There have been numerous suggestions on how to cure Missouri’s budget deficit this year. Last month, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s editorial board suggested that one of the best ways to close the gap is for the state to decline to redeem — that is, decline to apply against a taxpayer’s tax burden — tax credits presented to the state. Holders of tax credits would have to wait until the next year, or possibly beyond, to use their certificates. At the time, I was skeptical of the move, mostly because it was not clear that such a decision is, in fact, legal.

But now former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff is lending some credence to the idea, writing in the Post-Dispatch that not only would the move be legal, it would be preferable to cutting other state programs:

If the governor or the Legislature declared a holiday on accepting tax-credit coupons in payment of taxes, the state would not be reneging on its promise to accept tax credit coupons to pay taxes. The state simply would be saying, “wait until next year.”

Should the state pay interest on tax credits that are on holiday for a year (or more, perhaps)? For example, when a taxpayer eventually is allowed to use its $10 million in tax-credit coupons, which the taxpayer bought for the discounted amount of about $9 million, perhaps the state should pay interest because the tax-credit owner has had to wait. Because these tax credit certificates are bought and sold through banks, perhaps the passbook savings account rate should apply. At the current generous rates, that might cost the state 1 percent or less per year.

But what if the taxpayer does not want to spend cash to pay its taxes because it needs the $10 million to rebuild its jet plane’s engines or to refurbish the yacht? Not a big problem, actually, because remember, the tax credits can be sold. But can these $10 million in tax credits be sold for the taxpayer’s original price of $9 million? Well, probably not, there could be a further discount; markets work, even markets for tax credits.

If Justice Wolff’s idea was implemented, it might help Missouri’s budget problem for a year, but it would not solve the underlying problem: tax credit issuances run amok. In fact, declining to redeem tax credits could actually compound budget problems in future years if other reforms are not implemented to reduce the state’s forthcoming and outstanding tax credit liabilities; tax credits that have been authorized or issued but not yet redeemed constitute a multi-billion dollar (that’s “billion” with a “b”) liability that the state will have to pay in coming years. Preventing budget cuts to favored programs — for Justice Wolff, education — does not seem to be a compelling reason to embark solely on his plan. It is almost like trying to get a hamburger today for $1 tomorrow . . . at some point, you have to pay for the hamburger. Tax credits are a recurring problem, the reduction of which could cure other recurring parts of the budget (for example, reducing taxes on all corporations with the savings, rather than picking and choosing winners and losers.)

Keeping all of that in mind, if done in concert with a moratorium on tax credit issuances (ideally including caps, sunsets, and other permanent changes), Justice Wolff’s idea might be workable as part of a larger reform program; over the long haul, such a multi-pronged approach may actually make a real dent in the state’s looming tax credit liabilities, and ultimately save the state money.

Missouri officials cannot just treat the symptoms of the state’s tax credit excesses and defer cuts for later; it must also treat the underlying disease. Trimming tax credits and reducing taxes is a better, forward-thinking solution, and would provide the foundation for a healthier economy and a more stable budget.

On Monday, Missouri Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R-Dist. 109) proposed a bill (House Bill 1526) to reform the state’s teacher tenure laws. As we have argued before, getting rid of teacher tenure is good for Missouri’s public schools, and this bill is particularly strong for three key reasons:

1. Teachers could be fired for doing a bad job.

Most of us live in a world where doing consistently bad work means you lose your job.

Not so for teachers.

Under the current laws, a tenured teacher can be fired only for egregious conduct, such as willful or persistent violations of the school laws, excessive or unreasonable absences, and felony convictions. Even then, a severely truant teacher would get generous procedural protections from termination: a majority of the school board must vote to fire the teacher, and the teacher can appeal the board’s decision through an administrative hearing.

If this bill passes, boards could not only fire convicted felons, but they could also dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance.

2. No more indefinite contracts for teachers.

Most of us also have to live with the reality of at-will employment.

Again, not so for teachers.

Under the current laws, a teacher who survives a five-year probationary period becomes “permanent personnel” with an indefinite contract to teach.

