After proudly critiquing Kevin Stitt’s education platform in my last post cleverly titled “Stitt Strikes Out” I looked forward to more of the same reviewing the platform of his run-off opponent Mick Cornett. While I don’t feel defeated by any means, this exercise has not been nearly as much fun. First I struggled to come up with a clever name, trying hard for a meaningful alliteration playing off the musical instrument but finally settled on imagery that captures my more substantive frustration, namely that his website really says very little about his plans for education. Here are his statements with each followed by my comments:
“Mick’s mother was a teacher and he understands the importance education plays in growing our economy, promoting a stronger workforce and creating better jobs that keep our kids and grandkids here.” I can’t argue with a nicely stated platitude that invokes a mother for authority.
“Mick believes teachers deserve a raise. He would like to see salaries increased to the regional average with competitive pay increases for STEM teachers.” Unlike Stitt who said he supports a raise for teachers but didn’t support the funding, Cornett remained initially noncommittal on the raise and funding package but in the end spoke out against the referendum veto effort. He recognizes that the raise is a big deal and new revenue is needed to fund it. But what’s this about singling out STEM teachers? As a former math teacher I appreciate the thought; as a student of economics I understand the logic; but as a lawyer I don’t know that the facts are in evidence; and as one who appreciates the importance of well-rounded education including languages, humanities, the social sciences and fine arts, I question the wisdom of what this implies.
“With advances in technology, education is a lifelong endeavor. Mick wants to raise the expectations for education in our state and create a culture that empowers families and individuals—regardless of age or income— to seek the best educational outcomes.” Is this more platitudes or some code words for school choice? Or maybe the “income” reference means he’s a fellow traveler with me wanting to assure equality of educational resources available to students in all districts.
To his credit Cornett has served as mayor of Oklahoma City for 14 years and has faced the reality of balancing budgets, assuring adequate revenues and making tough choices in a political environment. Perhaps it is that experience that has taught him to keep his positions on issues, if he has them, “close to his vest” until absolutely necessary because there is somewhat less substance in his education platform than in Stitt’s.
As a side note, showing my turnpike rivalry mentality from 20 years of service as an elected official in Tulsa, I do want to point out that Oklahoma City’s MAPS for Kids funding, while certainly laudable, does not indicate greater support for education by the city’s political leadership in Oklahoma City than in Tulsa. The Tulsa County Vision 2020 program that build the BOK Center included funding for area schools, and, more importantly, the Tulsa Public Schools have enjoyed a facilities construction and renovation renaissance since the mid-1990s when Tulsa’s Mayor Susan Savage led the campaign for the first major bond issue in over 20 years. By contrast MAPS for Kids, as I recall, was conceived after Oklahoma City voters had rejected school district bond issue efforts. The legacy of that success continues today as shown by comparing Tulsa’s sinking fund revenue, $69 million for FY 2017, which is almost double Oklahoma City’s $37 million despite Tulsa being the slightly smaller district in student population.
Because Cornett says little about education policy, let’s look at another area: “Our Health” as he calls it. Here’s his statement:
“Mick believes we must prioritize health and wellness to reduce medical costs and live up to our full potential as a state. Mick led Oklahoma City through a transformational shift in its approach to obesity. Relying on individual responsibility and improving the built environment, Oklahoma City’s health statistics have improved in nearly every measurement. Mick wants to create a state that will attract the top doctors and medical care, and he wants all Oklahomans to have access to quality emergency care and hospitals… including rural areas.”
Nice aspirations and vague statements but, like his education platform, short on specifics. Also he cleanly omits the most significant state issue that affects Oklahomans’ health, namely Medicaid expansion. You see there’s evidence that the health of Oklahomans is getting worse, specifically that life expectancy for women is now falling. There is also evidence that fewer people will die when more are covered with health insurance, a result that will increase life expectancy and means better health for those covered.
So how is Oklahoma City doing in achieving a high rate of its people being covered by health insurance? Apparently not so well because the most recent (2014) State of the State’s Health publication by the Oklahoma Department of Health lists Oklahoma County as having a 22.3% rate of uninsured, making it the second worst of Oklahoma’s 77 counties. We can conclude then that accepting Medicaid expansion is one concrete step that would improve the health of people in Oklahoma County and the rest of the state.
Where does Cornett stand on Medicaid expansion? Predictably he’s against it. But who needs health insurance when you can live in Oklahoma City and enjoy a “transformational approach to obesity” and “improvement in the built environment”, both sure to stop that cancer and reverse your heart disease.
As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location.