It seems it's "another day, another bailout"--$26B more my yet-to-be-born grandkids will be repaying.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=765_1222731899
QuoteBut some Republican lawmakers are wondering "when will it ever end?"
"I think that will be the reaction of the American people," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told FoxNews.com.
"We were told the stimulus package would fix these things. Clearly, it has not succeeded at that. At some point, some tough decisions have to be made at the local level -- spending cuts or reforms. I think it's not an appropriate role for the federal government to be involved indefinitely in these things," Cole said.
They should have given the bailout money to teachers in the first place and told the banksters to suck it. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2010, 05:05:58 PM
They should have given the bailout money to teachers in the first place and told the banksters to suck it. ;)
Banksters? Are you channeling fotd a little? :)
I see this as another political payback. The unions got theirs in the GM/Chrysler bailout and Obamacare, now teachers get theirs in this bailout.
Perhaps you could fix your link so I could understand what it is you're going on about?
Here's the correct link.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/14/obama-administration-seeks-bailout-teachers-nearly-exhausting-stimulus-funds/
So what they're really saying is "let's keep districts from laying off a fifth of their teachers."
Good. I don't think TPS will be in better shape for laying off over 200 teachers.
In addition to keeping them employed, it will keep them active in the economy, until tax revenues increase at the state level.
I do like the new Republican tactic of referring to everything the federal government spends money on now as a "bailout." Sort of like the Democrats decided they'd start using the phrase "wall street" more.
IMO this is not really a "bailout" because teachers are public employees, and not emplyed like a private company like GM or Goldman Sachs. Still a 10% cut in Oklahoma would result in 5,000 layoffs, or about 1 in 9 teachers. That is a signifigant reduction in the workforce of this state.
It's a pretty sly movement of the definition of "bailout" to include any sort of government help in any arena, to anyone. Some smart Beckian rhetoric, right there.
Quote from: we vs us on May 16, 2010, 08:53:58 AM
It's a pretty sly movement of the definition of "bailout" to include any sort of government help in any arena, to anyone. Some smart Beckian rhetoric, right there.
This coming from the genius who coined the expression "law-abiding illegals". :o
Quote from: highschooljim2 on May 16, 2010, 01:14:55 AM
IMO this is not really a "bailout" because teachers are public employees, and not emplyed like a private company like GM or Goldman Sachs. Still a 10% cut in Oklahoma would result in 5,000 layoffs, or about 1 in 9 teachers. That is a signifigant reduction in the workforce of this state.
I understand that, but Rep. Cole is right. At some point serious belt-tightening needs to happen rather than continuously popping the taxpayer. If that means fewer buses, reduction in sports and other activities, etc., so be it. Heck, that what goes on at the private school my kids attend. Why should public schools, which are paid for believe it or not by people that have no children in the system, be any different?
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 01:21:19 PM
I understand that, but Rep. Cole is right. At some point serious belt-tightening needs to happen rather than continuously popping the taxpayer. If that means fewer buses, reduction in sports and other activities, etc., so be it. Heck, that what goes on at the private school my kids attend. Why should public schools, which are paid for believe it or not by people that have no children in the system, be any different?
Nice to see that you can be so callouse about the funding of public schools which will cut area's of need, like how many teachers there are to teach already overcrowded classrooms, while you make sure your kids are in a private school and uneffected by it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 01:21:19 PM
Why should public schools, which are paid for believe it or not by people that have no children in the system, be any different?
I used to ask that same question myself, given that I have no children and have no desire to have children. At some point it was explained to me that education helps prevent crime and that there's a pretty strong correlation between dropout rates and crime. I did some more research and realized I was being a selfish dolt.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 01:21:19 PM
I understand that, but Rep. Cole is right. At some point serious belt-tightening needs to happen rather than continuously popping the taxpayer.
It's curious that we're choosing the tail end of the worst recession in recent times to do all that righteous belt tightening.
Quote from: we vs us on May 16, 2010, 03:01:03 PM
It's curious that we're choosing the tail end of the worst recession in recent times to do all that righteous belt tightening.
If we had tightened sooner, we might not have to tighten as much.
Quote from: we vs us on May 16, 2010, 03:01:03 PM
It's curious that we're choosing the tail end of the worst recession in recent times to do all that righteous belt tightening.
We haven't done any belt tightening throughout this recession. It's been "spend spend spend".
Quote from: nathanm on May 16, 2010, 02:52:54 PM
I used to ask that same question myself, given that I have no children and have no desire to have children. At some point it was explained to me that education helps prevent crime and that there's a pretty strong correlation between dropout rates and crime. I did some more research and realized I was being a selfish dolt.
I don't consider myself "selfish" in the least for believing that those who utilize a particular government service, which has a private sector counterpart and option, should be responsible for paying for it. I'll tell you how I do feel, I do feel that because I believe public schools profoundly suck and want no part of it I am being punished by having to pay a ton of money for a private school education while funding public schools. What really chaps me is funding those school buses which provide nearly curbside chauffeur service for school kids.
Quote from: custosnox on May 16, 2010, 02:03:18 PM
Nice to see that you can be so callouse about the funding of public schools which will cut area's of need, like how many teachers there are to teach already overcrowded classrooms, while you make sure your kids are in a private school and uneffected by it.
My kids are in private school for a reason--public schools are in large measure plain awful. In private school, I feel have more influence in curriculum, it is more structured, and believe it or not my kids' school actually believes in succeeding and not just passing off a child to the next grade. As for the rest of your post (I'm mean, your hand out demand), my point was that rather than throwing money at schools maybe some sacrifices can be made. But according to you, that's a terrible idea. We just can't have this sort of belt tightening.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
My kids are in private school for a reason--public schools are in large measure plain awful. In private school, I feel have more influence in curriculum, it is more structured, and believe it or not my kids' school actually believes in succeeding and not just passing off a child to the next grade. As for the rest of your post (I'm mean, your hand out demand), my point was that rather than throwing money at schools maybe some sacrifices can be made. But according to you, that's a terrible idea. We just can't have this sort of belt tightening.
Actually, I'm saying that it is pretty easy for you to demand that the schools that your kids are not in to tighten up their belts. As far as the claims of a hand out, why don't you try getting a grip? Do you honestly believe that you do not benifit from public schools? Or are you so self focused that you cannot see beyond your own little world? But then again, you also believe that you have gotten your money completely on your own, with no help from anyone everywhere. You can claim that all you want, but any rational person will see that for the lie that it is. So don't try to turn the fact that you expect everyone to tighten their belts when it does not DIRECTLY effect you into trying to say that I'm demanding a hand out.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 04:38:48 PM
I don't consider myself "selfish" in the least for believing that those who utilize a particular government service, which has a private sector counterpart and option, should be responsible for paying for it.
So basically you think kids from families that can't afford private school should be punished because you have this false notion of public schools?
Or is it that you just don't see the benefit in universal education?
Quote from: nathanm on May 16, 2010, 06:46:38 PM
So basically you think kids from families that can't afford private school should be punished because you have this false notion of public schools?
Or is it that you just don't see the benefit in universal education?
