Dear Editor:
I would like to bring some more facts to everyone’s attention about State Question 744. Yes, it is true and disheartening that Oklahoma invests so little into our children’s education compared to those in our region. But SQ 744, although a great gesture, might not be the best solution.
State Question 744 has no revenue stream associated with it; that is, there is not a way to pay for the increase to educational funding. According to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the three-year cost of SQ 744 could approach $1.5 billion. Although this would be a huge boost to Oklahoma education, it would be at an extreme expense to the Oklahoma budget. Lawmakers will have to find cash in a budget that is already tight due to the current state of our economy. Cuts will have to be made to offset SQ 744. Higher education funding has already been in danger of receiving cuts in the recent past and will likely be an early target.
Although this might not translate to a direct tuition increase, the University of Oklahoma stands to lose up to $30 million in funding over the next three years alone. This will be a heavy burden on our school at a time when President Boren and the OU Board of Regents are doing everything in their power to balance our own budget and keep OU an affordable, top-notch institution.
I urge all voters to stay informed on 744.
— Steve Sichterman,
meteorology junior
Central Regional Director of the Oklahoma Student Government Association
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
localsooner 1 year, 7 months ago
If 744 passed (which I doubt), do you think the Republicans at the capital will butcher the state budget or will they raise taxes?
I think they'll be forced to raise taxes. That's why I'm voting for it.
JosephTSchmidt 1 year, 7 months ago
It is interesting that so many pro-744 ads deem those opposing it as anti-education- apparently both our gubernatorial candidates fall under this label, as does at least one of our candidates for State Superintendent (while Paddack refuses to take a stance on the question; not the best sign of leadership).
The ads and the 744 propaganda also discuss the large amounts of money that is spent poorly in the state government. It's definitely true- unfortunately Oklahoma hasn't been budgeting as well as it should (at all). But 744 does not fix a bad budget. It does not enforce standards on spending, incredulous tax credits, or otherwise. Rather, 744 says we can afford it "if..."
That's a pretty big "if," I think.
I'm all for more accountability when it comes to both education and how our tax dollars are spent. That is why I, and many teachers and students who are aware of the issues- on either side of the isle- are voting no on 744.
It is more than just the university losing out, it is the idea that a measure like this will distract from what really matters- real accountability in the classroom. Just because there is a money allocation measure and education is tied to it, does not mean it is automatically a good thing for either the state or education. It also does not mean that those opposing the measure are against education.
I understand at least the intentions behind 744, and I encourage both research and questions on either end of the debate- people should check out the question as it will appear on the ballot online, as well as both sides' reasons for why the measure should or should not be passed.
But I hope we keep in mind the facts, and not just easy rhetoric tying bad spending with good intentions.