be to let those students exit the district through some sort of voucher program. According to the Tribune:

Vouchers provide more choice for K-12 parents and students. Privately funded schools at all levels educate many of our citizens who otherwise would have to be taught at public expense. To provide partial public subsidies for students otherwise trapped in poor public schools is a cost-effective way to enhance options for many who otherwise could not choose.

There are two key notions in this qoute that should be addresses, the first being cost-effectiveness.  County schools, and even some private schools, generally spend less per pupil than the city district. According to DESE, Saint Louis Public Schools have a current average expenditure of $11, 402 per pupil. As a comparison, my district, Mehlville R-IX, spent an average of $7,144 per pupil in 2006, while the state of Missouri, on average, spent about $8,221 per pupil in 2006 (DESE-MO, 2007). As a rough estimate, if the city is required to pay tuition, plus transportation costs–say an extra $1000 per pupil, per year– they would still save money by essentially contracting out to the county district. Whatever money is left over after this transaction would presumably be sunk back into the city, thereby increasing the per-pupil funds available to the district.

The second issue for consideration is one of equity; more affluent families already have school choice in the form of private schools, or simply moving to a better public district. In either case, an option exists for one class of citizens that does not exist for another, that other class having the most to gain from such choices, and the least to lose from whatever damage such choice might cause to their already failing local district. As the Tribune asserts:

Vouchers won’t be a panacea, but having that option in failing school districts represents progress, and it won’t destroy public education. How could anyone be against providing alternatives in a district like St. Louis?

Indeed. The time for change is now. Saint Louis has the opportunity to try something new and relatively groundbreaking, rather than constantly being a half-hearted follower of national trends. Hopefully the entrenched political interests will see it the same way, and do whats best for the students rather than themselves. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Currently making its way through the house is an "intellectual diversity" bill intended to:

require all public institutions of higher education to report how they are safeguarding the free exchange of ideas on campus

Or so says an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune. The article concerns a report from MSU regarding the school’s Social Work program. Accordign to the Tribune:

The future of the School of Social Work at Missouri State University is in doubt after an external review of the program found a “dysfunctional and hostile” environment where faculty colleagues are disrespectful to one another and students fear voicing their opinions.

MO legislators contend that this kind of disfunction within one of the state’s largest universities will be prevented by an "intellectual diversity" law, because such a measure would force faculty and staff to accept and express any and all ideas while not advocating any one idea specifically. This sounds all sweet and nice, and in the interest of promoting "diversity," but the fact of the matter is this: while its your right to believe whatever you wish, in the world of academia, some ideas carry more weight than others. Honest professors advocating the best ideas on their academic merits is largely how the enterprise of human knowledge moves forward; not by giving equal voice to unequal theories in the interest of protecting someone else’s sacred cows. With that in mind, students and professors alike should be free to challenge the bases and conclusions of those theories, and to advance their own theories and beliefs for the rigors of serious academic discourse to validate.

Further demonstrating the frivolity of this bill is an article in the Springfield News-Leader showing the effectiveness of the University in policing its own. This is proof positive that our best and brightest, working honestly and openly in the marketplace of ideas, is the best garauntee against intellectual dishonesty and close-minded demagoguery. No legislation is needed to augment the marketplace of ideas.

Over at PubDef, you can find a fairly comprehensive list of exactly what’s going on now with the SLPS and the impending state takeover. Much of the debate now swirling about in the blogosphere centers around the possibility of students in the city transfering out of the district and into an accepting district of their choice. The controversy, so far as I can parse it, centers not so much around the potential of the kids stuck in the underperforming schools to leave, but rather the potential for city students, not enrolled in the city district, to use city funds to attend a county district.

The issue here, like in so many of our debates about education, is one of choice. Those living in the city, but paying to attend a private or parochial school, or educating their children at home, or who have, like so many have done already, simply moved out of the city, already have the luxury of school choice. It is an unfortunate reality that school choice is, as of now, directly related to the income of the parents.  While I’m all about expanding choice to those who don’t have it, expanding choice for those who already have it seems a little egregious, and more the product of greed or selfishness than any particular concern for those unfortunate souls stuck in the failed district.

Those who can afford to opt out of the city schools don’t need any more help from the city or state. If they are so concerned about their tax money going to fund somebody else’s kid’s education, then they should excercise their school choice privelege and move to a county with a public school they approve of. Meanwhile, those without such luxury should be given the opportunity to leave the district, via state or city funding. Choice works, and we should strive to provide it for those who can’t afford it independantly.

The SLPS have again broken through to the international media. The Economist has featured an article about the ongoing troubles with SLPS, and, not surprisingly, the diagnosis isn’t good. The most salient point in the article is this:

St Louis has made huge progress in attracting a new generation of young professionals to its downtown area, building new business developments and installing new infrastructure. The fiasco in its schools puts all that in jeopardy.

Attracting young professionals is hard enough for any city; I know because I am such a young professional (I use that term quite loosely), and am constantly encouraged by friends living elsewhere to leave this humble midwestern town for some place, well, a little more hip. But regardless of how "hip" St. Louis may be, whatever young professionals it does manage to attract won’t stick around if they can’t get a decent education for their children. Instead, those young professionals will do what generations of young Saint Louis professionals have done before them: LEAVE. Go to the suburbs, or the exurbs, or some other state. Convincing those young professionals to stay in St. Louis and invest in its education infrastructure could help bring SLPS out of purgatory. Unfortunately, no sane person will invest in a poorly managed and possibly corrupt system. As the Economist notes:

The district, which in the past five years has turned a $52m surplus into a $24.5m deficit, has already closed schools, cut services and squeezed spending hard. But as its critics point out, the elected school board still found plenty of money for junkets and public relations.

