Oklahoma’s only ‘sober high school’ is rescuing young people
In Case You Missed It OCPA distinguished fellow Andrew Spiropoulos discusses the question of whether Oklahoma grocery stores will be allowed to sell wine and strong beer.
Want to make hens cage-free? You’ll shell out for eggs, OCPA distinguished fellow Jayson Lusk writes in The Wall Street Journal.
Want to stop the Boren tax increase? Consider a special legislative session for teacher pay.
ocpa.us/29dZKK7
ocpa.us/29bRLvj
ocpa.us/295vD3S
OCPA helped stop the effort to turn Insure Oklahoma—a limited, capped program connected to work—into an entitlement for up to 628,000 able-bodied adults.
Investigative reporter Jay Chilton says Oklahoma’s higher education system is a jobs program for former politicians.
ocpa.us/29avwX2
ocpa.us/29gmmet
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, OCPA trustee Tom Coburn says it’s time to scale back the number of armed federal bureaucrats.
In some states, budget bills and amendments are printed for legislators and posted online for citizens before they are debated in legislative committees. Why not Oklahoma?
ocpa.us/29loZcv
OCPA president Jonathan Small says it is sometimes wise to refuse federal funds—and the strings that come with them.
ocpa.us/298wrG9
Touting the work of OCPA research fellows Scott Moody and Wendy Warcholik, The Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last says “there are smart folks out there doing the quiet, difficult work of trying to understand, and solve, America’s problems.”
ocpa.us/297Qrsh
PERSPECTIVE
Brandon Dutcher, Editor Alex Jones , Art Director
OCPA Trustees
OCPA Researchers
Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City
David Madigan • Lawton
Perspective is published monthly by the
Glenn Ashmore • Oklahoma City
Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska
David McLaughlin • Enid
Inc., an independent public policy
Lee J. Baxter • Lawton
Lew Meibergen • Enid
Douglas Beall, M.D. • Oklahoma City
Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany
Steve W. Beebe • Duncan
Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa
John A. Brock • Tulsa
Mike O’Neal • Edmond
organization. OCPA formulates and promotes public policy research and analysis consistent with the principles
David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City
Larry Parman • Oklahoma City
of free enterprise and limited
David Burrage • Atoka
Bill Price • Oklahoma City
government. The views expressed
Michael Carnuccio • Yukon
Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City
in Perspective are those of the author,
Tom Coburn, M.D. • Tulsa
Melissa Sandefer • Norman
and should not be construed as
Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City
Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa
representing any official position of
William Flanagan • Claremore
Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City
Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City
Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa
Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City
Robert Sullivan • Tulsa
John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City
William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa
John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City
Dana Weber • Tulsa
Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville
Daryl Woodard • Tulsa
Robert Kane • Tulsa
Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa
OCPA or its trustees, researchers, or employees.
ocpa.us/29lphA5
Gene Love • Lawton
Steven J. Anderson, MBA, CPA Research Fellow Tina Dzurisin Research Associate Trent England, J.D. Dr. David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty Jayson Lusk, Ph.D. Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow J. Scott Moody, M.A. Research Fellow Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D. Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D. Research Fellow
Larry Arnn
Arthur Brooks
William F. Buckley
George W. Bush
Heritage Foundation national security expert
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
JamesSeptember Jay15 Carafano Lawton •
Dinesh D’Souza Mitch Daniels
J. Rufus Fears
Steve Forbes
For more information, contact Rachel Hays at 405.602.1667 or rachel@ocpathink.org
Tommy Franks
John Fund
Artur Davis
Jim DeMint
Newt Gingrich David Horowitz Mike Huckabee
Brit Hume
Laura Ingraham Frank Keating
Charles Krauthammer
Art Laffer
Rich Lowry
Ed Meese
Russell Moore Stephen Moore Peggy Noonan Marvin Olasky
Sarah Palin
Star Parker
Joe Sobran Thomas Stafford John Stossel
Cal Thomas
Dana Perino Michael Reagan
Clarence Thomas
Scott Walker
Paul Ryan
Malcolm Wallop
Jeane Kirkpatrick
John Walton
J.C.Watts
Allen West
Walter Williams
Past OCPA speakers are pictured above.
