http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/the-10-states-running-out_n_820472.html#s236893&title=3_Oklahoma
There are several states in the U.S. that are losing the education race to most of the others. In the past decade, these states have declining math and reading scores, lower numbers of people with bachelor's degrees, and comparatively fewer residents who hold white collar jobs. Colorado, Michigan, and eight others are losing this competition to states who have residents that are better educated and who have done a better job obtaining higher quality jobs. These failing states have lost ground compared to the national average.
The recent State of the Union address, and almost any sweeping political speech or document that writes or speaks about unemployment and future competition for jobs, impresses the point that a well educated workforce-a smart workforce-has comparative advantages. Regions with better-educated people tend to find it easier to draw and retain businesses. These regions are also likely to be more competitive in contrast to nations around the world like China, which has posted sharp increases in the level of educational attainment among its citizens.
Well-educated people find it easier to obtain and keep jobs. American unemployment figures consistently show that the part of the population with high levels of eduction have lower unemployment. This makes sense: skill equals aptitude in most cases. An employer who has to pick between two potential employees is likely to choose the one who reads best, writes best, and has the highest level of educational attainment. There are exceptions to this when jobs require very specific backgrounds, but across the American workforce, which has tens of millions of workers, any employer would want to have an employee who can show his educational background is stronger than that of fellow applicants.
An educated employee will not just have an advantage now, but may have more of one in the future. This is one of the reasons 24/7 Wall St. looked at trends over an entire decade. Funds of educational facilities and educators have already been eroded in many states and municipalities by budget cuts. The slow economic recovery and the move toward austerity in Washington is likely to make this trend more alarming. The portion of people who are adults with good educations may actually drop as the capital necessary to maintain a strong educational "infrastructure" is depleted. The portion of the population which is well-educated now may have reached a high-water market, at least for the foreseeable future..........................
The best Oklahoma performed in any of our metrics was 33rd, for a slight increase in the population with jobs requiring college educations. In every other category, the state experienced significant relative and actual decreases. Oklahoma had the sixth-worst decline in reading scores. Between 2000 and 2009, 39 states had better increases in adults with bachelors degrees, and 45 had better increases in advanced degrees.
Population Change (2000-2009): 159,419 (4.6%)
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 22.7% (42nd)
Population With White Collar Careers: 11.8% (37th)
NAEP Math: 41st
NAEP Reading: 38th
Quote from: unreliablesource on February 09, 2011, 06:46:53 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/the-10-states-running-out_n_820472.html#s236893&title=3_Oklahoma
There are several states in the U.S. that are losing the education race to most of the others. In the past decade, these states have declining math and reading scores, lower numbers of people with bachelor's degrees, and comparatively fewer residents who hold white collar jobs. Colorado, Michigan, and eight others are losing this competition to states who have residents that are better educated and who have done a better job obtaining higher quality jobs. These failing states have lost ground compared to the national average.
The recent State of the Union address, and almost any sweeping political speech or document that writes or speaks about unemployment and future competition for jobs, impresses the point that a well educated workforce-a smart workforce-has comparative advantages. Regions with better-educated people tend to find it easier to draw and retain businesses. These regions are also likely to be more competitive in contrast to nations around the world like China, which has posted sharp increases in the level of educational attainment among its citizens.
Well-educated people find it easier to obtain and keep jobs. American unemployment figures consistently show that the part of the population with high levels of eduction have lower unemployment. This makes sense: skill equals aptitude in most cases. An employer who has to pick between two potential employees is likely to choose the one who reads best, writes best, and has the highest level of educational attainment. There are exceptions to this when jobs require very specific backgrounds, but across the American workforce, which has tens of millions of workers, any employer would want to have an employee who can show his educational background is stronger than that of fellow applicants.
An educated employee will not just have an advantage now, but may have more of one in the future. This is one of the reasons 24/7 Wall St. looked at trends over an entire decade. Funds of educational facilities and educators have already been eroded in many states and municipalities by budget cuts. The slow economic recovery and the move toward austerity in Washington is likely to make this trend more alarming. The portion of people who are adults with good educations may actually drop as the capital necessary to maintain a strong educational "infrastructure" is depleted. The portion of the population which is well-educated now may have reached a high-water market, at least for the foreseeable future..........................
