Education

Oklahomans should support State Question 774, a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that, if approved, would increase per-pupil funding to the regional average.

The amendment is a long-sighted and game-changing approach to solve the systemic problem of inadequate education funding in Oklahoma, which ranks 49th in the nation and dead last in a seven-state region in per-pupil spending, according to studies. The historical and contemporary negative impact of this underfunding on student success, the high school dropout rate, the low college graduation rate and economic development here is incalculable.

What is obvious is that a state that ranks so low in per-pupil spending tells its own citizenry and the nation that public education has never been nor will ever be a priority among its leadership. It tells the story that this state is anti-education and doesn’t care about children, its most vulnerable residents. This is simply a horrible message that depicts Oklahoma as a backwards place, not “a great place to raise a family,” whose leaders care more about punishing petty criminals—we rank first in the nation in female incarceration—than developing young minds.

Let’s be clear: All SQ 744 would do is require the state to fund education at a regional average compared to Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. Note the words ”regional” and “average.” Note the words “New Mexico” and “Arkansas.” It does NOT mandate a tax increase, and the question provides for a gradual, three-year, phase-in of the initiative.

The initiative would allow schools to hire and recruit more teachers and provide students with the latest technology equipment and software. It would help lower class size. More students could get individual attention. It would increase the state’s overall brainpower. If the initiative passed, public education would get a chance to finally flourish here. It’s not an all-encompassing panacea, for sure, but it would make a huge difference.

The opposition to SQ 744 is fierce, well-funded and rooted primarily in those supporting corporate interests, including The Association of Oklahoma General Contractors, local and state chambers and The Oklahoman, perhaps the most anti-education media outlet in the nation. Two state think tanks, The Oklahoma Policy Institute (OPI) and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) oppose the measure. Politicians that I know and support or don’t know and don’t support are against the initiative. At least two political organizations oppose it, and there is overlap. For instance, Albert “Kell” Kelly, CEO of SpiritBank in Tulsa is co-chairman of the group Transportation Revenues Used Strictly for Transportation and calls the SQ 744 initiative a “stealth attack,” according to an article in the Tulsa World. Kelly is also a member of OPI’s Board of Directors. Here’s the anti-SQ 744 One Oklahoma Coalition’s Statement of Organization, according to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. Note that the chair, Todd Hiett, who we can presume is the former Republican House Speaker in the Oklahoma Legislature, lists “Spirit Bank” as his principal place of business.

By far, the most articulate voice for the opposition is David Blatt, OPI’s director. In a study brief issued last week, Blatt argued the three-year phase-in of the initiative would cost the state $1.7 billion. Blatt argued that much money would require the state raise taxes and cut funding to other areas of government. His published study received play in the state’s corporate media, and The Oklahoman editor Ed Kelley even appeared in a video editorial that cited Blatt’s work as proof voters shouldn’t vote for the initiative or the “raid on Oklahoma’s treasury” as he called it.

But will the initiative require tax increases? That remains to be seen, but I think it’s possible, and yes, it might force a major re-thinking of how the state creates an annual budget. Recent tax cuts have mostly benefited the state’s wealthiest citizens, and State Question 640, passed in 1992, has made it virtually impossible to raise any type of taxes. The state also recently went through an extended period of declining revenues.

But how about this: It’s also entirely possible the measure would force the Oklahoma Legislature and the then-Governor to reconsider the state’s overall tax structure and SQ 640 in particular. SQ 744 could be a positive catalyst for change in how government gets funded here, and it could benefit all agencies, not just education.

I believe the organized opposition to SQ 744 deliberately downplays these three points:

(1) Oklahoma has historically underfunded education, other services and its infrastructure. How will the cycle of mediocre funding ever end without direct participation by voters? Does anyone think the state’s corporate power structure will support adequate funding for education or any other public service here? We have to start somewhere. The state ranks miserably low in medical outcomes, and this affects the state in a myriad of ways, including education, but how can we change that unless we have a more enlightened citizenry? How do we get a more enlightened citizenry without investing in education?