SOBER HIGH SCHOOL MAKES THE CASE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE By Mike Brake
F
Oklahoma’s Current Private School Choice Programs 1. Mission Academy participates in the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities, a privateschool voucher program enacted in 2010. For more information, go to bit.ly/1YrHIXh.
2. Mission Academy participates in the Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program, a tax-credit scholarship program enacted in 2011. Donors can contribute to the Opportunity Scholarship Fund and receive a 75 percent tax credit. For more information, go to OSFkids.org.
4
PERSPECTIVE // August 2016
or the parents of thousands of Oklahoma high school seniors, graduation 2016 was a time for pride and satisfaction. But for the six graduates of a special private school in Oklahoma City, that ceremony was literally a symbol of life triumphing over death from drug or alcohol addiction. Sadly, that number could have been 60, or even 600, if Oklahoma parents and children had the options provided by vouchers or tax-funded Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) which would allow them to apply part of the tax dollars allocated for their children’s education to alternative choices. The six happy (and sober) graduates were the product of a unique private school, Mission Academy High School, operated by the nonprofit Teen Recovery Solutions (TRS). Mission Academy is Oklahoma’s only “sober high school” dedicated exclusively to helping young people with serious addiction issues
overcome that addiction and get an education at the same time. “Nationally, teens leaving inpatient addiction treatment only have a 10 to 15 percent long-term recovery rate,” says Mike Maddox, TRS’s drug and alcohol counselor. “Those who go on to attend a sober high school have a recovery rate of 70 to 80 percent. Add on an alternative peer group like we provide here and that rate reaches 90 percent.” TRS was founded in 2005 by parents who were discouraged at the lack of resources available for teens who struggled with serious addiction issues, even those who had successfully completed inpatient treatment. Those parents also realized that public, or even other private, high schools did not have the resources to assist their children in the continuing struggle to remain clean and sober. “I am a big supporter of the public schools,” the mother of one Mission Academy student says. “But they are not for everybody.” That, she says, is
Families.” As with most addiction treatment programs, the TRS/Mission schedule is intense. “With summer session, our students are here at least 11 months of the year,” Maddox says. He says all students undergo drug screening at least once each week. Those who fail receive individualized attention that could lead to expulsion, but most often results in more intensive efforts to maintain sobriety. “The kids also hold each other accountable,” he said. “Our drug screen pass rate is above 90 percent.” The problem TRS and Mission were created to address is one familiar to all parents. According to the National Institute on Drug
Nationally, teens leaving inpatient addiction treatment have only a 10 to 15 percent long-term recovery rate. Those who go on to attend a sober high school have a recovery rate of 70 to 80 percent. Add on an alternative peer group like Mission Academy provides and that rate reaches 90 percent.
the main reason she supports ESAs. Maddox says four of Mission’s current student body of 16 are benefiting from the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship, a voucher program which grants families with special-needs children access to some of the tax dollars allocated for those kids. Unfortunately, only students deemed special needs can qualify for the program. “With ESAs we could do so much more,” he says. The TRS/Mission philosophy is one of total immersion in recovery for the students enrolled there. The organization has two certified teachers and one teaching aide, and also uses the services of volunteer tutors. While much of each day from August through May is taken up with traditional high school lessons, students also participate in peer groups that include counseling sessions and 12-step meetings. Weekends are not neglected either, since those are times when many of the students fell into patterns of drinking or drugging before Mission. “We plan social events every Friday and Saturday night,” Maddox says. TRS also offers family and parent groups, including a weekly meeting for mothers of the successful Al Anon 12-step program for families of the addicted. “I’m a 100 percent better parent due to the things I have learned here,” another mother says, reflecting the success of the school’s stated slogan: “Reclaiming Teens. Reuniting
Abuse, in 2014 11.7 percent of eighth graders reported marijuana use. By high school that rate reached 35.1 percent. An additional nine percent of eighth graders and 37.4 percent of high school seniors reported alcohol consumption. Nearly one in five of those teen drinkers admitted to at least occasional binge drinking, an ominous sign of a budding addiction. Maggie Brown, development director for TRS, notes that Mission is one of just 30 sober high schools nationally and is fully accredited by the State Department of Education. Many of its graduates go on to college. The 2016 class of six graduates was the largest in the school’s brief history. Maddox says monthly tuition, which also includes enrollment in the peer counseling programs, is $2,000, though almost all students receive scholarships from private donors, grants, and other funding sources. He says scholarships can make up to 80 percent of a student’s tuition costs. The four students receiving funds via the Henry Scholarship have an advantage, as all 16 would with a broad voucher or ESA system. Students are sent to TRS from treatment centers, from school counselors, and through direct contacts by parents. Maddox says most have already failed, dropped out, or been expelled from public schools because of their addictive behaviors. Mission reports a 91 percent graduation rate and a 93 percent attendance rate, a dramatic turnaround for most of those teens. Mike Brake is a journalist and writer who recently authored a centennial history of Putnam City Schools. He served as chief writer for Gov. Frank Keating and for Lt. Gov. and Congresswoman Mary Fallin, and has also served as an adjunct instructor at OSU-OKC.
