Perspective - August 2009
Post on 26-Jul-2016
216 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
August 2009 • Volume 16 Number 8
2
PerspectiveAugust 2009 Vol. 16, No. 8
Brandon Dutcher .................................. Editor
Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Councilof Public Affairs, Inc., an independent public policy organi-zation. OCPA formulates and promotes public policyresearch and analysis consistent with the principles of freeenterprise and limited government.
OCPA TrusteesBlake ArnoldOklahoma City
Mary Lou AveryOklahoma City
Lee J. BaxterLawton
Steve W. BeebeDuncan
John A. BrockTulsa
David R. Brown, M.D.Oklahoma City
Aaron BurlesonAltus
Paul A. CoxOklahoma City
Jay T. EdwardsOklahoma City
Ann FeltonOklahoma City
Josephine FreedeOklahoma City
Kent FrizzellClaremore
John T. HanesOklahoma City
Ralph HarveyOklahoma City
John A. Henry IIIOklahoma City
Henry F. KaneBartlesville
Robert KaneTulsa
Tom H. McCasland IIIDuncan
David McLaughlinEnid
Lew MeibergenEnid
Lloyd Noble IITulsa
Robert E. PattersonTulsa
Bill PriceOklahoma City
Patrick RooneyOklahoma City
Melissa SandeferNorman
Robert SullivanTulsa
Lew WardEnid
William E. Warnock, Jr.Tulsa
Gary W. Wilson, M.D.Edmond
Daryl WoodardTulsa
OCPA Adjunct Scholars
OCPA FellowsSteven J. Anderson, MBA, CPA
Research Fellow
J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D.Dr. David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow
for Freedom Enhancement
J. Scott Moody, M.A.Research Fellow
Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D.Research Fellow
OCPA Legal CounselDeBee Gilchrist � Oklahoma City
OCPA StaffForrest Claunch / Executive DirectorBrett A. Magbee / VP for Operations
Brandon Dutcher / VP for PolicyMargaret Ann Morris / Director of Development
Sandra Leaver / Event CoordinatorDacia Dodson / Executive Assistant
Clara Wright / Receptionist
1401 N. Lincoln Boulevard � Oklahoma City, OK 73104(405) 602-1667 � FAX: (405) 602-1238
www.ocpathink.org � ocpa@ocpathink.org
Will Clark, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma
David Deming, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma
Bobbie L. Foote, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma (Ret.)
Kyle Harper, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma
E. Scott Henley, Ph.D., J.D., D.Ph.Oklahoma City University (Ret.)
James E. Hibdon, Ph.D.University of Oklahoma (Ret.)
Russell W. Jones, Ph.D.University of Central Oklahoma
Andrew W. Lester, J.D.Oklahoma City University (Adjunct)
David L. May, Ph.D.Oklahoma City University
Ronald L. Moomaw, Ph.D.Oklahoma State University
Ann Nalley, Ph.D.Cameron University
Bruce Newman, Ph.D.Western Oklahoma State College
Stafford North, Ph.D.Oklahoma Christian University
Everett Piper, Ph.D.Oklahoma Wesleyan University
Michael Scaperlanda, J.D.University of Oklahoma
Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.Oklahoma City University
‘Cap and Trade’ Is Not the AnswerBy Jay T. Edwards
Many in Congress are intent on
imposing a tax on compa-
nies that produce carbon emis-
sions so as to improve the climate
and reduce global warming. The
U.S. House of Representatives has
sent this “cap and trade” bill to the
U.S. Senate. Under the plan,
acceptable levels of carbon
dioxide emissions will be deter-
mined and capped by the govern-
ment. Emissions over the cap will
be taxed unless the offender can
trade a credit with another com-
pany under the cap. This tax
scheme stems from a growing
concern about global warming
and the effect on global tempera-
tures by carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
Concern for global temperature
is not new to my generation. In
1970, scientific consensus held
that the planet was cooling and
we needed to find more sources of
energy or we would freeze to
death. The 30-year cooling fear
ended in the late 70s and was
replaced by the now ongoing
warming trend. Since the planet
has warmed only one degree over
the last 100 years, I wonder if
Congress isn’t overly concerned
about our planet’s ability to adjust
its thermostat. According to global
circulation models, if carbon
dioxide concentration in the
atmosphere were doubled it would
only result in about a one-degree
increase in average global tem-
perature over the next 100 years.
If the planet can adjust to our
intrusions, it brings up the ques-
tion about the need for carbon
emission regulation. Most every-
thing we do has a carbon foot-
print. Depending on how the “cap
and trade” tax is implemented, the
cost of everything will go up. A
low-carbon economy will be a
major setback to our standard of
living. Congress wants us to
reduce our carbon emissions by
80 percent by 2050. Since fossil
fuels constitute the greatest level
of carbon emissions, reductions of
this order cannot be achieved
until we have viable alternatives
for them. Consequently, with “cap
and trade” in place and no alter-
natives for energy production, the
government stands to raise huge
sums of revenue from emissions.
This will be useful in reducing the
massive federal budget deficit but
will devastate the economy.
The solution does not lie in wind
and solar power as alternatives
for fossil fuels. To generate com-
parable electricity to a typical
gas-fired power plant, a wind
farm would require by most
estimates about 40,000 acres of
land. Solar land requirements are
not much better. Currently, wind
and solar satisfy about one-sixth
of one percent of our energy
demand. The president proposed
to double that in the next four
years. That means, if he can do it,
the contribution will grow to one
third of one percent. Meanwhile,
demand is projected to grow by
30-plus percent in the next decade.
Let’s hope brighter minds
prevail on global warming and
the impact of carbon dioxide
before “cap and trade” becomes
law. �
Major General (Ret.) Jay T.
Edwards, USAF, was the founding
executive director of the Energy
Center at the University of Oklahoma.
He is an OCPA trustee.