(2) The state is currently playing out a conservative, political drama that goes like this: When revenues increase, the legislature gives out big tax breaks to wealthy citizens and corporations. Although it might slightly increase spending on education or, say, health services, it’s never significant enough to create real, systemic change. That’s intentional. I see no change in this pattern for years to come. In fact, I think it’s going to get worse over the next few years. The television advertisements of the Republicans running for major office this year in Oklahoma are virtually consistent in their anti-government, anti-spending rhetoric. Anyone in education here should be seriously worried. That’s not sloganeering or hyperbole. Imagine archconservative U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin as governor with GOP majorities in the House and Senate. That’s a probability according to the recent polling. This only makes it even more pertinent the state pass SQ 744.

(3) Better education systems create a larger tax base and pay for investment in the long run. It’s just like businesses that invest for future financial gain. Whether you agree with that premise or not, nothing will ever be done about inadequate funding for education or anything else in state government—health programs, social services and infrastructure—unless there’s some type of financial risk.

Those who oppose SQ 744 simply don’t want change, at least for now. Many of these people are willing to spend a lot of money to protect their own special tax breaks and income tax cuts. Does anyone really think it’s for altruistic reasons? Rich people get richer by manipulating the tax systems here in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Only an enlightened electorate that invests in education can stand up against them. We can only hope it happens here.

In an recent email, J. Walton Robinson, a spokesperson for Yes on 744, points out how recent research shows the cost of not improving education here and the benefits of improving it through better funding, According to Robinson:

1. More than 14,700 students did not graduate from Oklahoma’s high schools in 2009; the lost lifetime earnings in Oklahoma for that class of dropouts alone total more than $3.8 billion. 2. Oklahoma would save more than $137.6 million in health care costs over the lifetimes of each class of dropouts had they earned their diplomas. 3. If Oklahoma’s high schools graduated all of their students ready for college, the state would save almost $39.5 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings.

I was in New York recently and visited St. Paul’s Chapel, which is directly across from Ground Zero. Many of the rescue workers after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center slept at the church on cots to catch some needed rest before going back to the disaster scene. Hanging from one of the chapel’s rafters is a large, homemade banner from Oklahoma residents sending their support and love. To the left of the banner is a sign that reads HOPE.

The corporate power structure here can and will demonize the initiative and its supporters, which includes the Oklahoma Education Association, but the prevailing spirit behind SQ 744 is embodied in that banner and in that sign. It’s about incredible acts of service and undying hope for our children’s educational future, not tax cuts for the ultra-rich.

The Oklahoman recently published what seems to be its annual story outlining all the problems with the underfunded Oklahoma Teachers Retirement plan, but this time it included an extra right-wing twist that should scare state educators even more.

The bottom line is this: If you’re an Oklahoma teacher paying into the retirement plan and counting on a pension, you should be worried the prevailing, conservative political movement in this state may leave you with reduced benefits. That’s not hyperbole.

The story, “Oklahoma Teacher's Retirement plan called substantially underfunded” (July 12, 2010), goes over all the same ground: (1) The retirement plan is the fourth worst public pension plan in the nation among 126 plans when it comes to funding. (2) The plan is funded at around 50 percent even though financial experts say it should be at 80 percent.

There’s really nothing new here. Funding for the retirement plan, which includes teacher contributions, has long been criticized as inadequate. Many political leaders here have been more interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy than taking care of teachers and students in recent years. It’s also part of the state's historical anti-education bias. What’s even the point of the article? Simply put more money into the plan.

But the story also includes comments from Steven Anderson, who is identified as a certified public accountant and a Research Fellow for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, an ultra-conservative think tank here. Anderson suggested creating defined contribution plans for new teachers. But then there’s this in the story:

. . . Anderson said it's possible that eventually the teachers retirement system's operating expenses could be reduced so that it would no longer need to receive 5 percent of state income and sales tax revenue, or about $260 million a year; as a result the state could look at using that revenue for other state services or to reduce or eliminate the state's income tax.

