Perspective - August 2007 by OCPA

August 2007 • Volume 14 Number 8

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters correct seven misconceptions peddled by Oklahoma’s education establishment

Heaven Help Us A centennial reminder that our state constitution invokes God’s guidance Page 12

Perspective August 2007

Vol. 14, No. 8

Brandon Dutcher .................................. Editor Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., an independent public policy organization. OCPA formulates and promotes public policy research and analysis consistent with the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The views expressed in Perspective do not necessarily reflect the views of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc.

OCPA Board of Trustees Blake Arnold

Robert Kane

Mary Lou Avery

Tom H. McCasland, III

Lee J. Baxter

David McLaughlin

Steve W. Beebe

Lew Meibergen

G.T. Blankenship

Ronald L. Mercer

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Duncan

Lawton

Enid

Duncan

Enid

Oklahoma City

Bethany

John A. Brock

Lloyd Noble, II

David R. Brown, M.D.

Robert E. Patterson

Aaron Burleson

Russell M. Perry

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Altus

Edmond

Paul A. Cox

Patrick Rooney

William Flanagan

Melissa Sandefer

Josephine Freede

Richard Sias

Kent Frizzell

John Snodgrass

John T. Hanes

Charles Sublett

Ralph Harvey

Robert Sullivan

John A. Henry, III

Lew Ward

Paul H. Hitch

Gary W. Wilson, M.D.

Henry F. Kane

Daryl Woodard

Oklahoma City

Claremore

Norman

Oklahoma City

Claremore

Ardmore

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Enid

Guymon

Edmond

Bartlesville

Tulsa

Daniel J. Zaloudek Tulsa

OCPA Adjunct Scholars Will Clark, Ph.D.

Andrew W. Lester, J.D.

University of Oklahoma

Oklahoma City University (Adjunct)

David Deming, Ph.D.

David L. May, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma

Oklahoma City University

Bobbie L. Foote, Ph.D.

Ronald L. Moomaw, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma (Ret.)

Oklahoma State University

Kyle Harper, Ph.D.

Ann Nalley, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma

Cameron University

E. Scott Henley, Ph.D., J.D.

Bruce Newman, Ph.D.

Oklahoma City University

Western Oklahoma State College

James E. Hibdon, Ph.D.

Stafford North, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma (Ret.)

Oklahoma Christian University

Russell W. Jones, Ph.D.

Michael Scaperlanda, J.D.

University of Central Oklahoma

University of Oklahoma

Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D. Oklahoma City University

OCPA Fellows Steven J. Anderson, CPA Research Fellow

J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D. Dr. David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for Freedom Enhancement

OCPA Legal Counsel DeBee Gilchrist Oklahoma City

OCPA Staff Hopper T. Smith / President Brett A. Magbee / VP for Operations Brandon Dutcher / VP for Policy Margaret Ann Hoenig / Director of Development Brian Hobbs / Director of Marketing and Public Affairs Mary Ferguson / Executive Assistant and Event Coordinator Kelsey Poe / Development Assistant

1401 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73104 (405) 602-1667 FAX: (405) 602-1238 www.ocpathink.org ocpa@ocpathink.org

Study Points Up Pre-K Weaknesses

cting on the presumption that pre-K programs promote the “school readiness” of children, Oklahoma is one of the few states that funds universal preschool for four-year-olds. Yet a study by Lisa N. Hickman at the Ohio State University challenges this presumption, finding that children who attend daycare or preschool the year prior to kindergarten do not gain greater social or cognitive skills and in some measures end up lagging behind their peers who enjoy the attention of their parents exclusively. [Lisa N. Hickman, “Who Should Care for Our Children? The Effects of Home Versus Center Care on Child Cognition and Social Adjustment,” Journal of Family Issues 27 (May 2006): 652-684.] Hickman looked at data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, which began tracking more than 21,000 children who started kindergarten in the fall of 1998. Improving upon the methodology of existing early childhood studies, she conducted both cross-sectional as well as longitudinal tests, the latter of which more accurately isolate effects of various preschool experiences over time. Her cross-sectional tests confirm some existing research that finds that children who are enrolled in daycare or preschool start kindergarten with significantly higher cognitive skills, although that advantage is cut in half in tests that control for family background characteristics. At the same time, her cross-sectional analysis also confirms that children who follow the more traditional pattern of parental care start kindergarten with significantly better social skills in three of four different measures

in tests with and without controls. To test whether these patterns persist as the children move into higher grades, Hickman’s longitudinal tests control for fall test scores in kindergarten and first grade. During kindergarten, whatever advantages daycare or preschool children enjoy in math and reading become statistically insignificant in tests with and without background controls. During the first grade, the daycare/ preschool children have significantly lower math scores (p<.05). In both grades, these children scored significantly lower in the “approaches to learning” measure, which measured teacher perception of student attentiveness and persistence, a reversal of what was found in the cross-sectional test. The longitudinal model also reveals even more so than the cross-sectional analysis that daycare/preschool children exhibit poorer social skills throughout kindergarten. Such children have worse self-control, have worse interpersonal skills, and externalize problems more than their peers under parental care (p<.001 for each coefficient in tests with and without background controls). The only social measure (internalizing problem behaviors) where these children outperformed their parental-care peers in the first model is now insignificant. While these findings will not endear Hickman to the “early learning” crowd, they nonetheless suggest that something other than the welfare of children may be driving the current pre-K craze. %

Is preschool necessary?

A version of this article appeared in the February 2007 edition of New Research, a publication of The Howard Center (profam.org), and is reprinted here with permission.

