Perspective - October 2013 by OCPA

PERSPECTIVE October 2013

OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In Case You Missed It With regard to tort reform, an OCPA distinguished fellow says the Oklahoma Legislature was right to take on a Supreme Court that regularly abuses its authority.

OCPA president Michael Carnuccio says some Oklahoma teachers could very well deserve a $4 million pay raise.

Oklahoma should limit spending growth and use growth revenue to phase out the income tax (as Kansas is doing).

http://tinyurl.com/mckjo9e

http://onforb.es/RIfSD5

http://tinyurl.com/kuqanxb

The U.S. hospital-industrial complex is “the most heavily government-subsidized industry in the history of the world.” http://natl.re/16ltygO

The Obama administration is using Insure Oklahoma as a wedge to force Oklahoma to go along with the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. http://shar.es/iDoqu

In Kansas, liberty is incrementally advancing. In Oklahoma, government is incrementally advancing. http://www.ocpathink.org/articles/2478

The Obamacare Medicaid expansion would make it even more difficult to recruit doctors to rural Oklahoma. There’s a better way to do it. http://tinyurl.com/kslqobm

Kansas is now set to go to 3.9 percent on income taxes, and they’re already at zero in LLC and sub-S.

An Oklahoma billionaire gained nearly $1 billion in tax credits in the Solyndra bankruptcy.

http://tinyurl.com/jwmb87l

http://tinyurl.com/kzd5ge2

PERSPECTIVE OCPA Staff

OCPA Trustees

Brandon Dutcher .................................................. Editor

Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City

Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan

Daryl Woodard • Tulsa

Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska

David McLaughlin • Enid

Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa

Lee J. Baxter • Lawton

Lew Meibergen • Enid

Steve W. Beebe • Duncan

Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany

OCPA Researchers

G.T. Blankenship • Oklahoma City

Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa

Steven J. Anderson, MBA

John A. Brock • Tulsa

Mike O’Neal • Edmond

Clint Colbert .................................................... Office Manager

David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City

Bill Price • Oklahoma City

Brandon Dutcher ....................... Vice President for Policy

Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City

Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City

Dacia Harris .............................. Interactive Media Director

William Flanagan • Claremore

Melissa Sandefer • Norman

Rachel Hays .................................... Development Assistant

Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City

Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa

Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City

Richard L. Sias • Oklahoma City

John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City

Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City

Dave Bond ......................... Director of External Relations Brian Bush ..................................... Executive Vice President Michael Carnuccio .................................................... President

Cassandra Howard ................................... Executive Liaison Jennie Kleese ............... Development Events Manager

Research Fellow

Tina Dzurisin

Research Associate

Vance Fried, J.D. Research Fellow

Jayson Lusk

Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow

Matt Mayer, J.D. Research Fellow

Ralph Harvey • Oklahoma City

John F. Snodgrass • Ardmore

J. Scott Moody, M.A.

Karma Robinson ...... Vice President for Development

John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City

Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa

Jonathan Small .................................. Fiscal Policy Director

Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville

Robert Sullivan • Tulsa

Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.

Robert Kane • Tulsa

Lew Ward • Enid

Gene Love • Lawton

William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa

Research Fellow

Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow

Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D. Research Fellow

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 are those of the author, and should not be construed as representing any official position of OCPA or its trustees, researchers, or employees.

John Bolton

Larry Arnn

SAVE THE DATE

William F. Buckley Jr.

Jeb Bush

Mitch Daniels

Dinesh D’Souza

LIBERTY GALA

Artur Davis

Jim DeMint

President George W. Bush October 17, 2013 • Tulsa • 7 PM

J. Rufus Fears

Steve Forbes

Tommy Franks

John Fund

Newt Gingrich

David Horowitz

Laura Ingraham

Frank Keating

Jeane Kirkpatrick

Art Laffer

Rich Lowry

Ed Meese

Stephen Moore

Peggy Noonan

Marvin Olasky

Bill Owens

Sarah Palin

Star Parker

Michael Reagan

Paul Ryan

Joe Sobran

Thomas Stafford

John Stossel

Cal Thomas

Clarence Thomas

Scott Walker

John Walton

J.C. Watts

Allen West

Walter Williams

Past OCPA speakers are pictured above.

Rich

Cover

Money Walks By J. Scott Moody and Wendy P. Warcholik

As we pointed out last month in these pages (“Voting with Their Feet”), Oklahoma’s net migration has improved significantly since pro-growth policies such as Right to Work and tax cuts have been implemented. Some have denied that policy matters to migrants, but the pattern of Oklahoma’s migration tells us differently — Right to Work and tax cuts have helped boost in-migration. The IRS data also provide migrant data by state, which is useful in determining where out-migrants are going and where in-migrants are coming from. Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c rank the net migration totals for the years 1995 to 2009 for taxpayers (households), exemptions (people), and adjusted gross income (income; AGI), respectively. As shown in Table 1a, in terms of households the in-migrant states are California (13,622), Kansas (5,140), New Mexico (1,560), Michigan (1,505), and Illinois (1,435). On the other hand, the top out-migrant states are Texas (-15,850), Georgia (-1,536), Virginia (-1,183), North Carolina (-1,070), and Tennessee (-808). Overall, Oklahoma gains households from 31 states while losing taxpayers to only 19 states. As shown in Table 1b, in terms of people the top in-migrant states are California (38,437), Kansas (11,783), New Mexico (3,990), Illinois (3,848), and Louisiana (3,314). On the other hand, the top out-migrant states are Texas (-20,318), Georgia (-2,400), Virginia (-2,261), Missouri (-1,954), and Florida (-1,771). Overall, Oklahoma gains peo-

PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

ple from 33 states while losing people to only 17 states. As shown in Table 1c, in terms of income the top in-migrant states are California ($513,718,000), Kansas ($208,553,000), Illinois ($71,221,000), Louisiana ($52,086,000), and Michigan ($50,305,000). On the other hand, the top out-migrant states are Texas (-$1,100,252,000), Florida (-$254,192,000), Colorado (-$102,871,000), Arkansas (-$102,283,000), and Missouri (-$89,951,000). Overall, Oklahoma gains income from 24 states while losing income to 26 states. To better understand the recent surge of in-migration into Oklahoma, an examination of why residents are choosing to leave their home state is instructive. As shown in Table 2, one way to do this is by comparing various characteristics of Oklahoma versus the origin states. In economic terms, migrants are expressing their “revealed preferences” by moving to another state more in line with their preferences and values. We compare Oklahoma to these origin states via some common variables used in migration studies—state and local tax burdens, union membership, population density, cost of housing, and average temperature. (For a comprehensive examination of the migration literature and determinants of migration, see our 1995 study, “The County-to-County Migration of Taxpayers and Their Incomes, 1995 to 2006,” co-authored with Arthur P. Hall.)

State and Local Tax Burden This variable measures total state and local taxes collected as a percent of private-sector personal income as averaged over the 1995 to 2009 time period. Oklahoma’s average tax burden was 14.48 percent. In-migrants came from states where tax burdens were higher: for households it was 3.36 percent higher (14.97 percent), for people it was 3.3 percent higher (14.96 percent), and for income it was 4.35 percent higher (15.11 percent). At the same time, Oklahoma out-migrants left for states where tax burdens were lower: for households it was 10.18 percent lower (13.01 percent), for people it was 10.67 percent lower (12.94 percent), and for income it was 9.58 percent lower (13.09 percent). Union Membership This variable measures the percentage of the state’s employed labor force who are members of a union as averaged over the 1995 to 2009 time period. Oklahoma’s average union membership was 7.5 percent. In-migrants came from states where union membership was significantly higher: for households it was 87.4 percent higher (14.1 percent), for people it was 89.2 percent higher (14.3 percent), and for income it was 94.61 percent higher (14.7 percent). At the same time, Oklahoma out-migrants left for states where union membership was even lower: for households it was 13.66 percent lower (6.5 percent), for people it

was 14.66 percent lower (6.4 percent), and for income it was 10.37 percent lower (6.8 percent). Population Density This variable measures total population divided by land area and is averaged over the 1995 to 2009 time period. Oklahoma’s population density was 50.9 people per square mile. In-migrants came from states where population density was significantly higher: for households it was 219.4 percent higher (162.7), for people it was 232.2 percent higher (169.2), and for income it was 283.8 percent higher (195.5). At the same time, Oklahoma out-migrants left for states where population density was higher, but lower relative to in-migrant states: for households it was 125.6 percent higher (114.9), for people it was 137.6 percent higher (121.1), and for income it was 122.6 percent higher (113.4). Cost of Housing This variable measures the median cost of housing as reported from the 2000 Census. Oklahoma’s median cost of housing was $70,700. In-migrants came from states where cost of housing was significantly higher: for households it was 109 percent higher ($147,779), for people it was 121.6 percent higher ($156,653), and for income it was 115.5 percent higher ($152,389). At the same time, Oklahoma outmigrants left for states where cost of housing was higher, but lower relative to in-migrant states: for households it was 32.1 percent higher ($93,377), for people it was 31 percent higher ($92,624), and for income it was 35.1 percent higher ($95,517). Average Temperature This variable measures the annual average of the daily mean temperature. Oklahoma’s temperature by this measure was 60.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In-migrants came from states where temperature was lower: for households it was 5.3 percent lower (56.9 degrees), for people it was 3.72 percent lower Continued on page 6>>

Table 1a Net Oklahoma Migration to/from Other States Sorted by Taxpayers (Households) Tax Years 1995 to 2009 State Texas Georgia Virginia North Carolina Tennessee Missouri Florida Arkansas Washington South Carolina District of Columbia Alabama Maryland Oregon Kentucky Arizona Massachusetts Delaware Alaska Colorado Idaho Vermont New Hampshire Rhode Island Maine Montana West Virginia North Dakota New Jersey Pennsylvania Wyoming Connecticut Minnesota Utah Hawaii South Dakota Indiana Ohio Nevada Wisconsin Nebraska New York Mississippi Iowa Louisiana Illinois Michigan New Mexico Kansas California