The best Oklahoma performed in any of our metrics was 33rd, for a slight increase in the population with jobs requiring college educations. In every other category, the state experienced significant relative and actual decreases. Oklahoma had the sixth-worst decline in reading scores. Between 2000 and 2009, 39 states had better increases in adults with bachelors degrees, and 45 had better increases in advanced degrees.
Population Change (2000-2009): 159,419 (4.6%)
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 22.7% (42nd)
Population With White Collar Careers: 11.8% (37th)
NAEP Math: 41st
NAEP Reading: 38th
An almost exactly inverse ranking to our education spending. Coincidence? I think not.
I spent half of last year trying to get Oklahomans to pay attention to K-12 education spending by our state legislature.
The wide majority on this forum disagreed with me on it's importance and the related state question on setting education spending equal to the region lost a statewide vote by a two to one margin.
Watch the legislature in 2011 cut education spending once again while giving transportation (highways), prisons, and state colleges more money.
Bitter? Yes. Surprised? No.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 09, 2011, 08:01:28 PM
I spent half of last year trying to get Oklahomans to pay attention to K-12 education spending by our state legislature.
The wide majority on this forum disagreed with me on it's importance and the related state question on setting education spending equal to the region lost a statewide vote by a two to one margin.
Watch the legislature in 2011 cut education spending once again while giving transportation (highways), prisons, and state colleges more money.
Bitter? Yes. Surprised? No.
I think you missed the point of disagreement. What most people objected to wasn't more education spending, it was irresponsibly setting an arbitrary standard of spending to meet by possibly taking money from other essential services. In the absence of that, it would mean a tax increase. it was a horribly written piece of legislation with almost no accountability to ensure better educational outcomes.
People didn't vote against better education, they voted against a truly crappy piece of
shite legislation.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2011, 08:24:18 PM
People didn't vote against better education, they voted against a truly crappy piece of shite legislation.
+1, maybe more.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 09, 2011, 08:01:28 PM
I spent half of last year trying to get Oklahomans to pay attention to K-12 education spending by our state legislature.
The wide majority on this forum disagreed with me on it's importance and the related state question on setting education spending equal to the region lost a statewide vote by a two to one margin.
Watch the legislature in 2011 cut education spending once again while giving transportation (highways), prisons, and state colleges more money.
Bitter? Yes. Surprised? No.
Micheal I can understand your bitterness, but that piece of legislation was an overreach. Both parties are guilty of overreach from time to time. Well maybe most of the time.
We need more pragmatic politicians rather than those that swing for the fences all the time.
Good article. As to more funding for education... I, and I think many others on here, are willing to have more money go to education in this state. The problem with our last "choice" to do so was that it didn't lay out specifics as to how and where the education money was going to be spent.
Michael, I remember hearing you talking at one of our TN meetings about transparency in government and how descisions must be made in a transparent way by the people in government,,, how important all that is, how it makes our country great and how more is better. The examples and descriptions you gave were very impactful.
The last vote asking for more money on education seemed to be the opposite of that spirit. It was devoid of specifics and thus transparency. It was like we were being asked to hand over a blank check without any accountability, any contract, on how and where the money was to be spent. It wasn't a matter of more, it was a matter of how and where. Just a general "its for education" was not clear enough. Give the people some specifics, you will get your money. And I hope they do that.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 09, 2011, 10:24:20 PM
Good article. As to more funding for education... I, and I think many others on here, are willing to have more money go to education in this state. The problem with our last "choice" to do so was that it didn't lay out specifics as to how and where the education money was going to be spent.
Michael, I remember hearing you talking at one of our TN meetings about transparency in government and how descisions must be made in a transparent way by the people in government,,, how important all that is, how it makes our country great and how more is better. The examples and descriptions you gave were very impactful.
