This study with rankings by CNBC was just released. It is the 4th year for the rankings. Being ranked number 25 isn't terribly surprising for Oklahoma. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if we had been ranked a little lower.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37554006

It's no surprise that Texas is ranked number one. What is surprising, however, is that Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas in the cost of doing business. The main issue for cost of doing business in the study is taxes. To hear most of our conservative politcians talk, you would think just the opposite and that Texas is the tax relief haven for the country and we are severely overtaxed.

We are very low in the transportion issue and from what I can see the lack of mass transit has to be part of that. I'm sure that many states ranked ahead of us in that area have much worse traffic congestion than we do even without mass transit options. Air travel options were a big consideration but we're not going to become DFW in OKC anytime soon so there isn't much that could be done about that.

It's also not surprising and encouraging that we are ranked first in the country in cost of living.

What is surprising, however, is that Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas in the cost of doing business. The main issue for cost of doing business in the study is taxes. To hear most of our conservative politcians talk, you would think just the opposite and that Texas is the tax relief haven for the country and we are severely overtaxed.

Where did you see the weighted breakdown of the "Cost of doing business" category? All I could find was this, but it doesn't say anything about how taxes are gauged compared to cost of rent - just that both are considered.


Cost is a major consideration when a company chooses a state. We looked at the tax burden, including individual income and property taxes, business taxes, even the gasoline tax. Utility costs can add up to a huge expense for business, and they vary widely by state. We also looked at the cost of wages and state workers’ compensation insurance, as well as rental costs for office and industrial space.


So here we have 5 items

1. Tax Burden
2. Utility Cost
3. Wages
4. Worker's Compensation Insurance
5. Rental Cost

From the information provided in the story you deduced that the overall tax burden is lower in Oklahoma. Isn't it more likely that we scored better in Wages, Utility Cost, and Rental Cost than Texas and THAT is why Oklahoma came out ahead?

I think something we need to start using to our advantage vs Texas is the real cost of doing business. If Texas companies need water to grow, I say we give them all the water to grow...in Oklahoma. Selling water to Texas will only allow the state to further subsidize the growth of Texas. If Texas has a shortage of water especially dfw in the next 20 years, and that is not that unrealistic, then companies will have to start looking north. We need to be smart as a state and not just do whats convenient, clearly this study shows that utility costs do matter water included. Another thing our state must look to do is stop subsidizing educating Texans at our colleges, for example the cost of out of state tutiton at OU is less than OSU, thats a joke as OU is more in state. The retention rate of texas ou grads is horrible compared to instate, and if we are to have an educated workforce we need more college grads in Oklahoma. Plus if we shift the burden to texas and they have to build another institution of learning than it will be more strain on the tax base again leveling the playing field. Sorry to rant its just I see so many texans (often quite wealthy enjoy a discounted education at OU and return to texas with degrees in hand).

With education (at 40) being what clearly sets us back, you'd think the business community might be more supportive of SQ744.

With education (at 40) being what clearly sets us back, you'd think the business community might be more supportive of SQ744.

Seriously? Who actually supports that proposition? Spending money the state clearly doesn't have on education isn't going to fix a damn thing in our education system, which takes up most of the state budget already. There's a reason virtually everyone, including the top Democrats in the state, oppose SQ744: it would be financial apolocalypse for Oklahoma and probably lower our ranking in such "Best for Business" polls.

We are very low in the transportion issue and from what I can see the lack of mass transit has to be part of that. I'm sure that many states ranked ahead of us in that area have much worse traffic congestion than we do even without mass transit options. Air travel options were a big consideration but we're not going to become DFW in OKC anytime soon so there isn't much that could be done about that.

I talked at length with the mayor of San Antonio while he was here for the USCM and he told me one of the things he's focusing on is expanding their airport and to compete with OKC and other cities like ours for more air trave and businessl. He said businesses looking to move to San Antonio often choose not to because of the airport situation. I don't know if airport expansion, in and of itself, is the solution, but trying to get more air travel options is definitely on the mind of several mayors and business people.

Seriously? Who actually supports that proposition? Spending money the state clearly doesn't have on education isn't going to fix a damn thing in our education system, which takes up most of the state budget already. There's a reason virtually everyone, including the top Democrats in the state, oppose SQ744: it would be financial apolocalypse for Oklahoma and probably lower our ranking in such "Best for Business" polls.
A state like Oklahoma that undervalues education will always have a hard time trying to keep up with other states that do an adequate job of it, or better. Our funding priorities sorely need to be rearranged. For instance, there's nothing for Oklahoma to be proud about from spending enough money to be one of the most highly imprisoned places in the world from such a high incarceration rate. Oklahoma's crime rate which isn't one of the lowest, compared to other states, proves how doing that doesn't pay off well for taxpayers. But then, I reckon no one, especially the elected politicians, fear a state financial apocalypse from maintaining one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. They would surely fear much more their own apocalypse at the polls from trying to lower the incarceration rate.