5
Commode Core Shows Why We Need School Choice By Greg Forster
The Obama administration is bullying the nation’s public schools into allowing students who claim they are transgender to use the bathroom and locker room facilities of the opposite sex. This should be an object lesson to naive education reformers who want greater federal power over schools in order to push higher standards. But it is also something much bigger—it is helping people see that a government school monopoly is unsustainable in a pluralistic society. In May, the U.S. Department of Education issued “guidance” to the nation’s public schools, purporting to order them to allow any boy who says he’s a girl to use the girls’ facilities, and vice versa. Internet wags instantly dubbed the document “Commode Core,” in honor of the federal government’s earlier use of the Common Core initiative as cover to gain new power over standards, curriculum, and pedagogy nationwide. The expansion of federal power in the name of Common Core was already straining the traditional left/right political coalition for education reform; Commode Core will make those strains worse. Don’t let the seemingly soft term “guidance” fool you. Guidance from federal cabinet departments carries a big stick. Federal officials are claiming that failure to comply would violate Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools. That’s why 11 states (including Oklahoma) immediately filed suit against the new order. Title IX enforcement is no light matter. This issue is not going to go away when the media get bored and move on to the next circus act.
6
PERSPECTIVE // August 2016
This was not Washington’s first, or last, foray into managing bathroom rights in the nation’s public schools. Before this, it had threatened to pull federal special-education funds from an Illinois school district unless it allowed a boy to use the girls’ room; when the district obeyed, 50 local families filed suit. A Virginia school board also had an earlier federal suit over a similar conflict, which it is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in the short time since the new guidance was issued, the administration has already threatened to pull federal special-education funds from an Ohio school district unless it allows a boy into the girls’ room; the district is suing. You may be wondering: There are very few students who genuinely suffer from what we used to call, until only the day before yesterday, “gender identity disorder.” Why not just find a separate bathroom they can use? In fact, that’s what some schools were already doing, granting students access to one-person facilities otherwise available only to faculty and staff. It’s simple and it gives everybody what they want, right? Wrong. According to the guardians of the brave new gender world, being singled out to use a separate facility would inflict shame and guilt on the student. It would fail to affirm to them the authenticity of their chosen identity. Cooperation with students’ identity disorders is now mandatory. Afflicted students must be granted access to the existing student facilities of the opposite sex—where presumably their peers will not at all isolate them in a way that causes them to experience shame and guilt.
