Thursday, November 20, 2014
Dr. Ben Carson (pictured above with me and one of my favorite Oklahoma homeschoolers) will be speaking on February 10, 2015, at the 30th annual Capitol Day, which is sponsored each year by the Oklahoma Christian Home Educators Consociation (OCHEC). Learn more here.
This week on Oklahoma City's FOX 25, state Superintendent-elect Joy Hofmeister made the point that it's important for parents to have good information so they can make good decisions about what schools to choose for their children.
What kinds of information exist to help parents make those choices? Fordham Institute president Michael Petrilli yesterday hosted a panel discussion exploring that very question, and Oklahoma's own Damon Gardenhire was one of the panelists:
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
News 9 has the story.
Does Joy Hofmeister favor parental choice in education?
It's hard to say. Certainly the case can be made that she does not. She is, after all, part and parcel of Oklahoma's educational statist quo (and the particularly nettlesome Jenks branch at that). "My commitment, and the reason I actually ran, is I believe there’s an attempt to privatize public schools," she says. So, not exactly Scott Walker stuff.
Nevertheless, she did run as a Republican (that's how one gets elected in Oklahoma), so she is forced to acknowledge and deal with the ramifications of doing so. Her supporters overwhelmingly — and I do mean overwhelmingly — favor parental choice. Thus, Mrs. Hofmeister is on record saying she supports the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program. And the tax-credit scholarship program. And the prospect of Education Savings Accounts.
To her great credit, Mrs. Hofmeister affirms that parents "are the most important person in the life of their students' education," as you can see below in an interview which aired this week on KOKH FOX 25 in Oklahoma City. "It's a parent's responsibility to educate their children."
She's right. Indeed, as Professor Jay Greene has noted, in a free society the government rightly defers to parents when it comes to raising their children. And since education is simply a subcategory of parenting, the government should defer to parents when it comes to educating their children. "The state's role and authority to foster the well-being of children is a subsidiary one," writes Melissa Moschella, an assistant professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America, "meaning that it is secondary to the role of the parents, and serves the function of helping parents in their educational task, not usurping or undermining the parents' educational efforts.
Parents should not be forced, for financial reasons, to send their children to schools in which the values taught conflict with those they want to pass on to their children. An effective voucher or scholarship program of some sort is therefore also a requirement of parental rights.
One doubts that Mrs. Hofmeister would go that far. However, "as a state superintendent, my goal is to be able to stand with parents in supporting their decisions for the best learning environment for their own children," she says in the interview below. And what might those decisions be? Well, a Braun Research survey released this year asked Oklahoma parents what type of school they would select in order to obtain the best education for their children. While 33 percent of Oklahoma parents said they would select a traditional public school, 38 percent said they would choose a private school, 14 percent said home school, and 7 percent said charter school.
"We certainly want to support any kind of choice that works for kids and the best student outcomes," Mrs. Hofmeister says. "That’s what I am for. I have a very open door when it comes to all forms of school choice, but I also think that a focus for the state Department of Education — of public instruction — is to focus attention right now on our neediest of schools and make certain that the school around the corner is also a top choice."
Fair enough. If I'm a GOP politician, but also a Jenks insider and a longtime supporter of the monopoly system, that's pretty much how I'd finesse it. The good news is that the empirical research is clear on one way to fix those neediest of schools. Dr. Greg Forster recently surveyed the empirical research on school choice and found that "23 empirical studies have examined school choice's impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found that choice harms public schools."
I have no doubt that Mrs. Hofmeister wants what is best for children. Here's hoping for a successful 2015 (and beyond) for her and her team.
The Republican party platforms, both nationally and in Oklahoma, place a strong emphasis on parental rights and educational choice. Here's an excerpt from the 2012 national Republican platform:
Parents are responsible for the education of their children. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to education and [we] support providing broad education choices to parents and children ...
Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a personal and cultural identity. That is why education choice has expanded so vigorously. It is also why American education has, for the last several decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America. They have not succeeded, but they have done immense damage. …
School choice — whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits — is important for all children, especially for families with children trapped in failing schools. Getting those youngsters into decent learning environments and helping them to realize their full potential is the greatest civil rights challenge of our time.
A young person’s ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her God-given talent and motivation, not an address, zip code, or economic status.