But it still goes back to what I said. The state needs to have the courage to rearrange its funding priorities. Cutting the incarceration rate by 50% would free up many, many millions for education, along with infrastructure, if so desired, while leaving Oklahoma with an incarceration rate close to average for America.

I thought the lottery was going to fix education. What happened?

A state like Oklahoma that undervalues education will always have a hard time trying to keep up with other states that do an adequate job of it, or better. Our funding priorities sorely need to be rearranged. For instance, there's nothing for Oklahoma to be proud about from spending enough money to be one of the most highly imprisoned places in the world from such a high incarceration rate. Oklahoma's crime rate which isn't one of the lowest, compared to other states, proves how doing that doesn't pay off well for taxpayers. But then, I reckon no one, especially the elected politicians, fear a state financial apocalypse from maintaining one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. They would surely fear much more their own apocalypse at the polls from trying to lower the incarceration rate.

But it still goes back to what I said. The state needs to have the courage to rearrange its funding priorities. Cutting the incarceration rate by 50% would free up many, many millions for education, along with infrastructure, if so desired, while leaving Oklahoma with an incarceration rate close to average for America.

Bunty, that's a nice thought, and you'll get no argument from me on the need to reform our corrections system, but you can eliminate every cent of Corrections funding from our budget and it still wouldn't be enough to pay for SQ 744.

Furthermore, it is no longer a serious proposition to say more funding equals better education. Simply look to Washington DC schools. They have the highest funding per pupil in the nation and they are pure sh*t. Wyoming spends the 4th most and is ranked 22nd by CNBC. Alaska spends 9th most and are ranked 45th. So midtowner's implication is false.

We need to find another solution besides the tired, failed "spend more money" solution. Until we do that, most major businesses won't seriously consider us as a viable relocation destination.

I thought the lottery was going to fix education. What happened?
The lottery should have never been presented that way, because the amount that can be raised from it only represents a very tiny portion of the total budget for education in Oklahoma.

[QUOTE=king183;344986]Bunty, that's a nice thought, and you'll get no argument from me on the need to reform our corrections system, but you can eliminate every cent of Corrections funding from our budget and it still wouldn't be enough to pay for SQ 744.

Furthermore, it is no longer a serious proposition to say more funding equals better education. Simply look to Washington DC schools. They have the highest funding per pupil in the nation and they are pure sh*t. Wyoming spends the 4th most and is ranked 22nd by CNBC. Alaska spends 9th most and are ranked 45th. So midtowner's implication is false.

We need to find another solution besides the tired, failed "spend more money" solution. Until we do that, most major businesses won't seriously consider us as a viable relocation destination.[/QUOTEouT]
You can pick and choose your numbers to further your argument, but I know teachers at rural schools with 15 year old textbooks and no technology. The fact that a bill asking our state to fund education at average is so ridiculed shows how backwards our priorities are. The response I always hear is that we can't increase spending during a recession, but all our neighbor states are outspenfing us... In the middle of a recession. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.
I am a teacher in OKC and I make $10,000 less than my girlfriend. I have more experience, I am only a dissertation away from my doctorate, and I put in 14 hour days during the school year. So, we not only need to fund our schools/students better, but also our teachers.
End of rant. Please respond with your excuses for underfunding education and teacher salaries.... Now.

Pick and choose numbers? I'm using the numbers you guys (i.e., the advocates of SQ 744) were using to make your argument. Midtowner said businesses should support SQ744 (i.e., increase funding of of education to regional average) because we're ranked so low (i.e., 40) in the CNBC index, thereby implying that increasing state funding would improve education and our ranking in the polls like CNBC's index. As I showed, that's patently false. More funding does not equal better education.

Furthermore, the response that you claim you hear is 100% correct--we can't increase funding in a recession because we don't have the money. It's that simple--if you don't have the money, you can't spend it. But sadly so many people, such as supporters of SQ744, don't realize we can't will the money out of thin air like the federal government can. Indeed, the fact that you ridicule such an obviously true statement does show how backwards some of us are. And it's especially worrying that they are in the teaching profession. You may call it an excuse, but it's a correct excuse.

Lastly, if you're making so little money for the education you have, you always have the choice of getting another job. I also make way below what I could be making with my education, but I'm not bitching about it because I like it, I chose it, and I think/hope I'm helping people by doing it.