Taxpayers (15,850) (1,536) (1,183) (1,070) (808) (798) (773) (717) (634) (413) (348) (322) (279) (246) (232) (214) (162) (106) (34) 17 31 44 67 131 134 154 155 156 209 257 262 288 303 315 330 457 509 619 638 685 790 836 912 1,081 1,224 1,435 1,505 1,560 5,140 13,622

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Exemptions (20,318) (2,400) (2,261) (1,458) (1,749) (1,954) (1,771) (276) (364) (555) (367) (1,076) (480) 55 (304) 1,349 (16) (142) 101 1,472 183 (6) 11 258 192 123 369 436 757 11 571 784 594 1,199 1,299 983 795 461 1,712 1,151 1,172 2,664 1,455 1,646 3,314 3,848 2,637 3,990 11,783 38,437

AGI (1,100,252) (41,951) (43,129) (42,187) (37,675) (89,951) (254,192) (102,283) (40,415) (26,914) (8,062) (24,168) (302) (14,264) (8,997) (29,581) 3,487 (2,245) 11,215 (102,871) (8,174) (1,536) (3,130) 2,490 (2,084) (4,924) 15,092 6,767 30,419 (10,465) (43,942) 21,871 (12,332) 7,696 15,277 1,589 3,953 19,955 619 23,365 26,883 38,775 12,046 41,077 52,086 71,221 50,305 45,944 208,553 513,758

Sources: Internal Revenue Service; Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

www.ocpathink.org

Cover

Table 1b Net Oklahoma Migration to/from Other States Sorted by Exemptions (People) Tax Years 1995 to 2009 State Texas Georgia Virginia Missouri Florida Tennessee North Carolina Alabama South Carolina Maryland District of Columbia Washington Kentucky Arkansas Delaware Massachusetts Vermont New Hampshire Pennsylvania Oregon Alaska Montana Idaho Maine Rhode Island West Virginia North Dakota Ohio Wyoming Minnesota New Jersey Connecticut Indiana South Dakota Wisconsin Nebraska Utah Hawaii Arizona Mississippi Colorado Iowa Nevada Michigan New York Louisiana Illinois New Mexico Kansas California

Taxpayers (15,850) (1,536) (1,183) (798) (773) (808) (1,070) (322) (413) (279) (348) (634) (232) (717) (106) (162) 44 67 257 (246) (34) 154 31 134 131 155 156 619 262 303 209 288 509 457 685 790 315 330 (214) 912 17 1,081 638 1,505 836 1,224 1,435 1,560 5,140 13,622

Exemptions (20,318) (2,400) (2,261) (1,954) (1,771) (1,749) (1,458) (1,076) (555) (480) (367) (364) (304) (276) (142) (16) (6) 11 11 55 101 123 183 192 258 369 436 461 571 594 757 784 795 983 1,151 1,172 1,199 1,299 1,349 1,455 1,472 1,646 1,712 2,637 2,664 3,314 3,848 3,990 11,783 38,437

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

AGI (1,100,252) (41,951) (43,129) (89,951) (254,192) (37,675) (42,187) (24,168) (26,914) (302) (8,062) (40,415) (8,997) (102,283) (2,245) 3,487 (1,536) (3,130) (10,465) (14,264) 11,215 (4,924) (8,174) (2,084) 2,490 15,092 6,767 19,955 (43,942) (12,332) 30,419 21,871 3,953 1,589 23,365 26,883 7,696 15,277 (29,581) 12,046 (102,871) 41,077 619 50,305 38,775 52,086 71,221 45,944 208,553 513,758

Sources: Internal Revenue Service; Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Table 1c Net Oklahoma Migration to/from Other States Sorted by AGI (Income) Tax Years 1995 to 2009 State Texas Florida Colorado Arkansas Missouri Wyoming Virginia North Carolina Georgia Washington Tennessee Arizona South Carolina Alabama Oregon Minnesota Pennsylvania Kentucky Idaho District of Columbia Montana New Hampshire Delaware Maine Vermont Maryland Nevada South Dakota Rhode Island Massachusetts Indiana North Dakota Utah Alaska Mississippi West Virginia Hawaii Ohio Connecticut Wisconsin Nebraska New Jersey New York Iowa New Mexico Michigan Louisiana Illinois Kansas California

Taxpayers (15,850) (773) 17 (717) (798) 262 (1,183) (1,070) (1,536) (634) (808) (214) (413) (322) (246) 303 257 (232) 31 (348) 154 67 (106) 134 44 (279) 638 457 131 (162) 509 156 315 (34) 912 155 330 619 288 685 790 209 836 1,081 1,560 1,505 1,224 1,435 5,140 13,622

Exemptions (20,318) (1,771) 1,472 (276) (1,954) 571 (2,261) (1,458) (2,400) (364) (1,749) 1,349 (555) (1,076) 55 594 11 (304) 183 (367) 123 11 (142) 192 (6) (480) 1,712 983 258 (16) 795 436 1,199 101 1,455 369 1,299 461 784 1,151 1,172 757 2,664 1,646 3,990 2,637 3,314 3,848 11,783 38,437