We are about to cross over into an already over-discussed issue in this forum: vouchers and tax credits to allow all children access to private schools. Give these public schools legitimate competition rather than leaving them as a government-run monopoly which breeds nothing but apathy and mediocrity. And no, my notion that public schools suck is not false. Crooked teacher unions, administrators/teachers preaching ideology (see the following links), and plain waste:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-14/news/ct-met-highland-park-reaction-0514-20100514_1_hebson-immigration-law-highland-park-decision
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23212
And then there's this:
And by the way, my big gripe is not about public school curriculum, its about all the frills the public school system provides such as free transportation for students and sports/activities.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 07:42:20 PM
And by the way, my big gripe is not about public school curriculum, its about all the frills the public school system provides such as free transportation for students and sports/activities.
the fact that you consider transportation a frill just goes to show how far off the deep end you have gone with this whole thing.
Quote from: custosnox on May 16, 2010, 07:47:02 PM
the fact that you consider transportation a frill just goes to show how far off the deep end you have gone with this whole thing.
It is a frill. Taxpayer dollars used to haul around your kids, rather than parents assuming that responsibility for themselves. Heck, I do it. My wife and I have to make it work around our schedules but we manage. Why can't the likes of you? Oh I know why, because parents have the right to have others pay to transport their kids.
In my neighborhood, the public school bus literally stops every 100 yards to unload kids as close to their door as possible. For those kids that would have to, gulp, walk 50 feet or so to their door, there are their parents waiting in a vehicle at the bus stop. Why can't they drive their cars to the school to pick up their kids?
You seem awfully young to sound so much like an old codger.
These attitudes swirl around through the ages like a never ending toilet flush. I heard them when I was in grade school back in "the good old days" when education was supposed to be good. I heard them in middle school when I delivered newspapers in an old neighborhood full of codgers that gurgled this spittle everytime I stopped long enough to listen. Then I heard it through high school and college from those who assured me my education they paid for, even though they didn't have kids, was a waste of taxpayer money. I even heard it when I applied for a job at Rooney real estate and some goon had the nerve to tell me bachelors degrees were useless and "a dime a dozen". Something in the water in this city I guess.
Its depressing to see that old codgers are getting younger and younger.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 07:59:35 PM
It is a frill. Taxpayer dollars used to haul around your kids, rather than parents assuming that responsibility for themselves. Heck, I do it. My wife and I have to make it work around our schedules but we manage. Why can't the likes of you? Oh I know why, because parents have the right to have others pay to transport their kids.
In my neighborhood, the public school bus literally stops every 100 yards to unload kids as close to their door as possible. For those kids that would have to, gulp, walk 50 feet or so to their door, there are their parents waiting in a vehicle at the bus stop. Why can't they drive their cars to the school to pick up their kids?
You make the assumption that everyone has a car. That is a pretty ignorant assumption. In many cases a family has to make due without one. I know, a hard to believe concept for your richness, but that is the case. In other cases it allows parents to actually work, since not everyone can have jobs that allow them to have schedules that so nicely fit with the schedule of the school like you apparently have. Add to it that others have kids that don't all go to the same school, it makes it pretty difficult to get them all there on time without having to drop one of really early (which you would object to because then we would have to pay for someone to be there to "baby-sit" them). Also, since you want to say it is to haul around
my kids, perhaps you should reconsider that assumption. A more accurate statement would be my
kid as in singular. I have four kids, and every one of them go to a differant school. Only one of them rides a bus, and that is the one that goes to Thoreua. So by your assumption, that one kid that has worked hard to get into that school should get a lesser education then she has strived for because it would not be practicle, and most likely not possible, for her to have reliable transportation to that school without a bus.
You have shown your self-centered, egotistical hand yet again. I really do get tired of your holier-than-thou "I'm better than you because I have more money than you" attitude. I am very glad that those who are actually in the position to make these decisions are generally not as dellusional as you are.
--Edited just to add a sidenote that I try to stay civil in these discussions, but this is an area that effects my children. When it comes to my chidren, I have a tendancy to bare my teeth a bit more then on other issues.
Quote from: custosnox on May 16, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
You make the assumption that everyone has a car. That is a pretty ignorant assumption. In many cases a family has to make due without one. I know, a hard to believe concept for your richness, but that is the case. In other cases it allows parents to actually work, since not everyone can have jobs that allow them to have schedules that so nicely fit with the schedule of the school like you apparently have. Add to it that others have kids that don't all go to the same school, it makes it pretty difficult to get them all there on time without having to drop one of really early (which you would object to because then we would have to pay for someone to be there to "baby-sit" them). Also, since you want to say it is to haul around my kids, perhaps you should reconsider that assumption. A more accurate statement would be my kid as in singular. I have four kids, and every one of them go to a differant school. Only one of them rides a bus, and that is the one that goes to Thoreua. So by your assumption, that one kid that has worked hard to get into that school should get a lesser education then she has strived for because it would not be practicle, and most likely not possible, for her to have reliable transportation to that school without a bus.
You have shown your self-centered, egotistical hand yet again. I really do get tired of your holier-than-thou "I'm better than you because I have more money than you" attitude. I am very glad that those who are actually in the position to make these decisions are generally not as dellusional as you are.
Something about 'considering the source' comes in play here....
Quote from: custosnox on May 16, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
You have shown your self-centered, egotistical hand yet again. I really do get tired of your holier-than-thou "I'm better than you because I have more money than you" attitude. I am very glad that those who are actually in the position to make these decisions are generally not as dellusional as you are.
This is not remotely about wealth. This is about simple fairness. Let's be honest, you think it's fair that others should be responsible for providing things to you and I do not.
Quote from: waterboy on May 16, 2010, 08:21:15 PM
You seem awfully young to sound so much like an old codger.
These attitudes swirl around through the ages like a never ending toilet flush. I heard them when I was in grade school back in "the good old days" when education was supposed to be good. I heard them in middle school when I delivered newspapers in an old neighborhood full of codgers that gurgled this spittle everytime I stopped long enough to listen. Then I heard it through high school and college from those who assured me my education they paid for, even though they didn't have kids, was a waste of taxpayer money. I even heard it when I applied for a job at Rooney real estate and some goon had the nerve to tell me bachelors degrees were useless and "a dime a dozen". Something in the water in this city I guess.
Its depressing to see that old codgers are getting younger and younger.
I guess I am an old codger. :D
Again, my main beef is with the public school system in general (other than the frills I pointed out). It's inefficient, corrupt, and completely unfair to those kids that are unfortunately trapped in those numerous failing systems. IMO, this is because of the absence of real competition.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 07:59:35 PM
It is a frill. Taxpayer dollars used to haul around your kids, rather than parents assuming that responsibility for themselves. Heck, I do it. My wife and I have to make it work around our schedules but we manage. Why can't the likes of you? Oh I know why, because parents have the right to have others pay to transport their kids.
In my neighborhood, the public school bus literally stops every 100 yards to unload kids as close to their door as possible. For those kids that would have to, gulp, walk 50 feet or so to their door, there are their parents waiting in a vehicle at the bus stop. Why can't they drive their cars to the school to pick up their kids?
You must not live in Tulsa. TPS school buses only pick up/drop off kids at schools. It's a pretty good system--parents drive/walk to the neighborhood school to drop off their kids. The bus takes them the rest of the way. Forget the kids that don't have any alternative--without buses, there would be thousands of more cars on the streets driving kids to school, polluting the air, and tearing up the roads. The city would have to pay more to widen streets, repave, etc.... Or would you make the parents of the kids pay for the streets they drive on?
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 08:49:23 PM
...this is because of the absence of real competition.
That is too simplistic.
