STOP State Question 744! from STOP744 on Vimeo.
#1. The music on this ad is priceless. Nothing says doomsday like the classical requiem playing in the background. If I had to vote on hearing alone, whew -- I would be scared to vote for SQ 744.
#2. Full disclosure. I am a teacher, so my bias is obvious. If it weren't, then consider that I work in a high poverty school. Do know, however, I am approaching this with as much objectivity as possible. I want to be an informed voter and I also want to make sure that whatever the state spends its money on toward education, that it actually helps our kids. My kids.
#3. STOP744.com is funded by Oklahomans for Responsible Government (OfRG). I am still learning to navigate the Oklahoma Secretary of State's web site, and so the only thing I could find was that OfRG is registered as a non-profit. This was as far as I could go without -- PAYING. I thought records were open? OpenSecrets.org doesn't seem to have anything on OfRG. So, my old Truth Testing go-tos failed. I did a google search and found info on BallotPedia.org, which is like Wikipedia for ballot issues. They cite sources, but it seems whomever wrote the entry had the issues I did...there is nothing cited that comes from a state web site. So, take the information below with a small grain of salt...until someone can point me to better records.
OfRG, according to Ballot Pedia, is a 501(c) 4 non-profit founded in January of 2008 by Brian Downs. According to the OfRG web site, Downs served as a legislative director for Oklahoma legislature for three years and worked for a former governor Frank Keating (R-Okla). OfRG's positions include government transparency and open records (something I support and wish I could figure out in Oklahoma), the elimination of wasteful spending, and exposing government abuse and corruption. They have also have a project to see how public money is being spent in public schools in Oklahoma (Blueprint for Transparency Series). They too mentioned a stimulus money tracker, but I thought that is what Recovery.gov is for? Alas.
So, OfRG's big thing this year is in opposition to SQ 744.
#3. The big claims.
1. This will cost OK $850 million.
2. The costs will mandate income and sales tax increases.
3. It will cut other valuable programs.
I will do my best in addressing these three main claims. First, the purported $850 million cost. I am not a mathematician, so I tried my best to find out where these figures are coming from with just research. That was too much to ask, apparently. The citation on the STOP744 website leads to a pro-744 web site, which gives even less indication about overall costs. So, I went the old fashioned route, for better or for worse.
Based on the Oklahoma State Department of Education Web site, 634,251 students are regularly enrolled in and attend public school in the state. This figure is based on enrollment in fall of 2007-2008 (I couldn't find anything more updated). There are two sets of numbers we have to play with now. The state department numbers from that year, and the pro-744 numbers (which apparently do come from SDE but are evading me).
Here is a nifty table that may succinctly clue you in to my process (the column lines disappeared, uh oh. I tried to make up for this with color. Sorry.):
|
|
The key here is the difference in spending between OK and the Regional Average. If we use the average that includes Oklahoma’s $8K/pupil (column 6), the difference in spending by OK would be roughly $890 million. This is increased if we go by the regional average that does not figure Oklahoma’s contribution (column 5). (PS, I think it's not cool for OEA not to include OK in the regional average. We're a part of the region, so it's disingenuous not to be considered in the numbers).
This is confusing, I know. The bottom line? Yes, it would be an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars. What is most interesting to note though, is that if all of these figures do come from the SDE, we already increased funding from 2007-08 to 2008-2009, from roughly $7.5K to $8K. That $400 increase per pupil amounts to roughly $250 million increased spending between those two years. If I could get some help in finding the 09-10 numbers, I would guess that there was another increase. So, SQ 744 follows the same pattern, but sets the standard higher.
It is important to note that the bill text (which is ridiculously difficult to find the final version of, by the way) says that if passed, 744 would be effective in July 2011 and implemented over three years. Does this mean that we increase spending all at once in the next budget? Or gradually, following the increase pattern we already have in education spending? Either way, by the end of three years, we'd expect to be comparable per pupil spenders in the region, and move up from our 46th-in per-pupil spending (or 49th, if you ask pro-744ers) ranking. We'd also expect an increase in cost to the state, but there seems to be confusion about when. If it's nearly $900 million in the next budget, WOWZA. If it's $900 million over the next three years, that's about $300 million/year, which seems to be a $50 million/year increase over what we already add to our spending each year.
Ok. I dove into the legalese in the constitutional text proposition and did my best to interpret (it's a PDF attached to this web site. I found the info on page 15 of 103 in my Preview app). Paragraph G seems to stipulate a gradual increase over the next three years, aiming to reach the regional average cost per-pupil by the third fiscal year after the law is passed. So, to me, that means about $50 million more/year dedicated to students.
#2 and #3. Paying for this requires sales and income tax increases and necessitate cuts in spending to other programs.
