Categories
Economy Film Subsidies Legislature Notable News Tax and Budget Taxes Top Issues

New Mexico’s Netflix ‘Deal’ A Blow To State’s Finances

This article appeared in the Roswell Daily-Record on December 15, 2020 and in several other New Mexico newspapers.

New Mexico remains among the most locked down states in the nation when it comes to the CoronaVirus. In October the State’s unemployment rate was among the highest in the nation at 8.1%. This difficult economic news combined with the election of a more “progressive” Legislature in November mean that tax increases (and even spending cuts) are likely in store for the upcoming 2021 legislative session. With New Mexico relying heavily on oil and gas revenues, the State’s economic pain will last beyond the coming year.

A new deal announced by Gov. Lujan Grisham with the well-known streaming service Netflix is being touted as good news for New Mexico’s economy. In announcing the deal the Gov. claimed, “My administration has expanded our state’s competitive film incentives, facilitating higher-wage employment for New Mexicans all across the state.” Under the terms of the deal, Netflix will dramatically-expand their footprint in the State spending $1 billion over the next decade.

Unfortunately, despite all the hype and big-sounding numbers, the Netflix deal is just another example of New Mexico’s economically-ignorant political leadership “buying” jobs and economic activity with taxpayer money. The reality is that New Mexico’s already strapped budgets will be drained even more in the years ahead by this new plan to subsidize Hollywood.

Something that too few in the media do is look closely at the particulars of the deal itself. For example: the State offers a 25% film “tax credit” which is really a rebate of 25% of the costs of production. Netflix is able to boost that rebate by another 5% since they are considered a “qualified” production facility. That means taxpayers will reimburse Netflix for 30% of their spending in NM. According to a new report from the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) states that film subsidy payouts could increase annual tax credit payouts by $25 million beginning next fiscal year.

Lest there be any doubt that film subsidies actually cost the State and its taxpayers money, a separate 2019 LFC report noted, “Because film tax credit payouts are booked to Corporate Income Tax (CIT), actual CIT receipts are higher than the final amounts distributed to the general fund.” These subsidies take corporate tax dollars right out of the State Treasury and hand them to film companies.

“Tax credits” are just the starting point. Additionally, the State is providing $17 million in LEDA incentives; the City of Albuquerque is providing another $7 million in LEDA, and they will also provide an industrial revenue bond to abate some or all property taxes over a 20-year term for the first $500 million investment to build out the facility.

In total Netflix will receive $300 million + $17 million + $7 million + the IRB tax abatement to eliminate their property taxes.

Finally, even though NM has an annual cap on film tax rebate expenditures, the legislation exempted companies that purchase or sign a 10-year lease for a qualified production facility: this means the cap does not apply to Netflix.

In other words, Netflix is definitely going to grow and appear to create more jobs in New Mexico (which will make a lot of headlines), but it will do so at taxpayer expense. That cost is not just in lost revenue, but in actual spending. Those costs, generated through the tax credit, really a rebate, are borne primarily by State taxpayers. This subsidy is both unfair AND unsustainable.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has now locked us in to paying Netflix outrageous sums of money over the next decade at a time of great uncertainty for New Mexico families and the state’s economic outlook.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

Categories
Constitution and Criminal Justice Legislature Notable News Tax and Budget Top Issues

Educational Retirement Board (ERB) divestment decision foolish

Recently, New Mexico’s Educational Retirement Board (ERB) made the decision to divest itself from private prisons. Supporters of such a move have painted such companies in a very negative light with little justification.

Patrick Brenner, a policy analyst with the Rio Grande Foundation, submitted the following letter to the Albuquerque Journal. It was published on Monday, November 16, 2020.


I read the guest column, “ERB right to help dismantle unjust prison system,” published in the Albuquerque Journal on Nov. 8 and feel compelled to offer a response. The author is certainly entitled to her opinions about the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board’s decision to divest from private prisons, but she appears to be unclear on some of her facts.

The family separation mentioned in the column is a serious issue, but GEO does not manage any shelters or facilities housing unaccompanied minors, nor does it run any border patrol holding facilities along the U.S. southwest border.