Private schools get to pick their students. Public schools must accept and provide all the kids in their district. TPS schools do compete, it is just against each other. My son was wooed by Carver, Thoreau and Wilson Middle schools this semester.
Quote from: pmcalk on May 16, 2010, 09:14:44 PM
You must not live in Tulsa. TPS school buses only pick up/drop off kids at schools. It's a pretty good system--parents drive/walk to the neighborhood school to drop off their kids. The bus takes them the rest of the way. Forget the kids that don't have any alternative--without buses, there would be thousands of more cars on the streets driving kids to school, polluting the air, and tearing up the roads. The city would have to pay more to widen streets, repave, etc.... Or would you make the parents of the kids pay for the streets they drive on?
Or parents could car pool just like mine or hoof it like I used to. Do yourself a favor, next time you see a school bus, check and see how many kids are on board. I've seen huge buses pulling out of local public schools with only 10-15 kids on board. What a waste of money.
And you guessed right, I do not live in Tulsa but my kids' school is.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 16, 2010, 09:24:59 PM
That is too simplistic.
Private schools get to pick their students. Public schools must accept and provide all the kids in their district. TPS schools do compete, it is just against each other. My son was wooed by Carver, Thoreau and Wilson Middle schools this semester.
First, congrats on your child's achievement. Your should be (and I am sure) proud. To your point, I know my position is a bit simplistic given the voluminous number of complicating factors at play. Still RM, I strongly believe that competition breeds innovation and quality. You disagree?
The difference I see in traffic going to work when school is out vs. when school is in session makes me want to make every parent that chauffeurs little Suzi or Johnnie to school subject to a special toll at the school driveway. The reason the buses are nearly empty is because mom or dad are driving too many kids to and from school.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 16, 2010, 09:34:23 PM
The difference I see in traffic going to work when school is out vs. when school is in session makes me want to make every parent that chauffeurs little Suzi or Johnnie to school subject to a special toll at the school driveway. The reason the buses are nearly empty is because mom or dad are driving too many kids to and from school.
You an old codger too? :D
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Still RM, I strongly believe that competition breeds innovation and quality. You disagree?
I completely agree. I just believe that public and private schools can't be easily compared. Private schools are great choices for those who can afford it and want their child to be surrounded by other children who are the same economic class or the same religion. Public schools offer all types of classmates, both good and bad.
My wife and I really want our children in the public system, but would probably opt for private if we didn't feel our child had good teachers and a safe school. We were lucky to get into the best public elementary and blessed to have the time to be involved in our school as well.
Tulsa Public School District has many of the top schools in the state. Unfortunately, it also has some of the worst.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 09:40:15 PM
You an old codger too? :D
When I was born, rocks were here but we were still working on dirt. Well, at least compared to the age of some on TNF.
The demise of the neighborhood school caused a lot of busing. That's probably best for another thread. When I was in elementary school, we were expected to walk or ride a bicycle up to a certain distance that I don't remember. Having to cross a major highway was another reason for the little kids to ride the bus. I was never more that about a mile from elementary, middle, or high school so I didn't ride the bus. There was one exception. In 6th grade, we were on split sessions until the middle school construction was done. I rode the bus for a while after daylight savings reverted to standard time and it was dark when it was time to go home. I'll admit I hated the bus. It took twice as long to get home. Since the school and my house were almost next to the (real) trolley, I convinced my parents to let me take the trolley.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 16, 2010, 09:45:59 PM
Tulsa Public School District has many of the top schools in the state. Unfortunately, it also has some of the worst.
And, unfortunately, that's where I get lost (fairly or unfairly) sometimes when this issue arises. In private schools, like I wrote earlier, you just feel like you have some control over what is being taught to your kids.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2010, 10:09:48 PM
In private schools, like I wrote earlier, you just feel like you have some control over what is being taught to your kids.
You also have control over what is taught in public schools. Pay attention to the school board elections, eh?
Quote from: nathanm on May 16, 2010, 10:18:27 PM
You also have control over what is taught in public schools. Pay attention to the school board elections, eh?
Elections? Why bother when I can go to a meeting where curriculum is discussed. You can do tons better Nate.
Quote from: nathanm on May 16, 2010, 10:18:27 PM
Pay attention to the school board elections, eh?
I watched the elections in February pretty closely this year. ;D
I just want to add that I don't expect the school to educate my child. We discuss everything as a family and my kids love science, reading and history as I did as a child. We spent some time in the pool tonight discussing private property rights in a discussion of our trashy neighbor. The kids had good opinions about our rights as neighbors and society as compared to the rights of the property owner.
My daughter has a 2nd grade teacher who not only e-mails me her homework assignments, but has made my daughter love going to class. As proud I am of coaching my 5th grade son to be a chess champion, it was a teacher at school who convinced him to come home and ask me to teach him the game.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 16, 2010, 10:38:44 PM
I watched the elections in February pretty closely this year. ;D
I just want to add that I don't expect the school to educate my child. We discuss everything as a family and my kids love science, reading and history as I did as a child. We spent some time in the pool tonight discussing private property rights in a discussion of our trashy neighbor. The kids had good opinions about our rights as neighbors and society as compared to the rights of the property owner.
My daughter has a 2nd grade teacher who not only e-mails me her homework assignments, but has made my daughter love going to class. As proud I am of coaching my 5th grade son to be a chess champion, it was a teacher at school who convinced him to come home and ask me to teach him the game.
I don't think enough parents take the time to teach their children beyond what the schools do. Personally, I can't pass up an opertunity to do so. In fact, I sent the kids back to their mom's tonight with copies of the bill of rights. Told them that I expected them all to read them before coming back because we are going to have an in depth discussion on them so that they have a better understanding of what it means to be free.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 16, 2010, 09:52:56 PM
When I was born, rocks were here but we were still working on dirt. Well, at least compared to the age of some on TNF.
The demise of the neighborhood school caused a lot of busing. That's probably best for another thread. When I was in elementary school, we were expected to walk or ride a bicycle up to a certain distance that I don't remember. Having to cross a major highway was another reason for the little kids to ride the bus. I was never more that about a mile from elementary, middle, or high school so I didn't ride the bus. There was one exception. In 6th grade, we were on split sessions until the middle school construction was done. I rode the bus for a while after daylight savings reverted to standard time and it was dark when it was time to go home. I'll admit I hated the bus. It took twice as long to get home. Since the school and my house were almost next to the (real) trolley, I convinced my parents to let me take the trolley.
I worked on the dirt.
I walked to school, or rode my bike, till I hit high school and a MTTA bus was available to take me downtown. Grade school was about a mile and a half. It was fun and an education in itself. Then I stepped off a curb at 6th and Lewis and was literally run over by a woman who ran a red light. I rolled under the car. The firemen at the station on that corner pulled me out, dusted me off and all the parties involved sent me on to school with grease and rubber marks on my white shirt. A bus would have been a good idea for 2nd graders in retrospect. But we didn't have them in Tulsa for one reason or another.
The fifties were great eh Red?
Quote from: waterboy on May 17, 2010, 07:48:44 AM
I worked on the dirt.
I walked to school, or rode my bike, till I hit high school and a MTTA bus was available to take me downtown. Grade school was about a mile and a half. It was fun and an education in itself. Then I stepped off a curb at 6th and Lewis and was literally run over by a woman who ran a red light. I rolled under the car. The firemen at the station on that corner pulled me out, dusted me off and all the parties involved sent me on to school with grease and rubber marks on my white shirt. A bus would have been a good idea for 2nd graders in retrospect. But we didn't have them in Tulsa for one reason or another.