To see how much “cap and trade” would cost your family,
visit http://www.taxfoundation.org/capandtrade
3
J. RufusFears, Ph.D.World-renowned author, lecturer, and inspiring
professor of classics at the University of Oklahoma
September 17, 2009
Doubletree at Warren Place • Tulsa, Oklahoma
6:00 p.m. Reception • 7:00 p.m. Dinner • 8:00 p.m. Program
CON S T I T U T I O N DAY
“Securing the Blessings of Liberty
to Ourselves and Our Posterity:
Is It Still Possible?”
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc.1401 N. Lincoln Boulevard • Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Office: 405-602-1667 • Fax: 405-602-1238www.ocpathink.org • ocpa@ocpathink.org
N O N - C O M P R O M I S I N GN O N - P A R T I S A N
4
State Government Needs Your HelpNews reports tell us that a revenue shortfall is
likely for state government during the current fiscalyear. Reduced allocations tostate agencies are probable.
No word yet on whatOklahoma’s taxpayers—whohave no idea what it’s like toexperience revenue shortfallsin their family budgets—think ofthis catastrophic development.Granted, Oklahoma has 66,084too many state and localgovernment employees when
compared to the national average, but my guess isthat taxpayers—none of whom have lost their jobsrecently—will want to do everything possible tomake sure government payrolls remain intact.
Even though a tax hike is pretty much a non-starter in Oklahoma, all is not lost: Oklahoma lawallows citizens to make voluntary contributions tostate government. The statute (§60-383) says that“gifts of cash or the equivalent of cash shall bemade to and receipted for by the Director of StateFinance.” So please, write the most generous checkpossible and send it to the Office of State Finance,2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 122, OklahomaCity, Oklahoma 73105.
Together, we can make a difference.—Brandon Dutcher
Is Oklahoma Addicted to Federal Spending?By J. Scott Moody and Wendy P. Warcholik
Oklahoma’s share of President Obama’s federal
“stimulus” package will come to approximately
$2.6 billion over two years—or an average of $1.3
billion per year. This certainly sounds like a lot of
money, but it pales in comparison to what the federal
government already sends to Oklahoma.Unfortunately, Oklahoma is already highly depen-
dent on federal largesse to keep a large part of itseconomy moving. If policymakers aren’t careful, thestimulus package will only worsen this dependency.
Chart 1 shows the total amount of federal spendingin Oklahoma from federal fiscal year (FFY) 1981 (thefirst year of available data) to 2008. In FFY 2008,Uncle Sam spent a whopping $31.758 billion inOklahoma, or the equivalent of 24 percent of allincome earned in the state (see Chart 2). Between FFY2006 and 2007, the increase alone in federal spendingin Oklahoma was $1.609 billion—even before theBush or Obama stimulus packages!
Federal spending grew 352 percent to $31.758billion in FFY 2008 from $7.027 billion in FFY 1981.Even after adjusting for the growth in the economy,
federal spending grew as a percent of personal incomeby 11.6 percent—to 24 percent from 21.5 percent.
Chart 3 breaks down federal spending by type as apercent of personal income. (Unfortunately, federalspending by type by state was not available untilafter FFY 1988 when these statistics were merged intoa single report.) The single largest type of federalspending in Oklahoma is for “retirement and disabil-ity,” which consists mostly of Social Security spend-ing. Between FFY 1989 and FFY 2008, spending onretirement and disability has declined as a percent ofpersonal income by 7.1 percent—to 8.6 percent from9.2 percent (percentage change may appear slightlyoff due to rounding).
The second-largest type of federal spending is for“other direct payments,” which consists mostly ofMedicare payments but also includes unemploymentcompensation, food stamps, and other expenditures.Between FFY 1989 and FFY 2008, spending on otherdirect payments has increased as a percent of personalincome by 28.2 percent—to 5.7 percent from 4.4 percent.
The third-largest type of federal spending is for“grants to state and local governments,” whichconsists mostly of Medicaid spending and, to a muchsmaller degree, the Department of Transportation.Between FFY 1989 and FFY 2008, spending on grantsto state and local governments has increased as apercent of personal income by 32 percent—to 4.7percent from 3.6 percent. Continued growth at thispace may soon see this category rival other directpayments.
The fourth-largest type of federal spending is for“salaries and wages.” Nationally, this consists mostlyof non-defense personnel. In Oklahoma, however,federal salaries and wages are dominated by theDepartment of Defense at $2.2 billion, versus $1.7billion for federal civilian employees. Between FFY1989 and FFY 2008, spending on salaries and wageshas decreased as a percent of personal income by40.5 percent—to 2.9 percent from 4.6 percent.
Finally, the fifth-largest type of federal spending isfor “procurement,” which consists mostly of the De-partment of Defense. As with salaries and wages,Oklahoma has an even higher proportion of defenseprocurement than the rest of the nation. Between FFY1989 and FFY 2008, procurement has increased as apercent of personal income by 24.6 percent—to 2.2percent from 1.7 percent. Though this is a largepercentage gain, it stems from the fact that procure-ment spending was starting at such a low level.
Overall, Oklahoma’s dependency on federal spend-ing is alarming. Many of these programs are ones
5
that Oklahomans likely wouldnot have created or expanded ifthey had to pay for them di-rectly. In fact, the federal gov-ernment is actually subsidizingthese programs with taxes paidby residents of other states.According to the Tax Founda-tion, Oklahoma receives $1.48for every $1 sent to Washington,D.C.
More disturbingly, a closerexamination of the compositionof spending points to a co-dependency between federaland state spending. The cat-egory of spending with thefastest growth was for grants tostate and local spending, whichcontains Medicaid spending.Between FFY 1998 and FFY2008, the federal portion ofMedicaid spending in Okla-homa grew 112 percent—to$3.519 billion from $1.657billion. This growth is problem-atic because for every $1 spenton Medicaid, Oklahoma’s stategovernment must pick up ap-proximately 27 cents of the tab.
Yet, as part of the recentstimulus package, the federalgovernment will lower the state’sportion of the Medicaid matchover the next two years, withencouragement from Uncle Samto expand Medicaid services asopposed to shifting the statedollars to other uses. Oklahoma’spolicymakers should not listento Washington, D.C., as it willonly serve to make Oklahomamore dependent on federallargesse. Instead, policymakersshould use this one-time stimu-lus money to enact reforms,especially in Medicaid, that willhelp wean Oklahoma fromfederal dependency. �
Economists J. Scott Moody (M.A.,
George Mason University) and
Wendy P. Warcholik (Ph.D., George
Mason University) are OCPA
research fellows.