What GEO does do is provide safe and humane residential care, including at the modern immigration Processing Centers it manages for the federal government that feature amenities such as artificial turf soccer fields, flat screen TVs in living areas, and indoor and outdoor recreation. These amenities are not usually available in government-operated facilities.

Unfortunately, the divestment campaign is based on an incorrect narrative and a mischaracterization of the role of GEO and other private contractors in this field who ultimately must answer to federal and state governments who are both their customers and regulate the terms of their contracts.

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Taxes Top Issues

New Mexico continues to lag region in economic freedom index

The latest Economic Freedom Index of North America report is out from the free market Canadian think tank Fraser Institute.

Overall, New Mexico ranks 42nd nationally in the Index which ranks US states on various measures including: “government spending,” taxes, regulations, and legal system/property rights. All of New Mexico’s neighbors are among the most economically-free states in the nation.

As can be seen in the chart below that, while people in the most economically-free half of jurisdictions have higher incomes than others, it is the least economically-free jurisdictions like New Mexico that really lag behind dramatically. It is not surprising that New Mexico is among the most impoverished states in the nation.

Categories
Energy and Environment Legislature Notable News Top Issues Transportation Uncategorized

Time for an update on Michelle Lujan Grisham’s MPG mandate

The following appeared in the Farmington Daily-Times on October 7 and several other newspapers.

Recently, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines with his announcement that by 2035 his State will ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles. That is an ambitious goal, but given the time line, it is hard to say what compliance will look like.

But for another, arguably even more ambitious car mileage proposal, one need look no further than New Mexico. Las September New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham announced that by just model year 2022 New Mexico would be increasing its fuel economy requirement for new cars to 52 MPG. The current average fuel economy rate is 25.1 MPG according to the EPA. 

As we noted at the time, Gov. Lujan Grisham (at the time) had “out California-ed California” by adopting even more stringent fuel economy standards than those on the books in California.

Will California’s decision spur Lujan Grisham to action? Perhaps more importantly, is New Mexico REALLY going through with the Gov.’s 52 MPG standard? This was put forth at a time of a record (oil-driven) economic boom in New Mexico. That boom has evaporated thanks to COVID 19 and the Gov.’s lockdown of the State’s economy. She MAY not be as enthusiastic about such radical plans at a time of serious economic challenges.

If you’re expecting to find legislation on this topic from the 2020 legislative session, don’t worry, nothing was even introduced. We have never even seen a formal executive order from the Gov. formalizing this requirement. In fact, after the initial round of media discussion (led off by the New York Times) the issue has been completely forgotten about.

And just to be clear, if the Gov. completely backed away from her plan, we would be more than happy to support such a move. The number of automobiles on the market right now that achieve such a standard is limited to about a dozen or so hybrid models. Considering that “light trucks” now account for 69 percent of the new car market, getting to that 52 MPG average is going to require one or more of the following:

  1. Unforeseen, drastic changes in automobile purchasing patterns among New Mexicans result in few trucks and more fuel-efficient vehicles being purchased;
  2. Massive taxpayer subsidies will have to be handed out to support the purchase of small/hybrid vehicles and massive taxes will be levied on larger vehicles and trucks.
  3. Large numbers of New Mexicans purchasing their vehicles in neighboring states and bringing them home (thus devastating New Mexico car dealerships and the State economy).

As much as our Governor desperately wants to virtue signal to radical environmental groups who so strongly support her, attaining 52 MPG is simply not realistic by 2022. California’s Gov. at least had the good sense to impose his regulations long after he will be out of office, but unless Biden wins the White House and picks her for a position in his Administration, she will have to make some hard decisions about whether to comply with this mandate (or not).

Perhaps it is already a forgotten promise that she never intended to honor in the first place? If so, that is certainly fine with us, but it would seem that New Mexicans should be given an honest explanation so they know what to plan for or expect the next time they walk into a car dealership.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Tax and Budget Top Issues

New Mexico’s Lockdown is Having an Impact

The following article appeared in the Santa Fe New Mexican on September 25, 2020. It also appeared in several other New Mexico based outlets.

