State Question 744

[Nik]

So, I started reading about SQ 744 to see how I'm going to vote on it. For those who don't know, SQ 744 calls for a state constitution amendment that would require the state's education budget the match the per pupil average for neighboring states.

The text of the question is as follows:

The measure repeals a Section of the State Constitution. The repealed section required the Legislature annually to spend $42.00 for each common school student. Common schools offer pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.

The measure also adds a new Article to the Constitution. It sets a minimum average amount the State must annually spend on common schools. It requires the State to spend annually, no less than the average amount spent on each student by the surrounding states. Those surrounding states are Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico. When the average amount spent by surrounding states declines, Oklahoma must spend the amount it spent the year before.

The measure deals with money spent on day-to-day operations of the schools and school districts. This includes spending on instructions, support services and non-instruction services. The measure does not deal with money spent to pay debt, on buildings or on other capital needs.

The measure requires that increased spending begin in the first fiscal year after its passage. It requires that the surrounding state average be met in the third fiscal year after passage.

The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements.

Relevant websites:
http://www.nosq744.com
http://www.yeson744.com


I have a quick question. Can somebody tell me the percentage of the budget that these neighboring states spend on "common schools" (pre-k through 12th)? I'm curious about this fact. So far, this isn't looking like a thought out proposition.

[sgrizzle]

I would rather see it written as "the individual school districts per pupil reimbursement rate set to the regional state average, so long as the total amount is no more than X% of the projected state income."

[guido911]

A little o/t, but I think important. Below is a link to all the ballot initiatives for this election cycle. I can only assume it's accurate.

http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2010/07/oklahoma-state-questions-in-2010.html

[nathanm]

Wow, that list is strong evidence of a paranoid streak in our state.

[patric]

So far, this isn't looking like a thought out proposition.

The sentiment is good, but we need to figure out where the funding is going to come from.
Maybe if we cut back on air support for OBNDD's annual fall pot harvest...   

[RecycleMichael]

I am voting for state question 744.

I figure my comments will get me in trouble with many in the community so I may delete this post in the future.

All the power players in the state government are against it, including the Governor, the department heads of highways, agriculture, and prisons. Chamber of commerces and the major universities all oppose it as well. All the "haves" are against it. That alone should make others look more closely at why.

Here are some of the reasons why I support state question 744...

1) Oklahoma is 49th in education funding and last in the region. 49th. We have been this bad for some time. The legislature has proven year after year that they are fine with being 49th.

2) Oklahoma continues to fund other crap at ridiculous levels. Prison funding has tripled in the last 15 years. We are now number one in female prisoners per capita and number four overall. We are now at 650 inmates per 100,000 people. We now have state run correctional facilities in Altus, Ardmore, Beaver, Elk City, Enid, Frederick, Healdton, Hobart, Hollis, Idabel, Lawton, Lexington,  Mangum, Muskogee, Sayre, Walters, Waurika and more than two dozen others. Why do we fund so many?

3) Of course, we also fund higher Education at similar levels. Higher Ed has a budget this year of one billion and 70 million dollars. They also charge tuition, but require over $350 per person this year in state subsidy. My family of four is paying $1,400 and they still refuse to put a four year campus in the second largest city.

4) The question says that the legislature has three years to find a way to fund the increase in prek through 12th grade . The question only brings us up to the regional average. What is so wrong about expecting nothing less than average?

[RecycleMichael]

I just don't trust the legislature to ever do the right thing. I want to have one area in their job that they have to fund at an average level.

More later...

[Conan71]

RM, you bring up some compelling points. Don't delete them, they are worthy of consideration. My problem with the bill is we fund a lot of administration and infrastructure (ie facilities, buses, etc) at the expense of teachers.  I'd like to see a comprehensive audit prior to asking for more money from the tax payers. I'd like to see that before any more significant funding increases for any government service for that matter.

[guido911]

I am voting for state question 744.

I figure my comments will get me in trouble with many in the community so I may delete this post in the future.

I know how you must feel. I have been up for days, sweating and shaking, waiting for you, the all powerful and influential RM, to weigh in. /sarc

[Red Arrow]

I am voting for state question 744.

I figure my comments will get me in trouble with many in the community so I may delete this post in the future.