6
This Outrageous Spending Must StopBy Mickey Hepner
When most people find themselves deep in debt,
the first thing they do is look for ways to cut their
spending. Unfortunately, the federal government is
doing just the opposite.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
national debt this year will approach a record $8
trillion, with $1.8 trillion of that added this year alone.
Amazingly, just eight years ago our national debt was
only $3.3 trillion, meaning that in just the past eight
years we have more than doubled the debt it took our
nation 225 years to amass. To make matters worse,
the CBO projects that the debt will continue to rise for
the foreseeable future, nearly
reaching $12 trillion by 2019, and
this includes large tax increases
scheduled for 2011.
This must stop.
Contrary to what some of our
elected officials believe, every
penny the government spends must
be paid for in taxes on somebody,
somewhere, at some time. If we do
not pay the taxes today, and decide
to incur a debt instead, we are
simply passing the tax off onto
future generations.
This must stop.
What is even more troubling is
that the larger our debt grows, the
larger the interest payments we
must make. The CBO estimates that
by 2019 taxpayers will be paying $566 billion of
interest each year on our debt—more than the federal
government spends on any current government
program except for Social Security and the military.
Remember, when we make these interest payments
we do not receive any government services. This is
money we will be effectively throwing away.
This must stop.
The most troubling thing about having a growing
national debt, though, is that it slows the rate of
economic growth, thereby making future generations
poorer. When governments run a debt, they must
borrow money to fund government programs. Yet,
when the government borrows money it is more
difficult for private businesses to borrow money,
making it more difficult for businesses to expand. This
process, what economists call the “crowding out of
investment,” leads to slower economic growth and
lower future incomes.
This must stop.
The only way we can stop this madness is to stop
spending so much money. The CBO estimates thatnext year all federal government outlays will total$3.5 trillion. They will be a little higher under theCongressional Budget Resolution approved recently.If we freeze total government spending at that levelwe still would not balance the budget until 2015—again assuming large tax increases in 2011. Still,freezing government spending at $3.5 trillion annu-ally will shave nearly $4 trillion off the national debtin the next 10 years. Notice that under a governmentspending freeze we would have the same nationaldebt in 2019 that we will have this year … we would
have stopped the madness.It is important to remember that
a true freeze on governmentspending does not mean that everyprogram must be frozen. We canspend more on defense if we needto. We can spend more on healthcare if we need to. We can spendmore on education if we need to.We can spend more on SocialSecurity payments if we need to.Under a spending freeze, though,every penny of increased spendingin these programs must be offsetby penny decreases elsewhere inthe budget.
Where can we cut? We can startwith farm subsidies. The federalgovernment will spend more than
$10 billion this year on farm subsidies, which theUSDA admits mainly go to large, wealthy farmers,instead of the small family farms. We can eliminatetens of billions more by eliminating programs fromthe stimulus package that are not scheduled to beginuntil after the economy already has recovered. Andwe eventually can save hundreds of billions byseriously exploring ways to control entitlementspending.
There is no doubt that some government spendingis important, necessary, and beneficial. There also isno doubt that we cannot afford the level of govern-ment spending currently being proposed in Con-gress. If we continue down this path of profligacy, wewill only make our children poorer. Speaking as afather of two young children who are counting on meto protect them, I will continue to say that this muststop. �
Dr. Hepner (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is an associ-
ate professor of economics at the University of Central
Oklahoma.
If we continue downthis path of
profligacy, we willonly make our
children poorer.
7
Government Fraud: Bigger Than MadoffBy Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven
Every year, criminals and cheats pilfer more than
$100 billion—that’s $40 billion more than Bernie
Madoff scammed off his investors—in federal ben-
efits to which they are not legally entitled. Medicare,
Medicaid, food stamps, refundable tax credits, and
many other programs are targets for looting.
Government fraud has been in the news lately
because analysts are expecting major abuses of the
Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan.
One Deloitte expert argued that “swindlers, con men,
and thieves could siphon off as much as $50 billion”
of stimulus funds, which are vulnerable because
policymakers are under pressure to shovel it out the
door quickly.
Even more troubling is the potential for fraud and
abuse created by President Obama’s other big
spending proposals—particularly his giant health-
care plan. Obama wants to inject hundreds of bil-
lions more tax dollars into federal health care in-
stead of fundamentally reforming Medicare and
Medicaid—broken programs that are already subject
to Madoff-sized larceny. That is incredibly unfair to
those of us paying the bills.
Take Medicare. The Government Accountability
Office reports that the program makes about $17
billion in improper payments each year. And that
doesn’t include problems in the new $60-billion-per-
year prescription-drug plan, which is a juicy target for
criminals. Harvard University’s Malcolm Sparrow, a
specialist in health-care fraud, recently testified to
Congress that official estimates are “lacking in rigor,”
are “comfortingly low and quite misleading,” and
exclude many kinds of fraud and abuse. He thinks
that as much as 20 percent of the federal health-care
budget is consumed by fraud, which would be $85
billion a year for Medicare.
The bottom line is that the enormous size and
complexity of federal health programs results in a
huge waste of taxpayer funds.
Medicare makes a staggering 1.2 billion electronic
payments each year, making it highly vulnerable to
cheating by health-care providers and organized-
crime rings. Criminals need only fill out the govern-
ment forms carefully and the “claims will be paid in
full and on time, without a hiccup, by a computer, and
with no human involvement at all,” according to
Sparrow. A perfect example is the recent case of a
high-school dropout in Miami who was able to
singlehandedly bilk Medicare out of $105 million
from her laptop by submitting 140,000 separate
claims for equipment and services.
