Skip to main content

Spending Big on Public Education


Well, it’s not quite a record, but it’s close. Last school year (2018-19), per-pupil spending on public education in Oklahoma reached $10,000 (rounded by $4 and adjusted to 2015 dollars), only a little behind the zenith reached ten years earlier. That year (2008-2009), the federal government threw money at banks and states in an effort to reverse the beginning of the Great Recession. Across the nation, public education was at first insulated from the recession’s effects while taxpayers suffered job and home losses. But now, despite a gradual decline in public education funding for several years, Oklahoma’s public education spending has speedily and fully recovered, and then some.

For several years, per-pupil spending in Oklahoma public schools fell to levels last seen in the 1990s. But then, two years ago, Oklahoma’s legislators apparently resolved to show they could spend as freely as any before them. Funding had recovered almost to the level seen in 2000 (see the chart). 

Average Per-Pupil Spending in Oklahoma Public Schools (2015 Dollars)
Average Per-Pupil Spending in Oklahoma Public Schools (2015 Dollars)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, OK Dept of Education, author calculations

This year, we fully see the renewal of a trend nearly as old as public education itself, that even after accounting for inflation, per-pupil spending relentlessly increases from one decade to the next. Would that we could see a matching increase in performance.

For those of us who don’t assume spending money automatically means accomplishment, it is reassuring that thus far, it appears that the decade-over-decade inflation-adjusted spending per pupil will not increase as much as the decade before. In fact, the two decadal increases prior to this one, from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2010 both saw increases that were less than the decade before. This is a new trend, although the increase from 2019 appropriations is not reflected in the chart so far. In nearly 100 years of Oklahoma public education spending history gleaned from old editions of the Statistical Abstract of the United States (compiled by the Census Bureau) and Oklahoma state statistics, only the 1960s had previously not seen a bigger increase in per-pupil spending than a decade earlier. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, there was a lot of emphasis nationally and in Oklahoma on equalizing funding in public education across school districts. Predictably, equalization was accomplished mostly by increasing spending in historically low-spending districts. Districts where spending had always been absurdly high didn’t see much in the way of reductions in spending, at least not in Oklahoma.

Today, one would be hard-pressed to find a child in Oklahoma experiencing anything close to an impoverished education. The teacher protests a few years ago had nothing to do with education, impoverished or otherwise. They had everything to do with maintaining the public schools as a jobs program for adults. If they were about education, then why are teachers never organized to fight the bureaucratic bloat in the public schools where every teacher position is matched by a non-teacher position? Teachers complain, but they’ve never been organized to protest the absurd lack of discipline foisted on their classrooms that teachers themselves identify as a barrier to learning. Where are the protests over discipline?

Best I can tell right now, there is no real effort by Oklahoma’s legislature to improve anything in public education, just an effort to curry its favor. That means spending money, and doing little else.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org. 

 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more