The last vote asking for more money on education seemed to be the opposite of that spirit. It was devoid of specifics and thus transparency. It was like we were being asked to hand over a blank check without any accountability, any contract, on how and where the money was to be spent. It wasn't a matter of more, it was a matter of how and where. Just a general "its for education" was not clear enough. Give the people some specifics, you will get your money. And I hope they do that.
I also think the non-specific "at least as much as our neighbors" was a bit of a souring point. I think to sell this one, they need to say exactly how much and where it is going. I also think that they need to make sure that they can't add to the funding at this end, as they syphon off at the other end.
I don't disagree that the legislation had flaws.
I just am depressed that there is no other legislation to actually fund schools at a reasonable level.
I am tired of being next to last in education spending.
I spend lots of time in schools. I have two kids in different schools and I mentor in a school every week. My staff and I give speeches in over a hundred schools a year. Many of my friends are involved in public education and every teacher I know has at least one college degree and I don't know a single one who is paid more that we pay a Tulsa police office fresh out of the academy.
I get it.
Most of the rich people have their kids in private schools. Taking the money away from public schools makes their choices look better.
I am bitter. I just can't believe that we have so much spending on other things. I am tired of being number one in incarcerating women and 49th in teaching kids. I just shake my head when I drive to Oklahoma City and see all the new office buildings housing state employees.
Show me the state elected official who thinks we should fund schools even close to what Kansas or Arkansas does.
I agree that more school funding is needed. For example, Bixby, struggles to buy books. There are new buildings going up on campus, which is good, but they must balance that budget somewhere. Teachers have been shifted around to teach different grades and subjects as part of ways to save money. Our schools should not have to scrape by. They should be adequately funded in order to provide essential items, as well as going above and beyond in order to provide a top quality education for the students of Oklahoma.
There is always a good reason to vote no. There is always a better way, with more specifics, with more details. Truth is that I have seldom seen any legislation or proposal that could measure up to TN standards. So we vote no, waiting for perfection and it never comes and the state lags behind. And we wring our hands and moan while smugly sure that it isn't our fault, its those people who write the stuff without contacting us after every sentence is written for approval. We have no faith in each other.
Most of you are big business believers. That we should operate government like a business, but you don't seem to grasp that business has different goals. Well, believe this: businesses base their pay for executives on regional and industry standards. They don't always ask for specific details of how that pay is measured out, they simply know that if they want competent or exemplary employees they have to pay what their competitors are paying. You don't want government (education) to do that.
Then know that businesses operate on borrowed money. Borrowed from stockholders, banks and other elements they do business with. They invest others monies because they have to in order to survive. They have faith that they have the right mix of elements to pay that money back in spades. You don't want government (education) to do that.
There is a difference between voting no because it can be better and voting no because it's not good enough. This falls into the second category. Personally I did a lot of waffeling on this one because I want to see more money going towards education. It was hard to vote not on it. But I wanted to send the message that there should be processes in place to ensure the money goes to actual education, not funneled into this person or that persons pockets. Is it really too much to ask to be given an actual number for the increase, and at least a breakdown of percentage going to what area of education such as transportation, educator saleries, materials ect?
Well we now have the alternative, a 3% cut on top of last years cuts. We already had teacher layoffs and my son has 29 kids in his class today, where are they going to cut now?
Falin and her state Republican party cronies are working hard spending money on new laws that will fight federal laws regarding evolution, Obamacare, abortion and anchor babies, while cutting education spending and adding in new tax cuts.
Way to go Oklahoma.
http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok--fallin-executivebudget-glance,0,940999.story
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/02/gains-okla-gop-touts-ambitious-agenda
Quote from: custosnox on February 10, 2011, 08:43:07 AM
There is a difference between voting no because it can be better and voting no because it's not good enough. This falls into the second category. Personally I did a lot of waffeling on this one because I want to see more money going towards education. It was hard to vote not on it. But I wanted to send the message that there should be processes in place to ensure the money goes to actual education, not funneled into this person or that persons pockets. Is it really too much to ask to be given an actual number for the increase, and at least a breakdown of percentage going to what area of education such as transportation, educator saleries, materials ect?
My summary?
It was a pile.