AGI (1,100,252) (254,192) (102,871) (102,283) (89,951) (43,942) (43,129) (42,187) (41,951) (40,415) (37,675) (29,581) (26,914) (24,168) (14,264) (12,332) (10,465) (8,997) (8,174) (8,062) (4,924) (3,130) (2,245) (2,084) (1,536) (302) 619 1,589 2,490 3,487 3,953 6,767 7,696 11,215 12,046 15,092 15,277 19,955 21,871 23,365 26,883 30,419 38,775 41,077 45,944 50,305 52,086 71,221 208,553 513,758

Sources: Internal Revenue Service; Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

It is especially telling that people are moving to Oklahoma from higher-tax states, while Oklahomans are moving to lower-tax states. 6

PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Why Not Move? Various tax consumers and members of Oklahoma’s institutional Left like to make the argument that, because property taxes or other taxes tend to be higher in states like Texas that have no income tax, moving there wouldn’t really benefit most Oklahomans. But is that true? I urge you to find out for yourself. The National Center for Policy Analysis has developed a state tax calculator to let you determine how much more (or less) disposable income you will have, as well as how much more (or less) wealth you can accumulate for your children, if you move to another state. The website is WhyNotMove.org. —Editor Table 2 Netted Values of Key Variables Tax Years 1995 to 2009 In-‐Migrants Variable

Oklahoma

Out-‐Migrants

Weighted Average of Other States

Percent Difference

Households

People

Income

Households

People

Income

Households

People

Income

Households

People

Income

13.01%

12.94%

13.09%

-‐10.18%

-‐10.67%

-‐9.58%

State and Local Tax Burden

14.48%

14.97%

14.96%

15.11%

3.36%

3.30%

4.35%

Union Membership

7.5%

14.1%

14.3%

14.7%

87.40%

89.20%

94.61%

6.5%

6.4%

6.8%

-‐13.66%

-‐14.66%

-‐10.37%

Population Density

50.9

162.7

169.2

195.5

219.4%

232.2%

283.8%

114.9

121.1

113.4

125.6%

137.6%

122.6%

Cost of Housing

$70,700

$147,779

$156,653

$152,389

109.0%

121.6%

115.5%

$93,377

$92,624

$95,517

32.1%

31.0%

35.1%

57.9

57.3

-‐5.30%

-‐3.72%

-‐4.65%

64.1

64.2

63.8

6.65%

6.79%

6.22%

Average 60.1 56.9 Temperature Note: Bold, italics indicate results of interest

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau; www.unionstats.com; U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

(57.9 degrees), and for income it was 4.65 percent lower (57.3 degrees). At the same time, Oklahoma out-migrants left for states where temperature was higher: for households it was 6.65 percent higher (64.1 degrees), for people it was 6.79 percent higher (64.2 degrees), and for income it was 6.22 percent higher (63.8 degrees). Overall, people are most inclined to move to Oklahoma from places where state and local taxes, union membership, population density, and the cost of housing are higher and temperatures are a bit colder. Or, more simply, people come to Oklahoma for lower taxes, fewer unions, more space, and more affordable housing. At the same time, Oklahomans are inclined to move to places where state and local taxes and union membership are lower and temperatures are warmer. While they also move to areas where population density and the cost of housing are higher, it is pretty hard to move to areas where they are lower since Oklahoma is already very competitive in these metrics.

From a policy perspective, it is especially telling that in-migrants are coming from higher-tax states and outmigrants are heading to states with lower taxes. This strongly suggests that not only are taxes an important driver of migration, but Oklahoma also could further improve its net in-migration by further reducing tax burdens, especially by reducing and eventually eliminating the personal income tax.

Additionally, Oklahoma’s Right to Work law has boosted in-migration since in-migrants are coming from states with higher union membership, while out-migrants are heading to states with even lower union membership. Policy can and does influence migration.

OCPA research fellow J. Scott Moody (M.A., George Mason University) has worked as a public policy economist for more than 13 years. Formerly a senior economist at the Tax Foundation and a senior economist at the Heritage Foundation, he has twice testified before the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. His work has appeared in Forbes, CNN Money, State Tax Notes, The Oklahoman, and several other publications.