The fifties were great eh Red?
I don't really understand the heartburn Guido has about the buses. It's a matter of safety, less congestion, practicality, and making sure with varied schedules that kids can get to school and their parents can hold down a job.
I lived on Delaware between 25th & 26th and went to Barnard at 17th & Lewis from 2nd through 5th grade (mid '70's) that was about 1 1/2 miles. My brother and I walked or rode our bikes most days. If the weather was pretty crappy, we could take an MTTA which came up 26th between Harvard & Lewis and went north on Lewis from there or trudge through the rain. I also used to take an MTTA to the downtown library after school.
When we moved to the Jenks district in 1977, everything was on the central campus at 1st & B in Jenks. We lived near 81st & Yale. Mom & my stepdad both worked at the RSC campus (Williams complex which is now part of Warren Clinic) at 66th & Yale. I had three options available: Walk or ride my bike 6 miles to school with traffic on two lane roads, or one of my parents having to make a 12 mile round trip, drop my brother and I off at least 1/2 hour before school, then fight traffic (on mostly two lane roads) back to 66th & Yale by 8am. If anyone still remembers Yale and 71st when they were two lane, you know what a truckload of suck that intersection was. Our bus route was the Brookwood I addition and the bus rarely had an empty seat.
I can assure you, I would have never afforded my two daughters the same freedom I had when they were elementary school age. Too many creeps out there these days.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 09:26:08 AM
I don't really understand the heartburn Guido has about the buses. It's a matter of safety, less congestion, practicality, and making sure with varied schedules that kids can get to school and their parents can hold down a job.
Go through my previous posts to see where I am coming from. Still, it's okay if I am alone in trying to find a way to save taxpayer money on buses. Here's a thought, how about people in this thread throw out ideas on cutting education expenses rather than throwing more money at it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 17, 2010, 09:46:22 AM
Go through my previous posts to see where I am coming from. Still, it's okay if I am alone in trying to find a way to save taxpayer money on buses. Here's a thought, how about people in this thread throw out ideas on cutting education expenses rather than throwing more money at it.
OK ... I'll bite.
One thing that we can cut is the number of administrators. Regional superintendents are pretty much worthless, and just about any teacher in TPS can tell you that the main office in midtown is a soul-suck of bureaucracy and busywork.
Quote from: guido911 on May 17, 2010, 09:46:22 AM
Go through my previous posts to see where I am coming from. Still, it's okay if I am alone in trying to find a way to save taxpayer money on buses. Here's a thought, how about people in this thread throw out ideas on cutting education expenses rather than throwing more money at it.
Guido, if kids were riding the bus a mile or less to school, I'd have more a problem with it. I believe the majority ride the bus much further. I simply think you are being harsh with the implication that lazy parents are free-loading on the school system by sending their kids to school on a bus. How many
full time good jobs will allow for someone to come in at 8:30 after dropping kids off at a few school sites and leave at 2:45 every day to start the task of rounding up the kids? None. It allows parents to be more productive. I understand why transportation would be an easy target for cuts, I just don't think you've thought through carefully who it is that actually rides the bus.
For proper disclosure, my kids never rode a bus when they went to private or public schools (Jenks- large far-flung suburban district). We always lived close enough, and fortunately my ex and I had pretty good flexibility in schedules so there wasn't really a need. I realize not every family has that luxury.
With magnet schools and far-flung suburban systems, it serves a valuable purpose to the kids and families. Just because it fits your own schedule and lifestyle to take your kids to school, it doesn't mean it fits for everyone else. Personally, I think admin costs are one place we should be looking at for cuts as well as facility costs. I don't believe in cutting out sports as I think they serve a valuable purpose in the overall scholastic experience. In fact, they are even a requirement at one or more of the prominent private schools in the Tulsa metro.
FAIK, Bishop Kelley still has a bus service and Holland Hall used to.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 17, 2010, 10:08:36 AM
OK ... I'll bite.
One thing that we can cut is the number of administrators. Regional superintendents are pretty much worthless, and just about any teacher in TPS can tell you that the main office in midtown is a soul-suck of bureaucracy and busywork.
Ever walk through that building? Whole lot of mediocrity walking around in there. I'm still not quite sure what everyone does there, but there are a bunch of bureaucrats and bureaucratic assistants.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 10:10:51 AM
Ever walk through that building? Whole lot of mediocrity walking around in there. I'm still not quite sure what everyone does there, but there are a bunch of bureaucrats and bureaucratic assistants.
Yes, I've been through that building. I concur with your assessment. You could chop the number of positions in half there and the work would still easily get done.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 10:09:34 AM
Guido, if kids were riding the bus a mile or less to school, I'd have more a problem with it. I believe the majority ride the bus much further. I simply think you are being harsh with the implication that lazy parents are free-loading on the school system by sending their kids to school on a bus. How many full time good jobs will allow for someone to come in at 8:30 after dropping kids off at a few school sites and leave at 2:45 every day to start the task of rounding up the kids? None. It allows parents to be more productive. I understand why transportation would be an easy target for cuts, I just don't think you've thought through carefully who it is that actually rides the bus.
For proper disclosure, my kids never rode a bus when they went to private or public schools (Jenks- large far-flung suburban district). We always lived close enough, and fortunately my ex and I had pretty good flexibility in schedules so there wasn't really a need. I realize not every family has that luxury.
With magnet schools and far-flung suburban systems, it serves a valuable purpose to the kids and families. Just because it fits your own schedule and lifestyle to take your kids to school, it doesn't mean it fits for everyone else. Personally, I think admin costs are one place we should be looking at for cuts as well as facility costs. I don't believe in cutting out sports as I think they serve a valuable purpose in the overall scholastic experience. In fact, they are even a requirement at one or more of the prominent private schools in the Tulsa metro.
FAIK, Bishop Kelley still has a bus service and Holland Hall used to.
Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it. Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).
How about we work from the perspective that the system is functional and worthy of funding adequately, then look for ways to streamline its operation that are not based on politics, religion and simple solutions?
I'll start. We could hold those responsible who assured us that new revenues from Casino gambling and lotteries would go towards education funding without admitting that they would be cutting other education revenue sources that were more stable at the same time. The result being that real education budgets actually shrank when the economy shrank. It was a lie that our state legislators and governor used to get them approved. The shortfall could come from their pet projects in OKC and the rural areas that always seem to get funded. Or we could make sure they aren't re-elected.
Seriously, though, I do have an idea that might create some addl. funding though it would require some legal changes I'm sure. What if we recognized that school properties are often prime real estate locations. Consider selling them to commercial entities (foundations?) and then leasing them back to the school district at a very low rate for a specific period. Eventually the school will be outdated and the demographics around them will change creating changes in attendance levels. At that point the leasor and lessee could easily end their contract. No firesale school properties. No struggling for site improvement funds. A great opportunity for a long term entity like a foundation to acquire strong properties and a chance for a school to receive a funding stream and plan a budget. It wouldn't end taxpayer funding but augment it.
I know its fraught with problems but the opportunity to continually renew schools at low taxpayer expense is tasty.
Quote from: guido911 on May 17, 2010, 10:18:15 AM
Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it. Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).