This is another example of why Texas is Number 1 in Business! A major relocation to the Dallas-FW area. Why can't OKC land these types of jobs? Anyway, I guess that is why I am living in Dallas and not OKC, (lol).



http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/06/28/daily50.html?surround=lfn

http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/06/28/daily36.html?surround=lfn

Dallas has always been a magnet for major corporate relocations. I've always said the mantra of Oklahoma should be "what can we do to be more pro-business". We have the low taxes but are missing other key parts such as education and infrastructure. The state government needs to be solely concentrated on retaining and bringing jobs to the state.

It's like to talking to a brickwall. You did pick and choose numbers. You picked 3 places out of 51 to name. That's called picking and choosing. And BTW, thanks for the excuses as to why we can't do what other stares are doing while also in a recession. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

I talked at length with the mayor of San Antonio while he was here for the USCM and he told me one of the things he's focusing on is expanding their airport and to compete with OKC and other cities like ours for more air trave and businessl. He said businesses looking to move to San Antonio often choose not to because of the airport situation. I don't know if airport expansion, in and of itself, is the solution, but trying to get more air travel options is definitely on the mind of several mayors and business people.

That is a valid point, but unfortunately there are really only two ways to bring [more] air service to a city: increased demand, or subsidies. I am for the first, but don't think we need to spend money on subsidies. We have one of the best air travel recruitment teams in the country at WRWA, and they are actually putting out requests for bids for a new team with an even better track record to begin before the end of this year. I agree though that having a good air service is vital to attracting jobs, however I think we are pretty well served compared to most cities our size (Omaha, Tulsa, etc.). The only way for us to get better service now is wait for the demand to pick up, and if our big corporations pitch the airlines for air service they could use instead of connecting.

Bunty, that's a nice thought, and you'll get no argument from me on the need to reform our corrections system, but you can eliminate every cent of Corrections funding from our budget and it still wouldn't be enough to pay for SQ 744.

Furthermore, it is no longer a serious proposition to say more funding equals better education. Simply look to Washington DC schools. They have the highest funding per pupil in the nation and they are pure sh*t. Wyoming spends the 4th most and is ranked 22nd by CNBC. Alaska spends 9th most and are ranked 45th. So midtowner's implication is false.

We need to find another solution besides the tired, failed "spend more money" solution. Until we do that, most major businesses won't seriously consider us as a viable relocation destination.

So to listen to you, the states that spend more on education than Oklahoma need to clean up their acts by significantly cutting their funds for education?

This is another example of why Texas is Number 1 in Business! A major relocation to the Dallas-FW area. Why can't OKC land these types of jobs? Anyway, I guess that is why I am living in Dallas and not OKC, (lol).

Simply because the DFW airport has far more non stop destinations, many of them international, than the OKC airport. This time saving convenience is what executives want. Not many businessmen want to move to Oklahoma City and then in a flight first have to stop in DFW. Just locate in DFW to begin with.

Simply because the DFW airport has far more non stop destinations, many of them international, than the OKC airport. This time saving convenience is what executives want. Not many businessmen want to move to Oklahoma City and then in a flight first have to stop in DFW. Just locate in DFW to begin with.

Following the same logic, no city other than Atlanta, Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, DFW, New York, Boston, or Miami would have very big business communities. Comparing large fortress hub cities to non hub cities is ridiculous. Austin has a good business base and they are not DFW or Atlanta in terms of air service. Although your point is valid, but that is not the only reason. A 30 minute flight to DFW is not why, it has to do with other reasons. Flights into hubs are normally cheaper than flights going from the hub. for example, OKC-DFW-Denver on American is cheaper than flying DFW-Denver nonstop. So smaller businesses with a smaller travel fund that use cheapest fares would actually benefit financially from the 30 minute flight to Dallas.

Simply because the DFW airport has far more non stop destinations, many of them international, than the OKC airport. This time saving convenience is what executives want. Not many businessmen want to move to Oklahoma City and then in a flight first have to stop in DFW. Just locate in DFW to begin with.

Well, keep in mind American Airlines is not the only carrier in OKC. And not every single carrier out of OKC stops in Dallas first. Why is it that people think OKC's world has to automatically go through Dallas on a plane? OUt of OKC, the flights go to the major hubs first, then to the destination. You must also remember that there are a lot of nonstop destinations to and from OKC that don't involve DFW.

