Several months ago, with polls showing SQ 744 ahead by a two-to-0ne margin and supporters announcing that the National Education Association had committed over $3 million to the Yes campaign, many thought that the measure’s passage was a slam-dunk.  Subsequent polling showed a sharp fall-off in support for 744, and by the final week of the campaign, most observers were expecting its defeat. It’s unlikely, however, that anyone anticipated the magnitude of the final margin: 81.4 percent opposed versus just 18.6 percent in favor.  Ultimately, opposition to SQ 744 outpolled everything else on yesterday’s ballot, including support for such popular ballot ideas as voter ID and English as the state’s official language.

What happened? My sense is that the defeat of SQ 744 was the result of its opponents ability to convincingly build three arguments. The first was the argument, which  OK Policy can claim some credit for having developed, that increased K-12 funding of the magnitude required by SQ 744 would necessarily come at the expense of health care, corrections, higher ed, and other areas of state government.  On the one hand, I’m not sure this argument directly swayed a large portion of the electorate. Few voters likely voted no on SQ 744 out of concern for kids in foster care. Many voters believed that common education should be a higher priority, and Yes on 744 proponents were at least somewhat effective at countering the idea that the measure couldn’t be paid for by pointing to tax breaks and politician’s perks as a funding source. However, the argument helped persuade leading politicians and opinion leaders, including those acknowledged as committed advocates for public education and children, to take a strong stand against SQ 744, giving the No side respectability while putting SQ 744 proponents on the defensive. At the same time, from the standpoint of building a coalition and mounting a campaign, the fear of being left with a shrinking share of the budget pie certainly mobilized organizations whose interests were put at risk by 744′s passage to raise money, get involved and spread the word among their members.

The second argument against SQ 744 that seemed to reso Read the rest of this entry »

This week OK Policy distributed a 4-page memo on the state budget to all candidates for state offices, which we have now released to a broader audience. The memo is intended to offer policymakers a clearer understanding of the budget situation they will face following the November election, while suggesting some guiding principles and specific recommendations for addressing the challenges that lie ahead. Here are some of the highlights of the memo: (Much of the information is contained in our most recent 2-page Budget Trends and Highlights fact sheet).

We begin by stating that:

The state budget crisis of the  past two years has put great strains on the public structures and institutions that Oklahoma families, businesses, and communities count on to help us meet our common goals as a state. Whoever wins the elections in November will face difficult choices in filling large budget holes and balancing the budget over the next two to three years.

Our overview of the past two years emphasizes the historic drop in state revenue collections and the importance that non-recurring revenues from the federal Recovery Act, state Rainy Day Fund, and other sources have had in mitigating the magnitude of budget shortfalls. However:

Even with these funds… this year’s appropriations of $6.714 billion represent an overall cut of 7.2 percent from FY ’09. Over half of all appropriated state agencies have absorbed funding cuts of at least 15 percent, and some cuts have been multiplied by the loss of matching federal dollars. These cuts have weakened the ability of state agencies and schools to fulfill their core missions and have contributed to a corrosion of the public structures and institutions that Oklahoma rely on to promote our well-being and invest in our future. Across state government, shortfalls have forced agencies to serve fewer Oklahomans in need, eliminate programs,  reduce hours of operation to the public, cut payments to private providers, and lay off or furlough employees. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the more contentious skirmishes in the battle over SQ 744 concerns the question of whether, in the absence of a constitutional amendment basing common education funding on a constitutionally-entrenched formula, Oklahoma’s elected officials have neglected K-12 funding.

Supporters of SQ 744 argue that at least in recent years, school funding has not been a top priority of the state’s elected officials. In kicking off the campaign for SQ 744 in 2008, OEA President Becky Felts stated, “If we want better workers, stronger employees, a well-educated workforce, we have to make public education a priority.”  On its website, the Yes on 744 campaign refers to the need to “re-prioritize public education.”  Recently, Oklahoma Teacher of the Year Heather Sparks wrote:

In the spirit of full and vigorous debate on state policy issues, OK Policy is pleased to post this guest blog by Michelle Cantrell challenging our position on State Question 744.  Michelle is the mother of three boys in the public school system, and a frequent volunteer at school.  She also volunteers for various other organizations, including the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

As a strong supporter of State Question 744, I would like to respond to the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s arguments against, and argue for, the proposal.

• State Question 744 will improve the overall economic health of the state, resulting in more revenue for all budget areas.

Increasingly, when looking to relocate, companies consider quality of life issues, including the public education system. When Oklahoma is competing with surrounding states to attract businesses, ranking dead last in school expenditures is a huge strike against us.  According to the Economic Policy Institute, there is a direct correlation between spending on primary and secondary schools and the business climate, and increased spending can increase property values.  Investing in education “is the best way to achieve faster growth, more jobs, greater productivity, and more widely shared prosperity.”