New AttorneyGeneral Model Harms Oklahoma

In the 1990s, a new model of the office emerged. Political sharks like New York’s attorney general (and now governor) Eliot Spitzer realized they could use their power to file lawsuits and criminal charges to bludgeon large corporations into big settlements that would make for good headlines. They started with unpopular defendants like the tobacco companies and, once drawing blood, moved on to any other industry with big money and bad publicity. Along the way, these shrewd politicians discovered a

liability (a rule which provides that, simply because I am a deep pocket, I pay 100 percent of the damages, even if I only caused a fraction of the harm). He stated, “I By Andrew Spiropoulos cannot for the life of me, figure out klahoma’s lawsuit-reform why the state would want to limit debate has sadly revealed its own ability to recover damages that honorable and well-meaning when the state has been harmed.” public officials like Governor Brad He seems never to have considHenry and Attorney General Drew ered that his job requires that he Edmondson, when push comes to value justice to individual defenshove, side with the most reactiondants over collecting cash for the ary elements of the trial bar. state treasury. But this year’s debate revealed The problem with envisioning a problem even more disturbing the attorney general as the state’s than opposition to chief plaintiffs’ ©Cartoonbank.com legal reform. Mr. lawyer is that it not Edmondson has only undermines the imported to Oklahoma fair and impartial a new model of the administration of office of attorney justice, it also fails general that is destrucon its own terms— tive both to the rule of these lawsuits will law and to the welfare economically harm, of the state. not benefit, the state. Traditionally, there Politicians somehas been a bipartisan times forget that, as consensus on the role the airlines tell us, of the attorney general. we have a choice of He defends the state who to fly—and and state officers in businesses have a court against lawsuits, choice of where they defends the state’s want to be. criminal convictions on Perhaps New York appeal, and provides and California can legal advice to state afford to go after “If it please the Court, Your Honor, I’d like to officials and employtheir business and quit the defense and join the prosecution.” ees. In the words of a health care leadformer attorney geners—there will be eral of Maine, “For 200 years neat deal: they could hire their plenty of people who will still want [attorneys general] defended the plaintiff lawyer friends to help or need to do business there. But if states in cases brought by outside bring these lawsuits. The lawyers the political leaders of our state parties.” The attorney general, as would reap millions from the continue to give the back of their one would expect from a lawyer extorted settlements and then hand to those very people they say that represents the whole public, (coincidentally, I’m sure) make we need, they will just pull up never envisioned his role as large campaign contributions to stakes and go where they are bringing and winning big-money the attorney general’s next camwelcome. % lawsuits. Rather, the attorney paign. OCPA adjunct scholar Andrew general ensures that all laws are Now this pernicious model has Spiropoulos (M.A., J.D., University of fairly and impartially applied in been brought to Oklahoma. Chicago) is a professor of law at Oklahoma City University. He is a the service of justice for all our Witness Mr. Edmondson’s recent contributor to The Heritage Guide to citizens—even (maybe even arguments against the lawsuit the Constitution, published by The especially) if this means that he reform bill. He criticized the Heritage Foundation. loses his case. elimination of joint and several

yths aren’t lies. They are beliefs that people adopt because they have an air of plausibility. But myths aren’t true, and they often get in the way of

educational progress. Here are seven common myths that dominate established views of education in Oklahoma and across the nation. Dispelling these misconceptions could open the door to long-awaited improvement in public schools.

1. The Money Myth

High school graduation rates have been similarly stagnant over this period both nationwide and in Oklahoma. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates high school graduation rates by dividing the number of high school diplomas given out in a year by the number of 17-year-olds in the population at that time. Using this method, NCES estimates that the national high school graduation rate went from 72.0 percent in 1986 to 74.9 percent in 2004. Using data from NCES and the U.S. Census, we calculate that during this period Oklahoma’s high school graduation rate actually slightly decreased from 73.9 percent to 72.5 percent. A wide body of academic research also suggests that simply increasing educational expenditures has not led to greater student proficiency. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek examined a total of 163 published research papers on the topic and concluded that extra resources are more likely to be squandered than to have a productive effect. Despite these facts, the money myth remains pervasive. There’s plenty of room for debate on how best to reform our school system. However, the evidence suggests that we cannot simply spend our way to better schools.

If people know anything about public schools today, it’s that they are strapped for cash. Bestselling books, popular movies, and countless lobbying groups portray urban schools as desperately underfunded, and editors of the New York Times write without fear of contradiction that “providing quality education for all America’s children will take … a great deal of money.” Bumper stickers declare, “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” No matter what aspect of education is being debated, activists generally find the solution in more school spending. This is the most widely held myth about education in America—and the one most directly at odds with the available evidence. Few people are aware that our education spending per pupil has been growing steadily for 50 years. At the end of World War II, public schools in the United States spent a total of $1,214 per student in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars. By the middle of the 1950s that figure had roughly doubled to $2,345. By 1972 it had almost doubled again, reaching $4,479. And since then, it has doubled a third time, climbing to $8,745 in 2002. The spending story is similar if we consider only those funds that schools use to operate. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, adjusting for inflation, national current expenditures in public schools increased from $3,812 in 1969-70 to $8,468 in 2002-03—an increase of about 122 percent. Current expenditures in Oklahoma increased at a similar clip, going from $2,810 to $6,412 during this period, an increase of about 128 percent. Unfortunately, the large increase in expenditures on public education has not produced similar gains in student achievement. National scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress—a highly respected standardized test administered to a nationally representative sample of students by the U.S. Department of Education since the 1970s—have remained flat over this time period.