According to the latest unemployment figures (for August), New Mexico’s unemployment rate is 11.3 percent. Only 5 states, all of them locked-down “blue” states, have worse rates. And, there is a distinct pattern in which only such states have unemployment rates in the double digits.

Interestingly, the performance of those states when it comes to deaths from COVID-19 (the cause of the lockdowns) is statistically all over the place. Notably, New Mexico is right in the middle nationwide when it comes to saving its citizens from the worst impacts of the virus. Some of the worst-economic performing states (New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) have also been pummeled by the virus that has affected all of us. Hawaii and California, on the other hand, have been locked down and face major unemployment issues, but have performed relatively well insofar as the virus is concerned.

The case for locking down state economies and demanding entire states like New Mexico remain shut and healthy people quarantine themselves will be studied for years to come. The relationship between aggressive lockdowns and success in reducing the virus are questionable at best. Similar studies will also undoubtedly be needed with regard to the social and academic impacts of keeping children at home and attempting to have them learn in an exclusively virtual environment while also being locked out of most normal youth activities.

What we do know is that New Mexico’s economy is suffering. Large parts of our economy (including most tourism venues and all entertainment centers) have been shut down by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham since March. This is starting to have a big impact on our economy.

The most notable illustration of that impact are high unemployment rates. In February, before the COVID-19 outbreak began, Utah’s unemployment rate was an amazingly low 2.5 percent. New Mexico’s was a respectable 4.8 percent. Utah’s rate has since jumped to 4.1 percent, but that remains far better than New Mexico’s elevated rate. And, while it is easy to get caught up in rates and numbers, it cannot be forgotten that these are real jobs and livelihoods that are being impacted. Hundreds of New Mexico businesses have closed due to the governor’s lockdown.

Worse, during the Q&A period at the end her news conference on Sept. 17, Lujan Grisham was asked about reopening bars, entertainment venues, and theaters.

Her response was that many such venues will not reopen until there is a vaccine. Unfortunately, no one knows when a vaccine will be available, but current estimates are that one will be coming by the second or third quarter of 2021. That means that numerous New Mexico businesses, many of which have been shut down since March, may not open until April or even as late as October 2021.

Most New Mexicans, especially small businesses, cannot hang on that long. And, traditional New Mexico events, from Bataan Death March commemorations to the Gathering of Nations and even the 2021 State Fair and Balloon Fiesta simply cannot be canceled for a second consecutive year.

We must deal with both the virus AND the economic impacts it is having on our state. We shouldn’t expect Washington to go even further into debt to bail us out. And the governor simply can’t keep large portions of New Mexico’s economy (including tourism) locked down until a vaccine is widely available.

A federal judge threw out Pennsylvania’s lockdown, saying, in part, “The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.”

When they head to the polls to vote this November, New Mexicans must balance the economy and constitutional liberties along with well-intended attempts to overcome the virus.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

Categories
Audio Economy Education Energy and Environment Legislature Local Government Notable News Oil & Gas Tax and Budget Top Issues

RGF recent radio appearances

This has been a big week for the Rio Grande Foundation on the air. Paul recently sat down with Bob Clark of KKOB 96.3FM. You can find that show here. Bob and Paul discuss numerous topics from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her legacy as well as well as Paul’s family’s efforts to home school their children.

Paul also sat down with Jim Williams at KNKT Radio 107.1 FM. We discussed numerous issues in their discussion. You can listen to that discussion at the link above or by clicking on the image below.

Categories
Economy Energy and Environment Legislature Notable News Top Issues

California electricity woes a warning for New Mexico

Electricity and where it comes from is a very “hot” issue these days.

The following appeared in the Las Cruces Sun News on August 23, 2020

As with so many political issues of the left, California has put itself on the very edge when it comes to following the green agenda. It should come as no surprise, given the State’s “deep blue” politics, that California has some of the most aggressive renewable energy goals in the United States. As has been widely reported in the media, Californians are experiencing electricity shortages due in part to a heat wave hitting the State.