You're viewing the process as an outsider Guide. Are you sure they are their parents? Could be relatives, care providers etc. I sit a block from a school and watch the kids get picked up by mostly grandparents, older siblings, sitters and spouses. It is a traffic jam btw. I wish they would avail themselves more of busses. My hourly paid shift co-workers who have kids are always jockeying with their schedules to make sure one of the spouses can deliver or pick up their kids. It gets complex and families often spread that responsibility around.
I also think you pay for their transportation in one way or another. I think your real objection is that as a private school parent you have to pay for any of it at all. Consider it noblesse oblige. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on May 17, 2010, 10:18:15 AM
Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it. Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).
Over the last 21 years, I've paid proportionately more property taxes in the Tulsa district (I only personally lived in the Jenks district four years, I continued to own a house there for another four years while I lived back in mid-town) for the operation of TPS and have never had a child go to school in the district. It's just the way it works. I prefer to live in mid-town and not the 'burbs. After next May I will no longer have a child in any public school system. I will be paying college tuition AND helping fund the TPS.
I've never been particularly clear on the whole voucher system for private schools, but it sounds as if it becomes yet one more drain on government revenue which we have to find a way to fund. Feel free to explain it.
I am in favor of vouchers to private schools and charter schools. I'm actually in favor of doing away with mandated school districts and allowing complete open choice. Much like healthcare we spend too much money on education in this country with too little returns. A school will get a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled with bonuses for good performance. The goal should be to pay good teachers more which in turn should help to recruit good new teachers and get rid of bad teachers. Competition is good and should bring costs down and performance up over time. The goal being that bad schools will die and schools that do well, will thrive and grow.
Let there be standards for teachers, but don't have a set pay scale except for a minimum starting salary and no tenure. If a teacher gets great performance, let them work for the school that pays them the most. If they have bad results, let them go. Schools in order to survive would have to spend their money on good teachers instead of on huge administrations.
One restriction, If a religious private school accepts vouchers, their curriculum must be approved by local school boards and church activity should not be allowed at the school. School boards should set curriculum and set minimum progress standards and pretty much be hands off after that, the differences between a private school, a charter school and a public school should be very negligible.
I understand that not all kids are created equal and it's more expensive to teach some kids than others. Start with a sliding scale for how much a school gets when a child enrolls based on the parents economic background. A school would get more money for teaching (and helping) disadvantaged kids. There would be real economic benefit for a for profit business to run a school in a poor area and have the students and that school do well. Today we are on the verge of creating a permanent underclass based on lack of education, this could go a long way to reversing that.
Schools can certainly can have competitive admissions, but they would then automatically get the minimum amount of money per child enrolled and have no bonuses for good performance. School payments will be "all or nothing", if a private school accepts vouchers, it cannot accept payments above those amounts from students. If they want to charge more, they will have to forgo vouchers.
Lastly, a huge part of the budget problems for schools is that teaching and caring for disabled students has passed to the public school systems. My kids have often had "mainstreamed" kids in their classes with issues so severe that they have a personal teacher sit with them through all their classes. There are entire classes of disabled students with only 5-6 kids and the teachers struggle even with that kind of class size. In the past these kids didn't go to public schools, today they do and the cost to the schools per student has to be staggering.
I think these costs should not be part of the public school system and should be managed elsewhere, these are medical (mental or physical) issues and should be treated as such. If a child can't be mainstreamed, then they should not be part of the normal educational system, if they can only be mainstreamed with help, that help should be paid for as medical help. Mainstreamed or not, schools can certainly take these kids and receive the same payment as students, but the increased incremental cost associated with the child's disability should be a medical cost, not an educational one.
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 12:22:32 PM
I am in favor of vouchers to private schools and charter schools. I'm actually in favor of doing away with mandated school districts and allowing complete open choice. Much like healthcare we spend too much money on education in this country with too little returns. A school will get a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled with bonuses for good performance. The goal should be to pay good teachers more which in turn should help to recruit good new teachers and get rid of bad teachers. Competition is good and should bring costs down and performance up over time. The goal being that bad schools will die and schools that do well, will thrive and grow.
Let there be standards for teachers, but don't have a set pay scale except for a minimum starting salary and no tenure. If a teacher gets great performance, let them work for the school that pays them the most. If they have bad results, let them go. Schools in order to survive would have to spend their money on good teachers instead of on huge administrations.
One restriction, If a religious private school accepts vouchers, their curriculum must be approved by local school boards and church activity should not be allowed at the school. School boards should set curriculum and set minimum progress standards and pretty much be hands off after that, the differences between a private school, a charter school and a public school should be very negligible.
I understand that not all kids are created equal and it's more expensive to teach some kids than others. Start with a sliding scale for how much a school gets when a child enrolls based on the parents economic background. A school would get more money for teaching (and helping) disadvantaged kids. There would be real economic benefit for a for profit business to run a school in a poor area and have the students and that school do well. Today we are on the verge of creating a permanent underclass based on lack of education, this could go a long way to reversing that.
Schools can certainly can have competitive admissions, but they would then automatically get the minimum amount of money per child enrolled and have no bonuses for good performance. School payments will be "all or nothing", if a private school accepts vouchers, it cannot accept payments above those amounts from students. If they want to charge more, they will have to forgo vouchers.
Lastly, a huge part of the budget problems for schools is that teaching and caring for disabled students has passed to the public school systems. My kids have often had "mainstreamed" kids in their classes with issues so severe that they have a personal teacher sit with them through all their classes. There are entire classes of disabled students with only 5-6 kids and the teachers struggle even with that kind of class size. In the past these kids didn't go to public schools, today they do and the cost to the schools per student has to be staggering.
I think these costs should not be part of the public school system and should be managed elsewhere, these are medical (mental or physical) issues and should be treated as such. If a child can't be mainstreamed, then they should not be part of the normal educational system, if they can only be mainstreamed with help, that help should be paid for as medical help. Mainstreamed or not, schools can certainly take these kids and receive the same payment as students, but the increased incremental cost associated with the child's disability should be a medical cost, not an educational one.
I agree with 96.5% of that. Great post! I wish more people could engage in common sense.
Boy, I got suckered again. I thought this was a discussion on different ways of funding education. Instead it begins yet another opportunity to pimp vouchers and private school systems.
I got to wise up. ;D Waterboy moving along now.
I agree with much of what swake said, although I'm not in complete agreement about funding the disabled as "medical" rather than "educational". That seems like pulling the same money from a different pocket to me and "mainstreaming" is what society wanted for special needs students. FWIW, Jenks had special ed when I was there in the late 1970's/early '80's, it's nothing new. Prior to that, many kids were institutionalized at places like Hissom.
My whole problem with swake's post stems from the enormity of the monolithic public schools system and how do you dismantle the present system without turning the education system into one big chaotic mess? I like the idea of rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay, rather than by how long they've been there. If there is a way to change to a system which makes better use of funds with better outcomes, I'm all for it. I'm simply in the dark as to how you take a school system like TPS with an enrollment of around 47K (is that still correct?) and suddenly start parceling out schools to for-profit educational companies and start a voucher system for existing private schools.
Keep in mind for those of you who are afraid of social stratification, this system would not end that. Schools would most likely each have their own admission standards which would each seek to find the best performing students. I don't know how you are going to find a way around that.
Quote from: waterboy on May 17, 2010, 12:37:00 PM
Boy, I got suckered again. I thought this was a discussion on different ways of funding education. Instead it begins yet another opportunity to pimp vouchers and private school systems.
I got to wise up. ;D Waterboy moving along now.
Sorry. Only two ways to go.
Produce a better product, or throw money at the problem until you reach terminal insolvency.
It's NOT about the schools, or the teachers, the unions, or the votes they represent. . . It's about the kids.
Vouchers work to improve the quality of education. They produce smarter kids. They've worked everywhere they've been applied. That's all that matters.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 12:43:18 PM
I agree with much of what swake said, although I'm not in complete agreement about funding the disabled as "medical" rather than "educational". That seems like pulling the same money from a different pocket to me and "mainstreaming" is what society wanted for special needs students. FWIW, Jenks had special ed when I was there in the late 1970's/early '80's, it's nothing new. Prior to that, many kids were institutionalized at places like Hissom.
My whole problem with swake's post stems from the enormity of the monolithic public schools system and how do you dismantle the present system without turning the education system into one big chaotic mess? I like the idea of rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay, rather than by how long they've been there. If there is a way to change to a system which makes better use of funds with better outcomes, I'm all for it. I'm simply in the dark as to how you take a school system like TPS with an enrollment of around 47K (is that still correct?) and suddenly start parceling out schools to for-profit educational companies and start a voucher system for existing private schools.
Keep in mind for those of you who are afraid of social stratification, this system would not end that. Schools would most likely each have their own admission standards which would each seek to find the best performing students. I don't know how you are going to find a way around that.
I'm not against mainstreaming, and I know it's just moving money from one pocket to another, it's just that people crow about the inflating cost of education, and most of it comes from schools taking on more and more disabled students. It's more about when people cry the private schools can teach kids cheaper than public, when that's not really the full picture at all. It's easy (and cheaper) to teach upper middle class kids that want to achieve and hard to teach kids that can barely speak and have a mean streak.
That's why I would give more money to teach kids from poor areas and if a school has any admissions standards at all, they automatically get the minimum amount per student, for all students. If you want the sliding scale, you let everyone in.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
Sorry. Only two ways to go.
Produce a better product, or throw money at the problem until you reach terminal insolvency.
It's NOT about the schools, or the teachers, the unions, or the votes they represent. . . It's about the kids.
Vouchers work to improve the quality of education. They produce smarter kids. They've worked everywhere they've been applied. That's all that matters.
That's always been your problem around here Gas. Your world is small and has few choices and you're too self assured about simple solutions. I would point out, it's NOT about you and your consistently simple, small view of the world. But I doubt you'll ever figure that out.
Conan is the voice of reason in this conversation.
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 01:02:54 PM
I'm not against mainstreaming, and I know it's just moving money from one pocket to another, it's just that people crow about the inflating cost of education, and most of it comes from schools taking on more and more disabled students. It's more about when people cry the private schools can teach kids cheaper than public, when that's not really the full picture at all. It's easy (and cheaper) to teach upper middle class kids that want to achieve and hard to teach kids that can barely speak and have a mean streak.
That's why I would give more money to teach kids from poor areas and if a school has any admissions standards at all, they automatically get the minimum amount per student, for all students. If you want the sliding scale, you let everyone in.
I think we all want the same end result, it's simply figuring out the means by which you do it and how to go about dismantling thousands of little fiefdoms around the country over very strong resistance from government, teacher's unions, uninformed parents, etc. Higher pay doesn't necessarily mean that you will get the best teachers to teach the worst kids. It's more like mercenary pay ;)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tDmbqzqneL8/SOF2vuSPsbI/AAAAAAAAANw/thTdSGdgipg/s320/airplane.jpg)
I just came in here to say good luck. We're all going to need it.
Quote from: waterboy on May 17, 2010, 01:20:37 PM
That's always been your problem around here Gas. Your world is small and has few choices and you're too self assured about simple solutions. I would point out, it's NOT about you and your consistently simple, small view of the world. But I doubt you'll ever figure that out.
Conan is the voice of reason in this conversation.
You are correct. I do tend to lean towards simple solutions. You are also correct in that there are times when common sense solutions do not work. This is not one of those times.
When you boil down the problems with education, you must consider the following:
1. The education of the kids is the priority, not the unions or job security for the educators.
2. The US spends on average around $9,000 per child a year on education.
3. You can finance a damn good education for that amount.
So where is the complexity that I am missing?
I appreciate your passion and your point of view.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 12:43:18 PM
I like the idea of rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay, rather than by how long they've been there.
I want to tell you about my daughter's teacher. We are active parents and my wife is a home room mom (and on the school board). We know our children's teachers and in fact, often socialize with them outside of the school.
We have not always been satisfied with our kid's teachers, but the school system has generally given us good teachers. When we have had a problem, we have always found a willing ear with the principal and the problems have generally been settled well.
This year my daughter has a second grade spanish immersion teacher who is spectacular. She keeps us informed of everything going on in the classroom and has our daughter excelling in the fundamentals. We love her and my daughter loves school just because of this lady. I think she is the best teacher either of our children have ever had.
Unfortunately, she is also a first year teacher and has now received her letter saying that unless the legislature can avoid the 10% budget cuts, she will lose her job. The 10% budget cuts now proposed for public education will cause them to lose a great teacher.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 17, 2010, 01:49:04 PM
Unfortunately, she is also a first year teacher and has now received her letter saying that unless the legislature can avoid the 10% budget cuts, she will lose her job. The 10% budget cuts now proposed for public education will cause them to lose a great teacher.
And that, right there, is the whole problem I've got with tenured education systems. There has got to be a way to retain bright talent like that. For every good rookie like her, there's likely a 30 year vet counting down the days to retirement who could care less what your child is learning who will have a job next fall.
Quote2. The US spends on average around $9,000 per child a year on education.
The U.S. spends, on average, almost three times that to incarcerate an adult. Not quite sure what that's saying, but an interesting stat nontheless ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
The U.S. spends, on average, almost three times that to incarcerate an adult. Not quite sure what that's saying, but an interesting stat nontheless ;)
Make them students?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
"The US spends on average around $9,000 per child a year on education."
The U.S. spends, on average, almost three times that to incarcerate an adult.
That should be their mantra.
Quote from: Townsend on May 17, 2010, 02:10:36 PM
That should be their mantra.
Great ad campaign either for a state education secretary or attorney general ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 02:12:12 PM
Great ad campaign either for a state education secretary or attorney general ;)
That to me is why we really have to change schools drastically. We aren't educating a good portion of our kids, and then they are too likely to end up in Prison.
I really believe that if we can fix schools, especially schools in poor areas, we can lower crime and incarceration rates, have fewer people on welfare (and paying taxes instead), and thus lower taxes as well (that last part is for Guido). Cutting 10% of the teachers from an challenged urban school district is going to do exactly the reverse and cost the taxpayers more money.
It's better for the kids, it's better for the people that might end up in Prison or on welfare and it's better for society at large and the taxpayer.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 17, 2010, 02:09:22 PM
Make them students?
But send them to Private Schools!!! According to the Department of Education the average cost of private school K-12 is only $6,600 per year.
That would save the state of Oklahoma over $270 billion dollars.
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 02:25:48 PM
That to me is why we really have to change schools drastically. We aren't educating a good portion of our kids, and then they are too likely to end up in Prison.