You know, it’s a strange world. I’m just barely old enough to remember when the guardians of the brave new gender world staked their whole agenda on the right to privacy. From abortion to no-fault divorce, it was all about privacy. There doesn’t seem to be much concern about privacy these days, does there? The privacy rights of all the other students whose bathrooms are being invaded don’t seem to go for much. But it would be a mistake to think about this conflict as only another skirmish in the culture war. It is that, of course. But it is also the latest, and possibly the most dramatic, demonstration of the conflict between America’s commitment to a pluralistic society and its policy of maintaining a government school monopoly. Religious freedom and the broader commitment to social pluralism that it implies rest upon a belief that there are public moral commitments we share in common across cultural divisions. We all agree that murder, theft, and breaking promises are wrong. We all believe people should voluntarily help their neighbors and contribute to the well-being of the community. As George Washington put it in his famous letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, equal membership in the American polity is extended to all those “who demean themselves as good citizens.” The great beauty of this social model is its confidence in our shared humanity and our shared ownership of our nation and culture in spite of our differences. The great weakness is our tendency to assume that we share much more than we really do. For example, we all agree that murder is wrong, yet we struggle with persistent conflict over what that rule means when it is applied to abortion and bioethics. It’s a big challenge when differences in cherished beliefs— about God, about sex, about anything—cause friction in the public institutions we share. The temptation is to think that my group is simply upholding the shared beliefs that all our public institutions are supposed to enforce, while the other group is demanding special rights for their own beliefs at everyone else’s expense. The problem with that, of course, is that the other side thinks the same in reverse, and there’s no easy way to settle the matter. We see that in the federal bathroom debacle. One side appeals to privacy rights and public decency; the other side appeals to compassion and nondiscrimination. All four of these values
have played an important role in American law, policy, and jurisprudence for a long time, yet no stable framework for understanding how they interact or how we resolve disputes over them has emerged. So each side sincerely believes it is merely upholding America’s longstanding shared public commitments, while the other side is demanding special rights for its side of the culture war. Education is where our differences cause the most severe divisions. Schools do not merely aim to accomplish some specialized task, such as manufacturing cars or curing diseases, that raises only a limited set of divisive questions. The job of schools is to help parents rear their children, and that job raises all the divisive questions simultaneously! Not only do many more conflicts arise in schools, they are much more intensely felt. The whole future life of each student is in the balance, so the stakes are very high. Also, children are extremely vulnerable and our instinct to protect them inflames passions on all sides. Here is the good news. While education is the place where differences are hardest to bridge, it is also the place where a clear solution is readily available. A universal school choice policy would allow all parents to send their children to schools that reflected their own views, defusing the culture war. No less importantly, it would strengthen the bond between family and school in the job of forming children’s moral character— including teaching them the virtue of tolerance. That’s probably the reason why a large body of empirical research finds that private schooling and school choice programs produce students who are more, not less, supportive of religious freedom and tolerant of the rights of those with whom they disagree. The government school monopoly weakens our American experiment in religious freedom. School choice would give it a greatly needed shot in the arm.
The Obama administration’s bathroom bullying is the latest, and possibly the most dramatic, demonstration of the conflict between America’s commitment to a pluralistic society and its policy of maintaining a government school monopoly.
Greg Forster (Ph.D., Yale University) is a senior fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He is the author of six books, including John Locke’s Politics of Moral Consensus (Cambridge University Press, 2005), and the co-editor of three books, including John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement: Justice as Unfairness. He has written numerous articles in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as in popular publications such as The Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
7
Oklahoma’s Misbegotten Education Priorities By Byron Schlomach
“Oklahoma is 49th [or somewhere near there] in education spending.” You could substitute any number of state names into the sentence above, because the identical statement, I guarantee, has been made, likely within the last year, in probably 10 states. I’ve lived in three states—Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma—and I’ve heard that very statement in all three. And if the statement is not made specifically about education, it is made about spending in general, by education-establishment types, in an effort to imply that state spending is low on everything, including education. The statement is supposed to stand on its own, as if it is obvious that spending less than most other states on education (or anything else) is, on its face, obviously a bad thing. It’s as if a child were to do a survey of the neighborhood and then come home to the parents and say, “We spend less per person on groceries than every other household on the block.” Should the parents feel chastised by such a declaration? Only a fool would fail to feel its sting were the children thin and listless. But only a fool would fail to ignore it if the children were well nourished and energetic. Now suppose the parents determine that they and their children have fallen short nutritionally. Changing jobs and earning more money is one option, but the most immediate possibility is likely to be to look at the family budget and change some priorities. Sale of assets might be in order. Downgrading cell phone and TV programming packages might be an option. In other words, necessities should not be neglected in favor of luxuries. According to the latest statistics (2013 Census data), three
8
PERSPECTIVE // August 2016