Nonstop from OKC-

Atlanta (Delta)
Baltimore (Southwest)
Chicago O’Hare (American, United)
Dallas Love Field (Southwest)
Dallas/Ft. Worth (American)
Denver (Frontier, Southwest, United)
Detroit (Northwest)
Houston Hobby (Southwest)
Houston Intercontinental (Continental)
Kansas City (Southwest)
Las Vegas (Southwest)
Los Angeles (United)
Memphis (Northwest)
Minneapolis (Northwest)
Newark (Continental)
Phoenix (Southwest)
Salt Lake City (Delta)
St. Louis (American, Southwest)
Washington, D.C. (United)

Pick and choose numbers? I'm using the numbers you guys (i.e., the advocates of SQ 744) were using to make your argument. Midtowner said businesses should support SQ744 (i.e., increase funding of of education to regional average) because we're ranked so low (i.e., 40) in the CNBC index, thereby implying that increasing state funding would improve education and our ranking in the polls like CNBC's index. As I showed, that's patently false. More funding does not equal better education.

You "proved" your case by citing Washington D.C.--a small area where the demographics are on par with the absolute rock-bottom worst places in Oklahoma. And for those areas, I think you're likely right, they are pretty much beyond help until they figure out a way to take horrible parents and cultures which devalue education out of the equation.

Where your proof utterly fails is that Oklahoma is a diverse educational environment. We have rural schools which are really hurting, some are being forced to close. We have other schools, such as the one my wife teaches at with text books written during the early years of the Clinton Presidency. Arts programs are terribly underfunded, our best teachers constantly leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere, and the cherry on top is that our retirement system is at best a shell game.

If we're doing great as you imply, maybe we'd do better with less?


Furthermore, the response that you claim you hear is 100% correct--we can't increase funding in a recession because we don't have the money. It's that simple--if you don't have the money, you can't spend it. But sadly so many people, such as supporters of SQ744, don't realize we can't will the money out of thin air like the federal government can. Indeed, the fact that you ridicule such an obviously true statement does show how backwards some of us are. And it's especially worrying that they are in the teaching profession. You may call it an excuse, but it's a correct excuse.

We have millions upon millions, perhaps even north of a billion in tax credits which could be cut and applied to education immediately, unless, of course, you value corporate welfare. Heck, this one investment tax credit program the Tulsa World mentions cost $175 million in 2007 alone. And that is just one of many programs. What do you imagine the golf cart tax credits ended up costing the state?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100517_16_A1_Twoinv320431


Lastly, if you're making so little money for the education you have, you always have the choice of getting another job. I also make way below what I could be making with my education, but I'm not bitching about it because I like it, I chose it, and I think/hope I'm helping people by doing it.

I'm not an educator. My wife is, my mother is. I'm just a supporter of education. Our funding issues in both lower and higher education are really hurting our state. Until we fix the way we value education, our problems re: incarceration rates, drug use, poverty, are not going to get any better.

Correct, except Northwest is now Delta.

You "proved" your case by citing Washington D.C.--a small area where the demographics are on par with the absolute rock-bottom worst places in Oklahoma. And for those areas, I think you're likely right, they are pretty much beyond help until they figure out a way to take horrible parents and cultures which devalue education out of the equation.

Where your proof utterly fails is that Oklahoma is a diverse educational environment. We have rural schools which are really hurting, some are being forced to close. We have other schools, such as the one my wife teaches at with text books written during the early years of the Clinton Presidency. Arts programs are terribly underfunded, our best teachers constantly leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere, and the cherry on top is that our retirement system is at best a shell game.

If we're doing great as you imply, maybe we'd do better with less?



We have millions upon millions, perhaps even north of a billion in tax credits which could be cut and applied to education immediately, unless, of course, you value corporate welfare. Heck, this one investment tax credit program the Tulsa World mentions cost $175 million in 2007 alone. And that is just one of many programs. What do you imagine the golf cart tax credits ended up costing the state?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100517_16_A1_Twoinv320431


Midtowner, I didn't realize how good you were at distorting arguments. First, not only did I cite DC, I cited Alaska and Wyoming. I could do it with many other states. Multiple studies have proven more funding doesn't correlate to better education. Second, I didn't say nor did I imply "we're doing great." You simply made that up.

My point all along has been clear and has been proved over and over by people smarter than we are: destroying our state budget through SQ744 will not help our education system. We could increase our education spending 20 fold, but it wouldn't fix the fundamental problems with our education system, something you're somehow able to see in DC and those are sh*tholes, but not here.

Alaska and Wyoming are about as comparable to Oklahoma as D.C.

Your study is simply a distortion. And the money is there without wrecking the budget.

Corporate welfare vs. education shouldn't be a tough choice.