The Oklahoma Republican Party platform also picks up on this theme of family preeminence:
We believe that the family is the cohesive element that maintains social order and protects individual rights. The duty and privilege of nurturing our young people belongs to parents and the traditional family. We support the sole right and responsibility of parents to rear, educate, discipline, nurture, provide healthcare, and spiritually train their children without government interference.
It is the right and responsibility of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education — whether public, private, charter, or home school — without interference, regulation, or penalty from the government. … [W]e support the creation of a free-market education system. … We believe all parents should be allowed to use their education tax dollars for the family’s choice of schooling.
And it's not just the party platforms. Survey data show that Oklahoma's GOP voters do in fact favor educational choice.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
"The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Education held an interim study Wednesday on ways Oklahoma's school districts can save money," according to The CEO Briefing, a weekly update from Fred Morgan, president and CEO of the State Chamber of Oklahoma.
Heather Kays, education research fellow with the Heartland Institute, said districts can share administrative and capital costs regionally to provide the benefit of scale. She also outlined studies finding school choice achieved educational benefits while spending taxpayer money more efficiently.
Brent Bushey also spoke. He's executive director of the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC), a nonprofit that provides member school districts with programs aimed to stretch funding dollars. Those include financial management, instructor training, technology systems management and legal services.
Senator Kyle Loveless, who requested the interim study, emphasized that even a little wasteful spending by a school district can have a big impact on the budget when multiplied over 500+ school districts. Senator Loveless encouraged more discussion and urged subcommittee members to move forward to find solutions.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
"An education advocacy group has agreed to pay a $10,000 penalty for failing to file reports with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission," the Tulsa World reports ("Stand for Children to pay $10,000 fine for ethics violation").
The group provided funds to support Melissa Abdo of Tulsa in her failed attempt to be elected to the Legislature. Abdo works for Stand for Children Oklahoma as its Tulsa city director. She was hired after her race, [executive director Amber] England said. The group also provided funds to oppose Sen. Josh Brecheen, R-Coalgate, and Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City. Both were re-elected. Brecheen was the Senate author of legislation that repealed Common Core standards. Stand for Children Oklahoma opposed that legislation.
Stand for Children Oklahoma, which is run by a former Democrat operative, favors more government spending on the failed monopoly school system. This should come as no surprise. As I pointed out last year when national activist Jonah Edelman, founder and chief executive officer of Stand for Children, was in Tulsa to announce the launch of Stand for Children Oklahoma:
Unfortunately, liberals have a long history of spending money — "for the children," of course — on ineffective government programs.
According to the Tulsa World, Mr. Edelman "said he founded Stand for Children as a way to carry on his parents' legacy of service." His mother, Marian Wright Edelman, is president of the Children's Defense Fund. She is a former trustee of the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was established by community organizer Saul Alinsky to train people in the tactics of revolutionary social change. She considered Alinsky "brilliant" and delivered a eulogy at his funeral. As Kay S. Hymowitz writes:
"When the country debated welfare reform, [Mrs. Edelman] vigorously resisted work requirements — though she had seen with her own eyes that even the most destitute gain self-respect from hard work and orderly lives. Edelman was in high dudgeon when President Clinton, her former friend and ally, was on the verge of signing a welfare-reform bill: she called it 'national child abandonment' and 'a defining moral litmus test for your presidency' in an open letter published in the Washington Post. She organized the 'Stand for Children' march on Washington. And when the president signed the bill and her husband [civil-rights attorney Peter Edelman, who had been the issues director for Ted Kennedy's presidential campaign] resigned from his post as assistant secretary of HHS, she called it a 'moment of shame,' comparable to the worst human evils: 'Never let us confuse what is legal with what is right,' she reproached. 'Everything Hitler did in Nazi Germany was legal, but it was not right.'"
Indeed, that 300,000-person-strong march on Washington — which Jonah Edelman helped organize — was Stand for Children's founding rally. So I suppose it’s not surprising that the organization would continue to push for more government spending on ineffective government programs while continuing to resist reforms that are proven to work.
Reforms like parental choice, for example. During his visit to Tulsa Mr. Edelman was quoted as saying, "If you look at the research on vouchers, there is no indication of student achievement progress." (One can only hope Mr. Edelman was simply misinformed rather than lying.)
