State Question 744 is a citizen initiated constitutional amendment. If it is approved by voters it will require that the Oklahoma Legislature fund public schools at a minimum of the per-pupil average of neighboring states. A yes vote approves the constitutional funding change, a no vote rejects it.
Yes on SQ 744: Waiting on a response from YES on 744
No on SQ 744: State Question 744 supporters will say that Oklahoma needs to spend more money on education but what they fail to tell you is that it will come at the expense of every other function of state government from roads to prisons to colleges and universities.
SQ 744 cannot be paid for by simple growth in revenues and new taxes are not likely to be passed by either the legislature or a vote of the people. That means the $850-million additional dollars that would have to go into Common Education would come out of all other state agencies.
Such a cut would mean a 20% cut for every agency above the cuts already being made because of budget shortfalls. The Department of Corrections says it would have to close at least 8 prisons and let 8,400 prisoners out early – and Oklahoma doesn’t even have that many minimum-security prisoners in the state! ODOT’s eight-year construction plan would be stalled and 197 bridges would not be built or replaced. Higher Education would have to raise tuitions, reduce scholarships, layoff faculty and staff and eliminate some course offerings.
Governor Brad Henry, whose wife is a teacher, opposes SQ 744. So do the four major party candidates running to be Oklahoma’s next governor. Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate are opposed to SQ 744 because it takes Oklahoma’s spending out of their hands and puts it into those of legislators in surrounding states. Look at the fine print: if the regional average goes up, Oklahoma has to spend more on education but if the regional average goes down, Oklahoma’s must remain the same!
Not only does SQ 744 not have a funding source, there are no guidelines for how districts will spend the additional dollars. The money is not earmarked for teacher raises or better technology in schools. A district could give salary increases to every administrator with the extra cash, leaving classroom needs unattended.
In Kansas, where a court ordered the state to spend more on education, the state’s budget doubled, its legislature had to pass the largest tax increase in state history and there has been no noticeable improvement in student achievement since then. The solution to improving Oklahoma’s schools is not simply throwing more money at the problem – especially when that money comes at the expense of all other governmental functions.
Oklahoma already spends 50-cents out of every tax dollar on education. Taxpayers deserve to have transparency in current spending so they know that the money is being used properly before they’re asked to give more.