I really believe that if we can fix schools, especially schools in poor areas, we can lower crime and incarceration rates, have fewer people on welfare (and paying taxes instead), and thus lower taxes as well (that last part is for Guido). Cutting 10% of the teachers from an challenged urban school district is going to do exactly the reverse and cost the taxpayers more money.
It's better for the kids, it's better for the people that might end up in Prison or on welfare and it's better for society at large and the taxpayer.
Don't forget the importance of mentorship. Just curious what the appropriate entity would be to drive such an initiative for classroom volunteers, volunteer guest teachers, volunteer tutors, and other types of proper mentoring programs outside what exists.
Suggestions anyone?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 02:30:08 PM
Don't forget the importance of mentorship. Just curious what the appropriate entity would be to drive such an initiative for classroom volunteers, volunteer guest teachers, volunteer tutors, and other types of proper mentoring programs outside what exists.
Suggestions anyone?
Yes. . .parents have to own their children's education!
Jenks seems to do a very good job of this. My daughter's teachers have regular signups for parents to participate. As dads we come and read to the class or talk about what we do for a living, and my wife and the other mothers do the same, as well as participate (as she is today) in "fun days." Over the course of the year we've gotten to know almost all of the other parents, and I'm happy to say that they are all very participatory.
The week before last they had a presentation on next year's curriculum and placement, and every parent showed up. It was standing room only. I'm happy to see parents that take ownership for the education of their kids.
When education is viewed as the responsibility of the state or its employee, the children lose.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 02:28:12 PM
But send them to Private Schools!!! According to the Department of Education the average cost of private school K-12 is only $6,600 per year.
That would save the state of Oklahoma over $270 billion dollars.
you didn't read my post at all did you?
See Conan? This is why the funding source needs to change. It's a change in perception.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 03:00:08 PM
Yes. . .parents have to own their children's education!
Jenks seems to do a very good job of this. My daughter's teachers have regular signups for parents to participate. As dads we come and read to the class or talk about what we do for a living, and my wife and the other mothers do the same, as well as participate (as she is today) in "fun days." Over the course of the year we've gotten to know almost all of the other parents, and I'm happy to say that they are all very participatory.
The week before last they had a presentation on next year's curriculum and placement, and every parent showed up. It was standing room only. I'm happy to see parents that take ownership for the education of their kids.
When education is viewed as the responsibility of the state or its employee, the children lose.
Yet one of the reasons I had no problem with my kids moving over to Jenks from a private school.
That still doesn't address what the rest of us can do who have spare time to mentor in areas where parental mentorship and involvement is slim. I think most of us are well aware of Big Brothers & Sisters and I believe there's ways to mentor via Y programs.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 03:00:08 PM
Yes. . .parents have to own their children's education!
Jenks seems to do a very good job of this. My daughter's teachers have regular signups for parents to participate. As dads we come and read to the class or talk about what we do for a living, and my wife and the other mothers do the same, as well as participate (as she is today) in "fun days." Over the course of the year we've gotten to know almost all of the other parents, and I'm happy to say that they are all very participatory.
The week before last they had a presentation on next year's curriculum and placement, and every parent showed up. It was standing room only. I'm happy to see parents that take ownership for the education of their kids.
When education is viewed as the responsibility of the state or its employee, the children lose.
This is why people live in Jenks, it's why I live in Jenks. Not all parents can or care to make that decision.
To consign a child to a crappy education and it's likely life outcome because they have crappy parents is cruel, and fiscally stupid. Penny wise and pound foolish. You should revisit the cost of prison.
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 03:04:52 PM
you didn't read my post at all did you?
See Conan? This is why the funding source needs to change. It's a change in perception.
Do you happen to have a figure for how much is being directed at special needs students in Oklahoma? Just curious.
EDIT: At least when I went to a private Catholic school here in the Tulsa area over 25 years ago, the pay scale there was reputed by one of my teachers who had just come from Hale to be behind TPS's pay schedule by a year, but the working conditions were worth the pay cut, according to him.
I have no idea if that is still the case about lower pay, but I suspect not all private schools can afford to provide quality education and programs for $6600 per year and pay top salaries. They may well provide better working conditions.
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 03:09:28 PM
This is why people live in Jenks, it's why I live in Jenks. Not all parents can or care to make that decision.
To consign a child to a crappy education and it's likely life outcome because they have crappy parents is cruel, and fiscally stupid. Penny wise and pound foolish. You should revisit the cost of prison.
That's kind of our deal too. We were living in midtown and planning a family. Our choice was private schools or send our kids to Jenks. We wanted the diversity and social experience of a public school, but the quality and parental involvement you find at a private. After touring several schools, both public and private, we chose Jenks, and moved into the district. We rented out our old midtown home for a couple of years, and then cut bait.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2010, 03:17:16 PM
Do you happen to have a figure for how much is being directed at special needs students in Oklahoma? Just curious.
EDIT: At least when I went to a private Catholic school here in the Tulsa area over 25 years ago, the pay scale there was reputed by one of my teachers who had just come from Hale to be behind TPS's pay schedule by a year, but the working conditions were worth the pay cut, according to him.
I have no idea if that is still the case about lower pay, but I suspect not all private schools can afford to provide quality education and programs for $6600 per year and pay top salaries. They may well provide better working conditions.
According to one recent news story, Oklahoma spends $11,000 a year per special-needs student.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-bill-would-create-special-needs-scholarships/article/3459158?custom_click=rss
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
You are correct. I do tend to lean towards simple solutions. You are also correct in that there are times when common sense solutions do not work. This is not one of those times.
When you boil down the problems with education, you must consider the following:
1. The education of the kids is the priority, not the unions or job security for the educators.
2. The US spends on average around $9,000 per child a year on education.
3. You can finance a damn good education for that amount.
So where is the complexity that I am missing?
I appreciate your passion and your point of view.
Its exhausting how you folks are experts in just about everything and yet inevitably it all comes back down to simple truths: government sloth, unions, taxes and the superiority of life in the suburbs. Most of you have technical degrees from what I can tell. Perhaps that is the true path to enlightenment. ;)
How many teachers or education professionals have chimed into this thread? Any sociologists? How about a parent with a mainstreamed handicap child? None that would admit it I'm sure. I would encourage you to research why tenure is offered to teaching professionals. I assure you it was not a product of the evil unions.
And what's with the figures thrown out as if they are significant? In what way? $9000?? $6600 for a private school?? Are they national figures that average in NYC and Cali with Utah? They have no relation to anything.
I am let down in the quality of conversations here and how they always end up in the same rants. As far as I'm concerned put Education in the basket with Abortion, State Rights, Drugs, Welfare, Birth Certificates and Offshore Drilling. We're all screwed.
Anyway, nice chatting. ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 03:18:45 PM
That's kind of our deal too. We were living in midtown and planning a family. Our choice was private schools or send our kids to Jenks. We wanted the diversity and social experience of a public school, but the quality and parental involvement you find at a private. After touring several schools, both public and private, we chose Jenks, and moved into the district. We rented out our old midtown home for a couple of years, and then cut bait.
Oh geeze.. here we go..
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2010, 03:18:45 PM
That's kind of our deal too. We were living in midtown and planning a family. Our choice was private schools or send our kids to Jenks. We wanted the diversity and social experience of a public school, but the quality and parental involvement you find at a private. After touring several schools, both public and private, we chose Jenks, and moved into the district. We rented out our old midtown home for a couple of years, and then cut bait.
