Education

(Can Oklahoma meet the sustainability challenge it will face in coming years? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in Oklahoma City's finest alternative publication, the Oklahoma Gazette.)

The failed neoconservative movement has left horrible legacies for future generations, from a rising federal budget deficit to a loss of American prestige and security throughout the world to a health care system that fails to provide adequate medical care for millions and millions of Americans.

Thanks to the Republican Party and Imperial President George Bush, Americans work more for less and have diminished opportunities in life. We have lost basic respect among our traditional allies, and we are engaged in a prolonged military occupation that has divided the country and cost billions of dollars.

The richest people in our culture have seen their incomes and political power rise in record, mind-boggling proportions, but the rest of us remain without a voice, too busy and, for some, too scared to speak out against the social injustice that frames the neoconservative philosophy.

But the neoconservative assault on higher education is perhaps the most wretched legacy. This assault reveals itself most clearly in the astronomical increase of college tuition in recent years, especially in states like Oklahoma, which has been cutting the taxes of the ultra-rich and making it more difficult for middle-class students to go to college. It is the most wretched legacy because it both denies people a chance of obtaining their dreams and it marginalizes—through the stigma of debt—a sizeable portion of college graduates.

According to Americans United for Change, “Tuition is rising. At four-year public colleges and universities, tuition skyrocketed by 40 percent between 2001 and 2006. The typical student leaves college today with $17,500 in debt.”

This has been the neoconservative formula for disaster: State legislatures cut taxes for rich people under the neoconservative rubric. As a result, universities receive less or stagnant funding. Universities must then raise tuition. Middle-class students then delay college, work multiple jobs as they attend school or borrow money from a broken and, some argue, corrupt system that rewards predatory loan companies.

I published an article about this issue on a more local level recently in the Oklahoma Gazette.

This post, though, is about the larger ramifications of the assault on higher education. How can any rational person not think that the neoconservative philosophy is to make it more difficult to go to college and to marginalize many of those people who do go to college by saddling them with a debt so massive they can never truly get ahead financially in life?

Yet all the surveys and election results show the neoconservative agenda has lost support. Michael Lind, writing in Salon.com, argues the country is poised to enter a neo-Rooseveltian era. Lind writes, “The public wants the middle-class welfare state to be rounded out by a few major additions -- chiefly, healthcare and childcare -- and the public also wants the government to grow the economy by investing in public works and favoring companies that locate their production facilities inside the U.S. There, in a sentence, is a program for a neo-Rooseveltian party that could effect an epochal realignment in American politics.” Make no mistake about it. This new era will most certainly privilege education at all levels.

The issue of basic accessibility to higher education has become so apparent that even Washington has gotten involved. Congress recently passed a bill that would make tuition increases more transparent. Watch for more legislation making college more accessible on both the federal and state level.

Over the last several years, Oklahoma universities have been raising tuition almost annually. The average tuition increase this year was nearly 10 percent. Those students who started college in the last few years have been getting hit hard with rising tuition and now increased living costs. How do they make it? Sure, the students of wealthy, dedicated parents have no problem going to college, but what about the majority of students?

Oklahoma has one of the lowest per capita income rates in the nation, but you will never hear the neoconservatives here talk about that issue when they are cutting taxes for rich people.

What happens to a culture that refuses to invest in education and, instead, shifts more and more wealth to a miniscule number of people who then use their money to consolidate their tyrannical political power? It is time for a major correction in this country. Will Oklahoma correct its error as well?

All Oklahomans, including political, corporate and education leaders, should get behind an initiative petition drive that could increase Oklahoma school funding to the regional statewide average.

The HOPE ballot initiative, which was recently approved by members of the Oklahoma Education Association, is seeking to place a constitutional amendment about school funding before Oklahoma voters through an initiative petition drive. The proposed amendment, if it makes it on the ballot, would simply require the state to fund education at least at the regional average on a per student basis. HOPE stands for “Helping Oklahoma Public Education.”

Petition circulators should begin collecting signatures in August.

“Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico have an average investment of $8,300 per pupil, while Oklahoma provides funding of $6,900 per-pupil,” according to a recent OEA press release posted on its Web site. “The initiative petition would increase the amount of annual funding for public education by approximately $850 million which would allow for enhanced educational services for all students in Oklahoma public schools.” (Here is an excellent article by Doug Folks about the initiative. The article is on page 4 of the pdf file.)

Oklahoma is ranked 48th in the nation in per student funding. Oklahoma teacher salaries also consistently rank in the bottom nationally.

“We owe it to our children to provide them with an educational opportunity that is at least average compared to the rest of the states in our region,” said OEA President Roy Bishop. “We offer our support to the petition and call on all Oklahomans to fight for a better future for our children and for our state as a whole.”

Bishop’s comments are basic common sense, but the ballot initiative is sure to draw opposition from some politicians and the corporate media, especially The Oklahoman.

The constitutional amendment is needed in Oklahoma because of the state’s poor historical record in providing adequate funding for education. In addition, recent tax cuts—spurred on by neoconservative ideology—have brought the state’s budget to a standstill. (The state’s wealthiest taxpayers benefited the most from these tax cuts.)

Extremely low educational funding and a declining tax base are not good for the state’s quality of life and hamper economic development. These issues affect people in all income groups.

(Will Oklahoma escape the major economic downturn affecting other parts of the country right now? If not, how should the state government respond to reduced revenues and stagnant or shortfall budgets? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette.)

(Again, Okie Funk dedicates Steve Earle's song "City of Immigrants" to state Rep. Randy Terrill. Click on the link and turn up the speakers.)

(Update: The Oklahoma Senate voted Thursday to cut off consideration of amendments, and this stopped the latest effort to revive the "Carry On Campus" gun bill as described in the below post. But will there be more attempts in the future to pass the legislation?)

A legislative proposal that would allow college students to carry concealed weapons in classrooms is still alive despite overwhelming opposition from higher education administrators and faculty.

The disparity in opinion between those Oklahoma legislators who want to arm students and those in higher education who want to keep guns off college campuses defines the declining political health in this state. When lawmakers stop listening to reasonable arguments from its top public educators, then it is way past time for all the state’s educators to get more directly involved in the political process.

The gun legislation was initially advanced by state Rep. Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie), pictured right, who introduced a bill, dubbed “Carry On Campus,” that would allow specifically trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on college campus. (Murphey is also a self-proclaimed strong supporter of controversial state Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), whose recent insensitive remarks about gay people made national news.) His argument has been that armed students and faculty might be able to prevent shooting incidents like the recent episode at Virginia Tech University. The bill, supported by the National Rife Association and its Oklahoma affiliate, passed the House by a wide margin and went to the Senate. A Senate committee then refused to hear the bill, and the measure was unofficially declared dead.

But under Oklahoma Legislature rules, bills can be amended to include the language of other bills. This is a common practice. Consequently, state Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-Moore) has filed an amendment including the gun proposal on House Bill 2606, which is actually legislation dealing with peeping Toms, according to media reports. Fortunately, the Oklahoma Senate voted Thursday to cut off consideration of amendments. This stops the latest effort to revive the "Carry On Campus" gun bill. Will there be more attempts to get the legislation passed?

All of the state’s college presidents, including University of Oklahoma President David Boren, Oklahoma State University President Burns Hargis and University of Central Oklahoma President Roger Webb, have come out publicly against the bill. Most faculty organizations oppose the bill as well. Their argument is that allowing guns on campus could actually increase the risk of shooting incidents, inhibit faculty and student recruitment and obviously disrupt learning environments.

Here are some questions to consider: Would the bill create armed campus vigilantes, who self-designate themselves as members of a quasi-law enforcement group? What if an armed student misread classroom events and started firing for no reason? Would you want your child sitting next to an armed student, who was emotionally distraught on any given day?

Gov. Brad Henry should veto the legislation if it makes it through, but a greater need is for college educators at all levels to become more directly involved in the political process here. For too long, the neoconservatives have advanced their agenda here in Oklahoma with little dissent or even tacit approval from some in higher education. Now the state has become a junkyard for dead, conservative ideologies. Do you think the gun bill is bad? Do you think the neoconservatives will stop here? What type of legislation will they come up with next year and the year after that? It is time for change. Get involved.