I can't say I'm surprised that Stand for Children Oklahoma hired Melissa Abdo, who opposes private-school choice with a vengeance. As the heroic American Federation for Children Action Fund, an influential First Amendment money organization, correctly noted during Mrs. Abdo's campaign, she is guilty of "surrounding herself with liberal lobbyists and special interests" and "supporting higher taxes and more government spending." One notable example: Mrs. Abdo — who wants us to "save the environment" by "going green!" — encouraged people to attend a teacher union rally in March calling for a 600 percent tax increase on Oklahoma oil and natural gas drilling.
I confess to having no idea what exactly Stand for Children is trying to accomplish. I thought it was odd and pointless and unwise to try to take out Brecheen. It's as if they didn't realize the anti-Common-Core freight train had left the station and was now unstoppable. What did they think toppling Brecheen would accomplish? As it turned out, they couldn't elect a Democrat even in that Senate district (of all places), just as they couldn't elect a parental-choice foe in Jenks, the very belly of the anti-parental-choice beast. They don't seem to realize that Oklahomans — and especially Oklahoma Republicans — favor parental choice.
The whole thing reminds one of Mr. Obama after his latest shellacking. He doesn't recognize that his circumstances have changed; he just keeps doing what he's always done.
UPDATE: The state's largest newspaper weighs in, saying "Stand for Children should take care lest its campaign tactics lead people to conclude that its Oklahoma agenda is more anti-Republican than pro-education."
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Reporting today on the state's teacher shortage, the Tulsa World quotes Ryan Owens, general counsel for the Oklahoma State School Boards Association, as saying administrative costs are only 3.54 percent of district expenditures statewide.
Where does Mr. Owens get this figure? Well, as the school monopoly folks like to remind us, "Section 18-124 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes defines administrative costs in public schools and establishes caps on the amount of the funds districts can use to pay for central office administrators and staff. These costs are typically referred to as 'administrative costs' in rhetoric regarding education funding."
But as Dr. Greg Forster has pointed out ("Yes, Oklahoma, There Is Bloat in Public Schools"), this definition of "administrative costs" is misleading. Indeed, could it be that "states have an incentive to tweak their official definitions in ways that reduce the amount of spending that gets called 'administrative'"? After all, "they look a lot better when that number is lower, and most people don’t stop to check the definitions." Dr. Forster continues:
The data-gathering arm of the U.S. Department of Education sets its own definitions for categories of spending. This is useful for making valid comparisons across states, but it also reduces the danger of shenanigans in the definitions. Where government agencies are collecting data on government systems you can never fully escape self-serving incentives, but in my experience the federal education data professionals have a reasonably good track record of playing it straight. So it’s useful to turn to their data and see what they say Oklahoma spends.
According to the most recently available federal budget data, 8 percent of Oklahoma public education spending went to administration in 2010-11. That includes 5 percent ($266,368,000) for administration in local schools and 3 percent ($165,215,000) for administration at the district and state levels. That’s roughly in line with the nationwide figure, which is 7 percent for administration at local, district, and state levels.
However, there are even more eye-catching numbers elsewhere in the public school budget. Most Oklahomans would probably be shocked to learn that only 51 percent of public education spending in their state goes to what is supposed to be the core function of schools: instruction. The rest goes not only to administration but to a variety of "support services" and "other expenditures" like guidance counselors, nurses, buses, and cafeterias.
This imbalance is also reflected in the education workforce. Only half of Oklahoma’s public education employees are teachers. In fact, the most up-to-date staffing statistics reveal that, after hovering just above the half-teachers mark in recent years, Oklahoma has now fallen a tiny bit below it in 2011-12. Only 41,349 of the 82,719 FTE public education employees in Oklahoma are teachers. The rest are administrators, aides, guidance counselors, nurses, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, etc. (On all these figures, Oklahoma is roughly in line with the nation at large.)
Why carry all these inessential services on the public payroll? ... It’s so their unions can keep the dues money rolling in. The unions, in turn, ensure political protection for their monopoly by mobilizing their members as voters in elections for legislatures and school boards. Politicians in both parties and the government school unions look out for each other, and everyone wins — except for the rest of us.
Oklahomans know what they know. I recently had a state lawmaker tell me that, almost without exception, this little thought-experiment resonated powerfully with constituents on the doorstep: