Bond Issue and SB 2100

$500 Million Bond Jeopardizes Education

Common Education leaders are concerned the bond proposal being discussed will create debt for Oklahoma and jeopardize already cash-strapped state agencies. Tax cuts have already eroded our infrastructure. If the bond is passed, it would:

*Require the bond debt to be paid out of the state general revenue fund starting next year.

*Result in less money and further cuts for education and other state agencies that vitally depend on funds from the state general revenue.

Voice your opposition against the bond.

SB 2100 Still Looms

School Districts already have the right to deregulate. This law is not needed. Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions.

SB 2100 was passed by the house and the senate. Our best chance to preserve teachers' rights and working conditions is to send the bill to conference. This legislation session is scheduled to end May 23rd. We have two more weeks to keep a watchful eye on this dangerous bill. If the bill is sent to conference, our lobbyists can discuss important changes to protect your rights.

TELL YOUR LOCAL SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS AND SEND THE BILL TO CONFERENCE!

SB 2100 would allow school districts to:
Not follow all state regulations, only a select few.
Eliminate contract negotiations.
Reduce standards for teacher certification.
Eliminate due process.

Contatct your legislators at http://capwiz.com/nea/ok/state/main/?state=OK.

School Choice Series

SCHOOL CHOICE SERIES PAINTS MIXED PICTURE
Series of 10 policy briefs looks at research evidence on school reform

While advocates of school choice offer it as the key to school reform and opponents warn of its consequences, a close examination of research on the topic finds a decidedly mixed picture of the benefits and shortcomings of school choice.

School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations, a collection of 10 policy briefs on specific topics related to choice, brings together some of the top scholars in the field and presents a comprehensive overview of the best current knowledge available. Together, the briefs offer reason to believe that school choice can further some educational goals, but they also offer many reasons for caution.

The series, funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, is edited by Gary Miron, Kevin G. Welner, Patricia H. Hinchey, and Alex Molnar.

“School choice is a reform ideal that consistently has been debated and contested,” according to lead editor, Gary Miron. “This contentious debate arises, in part, because choice means so many different things to different people. But the debate often overlooks the diversity within the broad realm of school choice and the differences in how specific types of school choice are legislated and implemented.”

Miron says that a “key aim of School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations is to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of school choice.”

Indeed the expected outcomes of choice—usually presented as improved student achievement and instructional innovation as competition spurs all schools to do a better job of educating students—have thus far not been borne out on a large scale. Each of the 10 briefs that make up School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations zeroes in on particular aspects of choice and offers research and policy-making recommendations:

In Negotiating Public and Private: Philosophical Frameworks for School Choice, Terri Wilson examines the underlying philosophical assumptions that undergird choice proposals, including varying and sometimes conflicting understandings of public and private realms of action.

In How Legislation and Litigation Shape School Choice, Julie Mead traces the history of battles in the courts and the legislature over choice proposals, including legal rulings on school segregation that helped set the stage for some of the early public school choice measures, offered as tools for school integration.

The Impact of Advocacy Funding on the School Choice Debate, by Wendy C. Chi, documents the spending of ideologically based donors who fund communication and political action for and against choice policies.

School Choice and Accountability, by Gregg Garn and Casey Cobb, find evidence that undermines the common assumption that choice programs are by their nature more accountable to families or communities than traditional public schools.

In Funding Formulas, School Choice, and Inherent Incentives, Clive Belfield reviews the way particular approaches to paying for choice programs can influence their outcomes.

Teacher Qualifications and Work Environments Across School Types, Marisa Cannata presents original research that compares the qualifications and working conditions of teachers in various school settings.

Educational Innovation and Diversification in School Choice Plans, by Chris Lubienksi, examines and critiques the oft-held belief that choice schools will drive innovation.

School Choice and Segregation by Race, Class, and Achievement, by Roslyn Mickelson, Stephanie Southworth, and Martha Bottia, points to ways in which choice programs may be increasing segregation and stratification among schoolchildren rather than expanding diversity, more than 50 years after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school segregation.

In The Competitive Effect of School Choice Policies on Performance in Traditional Public Schools, David Arsen and Yongmei Ni test—and find little current evidence for—the claim of school choice advocates that choice plans will also spur improvement in traditional public schools.

Finally, in The Impact of School Choice Reforms on Student Achievement, Gary Miron, Stephanie Evergreen, and Jessica Urschel review evidence for and against claims that schools of choice inherently contribute to greater achievement by students.

Standstill Budget & Bonds

Representatives of CCOSA, USSBA, USSA, OROS and the OEA held a press conference (1) to state our opposition to bond proposals and the impact they would have on the state's general revenue fund.

The state’s $7.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2009 is a standstill budget and has virtually no increased funding for schools or other state agencies. The state arrived at the standstill budget because of $560 million in tax cuts over the past couple of years.

Legislators are contemplating the use of a bond issue that will allow the state to sell bonds for specific projects, and pay off the bonds with state general revenue beginning next year.

The proposed bond issue is thought to have highway money, Higher Education Endowed chairs, Native American Culture Center, and a laundry list of legislator requests.

The contemplated projects are all worthy projects which deserve funding from the general appropriations process but this is bad economic policy. The state of Oklahoma will be buying on credit and the Governor and legislative leaders have already told us next year could be worse than this year.

We are in this mess because of tax cuts ($560M with potential to reach $800m-$1B) that could have funded our vital state services and education's needs including money for operations and getting teachers to the regional average in salary.

It's time for responsible members of the Oklahoma House and Senate to step up to the plate and put an end to this issue.

The following is the press release:

Education advocates said the FY 2009 $7 billion balanced budget may not be balanced at all. Despite the Oklahoma law requiring a balanced budget, lawmakers are deciding to borrow money in the form of bonds.

“We are simply buying on credit and leaving Oklahoma’s children to foot the bill,” said Dr. Randal Raburn, Executive Director of the Cooperative Council of School Administrators.

If the proposal is passed, a bond package of at least $500 million dollars would be borrowed with the promise of paying back the money from future state general revenue funds.

“We are not opposed to all bonds,” said Perry Willis, Executive Director of the Organization of Rural Oklahoma Schools. “It is one thing to pay them off with already designated money and quite another if they intend to use future general fund revenues that could be going to education.”

Oklahoma already ranks 48th in per pupil expenditures. With increases in fuel and other operations costs and no new money coming to schools, school districts are feeling the pinch. Over the last three years, schools operations funding have been short an average of $29 million, according to the Oklahoma State Department of Education.

“We are mortgaging our future with this type of deficit spending. This is clearly the negative impact of the $560 million dollar tax cuts,” said Roy Bishop, Oklahoma Education Association President.

A record student enrollment of 641,000 this year, nearly a 3,000 increase, and a fast-changing population challenged by poverty and language barriers require a commitment from our legislators to fully-fund education and protect its revenue sources.

Send SB2100 to Conference

SB 2100 was passed by the house and the senate. Our best chance to preserve teachers' rights and working conditions is to send the bill to conference. If the bill is sent to conference, our lobbyists can discuss important changes to protect your rights. Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions.

TELL YOUR LOCAL SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS AND SEND THE BILL TO CONFERENCE!

SB 2100 would allow school districts to:
Not follow all state regulations, only a select few.
Eliminate contract negotiations.
Reduce standards for teacher certification.
Eliminate due process.

What is conference?Before a bill can become law, it is voted on by both the house and the senate. Amendments can be made to the bill, and then the bill is sent back to the house of origin. Senate bills are sent back to the senate and house bills are sent back to the house. The house of origin can vote to accept or reject the amendments. If the house of origin rejects the amendments, the bill is then sent to conference. The bill is discussed further in conference and voted on again by both the house and the senate before it goes to the governor to be signed into law or vetoed.

THANK YOU!!!

OEA's legislative and political organizing (LPO) staff would like to thank you for your contributions to the Fund for Children and Public Education. We raised more than $40,000 over Delegate Assembly weekend to support Friends of Education.
Don't forget!Call your Legislators today.
http://capwiz.com/nea/ok/state/main/?state=OK

On Paying Teachers

Thank you Ken.

A sad Oklahoma story

By KEN NEAL Senior Editor 5/4/2008

State is mired in the past on teachers' salaries

The Sand Springs Education Foundation recently honored a "hometown boy" for his outstanding record as a football coach and educator.

He was a fellow with whom I started first grade. He and I finished high school at Sand Springs in 1953. I am leaving his name out because he would be embarrassed for me to tell this story.

But it is Oklahoma that should be embarrassed because his experience tells us a lot about what has been and still is wrong with the state's education system.

Our man attended college in a Midwestern state, played football there and obtained a degree in mathematics.

Upon graduation from college, he began looking for teaching opportunities. He wanted to return to Sand Springs to coach football and teach math.

But, then as now, Oklahoma was not the land of opportunity for teachers.

In fact, the state had just refused to raise teachers' salaries.

So our man answered an advertisement seeking teachers in a far-off northern state. He got a job in a small city, coached there for a few years and then became head coach in a suburb of a northern metropolis.

He coached there for 20 years, won his league's championship 15 times and was runner-up the other five years.

He was coach of the year several times in a large state and was honored by his coaching colleagues many times. He was so revered in his city that when the high school built a new stadium it was named for him.

He compiled a record of 161 wins and only 31 losses as a head coach. He retired early in 1986 to allow his trusted assistant to move up, but continued to teach for another five years.

