EDMOND — The ballot measure that could shift hundreds of millions in state revenue to education funding continues to divide groups and voters as Election Day approaches.

Opponents and supporters of State Question 744 plan an aggressive push in the coming weeks and months with activists on both sides saying the consequences are dire regarding the proposal that is designed to increase education spending.

That philsophical split goes across the spectrum from taxpayers to lawmakers to educators.

McAlester Public Schools Superintendent Tom Condict said he supports SQ 744 and would like to see new revenue streams created to fund it so other agencies would not be hurt in the process.

“We are on shaky ground in terms of public education right now,” Condict said. “We need some aggressive plans to capture the funding and get the school systems to use them. I charge our next legislators and next governor to find ways to do that.”

Jim Glaze, superintendent of Chickasha Public Schools, however said he remains undecided on the ballot measure. Glaze said it is undisputable that the state’s education system needs help, but he said it should not come at the expense of other state agencies that could be tasked with footing the bill.

“It can’t be about just supporting our one entity, and we have look at everything from our infrastructure with roads and bridges, the prison system and higher education, which are all important too,” he said. “It is difficult as a superintendent because I think the funding would be great, but it has to be addressed without the funding source putting a lot of other agencies in jeopardy.”

As the debate grows, opponents and proponents, alike, are marshalling their forces for the Nov. 2 election.

“We are going to continue to travel the state, talk to as many people as we can and reach out to voters,” said Walton Robinson, communication director with Yes on 744, a collation of groups, including the Oklahoma Education Association, that support the measure. “At its core we don’t believe being 49th in the nation and last in the region (in per-pupil education funding) is good enough for our schools, our state or our economy.”

State Question 744 would amend Oklahoma’s Constitution to require the state spend annually no less than the average amount spent on each student by the surrounding states of Missouri, Texas, Kansas Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico. An interim House of Representatives study in 2009 stated this would cost the state $850 million more each year by the time it goes into full effect the third year after passage.

A number of groups, including the State Chamber of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Public Employees Association, are working together through the One Oklahoma Coalition to campaign against SQ 744. Jeff Wilson, campaign manager for the coalition, said passage of the measure would either force lawmakers to dramatically raise taxes and fees or slash funding to state agencies.

“We would be looking at serious cuts across the spectrum of the state at, at least, 20 percent per agency,” Wilson said. “What you will see is a dramatic shift in the way the state spends money, and we’ll see tax and fee increases you wouldn’t normally see or expect.”

Rep. George Faught, R-Muskogee, said if the measure is passed he fears layoffs, infrastructure work will be ignored and agencies that are already at “bare-bones” funding levels to suffer more setbacks. In addition, he said SQ 744 would allow other states to set Oklahoma state policies instead of having elected lawmakers enact what they think is best for the state.

“It is attempting to take budgeting authority out of the legislature,” he said. “The way it is written, there is no reform, no accountability and it is very dangerous to the whole state.”

Robinson, with Yes on 744, however said the proposal takes the “politics out of education funding” and allows the public to do what he said lawmakers have failed to accomplish.

“We need to readjust our state’s priorities,” he said. “If we want to attract jobs here, we need an educated workforce, and that requires an investment for us to be on a completive level.”

If the state question is passed, the measure requires the state to increase education spending in the first fiscal year after its passage and for funding levels to at least equal the average of the surrounding states by the third fiscal year. The Oklahoma Policy Institute, which issued a brief in July opposing the plan, projected its approval would cost the state $1.7 billion for this phase-in period between fiscal years 2012 and 2014.

Robinson and other supporters of SQ 744 said the three-year interim period before the funding levels go into full effect should give the state enough time to either eliminate “wasteful” spending or find new revenue sources to finance the spending increase.