2. The Teacher-Pay Myth

Another widespread myth about public education is that teachers are paid more like fast-food workers than like trained professionals. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has declared that teachers ought to be excused from paying any income taxes. Teachers unions are not shy about claiming, as one spokesman for the National Education Association did, that “it’s easier to earn more money with less stress in other fields.” Even First Lady Laura Bush, herself a former public school teacher, has said that for teachers, “salaries are too low. We all know that. We need to figure out a way to pay teachers more.” But the facts tell a different story. The average public school teacher’s salary does seem modest at first glance: about $47,797 nationally and $34,896 in

Oklahoma City in 2005, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). But when we look only at annual salaries we neglect the fact that, on average, teachers work fewer hours a year than other professionals. When we consider how well a professional is paid we must take into account the time that the individual spends working. For example, if a teacher makes $45,000 for nine months of work while a nurse makes $45,000 for 12 months of work, clearly the teacher is much better paid. Nurses would certainly consider it to be a generous raise if they were offered three months of vacation each year at the same annual salary. It turns out that teachers’ hourly salaries are quite comparable to those earned by other professionals. In its National Compensation Survey, the BLS compiles information on the per-hour salaries earned by a wide range of professionals. According to these official government numbers, in 2005 the national mean hourly earnings for a public school teacher was about $34.06, which was about 11 percent more than the hourly earnings of those in professions that BLS considered to be comparable to teaching. In Oklahoma City, the survey found that public school teachers earned $26.08 per hour worked, which was about two percent higher than the average hourly earnings of those in comparable professions in the state. Further, these figures do not include benefits such as health care and pensions, which are usually more generous for public school teachers than for other professionals. The survey found that the earnings of public school teachers per hour are about the same as those for other professionals like architects, economists, biologists, civil engineers, chemists, physicists and astronomers, and computer systems analysts and scientists. Even those in demanding, educationintensive professions like electrical and electronic engineering, dentistry, and nuclear engineering didn’t make much more than teachers per hour worked. And the earnings of teachers are much higher than those of registered nurses, police officers, editors and reporters, firefighters, and social workers. Some argue that it’s unfair to calculate teacher pay on an hourly basis because teachers perform a large amount of work at home—grading papers on the weekend, for instance. But people in other professions also do offsite work. The only important question is whether teachers do significantly more offsite work than others. Unfortunately, teachers cannot be rewarded for extra work they take home because their salary is largely determined by years of service and advanced degrees obtained, not the

quantity or quality of their effort. And teachers who fail to work beyond the contractually mandated number of hours cannot be sanctioned in any way. So, contractual hours provide a meaningful basis for computing teacher hourly earnings. It is important to keep in mind that the above figures are for the average public school teacher, not each teacher. There are certainly many public school teachers who work many more hours than the average. However, focusing on the average teacher is particularly important since we pay public school teachers in a uniform way that is unrelated to performance in the classroom. The current system does not allow us to reward those teachers who are working the hardest and who are making the biggest difference in the lives of their students. The evidence suggests that teachers are paid comparably to other professionals. However, this does not mean that we cannot continue to have a discussion about whether teachers are or are not underpaid. But, it is important that this discussion takes place with a real understanding of how much teachers actually earn rather than under the illusion of the teacher pay myth.

3. The Myth of Insurmountable Problems Schools frequently cite social problems like poverty, broken homes, and bad parenting as excuses for their own poor performance. Some seem to think that the very idea of a “failing school” is misleading—that it is really society that has failed, not educators. “It’s just plain folly to demand that a school, where a kid spends part of the day, be held accountable for what happens the rest of the day,” argues Richard Cohen. Student failure is inherent in poverty itself, he says. No one would deny that because of factors beyond a school’s control, learning is more difficult for some students. If the advocates of this argument were merely cautioning us to be mindful of difficulties like poverty and broken homes, or exhorting us to try to alleviate social problems, no one could disagree with them. But instead, they use these problems as an excuse to oppose school reforms. If low-income minority students perform poorly, they argue, it’s because of poverty. No school reform can ever make a difference. Kids who start out lagging must always lag. Social problems are forever more powerful than anything a school may do. This argument that schools are helpless in the face of social problems is not supported by hard evidence. The truth is that certain schools do a strikingly better job than others at overcoming challenges in the culture. To test the evidence on this question, we developed a systematic method for measuring levels of advantage

and disadvantage in student populations across who use them to leave failing public schools for a states. We combined measurements of 16 social private school. This positive impact for voucher factors that researchers agree affect student outparticipants has been found in eight of nine “random comes, such as poverty, family structure, and health. assignment” studies examining five different proWe named this measurement the Teachability Index, grams. Less understood, however, is the positive and tested its relationship with actual student outeffect that school choice has on students who remain comes. It is a reliable predictor of those outcomes. in the public schools as well. When school choice Armed with this tool, we calculated the level of programs, such as vouchers and charter schools, are achievement that each state’s students should be adopted, urban public schools that once had a expected to reach. We then compared that to actual captive clientele must improve the education they achievement in every state and found a large degree provide or else students, and the funding they repreof variation. sent, will go elsewhere. In Texas, for example, schools perform much better In a study we performed of a voucher program in than their student demographics would predict: Florida, we found that when chronically failing public whereas the state’s raw test scores place it 32nd schools faced competition from vouchers, they made among the states, Texas very impressive gains ranks fourth after its compared to the perforacademic outcomes are mance of all other The hourly earnings of publicadjusted for the schools. Similarly lowschool teachers in Oklahoma City Teachability Index. In performing schools are about the same as those for Louisiana, on the other whose students were not hand, schools performed eligible for the vouchers architects, economists, biologists, less well than student did not make similar civil engineers, chemists, backgrounds would gains. Many other rephysicists, and astronomers. And predict. searchers have found the hourly earnings of teachers are When we consider the that school choice prodemographics of its grams increase the much higher than those of students, Oklahoma performance of public registered nurses, police officers, fared better than averschools. In fact, despite editors and reporters, firefighters, age. The results indicate the frequent claims of that Oklahoma performs teachers unions, we are and social workers. about five percent higher not aware of any rethan we would expect search that has found given the average characteristics of the students in the that a school choice program harmed the academic performance of a public school system. state. This ranked Oklahoma 18th in the nation for student proficiency. Both of these strategies—accountability and Inherent in the claim that schools are helpless to choice—have been shown to improve student perforeducate disadvantaged students is the idea that any mance, even in places where lots of kids come to attempt to improve educational outcomes through school with lots of problems. Other strategies that reforms to the system would prove futile. However, the focus on the incentives of public schools have also evidence suggests that reforms that focus on the been demonstrated to have positive effects. So incentives of public schools lead to educational gains. schools are hardly helpless in the face of social One reform that has been shown to work is measurchallenges—we only need to adopt the proper reforms. ing each school’s performance through standardized testing, and then providing rewards or sanctions based on a school’s performance. This gives a school a direct incentive to educate its students well. States Just about everybody agrees that smaller classes with this sort of accountability testing make statistiproduce better results. This view was captured crisply cally significant improvements, researchers have in a Chicago Tribune feature story on schools: “The demonstrated. Stanford investigators have found that advantages of small classes seem intuitive; who stronger accountability systems particularly help wouldn’t want children to learn in a small class? black and Hispanic students. Parents crave them, teachers love them, and Another reform that can help overcome the educapolicymakers push for them.” tional challenges caused by social problems is school As popular discontent with the state of education choice. Few question that vouchers help the students has grown, class sizes have emerged as a key politi-