Medicaid is also a huge abuse target. The GAO
puts Medicaid fraud at $33 billion—11 percent ofstate and federal spending on the program. Again,that is likely a substantial underestimate. A formerMedicaid investigator believes that up to 40 percentof New York State’s Medicaid budget is siphoned offin fraud and improper payments, but New Yorkprobably has a worse problem than elsewhere.Using Sparrow’s 20 percent estimate instead,Medicaid rip-offs top $60 billion a year nationwide.
How does all this fraud and abuse occur? Inmany ways, including billing for services andmedical equipment not provided, misrepresentingthe services provided, and double billing. That lastone is common.
Another trouble spot is Medicaid’s nursing-homebenefits, which are meant for people with lowincomes and few financial assets. Since nursinghomes are expensive, the program creates a bigincentive for higher-income families to falsify theirstatus and apply for the benefits. Indeed, a wholeindustry of financial consultants helps ineligibleseniors hide their income and assets so that theyqualify. The result is that the program loses about$10 billion a year to fraudulent claims.
The bottom line is that the enormous size andcomplexity of federal health programs results in ahuge waste of taxpayer funds. The inspector gen-eral of the Department of Health and Human Ser-vices recently told Congress: “Although it is notpossible to measure precisely the extent of fraud inMedicare and Medicaid, everywhere it looks theOffice of Inspector General continues to find fraudagainst these programs.”
Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest fraudtargets, but this problem plagues all governmentsubsidy programs. Official loss estimates for otherprograms include $12 billion for the Earned IncomeTax Credit, $5 billion for Supplemental SecurityIncome, and $14 billion for unemployment insur-ance. All in all, the cost to taxpayers is well over$100 billion a year, which translates into a theft of$1,000 or more from every household in Americaevery year.
We think that there are good policy reasons todramatically cut Medicare, Medicaid, and otherbenefit programs. But at the very least, the vastmagnitude of graft in these programs should giveevery policymaker pause before pumping evenmore taxpayer money into the federal subsidyempire. �
Chris Edwards is the director of tax-policy studies, and
Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst, at the Cato Institute.
While researching private schools in India for the World Bank, James Tooley wandered
into the slums of Hyderabad’s Old City and was shocked to find it overflowing with
small, parent-funded schools. So began the adventure lyrically told in The Beautiful Tree
and excerpted here—the story of Tooley’s travels from the largest shanty town in Africa to
the mountains of Gansu, China. It’s the story of children, parents, teachers, and entrepre-
neurs in the poorest corners of the globe who, in response to failed public education, are
not waiting for handouts. They are educating themselves—and succeeding under the
most challenging conditions imaginable.
9
After a stint teaching philosophy of education at
the University of the Western Cape in South
Africa, I returned to England to complete my doctor-
ate and later became a professor of education.
Thanks to my experiences in sub-Saharan Africa
and my modest but respectable academic reputation,
I was offered a commission by the World Bank’s
International Finance Corporation to study private
schools in a dozen developing countries.
The lure of faraway places was too enticing to
resist, but I was troubled by the project itself. Although
I was to study private schools in developing countries,
those schools were serving the middle classes and
the elite. Despite my lifelong desire to help the poor,
I’d somehow wound up researching bastions of
privilege.
The first leg of the trip began in New York in Janu-
ary 2000. As if to reinforce my misgivings that the
project would do little for the poor, I was flown first
class to London in the
inordinate luxury of the
Concorde.
Forty minutes into the
flight, as we cruised at
twice the speed of sound
and two miles above
conventional air traffic,
caviar and champagne
were served. The boxer
Mike Tyson (sitting at the
front with a towel over his
head for much of the
journey) and singer
George Michael were on
the same flight. I felt lost.
From London it was on
to Delhi, Chennai, and
Mumbai. By day, I evalu-
ated five-star private schools and colleges that were
very definitely for the privileged. By night, I was put
up in unbelievably salubrious and attentive five-star
hotels.
But in the evenings, sitting and chatting with street
children outside these very same hotels, I wondered
what effect any of my work could have on the poor,
whose desperate needs I saw all around me. I didn’t
just want my work to be a defense of privilege. The
middle-class Indians, I felt, were wealthy already.
To me it all seemed a bit of a con: Just because they
were in a “poor” country, they were able to latch onto
this international assistance even though they as
individuals had no pressing need for it at all. I didn’t
like it, but as I returned to my room and lay on the
500-thread-count Egyptian-cotton sheets, my discom-
fort with the program was forced to compete with a
mounting sense of self-criticism.Then one day, everything changed. Arriving in
Hyderabad to evaluate brand-new private colleges atthe forefront of India’s high-tech revolution, I learnedthat January 26 was Republic Day, a national holiday.
Left with some free time, I decided to take anautorickshaw—the three-wheeled taxis ubiquitous inIndia—from my posh hotel in Banjara Hills to theCharminar, the triumphal arch built at the center ofMuhammad Quli Shah’s city in 1591.
My Rough Guide to India described it asHyderabad’s “must see” attraction, and also warnedthat it was situated in the teeming heart of the OldCity slums. That appealed to me. I wanted to see theslums for myself.
As we traveled through the middle-class suburbs, Iwas struck by the ubiquity of private schools. Theirsignboards were on every street corner, some on finespecially constructed school buildings, but others
grandly posted aboveshops and offices.
Of course, it wasnothing more than I’dbeen led to expect frommy meetings in Indiaalready—senior govern-ment officials had im-pressed me with theircandor when they toldme it was commonknowledge that even themiddle classes were allsending their children toprivate schools. They alldid themselves. But it wasstill surprising to see howmany there were.
We crossed the bridgeover the stinking ditch that is the once-proud RiverMusi. Here were autorickshaws in abundance, cattle-drawn carts meandering slowly with huge loads ofhay, and rickshaws agonizingly peddled by painfullythin men.
My driver let me out, and told me he’d wait for anhour, but then called me back in a bewildered tone asI headed not to the Charminar but into the backstreets behind. No, no, I assured him, this is where Iwas going, into the slums of the Old City. For thestunning thing about the drive was that privateschools had not thinned out as we went from one ofthe poshest parts of town to the poorest.