But, it is not just the heat, it is also the lack of reliability of these “green” power sources. And New Mexico is not far behind when it comes to mandating them. If it continues to follow California as mandated by the Gov., Legislature, and the PRC, we might see some of the very same problems as California has.

In California the law requires utilities to obtain at least 33% of its electricity from renewable resources. New Mexico is currently at 20% “renewable” but the Energy Transition Act (passed in 2019) requires 50% carbon-free electricity by 2030 and the Public Regulation Commission just required PNM to go with 100% “renewable” electricity in the future.

Will battery technology improve enough by the time New Mexico’s mandates are fully implemented to avert what is happening right now in California? PNM strongly supported the Energy Transition Act and its “renewable” mandates, but they have expressed concerns about grid reliability  as the PRC pushes them to embrace 100% “renewable” electricity generation. Only time will tell how that works out for PNM and its ratepayers, but how about El Paso Electric which serves Las Cruces?

As of December 2017, El Paso Electric’s generation mix was 36.6% natural gas and 48.7% nuclear with only 2.8% of their overall mix coming from “renewables.” The balance comes from various fuel sources and falls into the category of “purchased” power the exact provenance is not explained to the public.

The point is that El Paso Electric is going to be in for a massive shift in power generation sources in advance of the 2030 requirement that half of their power comes from “renewables.” And, while nuclear is “zero-carbon” and in many ways the most environmentally-friendly source of electricity, that is not how the radical environmental-left sees it.

In fact, given dim view of nuclear power on the part of radical environmentalists, it would seem likely that El Paso Electric could be forced to replace more than 3/4ths of its electricity generation within the next two decades. That is going to be expensive from a ratepayer perspective. California, a state with an ideal climate and many energy generation options, has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation with just 33% of its electricity coming from “renewables.”

As the mandated “renewable” percentage goes up, reliability and affordability will be increasingly problematic for both California and New Mexico ratepayers. As we have seen this summer in California, reliability becomes a challenge long before the 100% “renewable” targets kick in. Getting a steady supply of electricity produced at reasonable prices to customers when they want it may look easy, but it isn’t.

El Paso Electric actually has a rather “green” electricity generation portfolio that relies heavily on zero-carbon nuclear and natural gas which has half the CO2 emissions of coal. This was driven by mostly market decisions, not government mandates. Those “green” credentials will likely not placate the “environmental” movement and it will be Las Cruces ratepayers and the reliability of their power grid that take the hit.

For further information on California’s lighting regulations, click here.

Categories
Economy Film Subsidies Legislature Notable News Tax and Budget Taxes Top Issues

Lights, Camera…Tax Breaks? Why Film Subsidies and Other Corporate Welfare Boondoggles Are a Bad Idea for New Mexican Taxpayers

Due to the COVID19 pandemic, the filming of movies and television shows has ground to a halt in New Mexico and around the country. While aspects of the pandemic are devastating to our economy, the shutdown of film is not one of them. That’s because of the outrageous subsidies the State provides Hollywood filmmakers.

In 2019 the Legislature more than doubled the tax subsidy program from $50 million to $110 million. This subsidy expansion would have a massive, negative impact on the State’s budget, especially now that the economic boom of the past few years ended with COVID.

New Mexico is a poor State. Budget cuts and tax hikes will be on the agenda when the Legislature meets in 2021. So, why should taxpayers subsidize Hollywood which grosses $10 billion annually in the U.S., while yearly global box office revenue for American movies nears $38 billion. Yet its profit margins are fattened by American taxpayers, who provide over $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to filmmakers.

Film subsidies are justified by claims that filmmaking will bring jobs and provide money for the local economy. The prestige of having your state’s locations and scenery featured in a popular film plays a role, too—yet, as with sports franchises, the concrete economic benefits generally prove to be elusive.

Today, New Mexico offers some of the nation’s most generous film subsidies, including a 25% tax credit for movies, a 30% tax credit for TV shows, plus a 5 % rebate for resident crew wages if the filming is shot over at least 10 days at qualified facilities (or 15 days if the budget is over $30 million). But these movie-luring investments are nearly always economic flops.