Moved to Plano/Mckinney area about 3 years ago. I agree with everyone above, it's "all the above" really. Education is no small part. Our kids had already finished w/ K-12, but some of the other families that relocated to here when we did, mentioned that while they loved their schools in NW OKC, Edmond, Deer Creek, it was a night and day difference here... and from day one, most of them said their kids could not wait to get back to school. So, that in turn draws young families, along w/ the transportation, along w/ lifestyle. Of course, business draws other business, strength in numbers, high-tech, health-related jobs, the people working those jobs like to know there are plenty of jobs similar to theirs in town. Not so much as a matter of options, but when you're hiring, you have an abundance of highly specialized people to draw from. So, its not just this or that, its a combination of things that cause businesses to even pay a little more to do business in Texas, just to put themselves in a nice position to recruit. One of the things a lot of the surrounding communities do here is help fund the relocation itself, help build the buildings, in return for jobs created --- i.e., they "invest" themselves in the companies. Not saying that every state would have the same strategy, just to me there are many factors at work.

Where did you see the weighted breakdown of the "Cost of doing business" category? All I could find was this, but it doesn't say anything about how taxes are gauged compared to cost of rent - just that both are considered.



So here we have 5 items

1. Tax Burden
2. Utility Cost
3. Wages
4. Worker's Compensation Insurance
5. Rental Cost

From the information provided in the story you deduced that the overall tax burden is lower in Oklahoma. Isn't it more likely that we scored better in Wages, Utility Cost, and Rental Cost than Texas and THAT is why Oklahoma came out ahead?

Kerry, I see nothing to make me assume that that is the reason. They give no indication of how they evaluate their figures but led off that segment by talking about taxes. That makes me think that taxes were definitely a priority.

Midtowner, I didn't realize how good you were at distorting arguments. First, not only did I cite DC, I cited Alaska and Wyoming. I could do it with many other states. Multiple studies have proven more funding doesn't correlate to better education. Second, I didn't say nor did I imply "we're doing great." You simply made that up.

My point all along has been clear and has been proved over and over by people smarter than we are: destroying our state budget through SQ744 will not help our education system. We could increase our education spending 20 fold, but it wouldn't fix the fundamental problems with our education system, something you're somehow able to see in DC and those are sh*tholes, but not here.

States that spend more have better educational systems with better overall results. Schools that can't afford books or technology would disagree that more money won't help. Yet your solution for our children is that I quit a job I pour my heart and soul in and take a higher paying job. It's people like you that hold our state back from doing great things.

Moved to Plano/Mckinney area about 3 years ago. I agree with everyone above, it's "all the above" really. Education is no small part. Our kids had already finished w/ K-12, but some of the other families that relocated to here when we did, mentioned that while they loved their schools in NW OKC, Edmond, Deer Creek, it was a night and day difference here... and from day one, most of them said their kids could not wait to get back to school. So, that in turn draws young families, along w/ the transportation, along w/ lifestyle.

While Oklahoma is ranked low in education, Texas is hardly a top tier state at number 30.

All public schools suck everywhere. Go out and find the state that says their public schools are awesome and then see how many parents in that state choose a private school for their children. All these ranking about which state has the best public education system is a little disingenuous because all they are doing is comparing one crappy public schools system to another crappy public school system to see who has the best crappy public school system. Most of today’s public school children wouldn't last 1 minute in the public high school we went to 25 years ago, and none of them would make it in the high school our parents went to.

Thank goodness we have the opportunity and ability to home school (starting our 4th year).

All public schools suck everywhere. Go out and find the state that says their public schools are awesome and then see how many parents in that state choose a private school for their children. All these ranking about which state has the best public education system is a little disingenuous because all they are doing is comparing one crappy public schools system to another crappy public school system to see who has the best crappy public school system. Most of today’s public school children wouldn't last 1 minute in the public high school we went to 25 years ago, and none of them would make it in the high school our parents went to.

Thank goodness we have the opportunity and ability to home school (starting our 4th year).

I'm sending my kids to private Catholic schools when they start school.

Moved to Plano/Mckinney area about 3 years ago. I agree with everyone above, it's "all the above" really. Education is no small part. Our kids had already finished w/ K-12, but some of the other families that relocated to here when we did, mentioned that while they loved their schools in NW OKC, Edmond, Deer Creek, it was a night and day difference here... and from day one, most of them said their kids could not wait to get back to school. So, that in turn draws young families, along w/ the transportation, along w/ lifestyle. Of course, business draws other business, strength in numbers, high-tech, health-related jobs, the people working those jobs like to know there are plenty of jobs similar to theirs in town. Not so much as a matter of options, but when you're hiring, you have an abundance of highly specialized people to draw from. So, its not just this or that, its a combination of things that cause businesses to even pay a little more to do business in Texas, just to put themselves in a nice position to recruit. One of the things a lot of the surrounding communities do here is help fund the relocation itself, help build the buildings, in return for jobs created --- i.e., they "invest" themselves in the companies. Not saying that every state would have the same strategy, just to me there are many factors at work.