4. The Clase-Size Myth

cal issue for both parties. The National Education Association has been particularly aggressive, supporting “a class size of fifteen students in regular programs and even smaller in programs for students with exceptional needs.” Given that shrinking class sizes means hiring more teachers, and thus putting more money into the pockets of teachers unions, it is hardly surprising that unions are the loudest supporters. Unlike other myths, this one is at least based on some systematic research. One high-quality study suggests there may be some advantages to smaller classes. However, the benefits found in this research are modest and come with a very high price tag. And whether this research is actually correct is a matter of debate. The centerpiece of class-size research was the STAR project, a 1980s experiment conducted by the state of Tennessee. Students were randomly assigned to one of three types of classes as they progressed from kindergarten through third grade. The first type was a regular-sized class of around 24 students with one teacher. The second option was a regular-sized class with a teacher plus a teacher’s aide. The third alternative was a small class of around 15 students with one teacher. The study found that students in the small classes showed a one-time benefit in test scores as compared to students in regular-sized classes (the teacher’s aide resulted in no significant difference). The increase was moderately substantial, about the equivalent of an eight-percentile-point improvement in performance for a student starting in the middle of the pack. Follow-up research also found that 44 percent of students in STAR’s small classes took college entrance exams, compared to 40 percent among regular-class students—not so trivial a difference. However, there were a number of shortcomings in the STAR program’s implementation that raise doubts about the accuracy of its findings. Most significantly, students weren’t tested when they entered the program—so we can’t confirm that the three groups started out at the same level as the experiment began. There is no way to know if the project’s random assignment method was accurate, and thus no way to be certain that differences observed among the groups weren’t there from the beginning. There is reason to be suspicious because of an anomaly in the research findings: If smaller classes really do improve student performance, we would generally expect to see these benefits accrue over time. But instead, the improvement in STAR test scores was a one-time event. This is unusual and unexpected. Considering that the project’s supposed benefits were moderate to begin with, this raises serious doubts about whether the STAR results should

lead to policy prescriptions—particularly since evidence on large-scale class size reduction is much less encouraging. Another important problem with focusing entirely on the STAR study is that the scale of the program was relatively small. Even if class size reduction does improve performance under optimal conditions in a small, controlled experiment like the STAR project, labor pool problems may prevent this from being reproduced on a large scale. Replicating the benchmarks of the STAR project would entail hiring almost 40 percent more teachers nationwide. Digging that deeply into the teacher labor pool would require accepting a lower quality of teacher, likely bringing disappointing results. That is, systematic class-size reduction on a large scale could lead to smaller classes that are headed by less effective teachers. Though not random assignment, some research suggests that reducing class sizes on a large scale has not had the positive impact found in the STAR study. In California, the state appropriated $1 billion in 1996 to reduce elementary school class sizes. A RAND Corporation study concluded that California students who attended larger elementary school classes improved at about the same rate as students in smaller classes. In Oklahoma, significant resources have also been invested in hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes. In 1986 there were 16.9 Oklahoma students for every teacher, while in 2004 there were 15.6 students per teacher. That represents an eight percent decline in student-teacher ratios. Yet if Oklahoma’s experience is like California’s, little or no improvement has been realized from these class reduction efforts. Finally, the large cost involved means that systematically reducing class sizes may not be an attractive reform even if it did lead to some educational gains. According to Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, reducing class sizes by 10 percent—about the amount necessary to achieve the benefits found in STAR— would cost taxpayers an additional $2,306 per pupil. Of course, we would be willing to spend such money if it leads to substantial academic improvements. However, there are other reform strategies which are more promising and less costly than class-size reduction, some of which we discuss in this essay. If these other policies lead to the same gains but cost fewer tax dollars than class-size reduction, we would certainly prefer them.