The proposed bill, on the other hand, gives school administrators more discretion to retain teachers they actually want teaching in their schools. Schools could contract directly with teachers for up to four years; and what’s more, the board would retain the power to terminate a multi-year contract if the teacher scored poorly on evaluations.

3. Teachers will get paid for what they do, not how long they have done it.

That is right, teachers do not live with the reality of performance-based pay either.

Under the current laws, school districts are prohibited from basing salaries on performance-related criteria. Instead, districts pay their teachers based on length of service and level of education. The proposed bill removes this prohibition and requires school boards to consider teacher evaluations when making decisions related to pay, retention, promotion, and dismissal.

Not surprisingly, the unions started speaking out against HB 1526 before it was even proposed. Missouri National Education Association President Chris Guinther told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week: “we’ve got to be given the protection that we need to give those kids the quality education that they need.” Wouldn’t our kids be getting a better education if school boards could dismiss failing teachers more easily, like this bill would allow? The problem with the union perspective is that it focuses on teachers, not on kids. Tenure is not about having due process, as Susan McClintic, president of the Columbia Missouri National Education Association, told the Columbia Missourian last week. On the contrary. Teachers do not have  a right to their jobs; it is the students who have a right to a public education, and they should have good teachers to boot.

File this under “Creative Revenue Streams”:  Missouri lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow school districts to sell ad space on their buses as a way of raising revenue, and at least one school district is already taking the idea very seriously (emphasis mine).

The people who have researched the idea said it wouldn’t bring in a ton of money, but many districts are in a position where every little bit helps.

Parents and school officials in the Lee’s Summit School District met and discussed the idea Thursday evening.

Parent Keith Asel said it could make about $500,000 for Lee’s Summit schools.

“With all the budget cuts we’ve had, if we can just incrementally move the needle through things like school bus advertising, we can get to a number that really makes a difference,” he said. “We’ve got to think outside the box. The traditional means, I mean, we’ve already put such a burden on taxpayers.”

As it turns out, 17 states already allow districts to implement such an advertising program. Parents at the meeting reportedly did not have a problem with the idea, either, so long as the advertisements are age-appropriate. Supporters said ads for “alcohol, tobacco and even sugary foods” would be “restricted,” which I assume means effectively or explicitly “banned.”

My take? It is a great idea. Until I saw this story I had not realized that such a bill was floating around the Capitol, but apparently the bill has support from both sides of the aisle. Like the parent in the report says, we have to “think outside the box” if we want to improve education and reduce tax burdens. This, to me, is a great proposal that seems like it would promote both objectives.

In yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Frank LoMonte writes that teacher tenure reform might result in public school journalism teachers being punished for helping students report on contentious topics.

LoMonte writes:

But there can be no debate on how ending tenure will impact the teaching of journalism in public schools. It will effectively end it.

As a graduate of the University of Missouri’s journalism school, I cannot help but sympathize with LoMonte’s fear. But I am not sure that it is grounded in much reality.

Free speech is already limited in schools. LoMonte does not mention this, but high school newspapers are not forums for free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that originated in Hazelwood, Mo., no less)  ruled in 1988 that school administrators could censor drafts of the high school newspaper if they can demonstrate that there is an educational purpose for the censorship. Currently, students cannot freely report on any topic they wish.

Administrators already can (and do) punish journalism teachers. LoMonte lists several ways that journalism teachers can be punished for encouraging students to question the operations of their schools. He writes that teachers can be fired, demoted, or transferred as punishment. But arguing that these options will become available if teacher tenure reform is passed is incorrect. Demotion and transferal are already available to school administrators if they want to punish teachers. Firing is as well, though it is very difficult.

The following cases that LoMonte recounts are deplorable:

Teachers like Darryl Adams, who was stripped of his journalism duties after his principal questioned his loyalty for refusing to censor an editorial critical of the school’s random student searches. Teachers like Teri Hu, who was reassigned — and whose students were threatened with discipline — after the newspaper accurately revealed that the school was out of compliance with district regulations on the use of teaching assistants.