He had a remarkable career. The sad part is that he could have had that career in Oklahoma. It's even sadder that he tried to do that, but could not justify returning home to work for far less money than he could make elsewhere.

That has been -- and still is -- the story of Oklahoma. We won't pay teachers salaries that make the state competitive. For that matter, we don't pay prison guards, welfare employees, judges and attorneys or just about any state worker what they could earn in other states.

We have had Legislature after Legislature that expects teachers and state employees to work for less than elsewhere, presumably because they are willing to sacrifice their families' welfare for the privilege of living in our great state. Lovely as it is, it is not that great.

Even now our Legislature has broken its word to teachers. Three years ago, lawmakers resolved to raise their salaries to the regional average. This year schools needed $64.9 million to do this, but the lawmakers failed to appropriate a dime for the raises.

The reason? The Legislature for the past two years has cut taxes, claiming the cuts would boom the economy. Of course, that is what George H.W. Bush called "Voodoo economics." The only thing that has kept Oklahoma spending from sinking even lower than it has is the soaring price of crude oil. The state gets 7 percent of the gross sales and a booming oil industry means more income tax revenue and bigger and bigger royalty checks.

Even with this oil windfall, the state's income has not met expectations. Lawmakers wring their hands and cry over no new money and a "steady state" or level budget. This, from the guys who engineered this state of affairs with their irresponsible tax policy.

For schools and other state agencies this "steady state" budget means sharp cuts, because all costs, particularly transportation costs, are higher than last year. In some school districts, teachers will be fired in order to pay those higher costs.

Lawmakers have convinced themselves and the people, that taxes in Oklahoma are too high and that government is spending too much money.

The facts are that Oklahomans are taxed at a level lower than most of the states and spending on education, highways, corrections and other services is less than almost any state.

But what of our Sand Springs boy who was forced to spend a highly productive career in another state?

He did well. He influenced hundreds of high school football players in a positive way. He taught hundreds of students to be mathematicians. He obviously influenced generations of people in his adopted hometown, far from Oklahoma.

But Oklahoma suffered. It reared this man; it educated him; it inspired him to be a coach and a teacher; it set him on his way in life, only to let him down when it came time to provide him a job.

Oklahoma was the loser in this transaction.

One wonders how many times this sad little story has been repeated in the past 30 years. How many of our best and brightest have we lost to other states because of our short-sightedness in paying teachers and others?

How many Oklahoma students have been deprived of being led by a man like our honoree at Sand Springs because of legislative stupidity (sorry, there's hardly another word for it).

The lawmakers even now are heading toward adjournment without making substantive progress on necessary services like public schools, highways, and corrections.

They never learn. It has been 50 years since our man struck out to teach and little has changed with Oklahoma education.

We are mired in the past.

Flawed Research:School Choice

School Choice Report Card Earns Poor Grades

EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 29, 2008)—Choice and Education across the States, a new report from the Heartland Institute, gives letter grades to states based on the extensiveness of their school choice systems. A review of the report for the Think Twice project concludes that it offers little or no useful information for policy makers.

Wendy Chi, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado at Boulder, reviewed the report, which was written by Michael Van Winkle and released on April 17th by Heartland, whose stated mission is to “promote free-market solutions” that include “parental choice in education.”
The report, according to Chi, does little more than offer policy makers the argument that states should increase school choice, dressed up with a letter grade for each state.

Chi did praise the report for its clearly stated grading system, whereby states with more school choice options and fewer restrictions in choice programs got higher grades. But she criticized the report on several grounds. She noted that the basis for awarding grades was merely the “values and beliefs of the Heartland author.”

Chi finds that the report’s grading criteria “make no attempt to determine how states are employing the different types of school choice, nor do they attempt to assess the quality or results of those choice programs.” As a result, “a state with little demand for school choice would be awarded a better grade by the Heartland standard if it adopted poorly functioning, underfunded, ill-received choice programs that resulted in lower student performance.”

Finally, Chi criticizes the report’s assertion that an increase in school choice will strengthen accountability and improve student achievement. She explains that the author’s belief is not supported by empirical research. More generally, she notes that the report offers very little in the way of objective data to support its advocacy. Many of its claims are “unsupported assertions, offered without citations,” she writes.

In the end, the state legislators who are the intended audience for the Heartland report are likely to learn little of substance from it, other than the extent that the state offers school choice. As a result, she concludes, “it would seem the report is of use only as an advocacy document.”

Find the complete review by Wendy Chi as well as a link to the Heartland Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.

Press Release on Standstill Budget

While their are some that think additional money is a surplus, the truth of the matter is it's called growth money and it funds our roads and bridges, corrections, schools, and other vital services the citizens of Oklahoma need.

Our press release follows and there are others (Tulsa World) that address the tax cuts too.

