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

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more