But they are all possible under Missouri’s existing teacher tenure law.

Journalism teachers are a small fraction of the total teaching force in Missouri. Perhaps some marginal number of journalism teachers will be fired if teacher tenure reform passes. And, perhaps their firings will be due to encouraging students to pursue meaningful and contentious journalism. I agree that this is a disturbing possibility. But many of our smallest districts likely have no student paper. Elementary, middle, and high school math teachers, for example, certainly outnumber journalism teachers significantly.

In life, there are always difficult trade-offs. And we have to consider whether preserving the jobs of a few good journalism teachers is worth keeping teachers who have a track record of failing students in the classroom.  I would argue that illiterate students and students who cannot do simple arithmetic are problems that we need to address first.

Student speech exists outside of the classroom. Sadly, LoMonte ignores the possibility that students can exercise their right to free speech openly and outside of the classroom. When I was in high school, I was part of a group of students that started a monthly print newspaper during our free time — because we knew that the student paper could, thanks to that Supreme Court decision, be censored.

We wrote about high school dropouts, janitors who had been hired despite having a criminal record, and other topics that likely would have been tough to have printed in the official school newspaper. Given the rebellious nature of most teenagers, and the ease of online publishing, I trust that students will continue to express their right to free speech, even if they cannot do it within the pages of a district-financed paper.

Parents continue to demand solutions to failing schools in Missouri. As an example, five Saint Louis firefighters recently sued three suburban school districts for failure to enroll their children under the Missouri Supreme Court’s Turner decision. One of the firefighters is spending $20,000 per year in Catholic school tuition just to avoid sending his children to Saint Louis public schools. This is in addition to taxes he has paid to fund the very school district that has failed him and his family. Like many families in similar situations, this family pays twice for securing the benefits of the “free public schools” that are guaranteed in our state constitution.

My post last week discussed a lawsuit between the Kansas City Public Schools and five suburban school districts regarding the implementation of the Turner decision. In a nutshell, Turner requires surrounding districts to enroll students who live in unaccredited (failing) school districts (i.e., the Saint Louis and Kansas City public schools and the Riverview Gardens School District). In effect, this is a limited school choice option under Missouri law.

Practically speaking, one issue is, how can the suburban districts in Kansas City and Saint Louis handle the potential influx of urban students? A recent survey estimates that approximately 13,500 students may flee Saint Louis schools for Saint Louis County under the Turner law. That is close to one quarter of school-age children in Saint Louis city. Pressure to abandon the Saint Louis public schools is apparently growing.

While it is easy to get caught up in the apparent chaos, why don’t we disengage for a second and reflect on the deeper issues; specifically, the failure of urban education in the Saint Louis and Kansas City public schools. Perhaps the Turner decision is a blessing of sorts, compelling both the legislature and the courts to address head-on comprehensive school reform, not only for our urban districts, but for all districts in Missouri.

Teacher tenure reform, collective bargaining, charter school expansion, school closure, and expanded school choice are on the table. The legislative session is just beginning to heat up. Perhaps Turner was merely the first act in an unfolding multi-act drama. If so, the script should promote an increase in accountability for teachers and school districts, and an expansion of school choice, including choice of private and parochial schools for students in failing public schools.

Two failing charter schools in Saint Louis City will be closed at the end of this school year. You may remember the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s somewhat sordid saga of Imagine Schools that was recently published.

It might sound harsh, but this is exactly what is supposed to happen with charter schools: We should let the good ones flourish and try to replicate their success, and close schools that are not meeting students’ needs.

Just because a school is a charter school does not guarantee student academic success. It is important to close failing schools, whether they are traditional public schools or charter schools. Nobody benefits from keeping open a school that is failing its students.

For more on the Imagine closings, check out our latest Show-Me video below.

It is no secret that Missouri Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R-Washington, Mo.) is not a fan of Missouri’s teacher tenure law. Last year, he filed legislation to require annual teacher evaluations. Under that bill, the public school teachers who perform best would receive four-year teaching contracts, and those performing the worst would receive single-year contracts. If poor teachers failed to improve, they could be terminated.

There also was good news for some teachers in Dieckhaus’ 2011 legislation. The proposal called for the best teachers to be paid at least twice as much as the poorest-performing teachers. While this may seem like common sense (why not pay the best teachers more, as a reward for their effort?), it runs contrary to the current system of paying Missouri public school teachers.

The 2011 legislation did not pass. However, Dieckhaus is considering submitting tenure reform legislation again this year. The bill is not yet available, but I have listed two areas of reform that are needed to help improve student academic achievement in Missouri. Our priority should be educating  children, not rewarding those who happen to have been teaching for the longest period of time.

Let’s pay good teachers more: In Missouri, teachers are paid under what is known as a “teacher salary schedule.” Broadly, teachers who have more years of experience and higher levels of education are paid more (here is an example). At many school districts, these are the only components of teacher pay — teachers who teach difficult subjects, at-risk students, and teachers who have the best track record of helping students learn do not get a pay boost.

Teachers who do a poor job of teaching students can actually earn more than the good teachers if the poor teachers have a higher education level and/or more years of teaching experience.

Dieckhaus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2011 that ”It’s time we move away from paying people based on how long they’ve been teaching and what piece of paper they have hanging on the wall.” I certainly agree.

Paired with the issue of teacher compensation is the question of how to deal with teachers who have a track record of failing to teach students. Right now, those teachers can stay at a district for years, if not indefinitely.

Let’s help school districts get rid of bad teachers: State law awards teachers “indefinite contracts” if they have taught at the same school district for at least five years. These “permanent teachers” can be terminated, but only through a lengthy process. If a school district terminates a teacher (after going through all of the notification requirements specified by state law), that teacher can appeal the termination, triggering a court case. If the teacher wins in court, the school district must pay that teacher all of the compensation he or she would have received had he or she stayed at the district during the period of appeal.

I suppose that if you are trying to discourage teacher termination, the above makes sense. But, as a state, our concern should not be to hire and keep on as many teachers as possible. We should instead be concerned with how to provide quality education to students. Allowing failing teachers to continue to teach students does nothing to help students, and may be hurting them.

It is an uncomfortable truth, but one we must acknowledge. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it, “We can no longer pretend that all teachers or all principals are from Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average.” Many academic studies have shown that teacher quality matters. Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University, has shown that good teachers can teach students three times as much as bad teachers — in a single year. Improving student academic achievement can be achieved in part by attracting more good teachers to the profession, and encouraging the bad teachers to leave the field.

I hope that the 2012 teacher tenure reform legislation can help enable school districts to have more autonomy when it comes to rewarding good teachers and terminating the worst teachers. When the full text of the bill becomes available, I will post my take on it here.

An unpopular item in Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s budget proposal is the 12.5 percent funding cut to higher education. Considering there are more frivolous, untouched state expenses like tax credits for wine or beef production, I can understand why. What I cannot understand is why one of the first things individuals consider is more taxes. Grover Cleveland offers a lesson for such thinking:

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. . . . Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Although Cleveland was talking about federal aid during a drought, the lesson is applicable to our current situation: Charity should be preferred over taxes. After all, taxes do not lend themselves to a “kindly sentiment.” And is charity such a radical option? Don’t universities already receive such donations? It seems that if the state believes citizens want to support universities, the government should let the people voluntarily display their support.

But suppose charity falls short – what then? Tuition increases should be considered. After all, let’s not forget that students are the ones choosing to attend college. When the price of education goes up, there is nothing wrong with charging a higher fee. And for those who cannot afford the higher fee, there are alternatives: scholarships and student loans. If both those options do not work, there is the alternative of a less costly education at a community college. Finally, if all else fails, college can be deferred. I have known several individuals who have put off college in order to accumulate savings for it. All options should be exhausted before reaching into the public purse.

If you have not done so lately, check out the latest videos on our video page.

A couple recent videos:

• Are Missouri Public Schools Failing to Make the Grade? Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams and University of Missouri Professor Michael Podgursky have the scoop.
• If You Play, You Pay I-70 in Missouri may be switching to a toll road, and Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes thinks this sounds better than raising gas taxes for everyone.