True, but I often question whether these OKC ex-pats would have voted for a property tax increase to better fund Oklahoma City area schools. The reason I ask is that Texas only funds so much of the public school system at the state level. The rest is left up to local school districts. Oklahoma funds the majority of each public school district, leaving municipalities to fund infrastructure improvements with property taxes.

I'm willing to bet they would vote no. OKC could have a property tax increase of 10% on the millage rates and still come out well below what Texas cities levy in property taxes. And Texas cities rapes its citizens in property taxes. I speak from experience. When you have to take off work just to protest your damn property taxes, there is a problem there.

That being said, schools in Texas are not evenly funded because only so much comes from the state. You could have schools in Plano that are funded like a microchip fab plant while rural schools are crumbling like an old motor lodge.

If Oklahoma City can turn up the heat and pilot a program that would create the most innovative school system in the country, we need to get behind it or pressure the council to get behind it. In the end we come out a winner. Or we can continue to lay down our swords and salivate over DFW.

States that spend more have better educational systems with better overall results. Schools that can't afford books or technology would disagree that more money won't help. Yet your solution for our children is that I quit a job I pour my heart and soul in and take a higher paying job. It's people like you that hold our state back from doing great things.

Look, you can't keep your arguments straight, though I'm sure you think you are doing so. You say states that spend more have better educational systems. That very well may be the case, but that statement, even if true, does NOT mean states that have better education systems have them BECAUSE they spend more money.

You need to get off your OEA talking points and show me proof for your proposition that increasing funding above a non-marginal level will improve our education system. The fact is the United States spends more money on education than other major countries, but we do worse when it comes to high-school graduation rates and test scores.

For the last century, almost every year public education has seen an increase in funding and more teachers per student and yet we aren't seeing commensurate results.

It's not me holding the state back; it's our education system fraught with crappy, unionized teachers who, you think, can do no wrong, coupled with parents who don't give a damn about their child's education and a lack of school choice for those parents who do give a damn. Try as hard as you want, but you've lost the battle that more funding equals better education. You didn't lose it with me; you've lost it with the American public and even lost it with the current administration's education secretary. As more Americans wake up to the disaster our education system is, despite the billions upon billions we pour into it, it's only going to get worse for apologists such as yourself.

Following the same logic, no city other than Atlanta, Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, DFW, New York, Boston, or Miami would have very big business communities. Comparing large fortress hub cities to non hub cities is ridiculous. Austin has a good business base and they are not DFW or Atlanta in terms of air service. Although your point is valid, but that is not the only reason. A 30 minute flight to DFW is not why, it has to do with other reasons. Flights into hubs are normally cheaper than flights going from the hub. for example, OKC-DFW-Denver on American is cheaper than flying DFW-Denver nonstop. So smaller businesses with a smaller travel fund that use cheapest fares would actually benefit financially from the 30 minute flight to Dallas.

Nevertheless, still you can't escape from the fact that those cities you name have a lot more non stop international destinations than the Oklahoma City airport does.

Look, you can't keep your arguments straight, though I'm sure you think you are doing so. You say states that spend more have better educational systems. That very well may be the case, but that statement, even if true, does NOT mean states that have better education systems have them BECAUSE they spend more money.

You need to get off your OEA talking points and show me proof for your proposition that increasing funding above a non-marginal level will improve our education system. The fact is the United States spends more money on education than other major countries, but we do worse when it comes to high-school graduation rates and test scores.

For the last century, almost every year public education has seen an increase in funding and more teachers per student and yet we aren't seeing commensurate results.

It's not me holding the state back; it's our education system fraught with crappy, unionized teachers who, you think, can do no wrong, coupled with parents who don't give a damn about their child's education and a lack of school choice for those parents who do give a damn. Try as hard as you want, but you've lost the battle that more funding equals better education. You didn't lose it with me; you've lost it with the American public and even lost it with the current administration's education secretary. As more Americans wake up to the disaster our education system is, despite the billions upon billions we pour into it, it's only going to get worse for apologists such as yourself.

lol, And somehow, someway reducing funding in education will improve it. Just stand back and watch? One way to help do that is State Rep. Sally Kern's plan to ban the state from matching donations from the wealthy. So if you're right, why do a number of the wealthy, like T. Boone Pickens, see fit to donate so much to education? To have buildings and departments named after them as in T. Boone Pickens School of Geology?

lol, And somehow, someway reducing funding in education will improve it.

