Oklahoma Near Bottom Again In Per Pupil Spending

The corporate media here can go on and on about the low cost of living in Oklahoma, but the fact remains the state doesn’t invest enough money in its educational systems.

Case in point: The U.S. Census Bureau issued a report Monday that shows among all states Oklahoma spent the fifth lowest amount of money per pupil at $7,420 during 2006 to 2007. The state only spent more money than Utah, Idaho, Tennessee and Arizona.

The national per pupil spending average is $9,666. This means Oklahoma is $2,246 below just average per pupil funding on a national level.

The report is just one of many such reports over the years that show Oklahoma continues to underfund its schools. Traditionally, those Oklahoma leaders who shrug off these reports point to the state’s low cost of living and say the reports don’t give an accurate or complete picture. It costs less to operate schools here, they argue. The argument is consistently supported and echoed by the editorial writers at The Oklahoman.

But that has become a simplistic, almost ritualistic, argument that doesn’t truly deal with the specifics of school funding. For example, where exactly does Oklahoma save so much money because of its low cost of living compared to, say, Arkansas, which spends $8,284 per pupil, or New Mexico, which spends $8,635 per pupil. How can you make schools better when they are so chronically underfunded compared to national and regional averages?

A wiser, long-term approach to education in the state is to think in terms of providing average funding for state schools and their students.

The Helping Oklahoma Public Education (HOPE) initiative will give Oklahoma voters an opportunity to finally do something about our underfunded schools. If approved, State Question 744 would require the state to raise its per pupil spending to the regional average. The question is expected to be on the ballot in 2010.