5. The Certification Myth

Receiving professional certification is generally regarded as a reliable sign of expertise, because in most occupations, credentials are given to those who

have proven their worth. Teacher quality is certainly a crucial factor in students’ academic achievement, but the evidence suggests that having an extra education degree is not linked to success. Many researchers and politicians, and indeed most Americans, assume that more credentialing means better teachers, but the evidence suggests that it doesn’t. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the entire body of research on teacher quality is that teaching certificates and master’s degrees in education are irrelevant to classroom performance. Yet most school systems reward certification and experience, instead of rewarding more reliable direct indicators of good teaching. In a review conducted for the Abell Foundation, researchers found that teachers holding a master’s in education did not produce higher student performance, and among new teachers, traditional certification made no difference in student performance. After examining the research literature on the impact of teaching credentials on job performance—171 in total—Eric Hanushek found that only nine uncovered any significant, positive relationship between credentials and student performance, five found a significant negative relationship between the two, and 157 showed no connection. Looking at Teach For America—a program that lets recent college graduates become teachers without obtaining traditional education credentials—three scholars at Mathematica Policy Research found that students taught by these alternatively credentialed instructors made significant gains in math in one year, and kept pace in reading, compared to the students of traditionally credentialed teachers. Current policy—which generally centers on teachers having education certificates—therefore appears to be seriously misguided. The current teacher-pay system, which connects compensation to education degrees, also harms teacher quality by artificially redirecting time and money toward earning those pieces of paper. One NAEP study pointedly concluded that education master’s degrees have “little effect on improving teachers’ abilities,” and therefore the enormous amount of money spent pursuing these degrees “is arguably one of the least efficient expenditures in education.” Researchers have also investigated the relationship between years of teaching experience and students’ academic achievement. Here, the story is inconclusive. If anything, the evidence indicates that teachers grow a little more effective during their first few years as they get up to speed in the classroom, but that after this initial period, their effectiveness plateaus. This evidence raises doubts about the practice of

Why Oklahoma’s Education Establishment Opposes School Choice With 627,575 students in Oklahoma’s public schools, compared to roughly 50,000 in Oklahoma’s private and home schools, one could say that Oklahomans currently “choose” public schools over nonpublic alternatives by a wide margin. But let’s look a little closer. Education reporter Mike Antonucci asks, “If the government, under the force of law, takes money from my paycheck every month to supply me and every other citizen with a Yugo, and I choose not to spend additional personal income on a Chevy, am I ‘choosing’ the Yugo?” Last month I commissioned Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates to ask 500 Oklahoma voters a simple question: “If you had a schoolage child and were given a voucher or a tax credit that would cover tuition to any of the following, which would you personally choose for your child?” Forty-nine percent of respondents said they would choose a public school, while 43 percent said they would choose a private school. (Eight percent were undecided.) Think about that. If Oklahoma parents were given a voucher or a tax credit, it appears that more than 250,000 revenue units (children) in Oklahoma’s public schools would head for the exits. And you wondered why the education establishment opposes school choice! George Wallace blocked the schoolhouse door to keep students out; today’s defenders of the status quo have to lock the doors to keep students in. The author and political thinker Isabel Paterson once asked, “Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you or pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?” I can think of about a quarter-million reasons why. —Editor

giving relatively small raises in a teacher’s second cient” level, compared to 43 percent of private-school and third years, while giving teachers in their 20th students. Interestingly, twice as many private-school and 30th years large annual raises. eighth graders go on to earn a bachelor’s degree as Some recent evidence suggests that altering the their public-school counterparts, in percentage terms. current system to compensate teachers in part based However, it simply isn’t true that public schools are on the academic performance of their students rather penniless while private schools are wealthy. In fact, than simply based on credentials and years of service the opposite is closer to the truth. According to the leads to greater student learning. With colleagues at U.S. Department of Education, the average private the University of Arkansas, we found that paying school charged $4,689 per student in tuition for the teachers for their classroom performance substan1999-2000 school year. That same year, the average tially increased math proficiency in Little Rock. David public school spent $8,032 per pupil. Among Catholic Figlio and Lawrence Kenny also evaluated perforschools (which educate 49 percent of all privatemance pay using nationwide data and found that it school students), the average tuition was only $3,236. led to large academic improvements. The vast majority of private-school students actually Members of the education establishment fiercely have less than half as much funding behind them as resist giving up the old linkage of pay to paper public-school students. accomplishments. When Michigan adopted new Some point out that private schools don’t always standards emphasizing a teacher’s proven academic provide all the services that public schools do: transability (as measured in portation, special ed skills tests) rather than classes, lunch, counseltheir credentials or years ing, and so on. But in an School choice provides better of experience, the analysis comparing Detroit News profiled public-school and Cathostudent performance and angry teachers. “It’s a lic-school costs in New happier parents, for about half slap in my face that I York, D.C., Dayton, and the cost. If similar results were have to go back and San Antonio, researchers take a test,” said one found that excluding all produced for a method of teacher with a master’s of these services plus fighting cancer, academics and degree and 30 years of administration costs from experience. the public-school ledger journalists would be elated. Until we stop hiring still left public schools and financially rewardwith significantly more ing teachers according resources than Catholic to qualifications that are irrelevant to their perforschools. Besides, if public schools provide additional mance, it will be hard to expect improved quality in services, then those services should contribute to their classroom instruction. students’ educational outcomes. All spending is ultimately relevant to the question of a school’s costeffectiveness. Just as lack of money cannot be blamed for poor A popular myth says that private schools do better outcomes in public schools, neither can differences in than public schools only because they have more selectivity be held responsible. Surprising as it may money, recruit high-performing students, and expel be, most private schools are not very selective. A low-performing students. The conventional wisdom is study of the nation’s Catholic schools concluded that captured in one Michigan newspaper’s warning that the typical institution accepted 88 percent of the “a voucher system would force penniless public students who applied. Other research in D.C., Dayton, schools to shut down while channeling more and and New York private schools found that only one more money into wealthy private schools.” percent of parents reported their children were denied There is no question that, on average, students in admission because of a failed admissions test. private schools demonstrate significantly greater Moreover, the academic and demographic backachievement. For example, on the eighth-grade grounds of students who use vouchers to attend reading portion of the NAEP test, 53 percent of private private school across the country are very similar to school students perform at or above the level defined those who don’t. as “proficient,” compared to only 30 percent of public Private schools don’t significantly alter their student school students. In eighth-grade math, only 27 perpopulations by expelling low-achieving or troublecent of public-school students perform at the “profisome students, either. One study found that “Catholic