Yep, the same way spending less on healthcare will make it better.

Nevertheless, still you can't escape from the fact that those cities you name have a lot more non stop international destinations than the Oklahoma City airport does.

I'm not escaping the fact, that is why I said they are major fortress hub cities. Comparing a fortress hub to an "out-station" in terms of flights is ridiculous because with that logic, only those cities would have big business. Hardly the case. Columbus, OH has been a hub for numerous airlines and it is not Atlanta or Dallas in terms of business communities. Memphis, TN is also a fairly large hub, and besides FedEx and Delta, there really isn't a ton of big business employers there. It's flawed logic to assume that only hub cities are cities with huge business bases. A lot of the growth is organic starting with the business, not the airlines. Business travelers are normally high yield, the more business travelers going to and from a city, in effect, determines how much air service a city can support. With OKC business growing, so will our flight options as those businesses use the airport more. It's a reverse-domino effect. Businesses = more higher fare travelers = added flights = attracting more businesses = more higher fare travelers = added flights, etc. Right now, we are on step 1. Let's not skip to Step 3 and get the ball working artificially. Let's concentrate on just attracting and adding some core businesses with what we have to offer. And we have three already. Devon, Chesapeake, Sandridge. It's not an overnight procedure.

All public schools suck everywhere. Go out and find the state that says their public schools are awesome and then see how many parents in that state choose a private school for their children. All these ranking about which state has the best public education system is a little disingenuous because all they are doing is comparing one crappy public schools system to another crappy public school system to see who has the best crappy public school system. Most of today’s public school children wouldn't last 1 minute in the public high school we went to 25 years ago, and none of them would make it in the high school our parents went to.

Thank goodness we have the opportunity and ability to home school (starting our 4th year).

All public schools do not suck. Inner city public schools have problems because they pay way too low for one of the most demanding jobs in the world. Kids walk in with a ton of problems. Rural schools often (not always) have funding troubles that really hurt their schools. Many suburban schools (including in Oklahoma) are just as good, if not better, than any private or home schools. I have been around all of these in Oklahoma as a student (public and private schools) and as a teacher (I am at an amazing public school and have taught at OU). Not everything about our educational system is bad. I walk into a public school in Oklahoma City everyday where students can recieve an education that is comparable to a lot of colleges they attend. The problem is that everything could be even better with an INVESTMENT (and yes it's an investment b/c an educated population will bring a vast amount back to our state) in our students, schools, and teachers. Do you know how many Oklahoma born and bread teachers leave for Texas every year? Our system would improve immensely simply by raising teacher salaries to a competitive level. Like I said earlier, I teach here b/c I love this state, but my girlfriend teaches in Texas and makes $10,000 more than me with less experience and less education.

Like I said earlier, I teach here b/c I love this state, but my girlfriend teaches in Texas and makes $10,000 more than me with less experience and less education.
Yeah, unless the neighborhood sucks, a public school likely doesn't suck. Not everyone is Catholic or have the thousands to send kids to private school, which is why public schools exist.

So does your girlfriend complain about the high property taxes or high rent? Or some high tax?

Nevertheless, ljbab728, the people flock to it --- I didn't say anything about TX being the top tier in Education. I gave my opinion and relayed the opinions of others I know that made the move. Agree with it, disagree with it, but I made no such proclamation.

Yeah, unless the neighborhood sucks, a public school likely doesn't suck. Not everyone is Catholic or have the thousands to send kids to private school, which is why public schools exist.

So does your girlfriend complain about the high property taxes or high rent? Or some high tax?

She has never complained to me. One thing is certain. Despite paying the mortgage on a nice, 3 bedroom house by herself, she always has significantly more money than I do and I live in a dirt cheap apartment.

I fully realize that Texas has its own problems, Pulse, I never made a statement to the contrary. My point was, that good education systems are a 'draw' to those considering a move to a different locale. While that may seem obvious to some, I was just making a comment that was aimed at the fact that some are 'complacent'.
As for property taxes down here, they are high, there is no doubt. It has been my experience, though, that the absence of Texas state Income Tax has made the total outlay in state/local taxes a 'wash'.

All public schools do not suck.