Everywhere among the little stores and workshopswere little private schools! I could see handwrittensigns pointing to them even here on the edge of theslums. I was amazed, but also confused: Why had no
New Faith, a private school in Kibera (the largest slum in Africa)in Nairobi, Kenya. Opposite page: Soweto Academy.
10
one I worked with in India told me about them?The young men at the bean-and-vegetable counter
hailed me and said there was definitely someone atthe Royal Grammar School just nearby, and that itwas a very good private school and I should visit.
They gave me directions, and I bade farewell. But Ibecame muddled by the multiplicity of possible rightturns down alleyways followed by sharp lefts, and soasked the way of a couple of fat old men sittingalongside a butcher shop.
Their shop was the dirtiest thing I had ever seen,with entrails and various bits and pieces of meatspread out on a mucky table over which literallythousands of flies swarmed. The stench was terrible.No one else seemed the least bit bothered by it. Theyimmediately understood where I wanted to go andsummoned a young boy who was headed in theopposite direction to take me there.
He agreed without demur, and we walked quickly,not talking at all as he spoke no English. In the nextstreet, young boys played cricket with stones aswickets and a plastic ball. One of them called meover, to shake my hand.
Then we turned down another alleyway (with moreboys playing cricket between makeshift housesoutside of which men bathed and women did theirlaundry) and arrived at the Royal Grammar School,which proudly advertised, “English Medium, Recog-nized by the Gov’t of AP.” The owner, or “correspon-dent” as I soon came to realize he was called inHyderabad, was in his tiny office. He enthusiasticallywelcomed me.
Through that chance meeting, I was introduced tothe warm, kind, and quietly charismatic Mr. FazalurRahman Khurrum and to a huge network of privateschools in the slums and low-income areas of the OldCity. The more time I spent with him, the more Irealized that my expertise in private education mightafter all have something to say about my concern forthe poor.
Mr. Fazalur Rahman Khurrum was the president of
an association specifically set up to cater to
private schools serving the poor—the Federation of
Private Schools’ Management, which boasted a
membership of over 500 schools all serving low-
income families. Once word got around that a foreign
visitor was interested in seeing private schools,
Khurrum was inundated with requests for me to visit.
I spent as much time as I could over the next 10
days or so with Khurrum, traveling the length and
breadth of the Old City, in between doing my work for
the International Finance Corporation in the new city.
We visited nearly 50 private schools in some of the
poorest parts of town, driving endlessly down narrow
streets to schools whose owners were apparentlyanxious to meet me. (Our rented car was a largewhite Ambassador—the Indian vehicle modeled onthe old British Morris Minor, proudly used by govern-ment officials when an Indian flag on the hood signi-fied the importance of its user—horn blaring con-stantly, as much to signify our own importance as toget children and animals out of the way.)
There seemed to be a private school on almostevery street corner, just as in the richer parts of the city.
I visited so many, being greeted at narrow en-trances by so many students, who marched me intotiny playgrounds, beating their drums, to a seat infront of the school, where I was welcomed in ceremo-nies officiated by senior students, while school man-agers garlanded me with flowers, heavy, prickly, andsticky around my neck in the hot sun, which I borestoically as I did the rounds of the classrooms.
Some of the private schools had beautiful names.Like Little Nightingale’s High School, named afterSarojini Naidu, a famous “freedom fighter” in the1940s, known by Nehru as the “Little Nightingale” forher tender English songs. Or Firdaus Flowers ConventSchool, that is, “flowers of heaven.” The “convent”part of the name puzzled me at first, as did the manynames such as St. Maria’s or St. John’s.
It seemed odd, since these schools were clearly runby Muslims—indeed, for a while I fostered the illusionthat these saints and nuns must be in the Islamictradition too.
But no, the names were chosen because of theconnotations to parents—the old Catholic and Angli-can schools were still viewed as great schools in thecity, so their religious names were borrowed to signifyquality to the parents. But did they really deliver aquality education? I needed to find out.
One of the first schools Khurrum took me to wasPeace High School, run by 27-year-old MohammedWajid. Like many I was to visit, the school was in aconverted family home, fronting on Edi Bazaar, themain but narrow, bustling thoroughfare that stretchedout behind the Charminar. A bold sign proclaimed theschool’s name.
Through a narrow metal gate, I entered a smallcourtyard, where Wajid had provided some simpleslides and swings for the children to play on. By thefar wall were hutches of pet rabbits for the children tolook after. Wajid’s office was to one side, the family’srooms on the other. We climbed a narrow, dark, dirtystaircase to enter the classrooms.
They too were dark, with no doors, and noise fromthe streets easily penetrated the barred but unglazedwindows. The children all seemed incredibly pleasedto see their foreign visitor and stood to greet me warmly.
The walls were painted white but were discolored
11
by pollution, heat, and the general wear-and-tear ofchildren. From the open top floor of his building,Wajid pointed out the locations of five other privateschools, all anxious to serve the same students in hisneighborhood.
Wajid was quietly unassuming, but clearly caringand devoted to his children. He told me that hismother founded Peace High School in 1973 to provide“a peaceful oasis in the slums” for the children. Wajid,her youngest son, began teaching in the school in1988, when he was himself a 10th-grade student inanother private school nearby.
Wajid having then received his bachelor’s in com-merce at a local university college and begun trainingas an accountant, his mother asked him to take overthe school in 1998, when she felt she must retire fromactive service. She asked him to consider the “lessblessed” people in the slums, and that his highestambition should be to help them, as befitting hisMuslim faith.
This seemed to have comeas a blow to his ambitions. Hiselder brothers had all pursuedcareers, and several were nowliving overseas in Dubai,London, and Paris, working inthe jewelry business. But Wajidfelt obliged to follow hismother’s wishes and so beganrunning the school. He wasstill a bachelor, he told me, because he wanted tobuild up his school. Only when his financial prospectswere certain could he marry.
The school was called a high school, but like othersbearing this name, it included kindergarten to 10thgrade. Wajid had 285 children and 13 teachers when Ifirst met him, and he also taught mathematics to theolder children.
His fees ranged from 60 rupees to 100 rupees permonth ($1.33 to $2.22 at the exchange rates then),depending on the children’s grade, the lowest forkindergarten and rising as the children progressedthrough school.