Standstill Budget Direct Result of Tax Cuts

Educators statewide said the “standstill budget” agreed upon by lawmakers Wednesday is a direct result of tax cuts. Most state agencies will not get an increase despite rising operational costs.

“Tax cuts are the reason we have this mess. We would have had enough money to invest in our schools, roads and bridges and other vital state agencies if our legislators hadn’t enacted $560 million worth the tax cuts,” said Roy Bishop, Oklahoma Education Association President.

Education leaders are not sure the budget is even at a standstill.

“Despite stable economic growth in Oklahoma, the legislature has $114 million less to spend this year and who knows what will happen this coming year,” Bishop said.

Bishop said legislators promised to increase teacher salaries to the regional average and now they say there simply isn’t enough money.

“They failed to keep the promise they made to teachers and the citizens of Oklahoma,” said Jill Dudley, Moore Association of Classroom Teachers President. “We will see quality, experienced educators leave the profession.”

Some say a standstill budget would be palatable if all of the other expenses were standing still. The price of everything from fuel to a dozen eggs is increasing while our state revenue is decreasing.

Education leaders fear the worst is yet to come.

If the permanent tax cuts enacted a few years ago continue, lawmakers can expect $215 million more in lost revenue over the next two years.

“Investing in education would have grown the economy more than the tax cuts will,” Bishop said.

SB 2093

Isn't it sad that some want to be seen as doing so much for children and schools except for properly funding them.

SB 2100

This oped piece shares some of our concerns regarding SB 2100 and Charter Schools. While proponents of the bill will tell you it's only a deregulation bill, it falls under Oklahoma's charter school law and is the next step down a slipperly slope.

Deregualtion already exists in Oklahoma law so why do we need a new deregualtion law. Supporters either don't know the law or are purposely misleading others in trying to get support for the bill.

The piece and reactions to it can be found in the Oklahoman.

Charter schools aren't panacea

A great deal has been made about SB 2100 and charter schools as being the panacea for “all that ails public schools” because so much is “going wrong”. It is always important to do what is in the best interest of the students. Before we pass this bill and turn our public schools into charter schools, it’s important to look at the success of charter schools.

Currently, charters have provided, at best, mixed results. Although there are some charter schools that appear to be achieving great results, research has consistently shown that, on average, traditional public schools outperform charter schools.

An analysis by the National Assessment Governing Board on 2003 NAEP data showed that traditional public schools outperform charter school students on almost every measure. Plus, there are no measurable differences between students in the same racial/ethnic background in charter schools compared to traditional public schools.

The data also showed that the scores of students taught by uncertified teachers in charter schools were significantly lower than those of charter school students with certified teachers, and charter school students with inexperienced teachers did significantly worse than students in traditional public schools with less experienced teachers. These points are significant because charter school students are more likely to be taught by inexperienced and uncertified teachers than students in traditional public schools.

Even the Charter School Leadership Council, now known as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, has their own commissioned research that shows that traditional public schools generally outperform charter school students on state tests.

When the Department of Education took a closer look at the data in a report released in August 2006, they found that after adjusting for multiple student characteristics like ethnicity, those on free and reduced lunch, and IEP’s for example, the average charter school score in reading was more than 4 points lower than the average traditional public school’s score. In math, after adjusting for student characteristics, the average traditional public school outscored the average charter school by 4.7 points.

Increasingly, states find that it becomes more and more difficult to monitor charter schools creating an additional bureaucracy the public doesn’t want and can’t afford. The accountability is neither cheap nor easy. Problems persist in a number of states including Arizona, California, Florida and Colorado. The expense is in the millions of dollars as fraud, low performance and violation of applicable state law are rampant.

Oklahomans support our traditional public schools and they know our leaders have consistently underfunded them. They’ve asked our elected officials to do what is right--- properly fund our schools. The problems associated with our schools are a lack of a long term commitment to our kids, schools and teachers. Unfortunately, it is easier come up with “new ideas” and “pilot projects” that waste taxpayer money than it is to be a leader and statesman and support our schools the way the public wants---by funding them properly.

OEA Lobby Day & others at the Capitol

Yesterday's lobby day was a tremendous success. The OEA had 125 teachers and support professionals from all regions of the state to address the funding issues and bills that we believe are dismantling education.

The funding issue is critical. There is a $32M shortfall from the 1017 fund that superintendents have tried to address in the form of supplemental funding (Tulsa World Editorial) as Oklahoma finds out where it ranks in comparison to other states in per pupil spending.

SJR 59 will create a $25M shortfall for education. While it was addressed by a number of people in education, including Coalition-Chair Pat McGregor's op-ed piece, perhaps the most interesting came from a group of students from Fletcher. As part of a class project, the kids came to the Capitol to lobby and then held a press conference about their experience.

OEA members also addressed their opposition SB 2100 which would create Charter School Districts and SB 2093 which would establish a voucher program in our state.