All the power players in the state government are against it, including the Governor, the department heads of highways, agriculture, and prisons. Chamber of commerces and the major universities all oppose it as well. All the "haves" are against it. That alone should make others look more closely at why.

Here are some of the reasons why I support state question 744...

1) Oklahoma is 49th in education funding and last in the region. 49th. We have been this bad for some time. The legislature has proven year after year that they are fine with being 49th.

2) Oklahoma continues to fund other crap at ridiculous levels. Prison funding has tripled in the last 15 years. We are now number one in female prisoners per capita and number four overall. We are now at 650 inmates per 100,000 people. We now have state run correctional facilities in Altus, Ardmore, Beaver, Elk City, Enid, Frederick, Healdton, Hobart, Hollis, Idabel, Lawton, Lexington,  Mangum, Muskogee, Sayre, Walters, Waurika and more than two dozen others. Why do we fund so many?

3) Of course, we also fund higher Education at similar levels. Higher Ed has a budget this year of one billion and 70 million dollars. They also charge tuition, but require over $350 per person this year in state subsidy. My family of four is paying $1,400 and they still refuse to put a four year campus in the second largest city.

4) The question says that the legislature has three years to find a way to fund the increase in prek through 12th grade . The question only brings us up to the regional average. What is so wrong about expecting nothing less than average?

I think 744 is full of good intentions that won't necessarily get the desired results.  

[custosnox]

The entire education system in Oklahoma needs a good shake down, from the top down.  But even reworking the system won't do anything if we don't have financing in place to cover the costs.  This is in no way the full answer to getting education in Oklahoma to an acceptable level, but it is a start.  Now the SQ that I worry about is 754.  I still need to sit down and read this one, but supposedly it not only would negate 744 (provided it is voted in) but could not be repealed or amended.

[RecycleMichael]

I know how you must feel. I have been up for days, sweating and shaking, waiting for you, the all powerful and influential RM, to weigh in. /sarc

You hide behind a fake name...people do know who I am. It is not that I think I am all that influential, but I do get yelled at for my comments on TulsaNow.

The sweating and shaking you have been feeling...it is a new feeling? Probably your conscience...

[RecycleMichael]

I'd like to see a comprehensive audit prior to asking for more money from the tax payers. I'd like to see that before any more significant funding increases for any government service for that matter.

I do not disagree.

[Nik]

RM, you bring up some compelling points. Don't delete them, they are worthy of consideration. My problem with the bill is we fund a lot of administration and infrastructure (ie facilities, buses, etc) at the expense of teachers.  I'd like to see a comprehensive audit prior to asking for more money from the tax payers. I'd like to see that before any more significant funding increases for any government service for that matter.

I agree completely.

[Gaspar]

I do not disagree.

I agree with the audit.  The intension may be good, however there is nothing in this bill specifying where the money will go or how it would be spent.  As for the "average" argument, there are other factors that apply.  We currently spend about $7,000 per primary/secondary student per year.  The national average is about $10,000 (as of 2007).

Many factors affect this number.  Our cost of living/food/transportation/construction materials/energy are significantly lower than other parts of the country.  These and other factors have a large impact on the "Cost" of education.

The most alarming thing is that the "Cost" associated with primary/secondary education has increased reliably every year, but the quality has not.  I think I would rather see legislation that attaches funding to standards.  Just like in the private sector, capital should be related to performance.  To simply continue to throw money at a problem without any associated measurement of success is the same thing we've been doing for years, and will produce the same result.

This is not a well thought out bill, it's a "hey lets spend like the Texas, and everything will be OK!" bill.  The bill sets forth NO provisions for accountability as not to limit the ability of the Education Oversight Board to spend the money as they wish respective of administrative cap limits.  The alarming thing, is that if you skim the YES744 website, the site is written to look like the bill offers accountability measures, however if you actually analyze the language you find phrases like "Here are is a list of accountability measures that could be funded properly if SQ 744 passes:. . ." followed by a bold list of accountabilities that exist NOWHERE in the actual legislation.

While the idea SOUNDS good, the plan does not exist.  It's another "Underpants Gnome" piece of legislation.


Phase 1: Legislation
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Victory

If you are not familiar with "Underpants Gnomes," it's a reference to a Southpark episode illustrating the development of a poor business model.  This bill simply attaches money to success without making any determination of what that money will be used for.  This is dumb. That's really all I can say about it.