OCPA research fellow Wendy P. Warcholik (Ph.D., George Mason University) formerly served as an economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, and was the chief forecasting economist for the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Medical Assistance Services. She is a co-creator (with J. Scott Moody) of the Tax Foundation’s popular “State Business Tax Climate Index.”

www.ocpathink.org

Cover

By Mike Brake

Critics of public education can justifiably point to piles of data showing stagnant test scores and other indicators of failure. School defenders say that isn’t important, that wonderful things happen in our schools as dedicated teachers triumph over great odds. Sadly, neither side seems to spend much time in real classrooms. I did, and what I found was scary. In the spring of 2004 I was between jobs when I decided to sign on as a substitute teacher in a suburban Oklahoma City school district. Its schools range from moderately affluent to near inner-city, making it a good laboratory to observe public education at work on a daily basis. I took notes and recorded them in a diary-style manuscript, which remains unpublished, for reasons to be explained later. Here’s how our public schools really look, sound, and work:

PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

*** The coach who teaches this Oklahoma history class has posted class rules that include “act responsible” and “respect opoinions,” so it’s a good thing he is not teaching English. Today we are watching a Tom Cruise movie as most of the class sleeps or messages on cell phones. “He is useless,” a cheerleader confides to me later. She says perhaps one in four of her teachers in a four-year high school career were good; the rest ranged from abysmal to mediocre. Down the hall in another coach’s room the Oklahoma history students have completed their semester projects, crude posters, most of them completed at levels reminiscent of elementary school. What they will not complete is Oklahoma history. The worksheets we are doing today are on a chapter that precedes statehood, and

there are only 10 class days left in this semester. An assistant principal later assures me that Coach is a fine teacher, but he did not have a planning period this semester. A bored student told me the real problem. “He sits back there all class on his computer chatting with his girlfriend,” he student said. “We watch videos.” *** The students in this high school English class are asked to write each day, which is good. Today their short essays are about famous people they would like to meet in real life. One would have loved to have encountered “Martian Luther King,” while a second lists Einstein “because he invented many useful things we still use today. Like the light bulb.” Still I give this English teacher cred-

Cover it, since others in the same discipline have told me that students no longer diagram sentences or memorize poetry. “We gave up on that years ago,” one teacher told me. Another English teacher has apparently given up on learning entirely. Her class is studying Ivanhoe, but their brief reports indicate that they have not touched the actual book. Instead they depend on the TV and VCR permanently installed in this teacher’s classroom. “My idea in the movie is the bead then the war was very important for the king because when they are go to fight they need to allot of people and they was the winner,” wrote one Ivanhoe fan. In a corner of the classroom I found a complete set of the Great Books on a custom-built shelf, gathering dust. “Do you use those?” I asked a student. He looked at the shelf. “What are those?” *** Here’s the spoor of a real teacher. The board is covered with lecture notes, color coded in several hues, detailing every important fact about the French Revolution. The rolling cart he uses as a lectern is stacked with supplementary books tabbed and annotated to help make crucial points. Students hand in their quizzes, which have real questions about facts of importance; I checked. “We have three quizzes a week,” one tells me. “Plus about an hour of homework every night.” The comparison to the dolts teaching those other history classes, with their dreary worksheets and crude posters and countless videos, is stark. The students in those classes were sullen, bored, and often disruptive. Here they are animated and well behaved. “Do you like this class?” I ask one of the test takers. “Oh yeah!” he beams. Apparently high expectations work. *** The middle school science class is (natch!) watching a video. Their assignment is to record 10 facts they glean

from the video. Ten. Not nine, and certainly not 11. Here is what one boy writes: - 17 speaseas of penguin - antarctica is white that is its beauty - northern constillation bear - whales live in there ocean - seals live in there ocean - penguins live in there ocean - birds fly in there - crill is protean In classroom after classroom, in subject after subject, in grade level after grade level, I have encountered this same kind of dreary, uninspired, boring instruction. Teachers sit at desks, often puttering on their computers, while students plod through head-down worksheets or checklists or multiplechoice tests. Or, they watch endless videos which may or may not have much to do with the subject at hand. (We screened Forrest Gump in an American government class one day.) Certainly such lessons may be planned more often when a substitute is on hand, but time after time when I asked students if this was routine they assured me it was . . . that in fact not much teaching in the active sense actually happened there. The contrast was even more obvious when I ran across the rare island of excellence like that history teacher who was expounding on the French Revolution. I found good teachers in science as well, and one math teacher had decorated her classroom with Marine recruiting posters. “No discipline,” she mumbled. “I don’t have time to teach. All this self-esteem business . . . they get it by doing good work.” *** In the 1960s teachers nationwide were asked to list the biggest disciplinary problems they faced in the classroom. They listed running in hallways, talking in class, passing notes, and chewing gum. In the 1990s teachers cited assault, weapons, drugs, and rape. The classrooms and hallways I frequented for four months were, with rare exceptions, chaotic bordering on

