The tuition hikes that the University of Missouri is instituting are affecting real families all across the state. The Show-Me Institute spoke to one family from Saint Charles County who will be doubly impacted. With an annual increase of $260 per student, the family’s mom, Laura (not her real name), said they will have to pay an additional $520 for their two children to attend Mizzou. Will this extra $520 bankrupt the family? It will not, but it will force them to cut back on some much-needed home and auto repairs.

Due to faulty electrical outlets in the home’s bathrooms, Laura said that they are forced to dry their hair in the kitchen, and with the extra money needed to pay for college, they will be forced to continue this practice. Laura also said that the family may have to forego putting new tires on their son’s car. It is not difficult to imagine the unnecessary worry this young man’s parents will feel when their son drives to and from Columbia on old and worn out tires, especially if it is raining or snowing.

While the University of Missouri raises tuition on families such as the one described above due to state cuts in higher education funding, historic tax credit authorizations in Missouri are on an upswing. In fact, the $91 million in Historic Preservation tax credits authorized in the first six months of fiscal year 2012 have almost surpassed state estimates for Historic Preservation authorizations for the entire year.

The question should be asked whether handing out tax credits of questionable value (like the $1 million tax credit issued to Norwood Hills Country Club)  is worth more to the citizens of the state than preventing a tuition increase that will affect families across the state.

Considering that the state of Missouri faces a large budget shortfall, it would behoove the state to make sure that, at the very least, tax credits go to worthwhile projects. A possible avenue for oversight of the tax credit system would be to subject tax credits to the appropriations process. Missouri Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Dist. 27) has submitted a bill (SB 436) that does just that, and there are items in the bill that deserve commendation. Subjecting tax credits to appropriations would enable the state to keep closer tabs on these programs and help ensure that questionable issuances are examined. Considering the price that all Missourians pay for these tax credits, is subjecting tax credits to some sort of appropriations process too much to ask?

Last week, Ben Barnes, a Show-Me Institute intern, wrote about the teacher tenure reform bill that Missouri legislators are considering. Reforming teacher tenure may seem like an abstract concept, but the consequences of our current law are very real.

Eric Hanushek, of Stanford University, found that a good teacher can help a student learn one and a half years of material during a single academic year while a bad teacher might only be able to help a student learn half a year’s worth of material. In other words, a good teacher can help a student achieve three times as much educational growth as a bad teacher. A push for teacher tenure reform is not just about holding teachers accountable, it is about creating a way for school districts to get rid of ineffective teachers in order to help students learn more and from better teachers.

It appears that teaching is one of the most secure jobs in the state of Missouri. According to national data, few Missouri teachers are terminated in a given year.

But, I am curious about specific school districts, not just an estimated average across numerous schools. For school districts throughout the state, what number of teachers were terminated during the past 10 years? Are most dismissed teachers new to the profession (and have not yet achieved tenure), with very few being dismissed after achieving tenure? We are still doing research on this issue, but the preliminary data looks like teaching has an extraordinary level of job security.

Consider the following:

• In the past 10 years, the Cape Girardeau School District, which employs approximately 350 teachers, has terminated just two tenured teachers.

• During the same time, the Parkway School District, which employs more than 1,200 teachers, has terminated five.

• The Springfield School District, which has more than 1,600 teachers, has terminated fewer than 10 teachers in the past five years.

• The Van Buren School District, in its response to a Sunshine Law request, noted that “no teachers …were asked to leave, were terminated, or were fired by the district” during the past 10 years.

• The Shelby County R-IV School District has not terminated any teachers during the past 10 years.

• The last time the Gilman City R-IV School District terminated any teachers was during the 2002-03 school year. That year, two teachers were terminated.

Perhaps Missouri is inundated with high-quality teachers to the point that, over a 10-year period, some school districts have termination rates of as little as 0.4 percent. But, the case may be that poor teachers continue to teach at school districts that cannot (or will not) terminate them for performance reasons. And this means that some Missouri students will continue to receive a low-quality education.

Instead of keeping on the best and the worst teachers, it is time let school districts encourage the worst teachers to find new jobs, while rewarding the best teachers with pay boosts. Missouri House Bill 1526 is certainly a step in the right direction.

A recent article on emissourian.com questioned whether a Franklin County program violates the Missouri Constitution.

Franklin County has and continues to violate the state’s Constitution by allocating hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars annually to fund counseling and antibullying programs in area private schools.

That’s according to Tony Rothert, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri.

The Blaine Amendment of the Missouri Constitution prohibits the use of public funds to support or sustain any school controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination. The Missouri Supreme Court previously struck down statutes requiring that bus services and textbooks be provided to private school students. 

Annie Schulte, executive director of the Franklin County Children and Families Community Resource Board (FCCRB), raised a number of arguments detailing why the program does not violate the Missouri Constitution; unfortunately, none of them are very persuasive. The use of public funds to support a sectarian school is unconstitutional, whether the funds are paid directly to the school or indirectly support the school. The Franklin County program is also not analogous to Title I. Title I grants bypass the state and local agencies and go directly to independent contractors. Because no state or local agency ever controls the funds, they are not “public funds.” The FCCRB, on the other hand, is a local agency and does control the funds. 

The fact that the Franklin County program seemingly is unconstitutional is an illustration of how the Blaine Amendment currently stands as an obstacle to the freedom of school choice for students in failing districts, such as Saint Louis and Kansas City. As University of Missouri-Columbia Professor Michael Podgursky argued, the rigidity of the Blaine Amendment is keeping students stuck in unaccredited schools following the Missouri Supreme Court’s Turner decision. While the Supreme Court of the United States held that a voucher program for students to attend a private sectarian school does not violate the federal constitution, it is clear that a similar program would be struck down in Missouri. If the state cannot provide private school students with books, buses, and (probably) counseling services, a voucher program stands no chance of passing constitutional muster.

It is unfortunate that students at private sectarian schools likely cannot receive counseling services from the Franklin County program, but students who are stuck in unaccredited, failing schools is a much bigger issue. Given accredited public schools’ unwillingness to accept students from failing districts, these students may remain stuck until the Blaine Amendment is repealed.

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.