states spend less per pupil on public education than Oklahoma. The lowest spender, Utah, which generally does pretty well when it comes to educational performance, also has a higher cost of living. Idaho and Arizona also spend less than Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a low public-education-spending state in a high-spending country. The United States is a top spender compared to other countries when it comes to public education, outspending all but a few nations. Yet, the United States’ performance is nowhere near the top. Oklahomans have no reason to be embarrassed that they choose to have a more efficient education system than other states. With public education’s 17.7 percent share of all state and local spending, Oklahoma spends fairly consistently with the rest of the country, which spends 17.8 percent, on average. But, some might object, Oklahoma is a low-spending state in general, so the comparison isn’t fair. Oklahoma is indeed a low-spending state in general, but there is good reason for that. Only 12 states have a lower per capita gross state product (GSP), making Oklahoma a poorer than average state. Oklahoma spends 5.5 percent of its GSP on public education, while all states, on average, spend 5.3 percent. Despite Oklahomans’ relatively low incomes, the state spends handsomely on higher education. On average, states devote 8.1 percent of their state and local spending to higher education. Oklahoma devotes 10.4 percent of its spending to higher education. While states spend an average of about 1.6 percent of their GSP on higher education, Oklahoma spends 1.9 percent of its GSP on higher education. Were Oklahoma to cut back and spend 1.6 percent of its GSP on higher education, it would
Per 100 Private Sector Workers
Total Number of Higher Education Non-Instructional Workers Per 100 Private-Sector Workers (Full- and Part-Time) Calendar Years 1992 to 2014
Calendar Year
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau; Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
To Control Runaway Costs in Higher Education, Oklahoma Must Pare Down Non-Instructional Workers Because Oklahoma’s higher education system receives state financing, the U.S. Census Bureau keeps track of all types of data on the system. The nearby chart uses the Census data to examine the dramatic size and growth in the number of non-instructional workers (per 100 private-sector workers) in Oklahoma’s higher education system. Two major points may be gleaned from this chart. First, Oklahoma’s higher education system employs 2.4 non-instructional workers, which is a whopping 61 percent higher than the national average and the 4th highest level in the country for 2014 (the latest data available). To get back to the national average, Oklahoma’s higher education system would have to shed 12,033 non-instructional workers—to 19,701 workers from the current level of 31,734 workers. This would result in total annual savings, on average, of $328,226,106 in wages and salaries—in addition to the millions of dollars in supplemental benefits that would be saved. Second, and even more troubling, is that the linear growth line shows that the rate of growth in non-instructional workers is higher than the national average, though the dip in the most recent year moderates Oklahoma’s growth rate somewhat. It is an open question as to whether the 2014 dip is transient or is in fact a down-payment toward right-sizing the non-instructional workforce. Overall, this chart strongly suggests that Oklahoma’s policymakers must demand a thorough accounting from higher education officials as to why the state diverges not only in the size of its non-instructional workforce but also why it has historically grown faster than the national average. —OCPA research fellows J. Scott Moody and Wendy Warcholik
free well over a half billion dollars to be spent on other things, including public education. The fact that higher education does so well in a state whose economy practically stands or falls on the price of a single commodity should give pause to those who support the proposed one cent sales tax increase that will appear on the ballot in November. A significant percentage of the money from the tax increase will go to higher education. Most of the money that will go to public education will give an across-the-board pay raise to teachers, whether a teacher is a science teacher and hard to come by, or a relatively easy-to-come-by history teacher. In other words, the proposal for how to spend the tax increase is actually anything but wise. The tax increase being championed by University of Oklahoma president David Boren is rather like a family that,
once it discovers its children are malnourished, forces one of the children to go to work. Then, the bulk of the child’s earnings are spent on M&Ms and to avoid cutting back on the cable bill. M&Ms and cable channels are not bad things, but under the circumstances, they are bad priorities. Of course, this analogy assumes Oklahoma’s public education system is “malnourished,” something that can’t be proven simply by comparing Oklahoma’s education spending to that of other states. Byron Schlomach (Ph.D. in economics, Texas A&M University) is a scholarin-residence at the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise at Oklahoma State University.
9
Better Service at a Better Price:
Knowledge Is Power By Steve Anderson
As policymakers prepare for the 2017 legislative session, it is likely that they will be looking for areas where cost savings can be found. I would suggest starting with the two largest items in the state budget.
Education
OCPA has created a valuable resource for both policymakers and their constituents—an education finance data tool. I encourage you to visit ocpathink.org/education-data. Take a look, for example, at the unencumbered funds or “cash forward” on the Revenues tab of the data tool. These are funds unspent at year end by school districts. Last year they totaled an eye-popping $1.89 billion. Some of these funds could be spent in the current year, creating less demand for appropriations. Some of them, such as the Federal Child Nutrition Funds, could be retargeted to create more revenue for local high-value crop producers and processors—ultimately sending more tax dollars to the state treasury. I’ve written several articles in Perspective over the last several months on how those funds can not only benefit Oklahoma farmers but also improve the quality of meals for Oklahoma school children—all while decreasing costs to the local school. In addition, take a look at your local school district’s expenditures with an eye toward the necessity of the expenditure and the amount of the expenditure. Attend school board meetings and bring your laptop. Show school board members how much you as a citizen know about their operations. Informed questions about these expenditures may have far more impact than you think is possible.