These fees were affordable to parents, he told me,who were largely day laborers and rickshaw pullers,market traders and mechanics—earning perhaps adollar a day. Parents, I was told, valued educationhighly and would scrimp and save to ensure that theirchildren got the best education they could afford.
Oddly, my “discovery” of private schools serving
the poor was no discovery at all, or at least not to
some people.
Leaving Hyderabad, I returned to Delhi to meet
again with World Bank staff before moving on to
continue my “field trip” in other countries. I was eagerand excited to tell them what I’d discovered in theback streets of the Old City of Hyderabad and to gaintheir insights on the way forward.
They weren’t at all impressed. I met with a group ofstaff members in their pleasant offices, replete withpotted ferns and pretty posters of cute children. Most,it was true, had never heard of private schools servingthe poor, and they were frankly puzzled about howschools charging only $10 a year could exist, exceptthrough charity.
And they told me that I had found some nongovern-mental organizations working in the slums, opening afew schools, that was all. They told me this, assumingI was simply misguided, even though I had told themit was something else altogether.
However, one of the group, Sajitha Bashir, hadherself seen a few private schools in Tamil Nadu—although she insisted there were none in Karnataka,
where she was now doing astudy, so they weren’t auniversal phenomenon.
In front of the group, shelaunched into a tiradeagainst such schools. Theywere ripping off the poor, shesaid, run by unscrupulousbusinesspeople who didn’tcare a fig for anything otherthan profits.
This didn’t gel at all with what I’d seen inHyderabad—how could such people devote theirweekends to science competitions and cyber-olympicsif money was their sole motivation? I was not at allconvinced and hesitantly related some details of whatI’d found. No one considered my information verysignificant. Those who hadn’t heard of these schoolssimply shrugged, and the meeting soon dissolved.
Afterward, Sajitha took me downstairs for coffee,clearly trying to be helpful in letting me see the errorsof my ways.
So the private schools might be there, some mighteven be better than the public schools, but that’s onlybecause they are selective. “They take the cream ofthe cream,” she said (and I had to force myself toremember that we were talking about parents earninga dollar or two a day), leaving the public schoolsmuch worse off.
Anyway, continuing the theme that only a few wereany good, she continued, “Most of the schools areshocking, there is a shocking turnover of teachers,they’re not trained, they’re not committed, and theproprietors know that they can simply get others be-cause there is a long list of people waiting to come in.”
But her main problem, clearly based on well-
Private schools for the poor
are burgeoning across the
developing world, and their
quality is higher than that of
government schools
provided for the poor.
12
intentioned personal convictions, was the question ofequality. Because some children, the poorest of thepoor, are left behind in the “sink” public schools, theprivate schools were exacerbating inequality, notimproving the situation at all, she said.
For that reason, we must devote all our effortstoward improving the public schools, not get carriedaway by what was happening in a few private schools.
For Sajitha it was clear: If many—or even a few—parents had higher aspirations for their children andwanted to send them to private schools, then “theyshould not be allowed to do so, because this is unfair.”
It’s unfair because it makes it even worse for thoseleft behind. This puzzled me. Why should we treat thepoor in this homogeneous way? Would we—Sajithaand I—be happy if we were poor, living in those slums,and unable to do the best for our children, whateverour meager funds allowed? But I said nothing.
As we parted, amicably enough, she told me thatthere was quite a bit of development literature aboutprivate schools for the poor in any case, and so Ishouldn’t go on too much about my “discovery” as Ihad done today, as people would only laugh. She
gave me a couple of references to look up.And she was right. I wondered at my own poor
detective work in not having located these referencesbefore. Perhaps my own lack of recognition for whatwas taking place was excusable. In the writings shepointed me to, and subsequent ones that I found,discussion of private schools for the poor was some-how veiled, or referred to tangentially, and ignored insubsequent writings.
It was certainly not headlined in any conclusions orpolicy implications—to which many of us lazily turnwhen we digest development writings. It was almostas if the writers concerned were embarrassed orbewildered by private schools for the poor.
They could write about these schools in passing,but instead of their leaping out at them as somethingof great significance—as they had to me when I first“discovered” them in Hyderabad—they didn’t seem toimpinge in any significant way on the writers’ policyproposals or future discussions.
Even for those who didn’t deny the existence ofprivate schools for the poor, everyone, it seemed,altogether denied their significance.
The more I explored those references, the morebaffled I became. It was one thing to argue that“education for all” could be secured only throughpublic education supported by international aid if youwere unaware of private schools for the poor.
But as soon as you knew that many poor parentswere exiting the state system to send their children toprivate schools, then surely this must register on yourradar as being worthy of comment in the “educationfor all” debate? Apparently not.
I read the Public Report on Basic Education (thePROBE Report), a detailed survey of educationalprovision in four northern Indian states, with growingamazement. It too was clear that “even among poorfamilies and disadvantaged communities, one findsparents who make great sacrifices to send some or allof their children to private schools, so disillusionedare they with government schools.”
Here was another source pointing to the phenom-enon of private schools for the poor—why weren’t theybetter known then? The PROBE team’s findings on thequality of public schools were even more startling.When their researchers had called unannounced on alarge random sample of government schools, in onlyhalf was there any “teaching activity” at all!
In fully one-third, the principal was absent. Thereport gave touching examples of parents who werestruggling against the odds to keep children inschool, but whose children were clearly learning nextto nothing. Children’s work was “at best casuallychecked.”
The team reported “several cases of irresponsible
Praise for The Beautiful Tree“With this important and passionately written
book, James Tooley has joined the late MiltonFriedman as a name to be reckoned with in supportof ‘market solutions’ for providing quality educationto poor children.”
—Hernando DeSoto, author of The Other Path
“Schools for the poor are the obsession of JamesTooley, an education specialist with a severe caseof wanderlust. He came across an unexpected
phenomenon: an unendingline of small, no-frills privateschools catering to poor kids.He found that, on average,they had smaller class sizes,higher test scores, and moremotivated teachers, all whilespending less than publicschools. With the zeal of aconvert, Tooley invokes themarket’s ‘invisible hand’ toexplain why private schoolsperform better: When par-
ents pay the fees that keep a school afloat, hereasons, the school becomes more accountable tothem. Tooley drowns readers in local color, detailingevery ‘bright-eyed’ school child and every ‘thindrifting smog’ above a shantytown. Tooley’s passioncomes off as genuine.”