Both videos are embedded below.

The Kansas City Star has reported a delay in the lawsuit between five suburban school districts and the Kansas City Public Schools. The five districts allege that Kansas City Public is not following the law in paying the tuition expenses of students that transfer from the unaccredited district, as allowed under a state law and a Missouri Supreme Court decision (Turner v. School District of Clayton). The law, as it currently stands, grants students in unaccredited districts the choice to transfer to accredited districts and public schools in the same or adjoining county. The unaccredited district pays tuition to the receiving district for the transferees.

But let’s not get bogged down in the legal details here. Instead, notice how the law represents one giant step for students, yet one small step for Missouri school choice (my apologies to Neil Armstrong). Why is this so?

First, under the law, the unaccredited status of a school district triggers the right to school choice. While this is fine as far as it goes, what about students who suffer academically in failing schools in accredited districts? If the evil to be remedied is students victimized by failing schools, then the law should target all failing schools, not merely schools in unaccredited districts.

Second, the Missouri law limits transfers to other public schools in close proximity. Why not extend school choice to any public or private school in the state of Missouri? In this way, students will have greater choice, and increased opportunities, to reach their dreams and to receive a first-class education. Ask yourself: Why not?

Another session of the Missouri General Assembly has begun and lawmakers in Jefferson City, by law, must close the projected shortfall in the state’s budget. The actual amount of the shortfall is difficult to determine. One source estimates it is $500 million, another says the shortfall ranges between $400 million and $600 million. Needless to say, the number is not insubstantial.

The question arises about what to cut. However, what if appropriators flipped this picture upside-down? What if the legislators asked what should be funded first, instead of what should be cut?

It turns out that the authors of the Missouri Constitution gave this some thought.  The state Constitution provides a list of the order in which money is to be appropriated. It seems the authors of the state Constitution tried to tell us the state’s spending priorities. Those funding priorities are (in order):

1. For payment of sinking fund and interest on outstanding obligations of the state.
2. For the purpose of public education.
3. For the payment of the cost of assessing and collecting the revenue.
4. For the payment of the civil lists (in this case, state employees).
5. For the support of eleemosynary (charity) and other state institutions.
6. For public health and public welfare.
7. For all other state purposes.
8. For the expense of the general assembly.

Now, I am not saying cuts in say, education spending, are completely off limits. If there is waste, get rid of it, no matter where it is. However, the legislature should prioritize spending based on the guidelines of what is emphasized in the Constitution, and if spending cuts are needed, they should be in lower priority items. One example of something that might not qualify as “high priority” is the Missouri Wine and Grape Board. Another example is state ethanol subsidies. Between these programs and K-12 education, which is a higher priority to you?

The Missouri Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in American Federation of Teachers v. Ledbetter. At issue is whether a public school district has a legal “duty” to collectively bargain in “good faith” with a teachers’ union. Currently, districts typically recognize and meet with their teachers’ designated representative, but are under no legal obligation to agree to specific proposals that the union proffers.

In its opinion leading to the supreme court hearing, the intermediate court of appeals noted the following:

. . . no Missouri court has expressly interpreted Article I, section 29 [of the Missouri Constitution] to contain a duty of good faith . . .

If the Court, in a fit of judicial activism, writes a “duty to bargain in good faith” standard into the state constitution, school districts, once vested with substantial discretion from the legislature to manage their affairs, will suffer tremendously. For example, rejections of union proposals will now spawn threats of lawsuits. Districts will hire attorneys to assess the liability risks of decisions once left to the discretion of the districts’ officials. Good faith, in this context, is an invitation to litigate. And litigation diverts scarce resources and money from the districts’ core mission: to educate our children.

Interestingly, the Missouri Legislature has rejected five attempts to statutorily adopt a good faith standard (see footnote 4 in court’s decision). Haven’t the people spoken through their elected representatives? The Court should heed this message and reject a duty to bargain in good faith standard for Missouri’s public school districts.