A 2014 Albuquerque Journal article reported that film production in the state had “provided thousands of jobs and generated $1.5 billion in total economic output [from 2010-2014], but film production activity—both movies and TV shows—generated an estimated 43 cents in tax revenue for every incentive dollar spent by the state between 2010-2014.” So, the state lost more than half its investment in movie-making subsidies.

Jim Wisnewski, one of Albuquerque’s more colorful casting agents, had nothing but praise for the role of film and television subsidies in his state:

We say bring it on, it’s great for New Mexico. Throw that state money at Hollywood—bring ‘em in. When they come, they have to spend money in the state, renting cars and hotels, eating at restaurants, and that’s all revenue for us, isn’t it? In fact, we’re proposing a studio be built on the border between New Mexico and Colorado so that those guys can take the 30% tax rebate from New Mexico and the 20% tax rebate from Colorado. They could get back 50% of their taxes that way.

This may seem humorous, but there is nothing funny about taxpayers footing the bill for films the networks are going to film anyway. With New Mexico again facing budget cuts (after having already made some in the recent special session), taxpayer dollars should not be diverted to rich Hollywood film companies.

For many decades, too many of our government’s policies have taken wealth from taxpayers of modest means and provided a big chunk of it to the rich. The same perverse policies are in place today, and there is every reason to believe that they’ll remain in place for the foreseeable future—unless we act as citizens to demand change.

While today’s politicians—especially those vying for the presidential contest in 2020—are proposing ways that the government should act to reduce income and wealth inequality, we ask, at the least, that the government stop making inequality worse.

This is one area of economic policy that the vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions agree on. Liberal or conservative, socialist-leaning or libertarian, Republican, Democratic, or independent—practically everyone will acknowledge the absurdity of having government take from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich.

Yet that’s exactly what happens, every day, in many ways, large and small. New Mexico taxpayers would be well served if their legislature cut such gifts to the rich from their budgets, starting with these ridiculous film subsidies.

*Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers are co-authors of “Welfare for the Rich,” a new book that was published on August 4, 2020. For more information, go to www.welfarefortherich.com
and @PostHillPress

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Open Government Top Issues

New Mexicans opt out of forced unionism

The following appeared on the Las Cruces Sun News website on August 15, 2020.

Las Cruces Sun-News Obituaries - Las Cruces, NM | Las Cruces Sun-News

With New Mexico still in the throes of COVID19 it is easy to forget about other major public policy issues affecting the State and its economy.

Just over two years ago, in the Janus v. AFSCME decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that working for state or local government should not come with a requirement that those employees hand over a portion of their hard-earned money to unions with whom they often disagree. In the time since the decision, many government workers in New Mexico have exercised these rights by leaving their unions in droves.

In a series of public records requests, the Rio Grande Foundation has found that that more than half of state employees – 54% – have left their union. Our survey of schools, cities and counties around New Mexico show that thousands of other public workers have decided to leave their unions as well.

In working with the national advocacy effort My Pay, My Say, which is working across a large number of states (nearly half of states saw public employees receive the freedom to opt-out), New Mexico’s drop among state employees is the largest we have seen.

Our campaign telling New Mexicans about their first amendment right to leave their unions has reached tens of thousands of public employees all across the state with thousands of them engaging with the advertising and many ultimately choosing to stop paying dues.

The Rio Grande Foundation has long supported worker freedom in New Mexico. We share President Franklin Roosevelt’s contention that, “the process of collective bargaining as usually understood cannot be transplanted into the public service.” And we were thrilled when the court upheld the First Amendment rights for workers to choose – or choose not – to belong to labor unions.

Public sector bargaining is problematic. Unlike in the private sector, taxpayers are ultimately subsidizing both sides of the bargaining table – the government employer and the government union.

Recently, many on the left have come to realize these issues as well – at least when it comes to police unions. Many of the protections given to unionized police officers are not in the best interests of accountable policing and equitable criminal justice policies. We welcome them to the newfound realization that government employee unions often stand in the way of holding “public servants” accountable for their actions.