Failing to provide appropriate spending for education can cost our state more in other areas.  An OECD report summarizing studies of non-economic benefits of education states that education results in better overall health and greater life expectancy.  Further, parents with more education have children with higher cognitive development and higher future earnings.  People with more education are more likely to save money and make better consumer choices, and are less likely to rely on public assistance even when they are entitled to that assistance.  They also are less likely to engage in criminal activity.   Increased spending can lead to reduced student drop out rates, which ultimately increases lifetime wages.  The amount of lost income from a student who drops out is staggering—the loss of lifetime earnings from students who dropped out in just one year in Oklahoma was almost 4 billion dollars. Thus, inadequately funding schools could ultimately result in higher costs for healthcare, public benefits, law-enforcement, and prisons.  Short-changing schools is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Read the rest of this entry »

Oklahoma voters have the great good fortune this November to decide the fate of no less than 11 proposed constitutional amendments on matters ranging from education funding and health care reform to judicial nominations and (we kid you not) Sharia law. For the confused voter – which means you, me and everyone else – here are some resources on the ballot measures that may be helpful in understanding these issues and making informed decisions. We will keep the State Ballot Question page of our website updated as additional information and resources become available.

OVERVIEWS

The State Election Board has compiled all eleven state questions into a single PDF document.

These websites provide helpful overviews of all the measures on November’s ballot:

• The Secretary of State lists each proposed state question, along with the short title that will appear on the ballot. You may also view the full text of the document by selecting the corresponding Adobe PDF icon.
• Ballotpedia provides a list of the questions and links to additional information on each one.

INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS

For each question, we link to the Ballotpedia article and full text of the measure from the Secretary of State’s website. Where available, we’ve identified selected additional information and analysis, including pieces we have published and analysis by two journalists – Wayne Greene, an editor of the Tulsa World, and Patrick McGuigan, editor of CapitolBeatOK.com – who have published columns on several ballot measures.

State Question 744: Amount of money the State provide common schools

• Full text
• Yes on SQ 744 website
• One Oklahoma Coalition (anti-744) website
• Oklahoma Policy Institute’s issue brief and fact sheet opposing SQ 744
• Kurt Hochenauer op-ed supporting SQ 744 Read the rest of this entry »

My decision to take vacation over the final week of July and first week of August allowed me to avoid not only some of the worst of the summer heat wave here in Oklahoma but also much of the heated controversy that followed the release of OK Policy’s issue brief on State Question 744, the ballot measure that would peg education funding in Oklahoma to per pupil expenditures in neighboring states. We set out four main arguments that have led us to take a position opposing the measure, the most compelling of which is the strong likelihood that mandating an estimated $1.7 billion increase in funding for common education over three years without a new revenue source would set the state even  further behind in our other areas of public investment that all Oklahomans, including our schoolchildren and teachers, depend on.

Our position was strongly praised by the Oklahoman in a written editorial and this video editorial by editor Ed Kelly (you’ll first get a short commercial for an investment company):

Read the rest of this entry »

Today, Oklahoma Policy Institute released an issue brief exploring State Question 744, the proposal that will appear on the November ballot that would peg Oklahoma’s education spending to the regional average per pupil expenditure in six neighboring states. On our website you can read the full issue brief or a one-page summary; you’ll also find links to the  language of the ballot measure and to the websites of the pro- and anti-SQ 744 coalitions. Here is the press release that we put out explaining why we believe SQ 744 to be the wrong solution for Oklahoma:

State Question 744, the proposed constitutional amendment that would peg the annual education budget in Oklahoma to funding levels in six neighboring states, is the wrong solution to a real problem, according to a new issue brief from Oklahoma Policy Institute.

“We know that education funding in Oklahoma has failed to keep pace,” said David Blatt, OK Policy’s Director and the report’s author. “However, the challenges faced by common education in Oklahoma are shared across the broad spectrum of state government. By mandating huge spending increases for common education without an overall expansion of state revenues, SQ 744 creates the strong likelihood of setting the state further behind in all our other critical areas of public investment, including higher education, health care, human services, and public safety. This outcome would harm all Oklahomans, including our schoolchildren and teachers.” Read the rest of this entry »

The House of Representatives Appropriation and Budget Committee recently held hearings on an interim study of State Question 744. State Question 744, also known as the HOPE petition, is an initiative sponsored by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) that would require the state to fund education at the regional average of per-pupil spending. Reps. Leslie Osborn and Randy McDaniel asked for the interim study to explore the impact of the initiative on the state’s finances. Read the rest of this entry »