Medicaid
Another area which has a high growth rate and which
10
PERSPECTIVE // August 2016
consumes a large percentage of the state budget is Medicaid. It is important not only to control Medicaid expenditures but also to ensure that those being served are actually having their health improved. When I was state budget director in Kansas, we put in place a software program that searched the many databases that are already held by the state to ensure that each applicant was in fact eligible for assistance. Then we followed up to make sure that person continued to meet eligibility requirements. It should not be underestimated how much money can be saved by cracking down on those who should not be receiving benefits. This, of course, frees up money so that the state can provide the funding for those who actually qualify and need the assistance. Another thing Kansas did is withhold three percent of provider payments until year’s end, at which time those providers must show the state that the individuals under their care are actually being served and progress is being made on their treatment. Never underestimate the impact of incentives and disincentives to facilitate better services for the needy. Whether in education or in health care, knowledge is power and it drives accountability. This translates to better service at a better price—which benefits both the taxpayers and the recipients of government services. Steve Anderson (MBA, University of Central Oklahoma) is an OCPA research fellow. A Certified Public Accountant with more than 30 years of experience in private practice, he is currently a partner at Anderson, Reichert & Anderson LLC. Anderson spent two years as a budget analyst in the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, and most recently served as budget director for the State of Kansas. At one time he held 17 state teaching certifications, ranging from mathematics to physics to business.
1
2
3
4
@OCPAthink 1. At a June 2 meeting at OCPA, Cato Institute scholar Neal McCluskey made the case (via Google Hangout) that, given the widespread campus radicalism in this country, it’s time to consider phasing out higher education subsidies. “The best starting point,” he says, “would be to turn state higher education funding into grants, connecting it explicitly to student choices rather than allocating it to institutions.” 2. OCPA’s Trent England (left) discusses higher-education reform with former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating on a June 29 broadcast. (Also pictured is Trent’s daughter, Lydia.) Gov. Keating was one of the original western-state governors instrumental in the creation of Western Governors University. Be sure to listen to Trent weekday mornings from 7:00 to 10:00—on the air at AM 1640 or online at ocpa.us/TrentEnglandShow. 3. OCPA’s Brandon Dutcher (left) and Matt Frendewey of the American Federation for Children lead a panel discussion at a recent school-choice meeting in Denver. 4. OCPA president Jonathan Small discusses higher education’s startling employment growth on the CBS affiliate in Oklahoma City.
11
QUOTE UNQUOTE “Let’s talk about teachers for a moment. Some are great,
“We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief rolls or welfare rolls. ... Our
some are decent, and some are better suited for another
American answer to poverty is not to make the poor more secure in their poverty but
career. ... The vast majority of teachers fit into the first two
to reach down and to help them lift themselves out of the ruts of poverty and move
categories. Of that, we should be quite proud. Just the same,
with the large majority along the high road of hope and prosperity. The days of the
nearly all schools have someone who brings us all down.”
dole in our country are numbered.”
Mid-Del Schools superintendent Rick Cobb
President Lyndon Johnson, at the signing ceremony for some of his initial War on Poverty legislation
“It seems to me that our public schools have become the current ‘nanny state.’ Parents no longer have to worry about getting up and feeding their kids breakfast, the school will do it. Thanks to the generosity of the schools and government some parents are off the hook for weekends as kids can bring a backpack of food home on Fridays for the weekend. Afton just announced ... the school will be serving breakfast and lunch to all students at no cost to the students. Again, parents are relieved of parental responsibility and the burden is shifted to the [federal] taxpayer. ... The federal government is only $19.2 trillion in debt, but I guess it is money well spent bailing out irresponsible parents so their innocent children will not have to suffer. ... Have we created an entitlement society? Have we failed in teaching parenting skills and responsibilities to many of the present generation of parents? I suspect some of each.” State Rep. Doug Cox (R-Grove)