6. The Rich-School Myth

high schools dismiss fewer than two students per year” on average. While it is true that every student is officially entitled to a publicly funded education, students in public schools are regularly expelled. According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly one percent of all public school students are expelled in a year, and an additional 0.6 percent are segregated into specialized academies. That’s more than in Catholic and other private schools. Moreover, public schools actually contract out 1.3 percent of their disabled students to private schools. In any case, numerous studies have compared what happens when students with identical backgrounds attend private versus public schools. And consistently, in study after study, the matched peers who remain in public schools do less well than children who shift to private schools. Higher student achievement is clearly attributable to some difference in the way private schools instruct—and not to more money, or simple exclusion of difficult students.

7.The Myth of Ineffective School Vouchers When reporting on school vouchers—programs that give parents money they can use to send their children to private schools—the media almost always describe research on vouchers’ effects as inconclusive. The New York Times, for instance, responded to a Supreme Court decision approving vouchers by declaring: “All this is happening without a clear answer to the fundamental question of whether school choice has improved American education. The debate … remains heated, defined more by conflicting studies than by real conclusions.” In reality, though, the research on vouchers isn’t mixed or inconclusive at all. High quality research shows consistently that vouchers have positive effects for students who receive them. The only place where results are mixed is in regard to the magnitude of vouchers’ benefits. There have been eight random-assignment studies of school voucher programs, and in seven of them, the benefits for voucher recipients were statistically significant. In Milwaukee, for example, a study one of us conducted with two researchers from Harvard found that students awarded vouchers to attend private schools outperformed a matched control group of students in Milwaukee public schools. After four years, the voucher students had reading scores six percentile points above the control group, and standardized math results 11 percentile points higher. All of the students in this study (which is mirrored by other research) were low-income and Hispanic or African-American.

In a study of a different program based in Charlotte, North Carolina, we found that recipients of privately funded vouchers outperformed peers who did not receive a voucher by six percentile points after one year. All of the students studied were from low-income households. In New York City, a privately funded school choice program has been the subject of many careful studies. One found that African-American voucher recipients outperformed the control group by nine percentile points after three years in the program. Another analysis found a difference of five percentile points in math. A similar program in Washington, D.C. resulted in African-American students outperforming peers without vouchers by nine percentile points after two years. Every one of the voucher programs studied resulted in enthusiastic support from parents as well. And all this was achieved in private schools that expend a mere fraction of the amount spent per student in public schools. The most generously funded of the five voucher programs studied, the Milwaukee program, provides students with only 60 percent of the $10,112 spent per pupil in that city’s public schools. The privately funded voucher programs spend less than half what public schools spend per pupil. Better performances, happier parents, for about half the cost: if similar results were produced for a method of fighting cancer, academics and journalists would be elated. Spread the Truth Over the past 30 years, many of our education policies have been based on beliefs that clear-eyed research has recently shown to be false. Virtually every area of school functioning has been distorted by entrenched myths. Disentangling popular misconceptions about our education system—and establishing fresh policies based on facts that are supported by hard evidence—will be the work of at least a generation. That work will be especially difficult because powerful interest groups with reasons to protect and extend the prevailing mythology will oppose any serious rethinking. But with time, and diligent effort by truth-tellers, reality and reason have triumphed over mythology in many other fields. There is no reason they can’t prevail in schoolhouses as well. % Jay P. Greene (Ph.D., Harvard University) is the endowed chair in education reform at the University of Arkansas and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Marcus A. Winters (Ph.D. candidate, University of Arkansas) is a senior research associate at the Manhattan Institute. This article is adapted from an article that appeared in The American Enterprise, which in turn was adapted from their book, Education Myths.

O K L A H O M A

A T

1 0 0

Thanks Be to God In 1907 the people of Oklahoma invoked the guidance of Almighty God to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One hundred years later, Oklahomans should join together to celebrate their centennial with gratitude to God for the preservation and protection of those inherent rights, and for the grace to preserve and protect them for generations to come.

By Herbert W. Titus

Constitutional Prayer On November 17, the people of Oklahoma will celebrate their state’s 100th birthday. In celebration of the state’s centennial, will Oklahomans continue their tradition of opening public events with prayer? It would be most fitting to do so, because on November 17, 1907, the people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly ratified the state’s constitution, the Preamble of which opens with a prayer for God’s guidance: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

shall never forget the Tulsa Bar Association meeting that I attended in 1979 soon after I joined the charter faculty of the O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University. The meeting opened in prayer! After a 13-year absence, I had just returned to Oklahoma, having left the state after a two-year stint as a member of the University of Oklahoma law school faculty to return to my native state of Oregon. During those 13 years in Oregon, I had never once attended a public event that invoked the presence and favor of God. Erased from my memory were the two years in the mid-sixties that I spent as a faculty member at Oklahoma where even the university’s football games opened with prayer.