Note the language “to reduce or eliminate the state’s income tax.” Is Anderson serious? The state is really going to eliminate the state income tax by reducing operating costs of the retirement plan? When is that going to happen? And, even if the state could substantially reduce the operating costs, wouldn’t it make more sense to use the “5 percent of state income and sales tax revenue” to make the plan more solvent and thus solve the problem.

The point here is that Anderson tries to conflate OCPA’s political agenda—starve the beast with tax cuts—with an extremely important issue for educators across the state, and teachers need to pay attention to this ploy because the state’s largest and ultra-conservative newspaper allowed his ideas to go unchallenged.

Many Oklahoma teachers have paid into the system for years with the understanding that a pension awaits them upon retirement. Here’s the looming question: Will the state break that retirement promise in future years because of the type of political ideology espoused by OCPA?

Teachers should be aware that the political ideas of the OCPA will have a lot more traction if the state elects a Republican governor and the GOP retains majorities in the House and Senate in this year’s election.

Oklahoma simply can’t afford to decimate its public education system with teacher layoffs, but apparently it's going to happen.

Oklahoma City Public Schools has announced it’s not renewing the contracts of about 300 teachers next year because of state budget cuts. Tulsa Public Schools has said it won’t renew the contracts of 286 teachers. Anecdotal evidence indicates teacher layoffs or eliminating teaching positions will be widespread throughout the state next fall.

Although Common Education is only facing a 2.9 percent state budget cut in fiscal year 2011 compared to larger cuts faced by other state agencies, districts must plan for future cuts, especially in 2012 when federal stimulus dollars will no longer exist to help avert catastrophe. Some education officials also say the cut actually is closer to 9 percent over last year's budget.

Teacher layoffs are happening throughout the nation so it’s easy for some Oklahoma public officials and the corporate media here to shrug off the local news as something inevitable, but there are compelling reasons for Oklahoma in particular to limit the loss of teaching positions.

Here are three reasons:

(1) Oklahoma continues to lag behind the nation in producing college graduates. Part of that problem, most education experts argue, has been college preparation in high school. Eliminating teacher positions will create larger class sizes and will most likely hurt borderline students who might have made it to college with individualized attention. The dearth of college graduates here is a chronic problem that hurts economic development. The state doesn’t have a high “quality of life” reputation that could attract businesses. It needs a more educated workforce.

(2) Some recent college graduates who want to teach here and newly hired teachers will surely leave the state to seek work in education or other fields. It’s true that other states are facing budget and economic problems as well, but Oklahoma will surely suffer a brain drain as it has in the past. How many years of this brain drain can the state go through without seriously damaging its education system and quality of life? Other states known for having top tier educational systems can absorb temporary brain drains better than Oklahoma.

(3) If, as economic experts predict, Oklahoma continues to have budget problems through 2013, then that will mean those students starting ninth grade this fall will spend their last years in school under dire circumstances, which will include overcrowded classrooms and lack of computer equipment and new textbooks. It will also mean that some safety nets designed to help students in trouble with grades or family issues will be lost. Other states, which spend much more than Oklahoma on per pupil spending, can adjust better to lean years. Oklahoma’s underfunded educational system leaves absolutely no room for a temporary adjustment.

It bears repeating that Oklahoma has the lowest per pupil spending rate in this region of the country. Even Arkansas and New Mexico spend more money on the education than Oklahoma. This is the elephant in the room that too many local public officials and editorial writers ignore when discussing education here. The bottom line is this: When Oklahoma cuts education funding it’s hurting a system that already is in desperate need of more money to employ more teachers and fund more innovative programs.

The decision to cut education and eliminate teaching positions will hurt the state in the coming years in incalculable ways. It could also create backlash support for State Question 744, which is on the ballot this fall. If the question is approved, the state will have to fund public education at the regional average.