Nothing more needs to be said. ;)
I know things are not as they were when I was a kid but.....
we almost always had 30 to 32 kids in a class from 1st grade through high school.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 10, 2011, 09:37:46 AM
I know things are not as they were when I was a kid but.....
we almost always had 30 to 32 kids in a class from 1st grade through high school.
Somehow this notion sprang forward that we shouldn't have more than 15 kids per class. Studies do show at earlier learning ages, more personal attention yields better results. However, it doesn't appear near as critical after third grade.
Seems like school systems have focused too much on growth and keeping the construction and real estate trades flush by building all these multiple campus sites. Then there's the race to see which school can out do the others on athletic facilities and separate training/practice facilities for every sport. I feel athletics and extra-curriculars are an important part of the experience. Professional level training facilities aren't required for kids to perform at their best.
Oklahoma still has the distinction of being one of the more dense in school districts per capita in the entire country. Even states with more sparsely spread populations have fewer districts per capita than us. Prisons and schools have become the symbol of widespread pork in our state. If a legislator scores funding for a new school district or prison, it means more jobs for the area that other school districts wind up essentially losing potential funding to cover.
The 1950's Red? That was acceptable when the baby boomer kids were flooding the schools and new schools were being built, new teachers trained etc. And that was also sufficient education during those times when we were primarily a manufacturing society. But we're not there now. To have 30 kids in a classroom when school age population is decreasing, we're closing schools and selling off the buildings AND we're in dire need of improving math and science for a technological society, is not a good thing.
Had this legislation passed, it would have been revisited by this new administration just like we're about to revisit the national health care bill. Changes would be made and specific details would emerge. Now we have to start from scratch, behind everyone else while we do even more blood letting.
To make things worse, the new state legislature has cut ties with the existing base of lobbyists, who served a role as a fount of continuuing knowledge for incoming members. Love them or hate them, lobbyists are the link between industry, education and legislation. When you sever that tie, in favor or ideology, you have to re-invent the wheel.
Quote from: waterboy on February 10, 2011, 10:21:09 AM
The 1950's Red? That was acceptable when the baby boomer kids were flooding the schools and new schools were being built, new teachers trained etc. And that was also sufficient education during those times when we were primarily a manufacturing society. But we're not there now. To have 30 kids in a classroom when school age population is decreasing, we're closing schools and selling off the buildings AND we're in dire need of improving math and science for a technological society, is not a good thing.
Had this legislation passed, it would have been revisited by this new administration just like we're about to revisit the national health care bill. Changes would be made and specific details would emerge. Now we have to start from scratch, behind everyone else while we do even more blood letting.
To make things worse, the new state legislature has cut ties with the existing base of lobbyists, who served a role as a fount of continuuing knowledge for incoming members. Love them or hate them, lobbyists are the link between industry, education and legislation. When you sever that tie, in favor or ideology, you have to re-invent the wheel.
You said it yourself, school age population is decreasing WB. Why build more school buildings with operating budgets which eat up money which could be spent on hiring and retaining better
educators? 25 to 30 student classes was the norm up through the 80's at major metro public schools. Why are we dumbing down today's students? What's changed significantly for them that they need any more attention than those who were in school 20 years before them? Going from a manufacturing society to more of a tech and service society really doesn't dictate class sizes, IMO.
Mid 50s thru late 60s. We lived in a mixed white and blue collar community in suburban Phila. PA. My graduating class was about 400 kids. I don't have exact numbers but a significant number, probably 30%, went on to college. We had groups for college bound kids, vo-tech bound kids and some in the middle. It ticked me off that I wasn't allowed to take shop classes since I was in the college bound group.
Everyone was required to take English and Phys Ed every year. Due to some "accelerated" programs, many of us had 2-1/2 yrs algebra, 1/2 yr trig, 1 yr geometry, and either Sr. Math, Sr. Advanced math which included 1/2 yr of differential calculus, or the whole Sr yr of calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, and possibly a second yr of chemistry or biology, up to 4 yrs of a foreign language, Social Studies or History at least 3 yrs. Some of the advanced programs started in 8th grade.
