The Heritage Insider: School choice works, Flint's toxic water is a failed stimulus project, the war on citizen participation in politics continues, and more
January 30, 2016
This week was National School Choice Week, so here is a reminder that the evidence is in on school choice: it works. “In political terms, the most controversial school-choice policies are those that include tax breaks or vouchers for families who opt for private schooling. In academic terms, however, such policies are not nearly as controversial. For one thing, policies that facilitate private school choice and competition have been studied more extensively by academic researchers than many other reforms — 127 times, by our count, since 1990. In 65 percent of the studies, researchers found positive, statistically significant benefits for students. Moreover, on the closely related question of whether private schools really outperform public schools when adjustments are made for student demographics and other background variables, there is even more empirical research — 230 studies, by our count, since 1990 — and the findings are, again, favorable by a large margin, with 63 percent showing a positive ‘private school effect,’ 34 percent showing mixed or insignificant effects, and only 3 percent (that’s a total of 7 studies) showing that public schools outperform private ones with comparable students. While most studies find higher test scores in private schools, all other things being equal, the strongest effects are actually found for other measures such as dropout rates, high school graduation, higher education, and career success.” —John Hood and Terry Stoops, “Educational Freedom Works,” John Locke Foundation, May 20, 2014
What’s wrong with public schools? Maybe they don’t see the students as their primary customers:
—Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner, “Pensions v. Schools,” Illinois Policy Institute, January 28
The Flint toxic water crisis is a story of stimulus spending gone wrong, not penny pinching forced on the city by a Gov. Snyder-appointed emergency manager. “Documents that have just resurfaced show that the then DWSD Director Susan McCormick presented two alternatives to Emergency Manager Ed Kurtz that slashed rates for Flint by nearly 50 percent, something that made Detroit far more competitive compared to the KWA deal. ‘The cliff notes version,’ she said in an internal e-mail to her staff, is that the ‘proposal offers a today rate of water for Flint/Genesee of $10.46 as compared to $20.00 paid currently per Mcf—48% less that could be realized nearly immediately and even more when compared to the increases coming with KWA.’ In fact, when compared over the 30-year horizon, the DWSD proposal saves $800 million or 20% over the KWA proposal, she pointed out.
“That works out to over $26 million in annual savings for a city in precarious financial shape.
“So why didn't Flint jump at the offer? […]
“Snyder’s office did not return my call, but sources close to the situation at the time tell me that it was essentially because Genesee County and Flint authorities saw the new water treatment as a public infrastructure project to create jobs in an area that has never recovered after Michigan's auto industry fled to sunnier business climes elsewhere. And neither Snyder nor his Emergency Manager Ed Kurtz nor the state treasurer Andy Dillon had the heart to say ‘no,’ especially since to hand Flint to DWSD would have made the whole project less viable. What's more, they felt that just as Detroit was receiving an infrastructure boost post-bankruptcy (with the state-backed $650 million ice-hockey-arena-cum-entertainment center that I wrote about here) it was only fair that Flint get one too.” —Shikha Dalmia, “The Flint Water Crisis Is the Result of a Stimulus Project Gone Wrong,” Reason, January 25
Discriminating against content or applications online is bad, they say. But what if it serves the consumer interest, as the new zero-rating plans do? “Wireless data caps, the annoying limits on how much data you can use from your phone, have been a fact of mobile life for several years. Now, a new pricing concept in the wireless marketplace, known as ‘zero-rating,’ promises to relieve consumers of the fear that streaming one too many videos will trigger extra charges. But, instead of receiving plaudits, zero-rating has come under attack by many pro-regulation advocates as a violation of the network-neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2015. […]
“If anything, zero-rating is likely to increase competition and innovation, not constrain it. First, under the [T-Mobile] Binge On program, any provider can participate, with no fee required. But even fee-based ‘sponsored data’ plans such as AT&T’s raise no special concerns. A small content provider is no more disadvantaged by paying a fee to add zero-rating service than by having to pay for an 800 number, advertising, rent, or any other expense. In fact, by having the ability to reduce potential costs of using their content, zero-rating would be an important tool for newcomers in the marketplace. […]
“Plans such as Binge On could help supercharge competition among wireless networks as well. T-Mobile is now a distant third in the wireless marketplace with 15 percent of subscribers, far behind leaders AT&T and Verizon. It needs to differentiate itself to consumers, and Binge On is one big part of its plan to do that. Efforts to block such innovative approaches that expand the network will hobble competition and consumer choice, not increase it.
“T-Mobile’s alleged ‘throttling’ of videos streamed by Binge On users raises similar considerations. Despite the hand-wringing by neutrality advocates, the limits seem aimed at decreasing congestion on the network for the benefit of its users, rather than the result of anti-competitive motives. The restrictions can be turned off at any time by consumers with the press of a button. Moreover, given T-Mobile’s puny market share, the firm is well-constrained by competition: Customers not in favor of the policy can and will migrate elsewhere.” —James L. Gattuso, “Binge of Regulation: Wireless Pricing and the FCC,” The Heritage Foundation, January 27
The effort to make citizen participation in politics continues. Colorado has outsourced enforcement of its campaign finance laws, and the result is a chilling of speech that is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. However, the Institute for Justice and Tammy Holland are fighting back. Check out their new video on the case: “Politicians Sue Mom into Silence over Newspaper Ads,” Institute for Justice, January 21
Over 50 new studies, articles, speeches, videos, and other content were added to The Insider this week. Visit to see what the conservative movement has been thinking, writing, and saying about the issues.
Have a tip for The Insider? Send us an e-mail at insider@heritage.org with "For Insider" in the subject line.
Looking for an expert? Visit PolicyExperts.org.
The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400
You are subscribed to Heritage Foundation e-mails as johnmhames@comcast.net. If you want to change your e-mail preferences, please click here to update your subscription.
-
Comments
Post a Comment