Hopefully the state takeover will lead to some positive change, and produce a school district that those young professionals will at least be willing to take a chance on. Nothing less than the future prosperity of this once world class city depends on it.

There’s an interesting article over on the Columbia Missourian website regarding an ongoing court battle between MO, the federal Justice Department, and local phone companies over the release of private records of Missourians to the NSA by the phone companies. The pretext for the alleged privacy violations is, of course, national security, the "war on terror," and a process known as "data mining."

The NSA, President Bush, and the other intel agencies argue that attaining this private communications information is crucial to preventing another terrorist attack, and that the process of "data mining" has worked to catch terrorists and prevent such an attack by finding terrorist cells based on their communication patterns. They further assert that such "wiretapping" actions are justified under the Patriot Act and the broad authority granted the president as commander-in-chief to prosecute the ongoing "war on terror" in whatever manor he finds most suitable.

The issue here is efficacy. If the procedure of "data mining" works, and the associated right to privacy being surrendered is made up for with real added security and effectiveness against terrorists, and the information being gathered is being used solely for that purpose, then it’s reasonable to surrender some privacy right in exchange for that security. Commissioner Steve Gaw sums it up nicely:

“We have tried to be sensitive on not delving into issues that could cause a security issue,” Gaw said. “At the same time, if we give up rights and freedom in order to be secure, what have we gained? And what have we lost?”

Our friends over that the Cato Insititute have published an interesting paper calling into question the very efficacy of "data mining," or the systematic combing through of billions of bits of information for communications patterns likely to be attributable to terrorist activities. They essentially argue that the process is flawed, largely ineffective, and that the benefits it conveys are not worth the tradeoff in security gains. I am no expert on anything, much less computer science or national security, but I do know that I’m not a terrorist,  nor is there any reason for the gov’t to assume that I am. Until they have probable cause to believe otherwise, my phone records should remain nobody’s business but my own. If my telephone company has circumvented that right to privacy I deserve to know, and will most assuredly switch to another provider more respectful of my civil liberties.

Amidst the state takeover of the St. Louis Public Schools, education reformers are tossing around a number of ideas for improving the beleaugered district. Longer school days, stronger teacher accountability measures, and mandatory preschool education are just a few of the worthy proposals receiving attention. However, there is one program currently being phased out that has already been quite successful, though perhaps not to the degree one might realize at first glance: the Voluntary Interdistrict Transfer program.

Currently, as a remnant of court-mandated desegregation efforts originating in the early 1980s, the state of Missouri has a program enabling students in SLPS to transfer out of their neighborhood school and into a participating county school. The state pays the transportation costs and the receiving district’s average per pupil cost for the student, and the city school gets to keep the funding it would have otherwise spent on the transferring student. The program was originally intended to racially integrate previously homogenous districts, but has had a far more profound ecomomic effect on the city and state.

An excellent paper on the cost of highschool dropouts to the state demonstrates the fact that every student that doesn’t graduate represents significant economic costs to the state, costs much higher than the actual cost of education. The students who participate in the transfer program are roughly twice as likely to graduate from highschool as those who remain in the program. The long term economic costs to the state resulting from the lost tax revenue, lost economic activity, higher safety net costs, and higher incarceration rates associated with those dropouts far outweigh the short term costs of financing the program.

Citizens and politicians outside of St. Louis will surely balk at the idea of spending more state money on the failing SLPS, but the economic effects associated with the district’s failure to educate it’s students will be shared by the whole state. With that in mind, it is in the best interest of all Missourians to insure the continuation of this valuable and effective choice program, and let as many kids as so desire escape from their failing school.

Yesterday the state Board of Education voted to take control of the St. Louis Public Schools district. In the process, the district also lost its provisional accreditation, failing to meet the necessary 6 of 14 requirements to maintain it. Meanwhile, in Kansas City, a nationally recognized charter school has been approved by the state, and is likely to open in July somewhere in the city’s downtown area. KC leaders hope this development will help attract residents with children to the area, diversifying the downtown population beyond young professional couples and singles, and ensuring its enduring viability.

The disparity between the two cities couldn’t be more stark in this light. Though education in KC certainly has its problems, it at least seems to be making progress, whereas the situation in St. Louis seems locked in a perpetual downward spiral. The difference is in the willingness and ability of KC to try new things, like expanded charter and magnet schools; whereas St. Louis prefers to stay the same misguided course in fear of change.

As I noted in a recent post, charter schools are not a cure-all for the many problems faced by our public school system. However, any measure that gives parents an option beyond their local failing public school is a step in the right direction. Mayor Slay seems to at least recognize this point, as he has asked for the authority to authorize and hold accountable new charter schools in the St. Louis area. As a lifelong St. Louisan, it pains me greatly to say this, but St. Louis and mayor Slay would do well to follow KC’s example and expand its charter school program, enabling city residents to choose an education for their children beyond their failing, unaccredited public school.