I think that the parents' involvement and the attitude toward education was a plus. Discipline was typically not a problem but I won't say there were no problems. I really don't know how the schools in the city of Phila. fared.
There's not going to be a "better" bill to vote on down the pike. There's not going to ever be an acceptable proposal that includes either as a stated provision or even as a hint down the line an increase in taxes. We are under the misguided impression that savings and efficiencies can be found at current funding levels, and that if we just consolidate districts one more time, or take another swipe at school lunch funding (or school transportation funding, or what-have-you); or if we can only finally and permanently break the back of the teachers union so that we can institute merit based pay (and offer the bulk of beginners 8$ an hour with no bennies); if we could only put vouchers on on the table and just activate the wonders of markets-based competition a million young scholars would bloom and flourish and our poor little hardscrabble state -- which is falling farther and farther behind not only the rest of the country but behind the world economy -- will somehow bloom and flourish as well.
There are so many ways we can redirect this discussion away from the core problem, which is that we spend far too little in comparison to almost everyone everywhere. None of these things will do what we need to do, which is add money into the system. This will never happen, however, because our first priority in this state is to not ever ever ever raise taxes ever for anything. Full stop.
I get the notion that many conservatives don't like big government and even the need to cut spending in general, but what I don't like is cutting at the state and federal level but then not give us at the local/city level the ability to take up the slack if and how we would like . I may be wrong, but from what I gather, a city can vote to build more school buildings, but can't fund more teachers or school supplies? If your going to cut at the state level (which I am all for lol) at least fight to allow us to then do the same task for ourselves at the local level if we wish.
Its like the lottery thing. I believe I heard of a school district that got money from the lottery for certain funding for the teachers (went to retirement fund I think, which is probably being raided for something else and doesn't really exist lol) , but they were still scrabbling for pencils and paper. Was another example of, more money for education, but the devil was in the details.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 10, 2011, 11:15:13 AM
I get the notion that many conservatives don't like big government and even the need to cut spending in general, but what I don't like is cutting at the state and federal level but then not give us at the local/city level the ability to take up the slack if and how we would like . I may be wrong, but from what I gather, a city can vote to build more school buildings, but can't fund more teachers or school supplies? If your going to cut at the state level (which I am all for lol) at least fight to allow us to then do the same task for ourselves at the local level if we wish.
Its like the lottery thing. I believe I heard of a school district that got money from the lottery for certain funding for the teachers (went to retirement fund I think, which is probably being raided for something else and doesn't really exist lol) , but they were still scrabbling for pencils and paper. Was another example of, more money for education, but the devil was in the details.
Jenks tried to get a measure passed to allow for supplemental local funding but it didn't get far.
The whole idea has big problems in the courts because if it were to pass then wealthy, white suburban districts would have better funding and schools than poorer urban and heavily minority urban districts, which actually need higher levels of funding to help to overcome the inherent disadvantages that the urban kids come to school with.
Quote from: we vs us on February 10, 2011, 11:09:08 AM
There's not going to be a "better" bill to vote on down the pike. There's not going to ever be an acceptable proposal that includes either as a stated provision or even as a hint down the line an increase in taxes. We are under the misguided impression that savings and efficiencies can be found at current funding levels, and that if we just consolidate districts one more time, or take another swipe at school lunch funding (or school transportation funding, or what-have-you); or if we can only finally and permanently break the back of the teachers union so that we can institute merit based pay (and offer the bulk of beginners 8$ an hour with no bennies); if we could only put vouchers on on the table and just activate the wonders of markets-based competition a million young scholars would bloom and flourish and our poor little hardscrabble state -- which is falling farther and farther behind not only the rest of the country but behind the world economy -- will somehow bloom and flourish as well.
There are so many ways we can redirect this discussion away from the core problem, which is that we spend far too little in comparison to almost everyone everywhere. None of these things will do what we need to do, which is add money into the system. This will never happen, however, because our first priority in this state is to not ever ever ever raise taxes ever for anything. Full stop.
