Oklahoma

Cato's Adam Schaeffer, responding to a post I wrote two week ago, has more--lots more--to say about pre-k effectiveness (or, from his point of view, the lack thereof). Before we start talking about the evidence on pre-k more generally, though—which is the real bone of contention here, right?—let’s close out the debate that started this: Do trends in Oklahoma’s NAEP scores since the early 1990s indicate that the state’s pre-k program is ineffective? My answer is still “no.”

The Cato Institute's Adam Schaffer is much too smart to believe that his latest argument that pre-k is ineffective holds water. Schaeffer argues that Oklahoma's pre-k program isn't improving student achievement, because Oklahoma's performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has declined, relative to the national average, since the early 1990s.

This argument is seriously flawed. For starters, the comparisons Shaeffer is making are invalid because he's comparing NAEP results for different cohorts of students--and there are real differences between those cohorts. Since the early 1990s, the proportion of Oklahoma children who are Hispanic and who are English language learners has risen dramatically, a difference that needs to be taken account when comparing performance of current and past cohorts of Oklahoma students. Similarly, Schaeffer's analysis doesn't consider other factors besides pre-k--such as changes in standards, curriculum, or funding--that may or may not have occurred in Oklahoma's public schools during this time period, potentially affecting student performance. Schaeffer has training in research methods, so he has to know that using NAEP score changes to draw conclusions about the effects of Oklahoma's pre-k program, without controlling for other factors in play, is totally meaningless.

This is news: an American newspaper thinks there should be more ballot initiatives. It's the Daily Okahoman, a paper in a place that makes it very hard to qualify measures (by only permitting initiative sponsors 90 days). This goes against the grain; newspaper editors tend to be beard-stroking Madisonians who worry about the people having to vote too much on complicated stuff.

CONNERLY SURRENDER: Connerly gives up in Oklahoma. It was one of five states where he had sponsored measures opposing affirmative action. They didn't collect enough signatures, they tell the Tulsa World. This is a major logistical screw-up by Connerly and his backers; signatures had been turned in in December. The backers had more time to gather signatures, but appear to have done a poor job in collecting valid signatures and in calculating how many they needed.

WILL THE SUNSHINE IN? Margot Roosevelt of the LA Times takes a thorough look at an alternative energy ballot initiative in California, sponsored by the University of Phoenix founder. The solar energy industry is skeptical.

COORS SIGHTING: The Rocky Mountain News reports on Monday's meeting between backers of a "right-to-work" initiative in California and Gov. Bill Ritter. No news from the meetings--lips were tight afterward, and no agreements have been reached. Ritter clearly would like labor and business groups to slow down their move towards a multi-initiative war. The News piece focuses on former Schwarzenegger aide, Jonathan Coors. And yes, he is one of those Coors.

UPDATED APRIL 4 After two nights of contacting gatherers and reading initiatives from all over the country (AND SOME EXCELLENT CORRECTIONS ON ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN FROM Ballotpedia), here's my report on what's "on the street" and circulating in this great democratic land of ours. Please let me know if you think I'm missing important measures. For a more progressive take and focus, you can look at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center's issues map.

Well, not quite a national initiative. (Establishing such an initiative remains the cause of former Democratic presidential candidate, former Alaska Senator and former neighbor of your Blockbuster blogger Mike Gravel, but that’s a story for another day).

But five states -- Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma -- are expected to vote this fall on the same ballot initiative: a measure banning affirmative action in public schools and other government projects. (They’ve got the signatures in Oklahoma, but not yet in the other four states)

Such multi-state initiatives have become a common political tactic -- and a big moneymaker for those in the blockbuster democracy biz. Opponents of same sex marriage and eminent domain rights have fielded quasi-national initiatives by qualifying the same measure in multiple states. Proponents of legislative term limits have done the same.