dangerous. I broke up several fights and saw others, but the real threat to learning was the constant background buzz of chaos caused by the 10 to 30 percent of students who clearly had no desire to be there and every intention of disrupting the process for those who did. One day while I was waiting in a high-school classroom during a planning period I counted how many students passed down the hallway, one of six in that building. In 15 minutes 42 students who should have been in class wandered past my doorway, and I doubt that 10 percent of them had hall passes. Later, in the middle of class, while students were supposed to be reviewing worksheets and past quizzes for an upcoming biology final, a female student loudly yanked the door open, strolled in, and began chatting with some students who were sitting at a lab bench and watching rap videos on a portable video player. I walked over and asked her where she had come from. “Africa!” she shouted. It took 15 minutes to send her on her way. “There’s a law that says they have to be here,” a good student told me one afternoon as we watched several students crossing the parking lot and vaulting a fence, 20 minutes before the final bell. We were in an advancedplacement chemistry class, which felt like a beleaguered island of learning amidst a rising tide of barbarism. “I say if they don’t want to be here, let ‘em go,” the student continued. “If I was a teacher,” a classmate said, “I’d end up beatin’ ‘em all. Me, I’d carry a two by four.” Another student scowled and said, “They ought to bring back paddling.” A young woman who said she wanted to be a forensic chemist watched the gang bangers cutting class. “Who’d want to dress like people in prison?” she marveled. *** “I just want to get out of here,” an Continued on page 10>>

www.ocpathink.org

Cover

honor student told me in mid-May, shortly before graduation. A few days before I had encountered a student in a psychology class who expressed his disappointment with the head-down, do-the-worksheet drudgery he had experienced all semester from yet another uninspired and uninspiring teacher. “Like, I wanted to learn about real psychology, what people are like,” he said. Overall impressions? First, there are a lot of drones in public education today, poor to mediocre teachers who are just putting in their time for a pension. There may also be some decent teachers who have opted for mediocrity because the system expects little more. Second, the lack of effective discipline and order in most schools prevents a great deal of learning. Third, students and the people who pay billions for public education deserve better. So how to fix it? *** Real merit pay that rewards the best teachers, really rewards them. If I was running a merit pay system in that school I’d award that outstanding history teacher an annual salary of at least $100,000. If you want to know one of the primary flaws in education today, reflect on the fact that that teacher who teaches with passion and effectiveness and enthralls his students is getting paid the same as those pitiful drones who barely teach Oklahoma

10 PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

history at all. Real discipline, either using expulsion or on-site boot camps for the truly recalcitrant. These thugs take too much time and cause too many problems. The school disciplinary policies I saw were lawyer-driven miasmas of multiple written referrals and stages of offenses that no one—especially the students—took seriously. If we can’t kick them out then let’s hire some retired Marine drill instructors to haul them off to the gym and teach them what discipline means. Dumbing down makes people dumber, not smarter. One kid, writing about the poem “The Highwayman,” said it was about “a rober who wates and robes people.” I checked the grade book; he was making an A. Not every student is headed for college. But every student can and should be held to a basic standard of language and numerical literacy. I encountered high school students who, when asked to read aloud, could barely negotiate a simple paragraph. We should also expand alternative certification programs to attract more people to teaching by a non-traditional pathway, outside of the education

schools which ground out all those genuinely poor—and many outright crappy—teachers I encountered. And stop, stop, stop squalling about money, education establishment. You have no excuses for the mediocrity that is so prevalent in classrooms today, and more money would simply underwrite more mediocrity. *** So in the end I had a lengthy manuscript detailing an entire semester of up-close and personal observations of modern American public education, warts, scabs, and all. I found some things to praise and much to abhor, some reasons for hope and others for despair. Of course the New York publishers were not interested, but an academic press right here in Oklahoma took a real interest. They had to submit it to some referees, and one turned out to be a liberal faculty member who, of course, torpedoed it as “biased.” Seems a lot of people in education don’t want us to see what goes on in those classrooms. We might just expect them to change things for the better.

Mike Brake is a journalist and writer who has recently authored a centennial history of Putnam City Schools. He served as chief writer for Gov. Frank Keating and for then-Lt. Gov. and Congresswoman Mary Fallin, and has also served as an adjunct instructor at OSU-OKC.

Parental Choice Preferable to Increased Government Spending By Brandon Dutcher

You may have heard the latest round of complaining about Oklahoma’s allegedly low per-pupil expenditures. Here are five observations: First, we don’t know how much money the government spends on education. “Nobody knows, not even the principal,” scholars Chester Finn and Michael Petrilli write. “That’s how opaque our system is.” The National Education Association says annual per-pupil spending in Oklahoma is $8,285. The Census Bureau says it’s $8,863. Other federal and Oklahoma government agencies give different numbers. “Because of the various funding streams that feed the system,” says Jonathan Butcher of the Goldwater Institute, “discovering exactly how much taxpayers spend per student is more like deciphering a riddle than reading a balance sheet.” “Public school finances make Enron look like a model of transparency,” says University of Arkansas education professor Robert Maranto. “Under our highly complex systems of school finance and resource allocations, policymakers, educators, and taxpayers simply do not know what if any strategy drives particular spending decisions, or how costs and outcomes compare across programs. In public education we are all, quite literally, flying blind.” Second, is eight grand not enough? Should we double it? Triple it? The Census Bureau says the District of Columbia spends $29,409 per pupil — yet D.C. has some of the worst schools in America. Third, more spending doesn’t help. As President Barack Obama remarked in 2010, “when you look at the statistics, the fact is that our per-pupil spending has gone up during the last couple of decades even as results have gone down.” There are many reasons for this.