But this new skepticism of unions – over their political advocacy and problematic contracts – should apply across all areas of government, including at the state, local and in K-12 education. In fact, problems with government employee unions in the education bureaucracy, like unionized law enforcement bureaucracies, have disproportionate, negative impacts on poor and minority populations.

Allowing government employees to opt out of their unions is a good step towards holding unions accountable. It forces them to be more accountable to those they “represent” and it takes away one of the special favors typically granted to unions by state and local government.

Once Janus v. AFSCME gave workers the choice, large numbers of them decided that unions didn’t do a good job representing their interests. Some opt out for broader political reasons; others simply don’t feel the dues are worth it and still more are perhaps concerned by the lack of accountability in government that has been driven by the unions for decades. Whatever the reason, we’ll continue making sure government employees know their rights.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Categories
Education Legislature Notable News Top Issues

Expanding New Mexico state pre-K would be a costly mistake

The following appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on August 10, 2020:

The Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) recently released a study of the “inaugural cohort” of the state’s pre-K program, concluding that “prekindergarten remains a cost-effective way to improve student outcomes.” But the LFC’s own data shows that expanding pre-K would instead be a costly mistake.

The LFC’s study cites “statistically significant” improvements in children’s outcomes, which in real life are essentially meaningless. Children who attended pre-K scored barely higher on the six kindergarten-entry readiness domains measured — just a couple of percentage points at most. In the crucial areas of literacy and mathematics, only about 60% were kindergarten-ready, whether they attended pre-K or not.

Differences in third-grade PARCC proficiencies, too, were tiny. Almost three-quarters of both pre-K and non-pre-K groups failed to meet third-grade PARCC proficiency in English: 70.3% of pre-K attendees and 71.9% of non-attendees. Roughly two-thirds of both groups failed to meet standards in math: 65.9% of children who went to pre-K compared to 68.1% of children who did not.

If pre-K were affecting children’s achievement, New Mexico’s National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores would be rising as pre-K attendance goes up. From 2011 to 2019, however, while the percentage of fourth-graders who had attended pre-K almost tripled, the percentage scoring at or above Basic on the NAEP reading exam remained precisely the same at 53%. In math, that percentage actually declined from 75% to 72%.

The largest outcome differences the LFC reports are for chronic absence — missing over 10% of school — and high school graduation within four years. Twelve percent of children who went to pre-K were chronically absent compared to 16% of those who did not attend. Eighty percent of the 1,540 students in the inaugural pre-K cohort graduated within four years compared to 74% of the roughly 25,000 students who had not gone to pre-K 14 years prior.

Both these differences are likely caused by parents, though, not by children starting school when they’re 4 instead of 5. Parents who voluntarily send their 4-year-old to school for an entire year also probably try harder to make sure their child attends school regularly and graduates on time.

That is, children who attend pre-K have exactly the parents most likely to ensure their success throughout schooling. And the influence of a child’s parents greatly outweighs a single year of school, whether that’s pre-K or fifth grade.

Finally, the LFC study concludes that pre-K is a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. But compared to what? “Cost effectiveness” means comparing various programs to determine which yield the biggest results for the same expenditure of limited resources.

Policymakers can’t decide if spending $100 on Program X makes sense if they only know it yields an eventual benefit of $106. How does $106 compare to the benefit of spending $100 on other programs with the same goal? In the case of improving school achievement, the LFC itself has identified approaches far more effective than pre-K.

In a 2017 study, the LFC found that teacher quality had the “most impact on a student’s academic achievement” of all school-related factors, reporting positive effects which were orders of magnitude larger than any associated with pre-K. Children’s PARCC scores in math and reading varied by up to 49 percentage points over three years, depending on whether they had effective or ineffective teachers. Low-performing schools that participated in “Teachers Pursuing Excellence” peer mentoring increased the percentage of students scoring at proficient or above on the PARCC exam from 24% to 35% in reading and 16% to 27% in math, over just two years.

Policymakers should be seeking the most effective use of resources to improve student outcomes and help children who need help the most. Based on the LFC’s recent study, adding a pre-K grade to the public schools seems like more of a “cost-effective way” to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.