—Carlos Lozada, Washington Post
13
teachers keeping a school closed or non-functionalfor several months at a time,” one school “where theteacher was drunk,” another where the principal gotthe children to do his domestic chores, “includinglooking after the baby.”
The team observed that in the government schools,“generally, teaching activity has been reduced to aminimum, in terms of both time and effort.” Impor-tantly, “this pattern is not confined to a minority ofirresponsible teachers—it has become a way of life inthe profession.” Butthey did not observesuch problems in theprivate schools servingthe poor.
When their research-ers called unan-nounced on theirrandom sample ofprivate unaided (thatis, receiving no govern-ment funding) schoolsin the villages, “fever-ish classroom activity”was always takingplace.
So what was thesecret of success inthese private schoolsfor the poor? The reportwas very clear: “In aprivate school, theteachers are accountableto the manager (who canfire them), and, throughhim or her, to the parents(who can withdraw theirchildren).”
“In a governmentschool, the chain ofaccountability is muchweaker, as teachers havea permanent job withsalaries and promotionsunrelated to perfor-mance. This contrast is perceived with crystal clarityby the vast majority of parents.”
Private schools for the poor are burgeoning across
the developing world. In many urban areas they
are serving the majority of poor schoolchildren. Their
quality is higher than that of government schools
provided for the poor—perhaps not surprisingly given
that they are predominantly businesses dependent on
fees to survive and, hence, are directly accountable to
parental needs. Those worried about how to extendaccess to education for the poor could usefully look tothe private education sector as a way forward. Byincreasing what private schools for the poor alreadyoffer, such as additional free and subsidized placesfor the poorest, sensitively applied targeted voucherscould broaden access on a large scale.
Crucially, because the private schools serving thepoor are businesses, making a reasonable profit, theyprovide a pioneering way forward for investor involve-
ment too. Investing inmicrofinance-style loanprograms so thatprivate schools canimprove their infra-structure is one wayforward. Providinginvestment for innova-tion in curriculum andlearning, which, ifsuccessful, could berolled out on a com-mercial basis, is asecond possibility. Andinvesting in a chain of
schools—eitherthrough a dedicatededucation invest-ment fund orthrough joint ven-tures with educa-tional entrepre-neurs—could helpsolve the informa-tion problem forpoor parents andimprove the existingeducational oppor-tunities.
Educating thepoor is a solvableproblem. �
James Tooley
earned his Ph.D. from
the Institute of Educa-
tion, University of London, and has held educational
research positions at the Universities of Oxford and
Manchester and the National Foundation for Educational
Research. Prior to entering educational research and policy
he was a public-school mathematics teacher in Zimbabwe.
Now an award-winning scholar featured in PBS and BBC
documentaries, he has written several books, and his work
has been covered in Newsweek, The Atlantic, The Wall
Street Journal, and the Financial Times. He currently lives in
Hyderabad, India, where he works with the entrepreneurs
and teachers who inspired his book The Beautiful Tree.
14
Entrepreneurial Spirit and a Mother’s LoveBy Patrick B. McGuigan
Four decades of involvement in education—as a
volunteer, writer, and sometime teacher—have
blessed me with riches that cannot be measured in
normal ways.
I have read stories to children at east Oklahoma
City schools, then walked to lunch with a dozen giggling
children clinging to hands, fingers, and suspenders. I
taught elementary, middle, and secondary students at
an alternative school for troubled and “at-risk” youth.
I substituted at public, charter, and private schools,
meeting dreams and despair, trial and triumph.
I’ve lectured to sometimes idealistic and hopeful,
sometimes skeptical and bored, college students
about history or drama, about writing or romance, or
about a call of the heart found in that tender tug from
the squeeze of a child’s hand to “read just one more.”
Frustrated with bureaucratic lethargy and angry
with those who have surrendered to the despair of
inner-city poverty and family col-
lapse, I’ve found and then reported,
sometimes in the most unexpected
circumstances, examples of heroic
service to children who lack stable
living environments.
In the Deborah Brown Community
School in Tulsa and at public and
private schools in Oklahoma City, I
have witnessed the miracle of learning in defiance of
life’s greatest obstacles. I have seen the future, or part
of it, at St. John Christian Heritage Academy, then
dreamed of justice for hopeful and productive people.
But for all our problems, nothing I have encoun-
tered in American ghetto schools or in the lives of our
nation’s urban poor can compare with the squalor
found in descriptions given by James Tooley in his
new book The Beautiful Tree, excerpted in this month’s
issue of Perspective.
Tooley describes a remarkable odyssey uncovering
productive but unregistered private schools all over
the world, places where the children of desperately
poor parents make lives better through mathematics
and composition, English and French, science and
hope, while preparing for success in work and life.
Tooley crossed stinking ditches, passed open
sewers, encountered reeking slaughterhouses, and
circled putrid fish boats all over the world, only to find
enclaves of excellence guided by great minds the
equal of Marva Collins of Chicago and Tracy
McDaniel of Oklahoma City. The schools Tooley
visited were islands of calm in the midst of turmoil,
“areas that lacked decent sanitation and clean water
supply, adequate roads, electricity.”
Some he met were Muslim, some secular, some
Christian or Christian-influenced, some libertarians
longing for freedom from government dictates and
irrational cultural norms.
All seemed to share the perspective of one head-
master, a man named Wajid at “Peace High School”
in India, who told Tooley he became a private school
educator because, well, “Sometimes, government is
the obstacle to the people.” Tooley took the name for
his book from a figure of speech Mahatma Gandhi
used in 1931 to describe ancient Indian traditions of
learning and erudition.