Here’s one. Economist Benjamin Scafidi points out that between 1992 and 2009, the percentage increase in Oklahoma administrators and other nonteaching staff was nearly three times greater than the increase in students. Today Oklahoma has nearly as many non-teachers as teachers. Fourth, Oklahomans know that more spending won’t help. SoonerPoll discovered in 2010 that only 32 percent of Oklahomans agree with this statement: “If more money is spent on public schools in my district, students will learn more.” Fully 64 percent disagree. In 2011 SoonerPoll found that fewer than one in four Oklahomans think taxpayers are getting a good return on their per-pupil investment. Fifth, we’re dealing with a system that constitutional lawyer Clint Bolick describes as a “hidebound, bureaucratic, expensive, top-down, one-sizefits-all, command-and-control, ineffi-

cient, reform-resistant, administratively bloated, special-interest-manipulated, obsolete, impersonal bricks-and-mortar system that represents the most disastrous failure of central planning west of Communist China and south of the United States Postal Service.” Why would we give it more money? Here’s a better idea: vouchers, tax credits, and Arizona-style education savings accounts. Education scholar Greg Forster reports that “23 empirical studies have examined school choice’s impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact.” Without parental choice, we’re destined for (gulp) more of the same. As Tahlequah Public Schools superintendent Lisa Presley helpfully informs us: “there has never been enough revenue for public education, and there never will be.”

www.ocpathink.org

America Is Choosing Educational Freedom, As the Future Rushes In By Patrick B. McGuigan

You might say, in the immortal words of Charles Dickens, that when it comes to education reform, particularly choice, these are “the best of times, and the worst of times. “ On the downside, endless legal challenges continue to arise every time a choice system is enacted or implemented. On the upside is the ever-expanding scope of education choice. While many existing programs focus on assisting children with special needs, an increasing number empower greater numbers of children and parents to access the educational system of their choice. Often is heard the expression, “School choice is not a panacea.” Well, nothing in this fallen world is a panacea. There will always be new challenges and difficulties, even in the bestdesigned systems, administered by the best-intentioned people. But too many public school districts are poorly designed and administered by people determined to deny parents and children effective options. Despite the wishes of foes, America is in the midst of a Renaissance of options destined to transform positively every aspect of American schooling. To capture this diversity, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice hosted an afternoon of news, information, and conversation at the recent State Policy Network (SPN) meeting in Oklahoma City. While some SPN sessions were off the record, this one was open to the public and to re-

12 PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

porters. There are now 14 tax-credit scholarship programs in 11 states, including Oklahoma. There are 18 outright voucher systems in 12 states (including Oklahoma) and in the nation’s capital city. Individual tax credits and deductions to support choice exist in six states. In Arizona, Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) are providing a means for children to access better schools— whether they are public or private. The Arizona program holds, arguably, the greatest promise for the future. There is now in place a rational system of accountability as the program grows. The Arizona ESA system is still relatively small in numbers of students—but it is doubling every year. And, there’s good news: On October 1, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the ESA. In the majority opinion, the court ruled the program “enhances the ability of parents of disabled children to choose how best to provide for their educations, whether in or out of private schools. No funds in the ESA are earmarked for private schools. Thus, we hold that the ESA does not violate” the Arizona constitution. The case now moves to the state Supreme Court. The Louisiana “Course Choice” program, pioneered by Gov. Bobby Jindal, drew several thousand participants in its first weeks. It allows use of tax resources to get students online or other access to courses they might otherwise miss. The most popular subject areas in

the early wave are Spanish, math, algebra, biology, and civics. Initial enthusiasm among Louisiana’s advocates was dampened somewhat in late summer, when the program empowering thousands of high-schoolers came under direct attack from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration. Jindal intends to fight for the program, all the way. Oklahoma’s Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program for special-needs children has been in place for three years. It won an important procedural decision in 2012, but is under renewed attack from a group of anti-choice educators seeking a declaratory judgment. At the Friedman Foundation event, the lineup of stellar speakers included, on a panel moderated by OCPA’s Jonathan Small, Jeff Spalding of the Friedman Foundation, who examined the positive impact of choice programs on public school finances. Analyst Collin Hitt distilled the depressing story of public education in Chicago, where taxpayers spend $14,386 per student,

Educational freedom is the future.