In contrast, the Preamble of the Oregon Constitution, ratified by her people in 1859, is prayerless, reading: “We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.” In today’s increasingly secularized America, the Oregon Constitution fits right in. Few would recognize, however, that the absence of prayer in the Oregon Preamble is decidedly the minority position. Rather, it is the view demonstrated in the Oklahoma Preamble which dominates, representative of the 44 State constitutional preambles that acknowledged God’s hand1 in the fulfillment of the promise of the nation’s charter—the Declaration of Independence— that America’s “governments” would be “instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”2 Thus, in the manner as those who had signed their names to the 1787 United States Constitution—120 years before—the officers and delegates to Oklahoma’s Constitutional Convention subscribed their names to the 1907 Oklahoma Constitution: Done in open Convention at the City of Guthrie, in the Territory of Oklahoma, on this, the sixteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, and the Independence of the United States of America one hundred and thirty-first. The significance of this Subscription Clause, like the one in the United States Constitution, has oftentimes been overlooked.3 Legally, by including the signatures of its drafters, the clause as a whole attests to the genuineness of the document.4 Historically, by placing the constitution firmly within the Christian calendar established by Pope Gregory III in the sixteenth century and adopted by England in 1752, it connects the birth of Oklahoma as a State to the birth of Jesus Christ 1,907 years before.5 Politically, by linking the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence, it affirms that the United States was birthed in 1776 (1907 being the 131st year of the nation’s independent existence).6 Subsequently, by their act of ratification of this document, the people of Oklahoma gave their consent to these attestations, having agreed to be governed not only according to the State’s Constitution, but to the nation’s 1776 Charter and the Constitution of the United States, having by that 1907 ratification become the 46th State of the Union, admitted on equal footing with the original 13 states.7 Unchanging Security By reaching back to the nation’s founding 131 years before and to the birth of Christ 1,907 years before, Oklahomans not only affirmed their gratitude for the founders’ appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world

for the rectitude of our intentions,” but their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” as stated in the last paragraph of the Declaration.8 Thus, the nation’s birthday, like that of Oklahoma’s, was sanctified by prayer to Almighty God to whom the people and their leaders looked for protection, justice, and guidance. According to the Oklahoma Preamble, the people of Oklahoma invoked God’s guidance, foremost “to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty.” By these carefully chosen words, the people made it abundantly clear that not only their generation, but future generations would rely upon the guidance of Almighty God. Otherwise how would the blessing of liberty be both secured and perpetuated? Thus, from the beginning the Oklahoma courts have affirmed: The first rule, and the one to which all other rules are subordinate, is that the meaning of constitutional provisions, as understood by those who framed and adopted the constitution, is to be ascertained and given effect. Another rule is that words appearing in the constitution are to be given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning, and no hidden meaning should be looked for by the courts. … Constitutions are not made to mean one thing one time and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have changed so as to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. … The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it.9 Inherent Rights Fittingly, the first two sections of Article II, the Bill of Rights of the Oklahoma Constitution, affirm, respectively, the inherent right to “alter or reform the [government] whenever the public good may require it” and the “inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.” For a right to be “inherent,” it must be “innate,” inseparable from the very nature of things, or naturally pertaining to. Rightfully understood, an inherent right is not conferred upon the people by the Constitution, much less by the civil government created by that constitution. Rather, an inherent right preexists the constitution, and by its nature is fixed, uniform, and universal. While subsequent sections of the Bill of Rights spell out some of these inherent rights—to keep and bear arms, due process of law, assembly and petition, and so on—Section 33, like Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, reminds us that “[t]he enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair or disparage others retained by the people.”10

The first inherent right secured to the people of his ways. For thou shalt eat the labor of thine hands: Oklahoma, as stated in Section 2, is the right to life. happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.”12 The security provided to the right to life in Section 2 This constitutional guarantee of the right to acquire is more fundamental than the security from deprivaprivate property is bolstered in the Oklahoma Bill of tion of that right afforded by the Section 7 dueRights by the concomitant right to keep the fruits of process clause. Section 2 secures to the people the one’s own labor. In adopting this provision, the right to be defined as a human being according to people of Oklahoma endorsed John Locke’s view that, the unchanging nature of what it means to be by one’s labor, a person “annexed [to himself] somehuman. In religious terms, Section 2 preserves to all thing that was his Property, which another had not creatures created in the image of God the same Title to, nor could without injury take from him.”13 By right to life, as explicitly affirmed by the statement in embracing this individual right to enjoy the gains of the Declaration of Independence that all men are his own industry, the people of Oklahoma have set a created equal and endowed by their Creator with constitutional limit on the taxing and spending powthe certain unalienable right to life. In scientific ers of civil government to the end that those powers terms, Section 2 preserves to all creatures with the not be employed to redistribute private wealth in human DNA genetic pursuit of a utopian code the same subgoal of economic stantive right to life. equality.14 By embracing the individual’s right to Thus, all human life, Conclusion enjoy the gains of his own industry, the from the moment of Having invoked the people of Oklahoma have set a conception, is equally guidance of Almighty constitutional limit on the taxing and entitled to the inherent God to secure these spending powers of civil government to right to life. blessings of life, the end that those powers not be employed The second inherent liberty, and the pursuit right is the right to of happiness, it would to redistribute private wealth in pursuit of liberty. This substantive be most fitting that a utopian goal of economic equality. right is inextricably Oklahomans join interwoven with the together to celebrate very nature of human life. As a human being cretheir centennial with gratitude to God for the preserated in the image of God, every individual is prevation and protection of those inherent rights, and for sumed to have been created in such a way as to be the grace to preserve and protect them for generations to come. % able to choose to do right or to do wrong no matter the circumstances.11 Section 2 is designed to repudiHerbert W. Titus, a cum laude graduate of the Harvard ate any claim of power by the civil government over Law School, is of counsel to the McLean, Virginia law firm human behavior on the ground that such behavior is of William J. Olson, P.C. He specializes in constitutional litigation, appeals, and legislative strategy. Prior to enterdetermined by a person’s genetic structure or ing into the full-time practice of law, Mr. Titus taught environment or a combination of both. Thus, civil constitutional law at five different law schools, including authorities may not take away human liberty bethe University of Oklahoma and the O.W. Coburn School of cause of what a person might do in the future, no Law at Oral Roberts University. matter how compelling the “scientific” case. The third inherent right is the right to pursue Endnotes happiness, and in doing so, to enjoy “the gains of See B. Weiss, God in American History, 164-213 (Geddes Press, Pasadena, their own industry.” Contrary to what some modern California: 1966). See Frantz v. Autry, 18 Okl. 561, 91 P. 193, 202-03 (1907). hedonists contend, the right to pursue one’s happiSee H. Titus, The Constitution of the United States: A Christian Document, pp. ness is not designed to guarantee to everyone an 9-17 (Chesapeake, VA: 1997). Id. at 10-11. Epicurean or other self-centered lifestyle of “eat, Id. at 11-13. drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you will die.” Nor Id. at 14. See id., 91 P. at 203-04. See also Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559 (1911). is the right designed to secure to every human See H. Titus, The Declaration of Independence: The Christian Legacy, pp. 12being adequate food, clothing, and housing. Rather, 14 (Chesapeake VA: 1995). Wimberly v. Deacon, 144 P.2d 447, 450 (Okl. Sup. Ct. 1944) (emphasis added). the inherent right of the pursuit of happiness is Accord, Latting v. Cordell, 172 P.2d 297, 401 (Okl. Sup. Ct. 1946); Draper v. designed to secure to individuals and families the State, 621 P.2d 1142, 1145-46 (Okl. Sup. Ct. 1980). Okl. Const., Article II, Section 33 (emphasis added). right to “pursue” such creature necessities and See Mark 7:14-23. comforts through the exercise of the God-given Psalm 128:1-2. Accord, Psalm 127. See J. Locke, The Second Treatise on Government, § 32 (Cambridge Univ. mandate to work. For as the Psalmist says, “Blessed Reprint:1965). is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in See id. at §§ 46-51. 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8