In 2009, members of the British Conservative Party,
transformed in their worldview by Tooley’s book and
related studies, wrote with wonder in a recent mani-
festo: “In the poor urban and semi-urban areas of
Lagos State, Nigeria, 75 percent of school children
attend budget private schools. In the slums of
Hyderabad, India, 65 percent of
schoolchildren are in private un-
aided schools. These schools
charge very low fees, affordable to
parents on low wages. ... These
schools are run for poor people, by
poor people.”
And what are the results coming
from these schools serving the
poorest of the poor?
Analysis of testing of 24,000 children in five coun-
tries found that even after adjusting for background,
“results achieved in private schools were significantly
higher, in every country studied and on every mea-
sure used, than in public schools.” Problems in their
peer public schools were low motivation, lack of
accountability, and high rates of teacher absentee-
ism. Competition among the “budget private schools”
provided “an incentive to keep standards high, in
order to retain their pupils.”
It should surprise no one that, as Tooley’s book
jacket reports: “Both the entrepreneurial spirit and the
love of parents for their children can be found in every
corner of the globe.”
Tooley found that spirit and love in Hyderabad, in
Lagos, in Ghana, and in China.
I found that spirit and love in north Tulsa and in
east Oklahoma City.
Let’s unleash that spirit and that love. Now. It’s a
small world, after all. �
Patrick McGuigan (M.A. in history, Oklahoma State
University) is an editor at The City Sentinel, a weekly
newspaper in Oklahoma City. He is the author of two books
and the editor of seven.
James Tooley found that
spirit and love in
Hyderabad and in Ghana.
I found them in north
Tulsa and in east
Oklahoma City.
15
Fire Drills and Straw MenBy Brett A. Magbee
A crisis mentality has taken over our nation.
Increasing numbers of policymakers think if
they holler FIRE, citizens will give them a mandate
to implement a big-government solution, which at the
end of the day merely exacerbates the original
problem. In fact, the only thing such “fire drills” really
do is to assist those same policymakers (who are
doubtless in part responsible for the problems in the
first place) in expanding their power and authority
over taxpayers.
Then there’s another strategy which policymakers
utilize to maximum advantage. It’s called “the straw
man.” It is used to avoid challenges to these big-
government fire drills from free-market think tanks
like OCPA. Wikipedia states, “A straw man argument
is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of
an opponent’s position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to
create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by
substituting a superficially similar proposition (the
‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having
actually refuted the original position.”
Call such tactics political “posturing” or “games-
manship,” but either is clearly wrong because the use
of fear and/or misdirection shortchanges taxpaying
citizens from legitimate governance and in turn
makes a mockery of the process of representative
democracy.
That’s why OCPA has gained the support of thou-
sands of Oklahomans who are tired of politics as
usual and seek a source of reliable, nonpartisan
information and analysis they can depend on. They
know OCPA always puts principle over politics. That’s
why they support us. Do you? Your support expands
our work and our outreach, which furthers our effec-
tiveness and in turn encourages others to support us
as well. So please, give generously today! �
State Sen. John Ford (R-Bartlesville), chair-man of the Senate Education Committee,discusses a new Friedman/OCPA study withOCPA’s Brandon Dutcher (right).
Leslie Hiner, director of programs and state relations at the Friedman Founda-tion for Educational Choice, discusses education reform in the OCPA boardroomas journalist Patrick McGuigan (left) and OCPA trustee Bill Price listen.
At a recent state-capitol press conference, Chris-tian D’Andrea, policy analyst at the FriedmanFoundation for Educational Choice, outlines anew study published by Friedman and OCPA.
State Sen. Clark Jolley (R-Edmond), vice chairman of the Senate EducationCommittee, stresses the need for scholarships for special-needs students.Pictured also are (clockwise) Ginger Tinney of Professional Oklahoma Edu-cators; state Sen. John Ford; Peter J. Rudy of Oklahomans for ResponsibleGovernment; and David Dunn of the Oklahoma Family Policy Council.
Q U O T E U N Q U O T E
“Oftentimes, in government, you
don’t have the overall performance
driver like you do in the private
sector, which is profit. So we have
to look at different ways to make
sure we’re doing things as effi-
ciently as possible.”Claremore deputy city manager Matt Mueller,
quoted in a July 6 Tulsa World story. “For more
than a year and a half, Claremore has been
able to cut costs through outsourcing,” the World
reported. “The municipality has outsourced two
departments—fleet maintenance and planning
and zoning/engineering—since November 2007
and is in the process of converting a third.”
“Interchangeable widgets.”U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan,
describing how teachers are treated under
the industrial model on which teachers’
unions were formed
“52 percent.”The top tax rate for some Oklahomans if
ObamaCare is enacted, according to a new
analysis from The Heritage Foundation
“The lottery has produced ad-
dicts, led to fraud, and broken up
families.”Senate Majority Floor Leader Todd Lamb
(R-Edmond), quoted in a July 20 Tulsa World
story, “Lottery revenue hasn’t hit jackpot”
Don’t Be a TeaseOklahoma’s own Greg
Johnson, who last month was
elected to a seat on the NEA
Executive Committee, said in
a speech to his fellow union-
ized teachers: “I challenge
you to think of a world where
there is no NEA.”
“Hey, Obama has just national-
ized nothing more and nothing
less than General Motors. Com-
rade Obama!”Hugo Chavez, June 2, 2009
“I suppose you can’t really blame
Congress for trying to impose its
wishes on GM. After all, the
Constitution is silent on the matter
of which branch of government
furnishes the CEO of nationalized
companies.”Cato Institute scholar Daniel Ikenson
“Not one single person has ever
been killed by global warming.
The number of species that have
gone extinct from global warming
is exactly zero.”OCPA adjunct scholar David Deming
“Why are these conservative and
right-wing bastards picking on
NEA and its affiliates?”Question asked (to raucous applause
from schoolteachers) in a speech last
month by National Education Association
general counsel Bob Chanin
Oklahoma Council
of Public Affairs
1401 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Change Service Requested
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
OKLA. CITY, OK
PERMIT NO. 2573
Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc. No substantial part of the activities of OCPA includes attempting to influencelegislation, and OCPA does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or inopposition to) any candidate for public office.
top related