compared to an average of just $8,000 spent in the Windy City’s highly effective private schools. Hitt also outlined the $700 million increase in Illinois school spending last year. In all, $600 million of that went to finance pension benefits for current public school teacher retirees. For the long run, he argued, only education choice can provide long-term savings to taxpayers, and certainty for participating teachers that a nest egg will be waiting for them upon retirement. Anyone who spends a few years studying education in America will hear the frequent mantra about the importance of meeting every child where they are in terms of ability, learning styles, and so forth. Yet the government system’s rigidity and lack of rigor often conspires against these noble sentiments. Educational choice is delivering on the promise of content delivery aiming at every child and in every setting. Lindsey Burke, of the Heritage Foundation, detailed the intriguing range of choices being exercised in the nascent Arizona ESA program. While 65.5 percent of participants make a “traditional” choice—to access a private school— an impressive 34.5 percent are making what she characterized as “customized choices,” including tutoring, online course work, textbooks, testing, therapy, and curriculum options. The gurus of choice at the Friedman Foundation and their allies, including Dr. Michael McShane of the American Enterprise Institute, noted that the push for more choice is slowly filling the capacity of existing schools or “seats.” Over the next decade, the challenge is to encourage high-quality schools to expand and to create new high-quality systems. The afternoon at SPN was a banquet for advocates and was informational even for opponents of choice. In a debate on the Common Core standards, Robert Enlow, Jay Greene, Michael Petrilli, and Oklahoman Phyllis Hudecki made their cases with verve and insight—Enlow and Greene against the Common Core, Petrilli and Hudecki for it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is pictured here speaking in Oklahoma City on Sept. 24. In a conference hosted by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice entitled “The Future of School Choice,” and then later that night at a private dinner co-hosted by the Friedman Foundation and OCPA, Gov. Jindal gave an eloquent and impassioned defense of parental choice in education.

Paul Weyrich, the “New Right” leader for whom I worked over a decade in the nation’s capital, used to say: “Conservative leaders should concentrate on issues that unite us, and divide the left.” Whereas school choice unites the various elements of the center-right, the debate over Common Core divides the ranks. It has now taken from other education reform struggles the time, energy, creativity, and passion that should be devoted to other battles. As Joy Pullmann of the Heartland Institute has observed, “the Common Core controversy seems to have sucked the air out of an exploding school choice movement.” With good souls in each camp, I nonetheless found prophetic the mus-

ings of Dr. Greene. He not only delivered a slashing critique of a sincere effort at national reform that now looks like a “flavor of the month” (perhaps it should be dubbed a “flavor of the decade”), that is, the latest “solution” to the problems of American schooling. He also predicted the opposition is now simply too strong for Common Core to succeed. So: education reformers who want to make a difference within a reasonable time frame should move away from Common Core and instead seek common ground: a renewed push for the children, the taxpayers, and the future. Educational freedom is the future. Time to embrace it.

Patrick McGuigan (M.A. in history, Oklahoma State University) is editor of CapitolBeatOK.com. He is the editor of seven books on legal policy, and the author or co-author of three books, including Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork. This year the Washington Post political blog, “The Fix,” designated McGuigan one of the three best political reporters in Oklahoma.

www.ocpathink.org

@OCPAThink 1. Last month OCPA served as the host organization for the annual meeting of the State Policy Network (SPN), the service organization for America’s freemarket, state-focused think tank community. On Sept. 25, some 750 friends of freedom gathered for dinner on the floor of the Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City. 2. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin welcomed the SPN members from around the country and thanked them for their important work.

3. Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon reminded the crowd that “the greatest social program is a good-paying job.” 4. OCPA president Michael Carnuccio served as emcee for the evening. 5. At a recent meeting in Arkansas, OCPA’s Brian Bush joined Pulitzer Prizewinner George Will for a discussion on policy. OCPA continues to work with the best and brightest to advance freedom in Oklahoma. OCPA will host this year’s Liberty Gala and 20th Anniversary Celebration on Thursday, October 17, at 7:00 p.m. The event will be held at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Tulsa and will feature President George W. Bush as the keynote speaker. Also on October 17 is OCPA’s 2013 Energy Summit from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency. For more information or to purchase tickets, please contact Karma Robinson at (405) 6021667.

14 PERSPECTIVE • October 2013

5 www.ocpathink.org

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

Change Service Requested

1401 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Tel: 405.602.1667 Fax: 855.819.0085 ocpathink.org

QUOTE UNQUOTE “The best place for a child is in a home with a committed mother and father.”

Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon, speaking Sept. 25 to some 750 policy experts from around the country gathered in Oklahoma City for the State Policy Network annual meeting

“Every college today practically has a secretary of state, a vice provost for international studies, a zillion public relations specialists. My university has a sustainability coordinator whose main message, as far as I can tell, is to go out and tell people to buy food grown locally”

Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, quoted on Aug. 23 in The Wall Street Journal

“If more money is spent on public schools in my district, students will learn more.”

A statement read to 1,000 likely Oklahoma voters in 2010 by the survey-research firm SoonerPoll. Only 32 percent of respondents agree with the statement, while 64 percent disagree.

“Teacher tenure is by far the most corrupt social institution in our time, because it doesn’t reward excellence or weed out bad teachers.” Bob Funk, president of Express Employment Services, quoted Sept. 21 in The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Funk served as a local school board member for 11 years.

“$26,784”

“[T]he government can give no financial help to business that it does not first or finally take from business. … When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax successful “If gun control worked, private business in order to Chicago would be Mayberry support unsuccessful private right now.” Cam Edwards, host of the NRA’s “Cam & Company” business.” The annual value of the total welfare-benefits package in Oklahoma, according to a new study from the Cato Institute. Welfare recipients don’t pay taxes on these benefits.

radio show

Economist Henry Hazlitt