10 11 12 13

Consider the Possibilities By Brett A. Magbee s the OCPA staff looks forward to the months immediately ahead, it is apparent that our most exciting days are yet to come. When we think about all the opportunities to expand the capabilities of the organization, the further studies we intend to produce and the special events we will host, one can’t be anything other than enthused! As a “think tank” we are adept at looking ahead, to consider the “possibilities.” We can see a lot of policies that need reform in order to improve our economic competitiveness with other states. That’s where donors come in. It is important that we have regular support to underwrite the cost of the work of this nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. That is crucial to advancing free-market ideas in the policy arena on a daily basis.

Ernest Istook drops by to discuss policy issues with OCPA president Hopper Smith. The former congressman is now a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Consider what it would be like if there wasn’t an OCPA. Where would citizens and policy-makers receive the type of information that we produce? Who in our state would invite such nationally acclaimed and respected thinkers as William F. Buckley, Jr., Newt Gingrich, Walter Williams, Cal Thomas, and many others to come speak? Where would OCPA’s “non-partisan and noncompromising” perspective come from? Please help us keep OCPA on the frontlines with the resources we need to expand our effectiveness and our outreach. Your support in OCPA, especially during these summer months, can do more for our state than any other investment you can make, because we are always busy looking ahead—to consider the possibilities. %

Ben Fenwick, staff writer for the Oklahoma Gazette, was invited to lunch with OCPA executives and interns to share some his many experiences as a journalist.

Brandon Dutcher, OCPA’s vice president for policy, is interviewed about government waste for a KOKH Fox 25 news report.

Matt Pinnell, director of operations for the Oklahoma Republican Party, poses with David Dunn, research and project director for the Oklahoma Family Policy Council, at a recent meeting at OCPA.

Cory Miller (right) of www.CoryMiller.com provides insight on the impact blogs are having on society at an OCPA luncheon/discussion for interns.

“Don’t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.” William Peter Hamilton, one of the first editorial page editors of The Wall Street Journal

“Empowering parents would generate a competitive education market, which would lead to a burst of innovation and improvement, as competition has done in so many other areas. There’s nothing that would do so much to ensure a skilled and educated work force.” Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, December 2005

“State leaders also have acknowledged we have too many public colleges and universities. Funding for all of them waters down funding for the best and most productive. Yet, we’re adding campuses across the state.” Vince Orza, writing recently in the Oklahoma Gazette

“Most historians agree that Franklin Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. … However, he smoked cigarettes … Think of the way this man dealt death to those around him, filling the White House with second-hand smoke and inspiring young people to follow his example. … It should be said in his defense that Roosevelt ordered the development of the atomic bomb, which does not produce much second-hand smoke, and he was handicapped before it became really fashionable.” Joseph Sobran

“School choice continues to spread, unstoppable now, despite the best efforts of its foes to contain it. More vouchers, more charters, more e-learning, yes indeed, but also more families

E voting with their feet by moving to places with schools (and jobs) that suit them better.” Education scholar Chester Finn, reflecting on the 2006-7 school year

“Insurance loss ratios in Oklahoma are in the bottom 30 percent of all states. Sequoyah County is fast becoming a class-action magnet. While the Oklahoma Legislature passed comprehensive liabilityreform legislation this session, it was vetoed by Governor Brad Henry despite his pledge four years ago for ‘Texas Plus’ tort reform. Governor Henry turned his back on Oklahoma voters and also on growth and jobs creation. Attorney General Drew Edmondson is a highly activist attorney general.” The June/July issue of Directorship magazine, which is widely read by board members of Fortune 500 companies, in a profile of the litigation climate in each of the 50 states. Oklahoma ranks an embarrassing 44th.

Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

1401 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73104

Change Service Requested NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID OKLA. CITY, OK PERMIT NO. 2573

Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc. No substantial part of the activities of OCPA includes attempting to influence legislation, and OCPA does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.