The bill text doesn't actually stipulate how whatever increased money, in whatever amounts at whichever time, will be available to be spent. State revenue is based on taxes, so it is a logical assumption that we would see tax hikes and possible cuts to other programs. This is the point in the Truth Test where I will go "lighter" than normal. When I did these regularly, I would call local academics, lawyers, policy-makers, and the like to get some "expert" substantiation to claims. I don't have those resources right now in Oklahoma. I am now in that voter-Joe crossroads of the desire to be informed and the lack of reliable, easily-accessible resources and information.
So, what's an average voter to do? In my book, it's about personal discretion. At this stage, I don't know what the policymakers have in mind. I posted a message on the Yes on 744 Facebook page (and e-mailed them through the web site), as well as the Stop 744 Facebook page (there was no e-mail function or "contact us" on the web site). It said:
"I am a teacher in Oklahoma and I am interested in becoming more informed on this state question so that I can make the best decision for my students. What is unclear to me, from your web site and from the text of the proposed ballot question, is how the increased expenditure will be paid for. Will this necessitate an increase in income or sales taxes over the next three years? If so, what will the increase look like for the average Oklahoman? If not, how else will it be funded? If you do get the chance to respond, please include reference to the policy at hand so that I, as a voter, can easily substantiate the information you give me. Note that I am also asking this of proponents and opponents to SQ744, just so I can arrive at the ballot box with as much information as possible.
Thank you for your time."
Until they respond, my voter discretion does not mind an increase in taxes in any form as long as it is guaranteed to give my kids in Oklahoma a better education.
This is where the biggest questions come up for me: how can we be sure that money spent on students here will truly benefit them? SQ 744 includes an accountability measure where an independent board will file a report annually discussing the distribution of funds for administrative and classroom costs, as well as state achievement statistics (which are rather dismal right now...check out the SDE Report Card for 2008-2009).
In 2007-2008, the SDE reported that about 89 percent of money spent on education came from local, county, and state funds. About 11 percent was from federal funds. The stimulus from 2009 brought in more federal money for the schools, but figuring out how it is spent in schools is a monstrous task. Does voter Joe have time?
Sadly, I don't have time today. But, I do have a moment to reflect on what I notice in my school's district (warning: my bias will really come out now, so take this for what you think it's worth):
In April, I attended a school board meeting, where, in mere minutes, the School Board approved a staffing plan that, in a last-resort situation, nearly 300 teachers would be laid off. Minutes later, the same board approved $29,000 (about $3K shy of a first-year teacher's salary) to fund a grand piano (just the instrument) at a local high school.
Decide what you will.
By the end of the school year, over 200 positions were lost in our district while it has also spent millions of dollars on ensuring that the core teachers who are left teach a programmed curriculum of "rigor and readiness."
I don't know how this will affect my upcoming year. What I do know is that money is spent in varying ways in a school, some of which may or may not benefit students the way we want them to. It's all part of this big question that nobody can answer: how do we fix education?
There are so many programs that offer silver-bullet solutions to state tests and college readiness. But, time and time again, it seems that the most important factor in a students' education isn't which program their teachers ascribe to, but overall, how effective that teacher is in making sure meaningful learning happens.
I still don't know where I stand on SQ744. I know that we are in sad company when we spend so little (relatively) on our students. I also know that inappropriate budget decisions locally, and at the state and federal level puts schools in a pickle, especially during hard economic times. With all the money that is already being spent, teachers still shell out hundreds of dollars each year, or get donations from friends and family, to supply their classrooms.
We don't just need to spend more money on our kids, we need to spend it correctly. We need to help classrooms, but especially teachers, so that we can all be effective in classrooms. This means money for leveled classroom libraries to promote literacy, school supplies so kids on free-and-reduced lunch can still learn organizing and writing skills in useful notebooks, binders and with working pens and pencils. We need updated textbooks and place to recycle the old ones; we need schools that don't have leaky ceilings and windows, busted bathrooms, or that don't require teachers to bring their own cleaning supplies. We need support so that all teachers can be effective and systems of accountability that make sure they are (that's another blog).
Above all, we need to make sure we fix these problems in ALL schools. We need investment in high-poverty and affluent schools (albeit in different ways), but with the goal that all children are offered an equal education.
The landscape of Oklahoma's education system is in need of a fixing. Whether SQ 744 will be the answer, I still don't know. I think it's on the right track to fixing the dire situation we have on our hands, but I don't think that fix just comes with throwing money at the situation. We need to systematically put money into the situation so that we don't have to worry about how much we're spending, but how we're spending it.
How can our kids compete regionally, nationally, or internationally when the system meant to prepare them is failing and we can't decide on a clear solution to fix it?
Regardless of how I vote in November (or you Okies do, for that matter), I do know this: I am here for my kids. No matter how this comes out, or whether I am here in three years to see it fully implemented, I know that I will give my kids the best education I can and also prepare them for the rest of their (potentially rocky) educational journey. The goal? To make sure that, no matter what, they can compete; that they are ready and that they are successful. If I could, I would vote that all teachers everywhere be required to do this.
Even without HOPE, I still hope our kids get what they deserve: the best of the best.
~MJ
No comments:
Post a Comment