Let me correct my statement. All public school systems suck. You might be able to find individual schools that are decent, but for everyone you can find there are 3 that I wouldn't feel comfortable in, let alone sending my children to. And don't think I grew-up a public school hater because here is the perspective I come from:

Sister is a teacher - 16 years (Oklahoma)
Mom was a teacher - 30 years (Oklahoma and California)
Grandmother was a teacher - 45 years (Oklahoma and California)
Grandfather was a Superintendent - 30 years (Oklahoma)
Mother in-law was a teacher - 36 years (Florida)
Father in-law was a teacher - 31 years (Florida)
Stepmother in-law was a teacher - 30 years (Florida)
Wife was a teacher - 12 years (Florida), then said enough of this crap. We're getting ready to start our 4th year home school for both of our boys.

Kerry, not everyone has a decent enough income and a parent who is a professional educator to home school effectively. I've known home schooled kids who were completely illiterate. Education is one of the things the government really needs to be in the business of and be good at. Trouble is that education to many folks is more about the teachers and administrators getting paychecks than teaching the kids anything. Get rid of tenure, start firing incompetents and start expecting kids to perform and things could be better.

--yeah and decent facilities, decent pay for good teachers, recent technology and recently updated textbooks would be a big help.

Putting more money in education in other states has absolutely made good sense and for the life of me will never see how other people on here can possibly see otherwise. After all, with very few exceptions, you'll find that states that spend more money on education have higher income and a better quality of life with fewer people per capita in prison. So the expense of education can pay off. Oklahoma won't get much of anywhere concentrating it's money in trying to be the most imprisoned state in the union, while short changing education. But in a state like Oklahoma, it's probably easier to find people who want more money spent on the prison system, not less.

Let me correct my statement. All public school systems suck. You might be able to find individual schools that are decent, but for everyone you can find there are 3 that I wouldn't feel comfortable in, let alone sending my children to. And don't think I grew-up a public school hater because here is the perspective I come from:

Sister is a teacher - 16 years (Oklahoma)
Mom was a teacher - 30 years (Oklahoma and California)
Grandmother was a teacher - 45 years (Oklahoma and California)
Grandfather was a Superintendent - 30 years (Oklahoma)
Mother in-law was a teacher - 36 years (Florida)
Father in-law was a teacher - 31 years (Florida)
Stepmother in-law was a teacher - 30 years (Florida)
Wife was a teacher - 12 years (Florida), then said enough of this crap. We're getting ready to start our 4th year home school for both of our boys.

Kerry, we already know you have a very deep heart felt hatred of government in general and the taxes, especially the free welfare, that comes with it. So big deal as to who all you know. It's about you, not your relatives. At least, after all them you didn't betray yourself as an individual and become a big time lover of government.

Nevertheless, ljbab728, the people flock to it --- I didn't say anything about TX being the top tier in Education. I gave my opinion and relayed the opinions of others I know that made the move. Agree with it, disagree with it, but I made no such proclamation.

I have many relatives who have lived in the Dallas area for over 30 years. None of them moved there because of the school system and I've never heard any comments about how wonderful they thought the schools were. I'm sure just like in most areas it can be hit and miss depending on exactly where you live. I can understand how people who are already going to move somewhere like the Dallas area will look for the best school districts just as they would here. I realize you didn't say Texas was top tier but you certainly were giving the impression that you thought it was far superior to Oklahoma (night and day) and the ranking, at least, doesn't justify that reputation.

lbjbab728 - Yes, I did mean exactly what I said, but I did not address the whole of Texas, nor even the whole of the DFW area. I didn't quote a study, or look at a poll. I relayed an opinion, (by persons having been born and raised in Oklahoma), that as far as schools in this immediate area are concerned (Mckinney, specifically), there is a difference, a big one, when compared to their own experiences with a prominent school district in NW Oklahoma City. No more, no less.

lbjbab728 - Yes, I did mean exactly what I said, but I did not address the whole of Texas, nor even the whole of the DFW area. I didn't quote a study, or look at a poll. I relayed an opinion, (by persons having been born and raised in Oklahoma), that as far as schools in this immediate area are concerned (Mckinney, specifically), there is a difference, a big one, when compared to their own experiences with a prominent school district in NW Oklahoma City. No more, no less.

Opinions are fine and we all have them for better or worse. You may be totally correct about the McKinney school district. I do have some relatives there (my cousin's daughter and her family) but don't recall that we ever discussed the schools. This thread, however, is more about state issues than individual school districts.

Opinions are fine and we all have them for better or worse. You may be totally correct about the McKinney school district. I do have some relatives there (my cousin's daughter and her family) but don't recall that we ever discussed the schools. This thread, however, is more about state issues than individual school districts.

State issues were the broad point I originally was trying to make... though I pointed out a specific experience, the overall point was, and still is, that educational systems are an important part of the decision to relocate for many, if not all, people, to a state, city, district, whatever. :). I think we could all agree, in general, on that.