Education

(How could the so-called “Obama effect” influence Oklahoma’s 2010 elections? Read DocHoc’s commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette, the state’s finest alternative newspaper.)

Looming, “devastating” financial cuts in education is yet another reason the Oklahoma Legislature should meet in a special session to craft a new budget strategy for this fiscal year and to tap into the state’s $600 million Rainy Day Fund.

On Thursday, the State Board of Education learned that an important source of funding for public education—the revolving 1017 fund, which accounts for more than 25 percent of all school funding—is almost empty of reserves, according to the Tulsa World.

Overall, state revenues are in a serious decline, coming in way below estimates for the first quarter of this year. State leaders expect tax revenues will continue to slide. Most state agencies are now experiencing a five percent or more budget cut on a monthly basis. This has affected many state programs. For example, the state’s senior nutrition program, funded through the Department of Human Services, has experienced a $7.4 million cut.

According to the World, State Superintendent Sandy Garrett had this to say about potential cuts in education:

Our concerns are: If the general fund revenue is being reduced by 5 percent each month and we potentially have another reduction, we think that will be devastating to our schools. We just ask them (local school boards) to look very carefully at their budgets and try to protect that teacher in the classroom. But when it's that much of their budget, that's hard to do.

It’s vitally important, as Garrett suggested, to ensure teaching positions are not cut during this financial downturn. Teacher layoffs, if widespread, would obviously hurt student-learning outcomes. School children would lose out. Oklahoma already has underfunded schools, which has helped create low college graduation rates here. More cuts would be absolutely devastating. That’s not hyperbole

As I wrote in my previous post, the Oklahoma Legislature could meet in a short special session to deal with anticipated revenue declines, protecting, as much as possible, education, health programs and social services from deep cuts. State leaders could craft a new budget strategy for this year, taking a proactive rather than reactionary stance. The legislature could also use some of the state’s Rainy Day Fund to help shore up the finances of vital institutions, such as the state schools. As it stands now, the legislature will not meet until February.

Declining energy production tax revenues and recent tax cuts passed by the legislature that primarily benefited the state’s wealthiest citizens have created a real budget crisis for the state. Obviously, tax hikes are out of the question in Oklahoma because of its conservative politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, but at the very least state leaders could come up with a more specific and targeted plan to meet the current crisis.

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.

Many Oklahoma college students will get a break on tuition this coming school year, but student loan debt continues to be a problem.

Those colleges, which have announced they are freezing tuition for this coming school year, include the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, the University of Central Oklahoma, Southwestern State University, Northwestern State University, Oklahoma City Community College and Langston University.

The freeze comes after consistent tuition hikes over the last few years. Those students who have been in college the last four or five years have been hit especially hard. Higher education administrators recognized the problem and gave students a break. The recession had to be a contributing factor as well. Higher education was given a slight increase in funding this coming fiscal year because of federal stimulus money.

But Oklahoma colleges will probably need to raise tuition the following year unless the state appropriates more money for higher education. This seems unlikely given declining state revenues in recent months.

Another issue facing a new generation of students is student loan debt. Neal P. McClusky, who works for the Cato Institute, writes in The York Times:

According to inflation-adjusted College Board data, in the 1990-91 school year the average, full-time-equivalent undergraduate received $2,640 in grant aid and $1,548 in inexpensive federal loans. By 2007-08, the former had risen to $4,656 and the latter to $3,650.

As the cost of college goes up, so do the loan amounts. It’s not uncommon for students to graduate with $30,000 or more of loan debt. These former students then face financial security issues unless they go into a high-paying profession.

There has to be a solution to this problem. How can the culture make college affordable for everyone, not just the rich, and prevent students from assuming staggering debt?

Amy Benfer, writing in Salon.com, frames the issue this way:

…Everyone benefits when the population of a university, especially the best ones in the nation, are made up of the kids who are there because they earned their place based on their own work, not the education or income of their parents. This is democracy 101, folks. You'd think that the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps conservatives would be the first ones to concede that giving smart kids the means to join the educated class is the swiftest route out of poverty. What's more, universities are the place where, hopefully, future politicians, lawyers, writers, activists, judges, journalists, social workers and everyone else who will grow up to be in a position to make policy and interpret culture for everyone else learn the way the world works. And it sure as hell helps the discussion in any poly-sci or literature or American studies class if you have members of the group in question right there next to you, debating as your equal.