There are midtown schools that are just as good, if not better, than the same ones in Jenks. Eliot and Lee are excellent schools, and Barnard and Patrick Henry are not bad either. Eliot especially has lots of parent involvement and many of the kids there go on to Carver and Edison both of which are also good schools and then on to either Edison High or Booker T. We moved to where we did in midtown
because of the schools and the fact that our kids could get a good education in a diverse environment and also be within walking distance of their elementary school. I hear of people leaving midtown for bigger houses because of the high cost/sf but not for better schools.
Quote from: SXSW on May 17, 2010, 04:27:35 PM
There are midtown schools that are just as good, if not better, than the same ones in Jenks. Eliot and Lee are excellent schools, and Barnard and Patrick Henry are not bad either. Eliot especially has lots of parent involvement and many of the kids there go on to Carver and Edison both of which are also good schools and then on to either Edison High or Booker T. We moved to where we did in midtown because of the schools and the fact that our kids could get a good education in a diverse environment and also be within walking distance of their elementary school. I hear of people leaving midtown for bigger houses because of the high cost/sf but not for better schools.
You're right, it really was a total package thing. We looked at many of the schools you mentioned. Edison scored pretty high on our list, but we also looked at the environment as a whole. Jenks felt warm. There were no cold echoing tile and laminate hallways. There was a huge emphasis on natural light. The condition of the books and materials was better, and the teachers seemed genuinely happy.
I'm sure that there are several fantastic options in midtown, but none of them fit what we were looking for.
These are 2009 comparable Academic Performance Index test scores for some Elementary schools in the region.
Tulsa Public Elementary
low scores....Houston 650, Greeley 806, Jones 813, Anderson 820
high scores...Eisenhower 1500, Carnegie 1500, Penn 1495, Eliot 1484
Jenks Elementary
low scores....Jenks East 1389, Jenks West 1401,
high scores...Jenks Southeast 1500
Union Public
low scores....Rosa Parks 1061, McCauliffe 1180, Grove 1225
high scores...Cedar Ridge 1475, Marshall Moore 1475, Anderson 1442
Quote from: swake on May 17, 2010, 12:22:32 PM
I am in favor of vouchers to private schools and charter schools. I'm actually in favor of doing away with mandated school districts and allowing complete open choice. Much like healthcare we spend too much money on education in this country with too little returns. A school will get a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled with bonuses for good performance. The goal should be to pay good teachers more which in turn should help to recruit good new teachers and get rid of bad teachers. Competition is good and should bring costs down and performance up over time. The goal being that bad schools will die and schools that do well, will thrive and grow.
How do you propose the working poor get their children to and from these more distant schools? For many people, the only option is for their kid to go where the bus will take them. I guess we should just let them rot as the families who do have the means to transport their children to and from school themselves pull their kids out and send the funding to more distant schools.
Vouchers seem like a good idea in theory, but I have yet to see anyone address the significant practical issues.
Unlike waterboy, I think this discussion about education has been interesting and informative. But I'm also detecting a bit of ignorance or, at the least, naiveté.
There is one big factor that the advocates of private schools are missing. Private schools have the right to refuse to enroll a child if said child is problematic or disruptive enough. In essence, public schools can skim off the cream from the top and leave the rest.
Public schools, except for the most egregious cases, have no such option against ne'er-do-wells until the kid is 16 and drops out, or ends up in a juvenile detention center.
So, by default, public schools are at an inherent and significant disadvantage against private schools. That kid with Asperger's syndrome? It's very likely he'll be at a public school. That kid from a neglectful or abusive household? It's very likely he'll be at a public school. That kid with severe learning disabilities? That kid will very likely be at a public school.
And not only will those children have a lot of troubles learning, but those same kids tend to be disruptive in class and distract the kids who are able and want to learn.
And even with vouchers, there's no guarantee that the money even will be enough to pay for a private school, especially if the parent of the potential enrollee is poor.
Like some of you, I used to think that vouchers and the other seemingly simple solutions would fix our schools. But I'm married to a TPS teacher, and a very good one (her class finished only behind Edison and BTW in the test scores of her subject). So I get to hear those war stories about troubled students from her firsthand. I now am aware that the problems with the American education system are complicated, and there is no simple solutions. Like everything else, I realize the real world is exceedingly complex, and that no one answer fits all.
So if anyone who trots out the old, tired, boilerplate "solutions," I'm going to consider them yet another person from the "all theory, no practice" crowd.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 17, 2010, 09:04:55 PM
There is one big factor that the advocates of private schools are missing. Private schools have the right to refuse to enroll a child if said child is problematic or disruptive enough. In essence, public schools can skim off the cream from the top and leave the rest.
That is what I was saying back on page 2 of this thread.
But public schools are generally better at preparing students for real world issues because they are made up of real world people. Yes, the bookwork is important, but private schools can produce bright students who have no idea how to succeed after school.
My son has classmates from all parts of Tulsa and all income classes and races. I feel good that he has made many friends that come from a different perspective than he does.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 17, 2010, 05:09:47 PM
These are 2009 comparable Academic Performance Index test scores for some Elementary schools in the region.
Tulsa Public Elementary
low scores....Houston 650, Greeley 806, Jones 813, Anderson 820
high scores...Eisenhower 1500, Carnegie 1500, Penn 1495, Eliot 1484
Jenks Elementary
low scores....Jenks East 1389, Jenks West 1401,
high scores...Jenks Southeast 1500
Union Public
low scores....Rosa Parks 1061, McCauliffe 1180, Grove 1225
high scores...Cedar Ridge 1475, Marshall Moore 1475, Anderson 1442
Interesting to see Penn with a higher score than any of the Union schools located at N. 46th & Lewis. Also interesting that two of the lowest performing schools are in basically the same neighborhood to the north and west. I think the top schools in TPS can easily compete with or outperform the top schools in every surrounding district. The problem with TPS is that there are so many schools that there are plenty of underperforming schools in addition to the good ones that other districts don't have..
I figured this might be the right topic to post this under. This is an email from a friend of mine who is the "In school suspension teacher" read on:
"So my principal wants teachers to have a short presentation about classroom expectations, management, homework and behavior to present to parents at "Back to School Night.
Let me know how this works for you.
"Welcome to In School Suspension.
This is the room your child comes to when the socialization skills you were supposed to have taught them between birth and 11 to 14 and in some of cases 16 years of age have failed to be utilized by your child.
What I will try to in the one to five, and in some cases 25 days, your child is with me is teach them what you failed to do: interact with people without cussing, insulting or fighting.
My job is not to get your child suspended, but to make sure your child learns the best way to stay in class and insure that there is a proper learning atmosphere for all students in the classroom.
Many students will do fine and may never need to return to this room for the remainder of their middle and high school years.
Due to my upbringing though I am a realist, and I understand that I will not succeed in all cases. For those of you that this applies to, this would be the time for some of you to contact the JBDC, David L. Moss Correctional Facility, Lloyd Raider Juvenile Detention Center, Stringtown, McAlister or any of the other fine Oklahoma State Penitentiary locations to make housing accommodations for your child.
Do you think the parents would get it, or would they say it's the schools fault for their child to wind up in In School Suspension?
Conan, your teacher friend needs to learn the difference between insure and ensure. :P
Quote from: nathanm on August 26, 2010, 01:15:50 PM
Conan, your teacher friend needs to learn the difference between insure and ensure. :P
He's a public school teacher, what do you expect?