This is the mistaken notion that throwing more money at a problem makes it go away. Liberal thinking seems to engender the idea that government and government institutions are so massively huge as it is now, it's too big to do anything about except spend more money and create more layers of administration to supposedly create more accountability to tax payers. There's no reason for government and it's institutions to be "necessarily larger" in this day and age. If anything, advances in technology should make a smaller government much more of a reality. We don't have a problem with spending too little in education in Oklahoma. We have a problem of mis-spending. Take a look at the facility operation costs and administrative costs of running 603 districts in 77 counties and tell me that's just chock full of efficiency.
According to this link, there are 603 school districts in Oklahoma.
That's 603 districts to serve 77 counties and 626,000 students. There are 15.95 students per full time teacher. This does not include teacher's aides or "ungraded teachers" There's no shortage of teachers, and we seem to be hitting the goal of maintaining around a 15:1 student teacher ratio.
Here's a full run down on the metrics:
Oklahoma School District Statistics
Oklahoma School Districts: 603
Total Students Pre Kindergarten - 12 Grade: 626,160
Total Males: 322,392
Total Females: 303,767
American Indian Students: 115,771
Asian/Pacific Islanders : 9,396
African Americans: 68,315
Hispanic: 47,828
White: 384,849
Total Staff: 71,313
Fulltime Teachers: 39,251
Ungraded Teachers: 4,267
Oklahoma Pre Kindergarten Teachers: 865
Oklahoma Kindergarten Teachers: 1,636
Oklahoma Elementary Teachers: 15,768
Oklahoma Secondary Teachers: 16,717
Elementary Guidance Counselors: 522
Secondary Guidance Counselors: 973
Total Guidance Counselors: 1,494
LEA Administrators: 710
School Administrators: 1,932
LEA Admin Support Staff: 1,664
School Admin Support Staff: 3,485
Student Support Services Staff: 2,293
Other Support Staff: 12,466
Library Media Support Staff: 722
Librarians Media Specialists: 997
Yes. There are inefficiencies and waste in our education system. Yes. There are ways to consolidate school districts and even close some schools. That is already happening.
But we are still 49th in spending per pupil.
All I want is for us to be in the middle on spending. The average. That is all the last bill proposed.
Average. Oklahoma needs to be OK. We can't afford great or even good but we need to be at least OK.
Ain't going to happen with the current Governor and legislature...
I would rather have our schools turn out average or better students than have the right to claim we spent a certain amount of money. The two are not seperable but neither are they necessarily tied at 1:1 to our neighbors.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 10, 2011, 12:08:58 PM
Yes. There are inefficiencies and waste in our education system. Yes. There are ways to consolidate school districts and even close some schools. That is already happening.
But we are still 49th in spending per pupil.
All I want is for us to be in the middle on spending. The average. That is all the last bill proposed.
Average. Oklahoma needs to be OK. We can't afford great or even good but we need to be at least OK.
Ain't going to happen with the current Governor and legislature...
What's the guarantee, or better yet a proven corollary that more school spending makes for better outcomes?
Some of the biggest spending districts in the U.S. puts out the worst students and have the highest drop out rates. If spending more money on education would relate to better results, then by all means do it, but there doesn't seem to be any relationship other than teacher's unions trying to make it so. To increase spending simply for the pride of saying: "We are in the upper 1/2 or middle of per pupil spending" is completely asinine.
I think we need a combination of both. We need to give more money to schools, but that is not all of the solution. We don't need to throw drastic sums of money into the system, that will just further put us in debt. I think we should slightly raise the amount of money spent on education, and then work to use that money efficiently. 603 districts for 626,000 students is insane. Not every tiny little town needs a school. Make a central hub in several of the small towns, and then bus kids in from surrounding communities. This could allow for more quality facilities, and not just quantity of facilities.
Are you aware that most of the state, most of those districts and most of those legislators voting on such a plan....are categorized as rural? That is never going to happen.
I am reminded of a sweatshirt I see every once in awhile. "Harley makes a great bike, but would you fly in a plane powered by one?" The hard facts are that the more you spend on a quality product the better the product generally performs. You can't just improve a harley motor and put it in a plane. Pragmatically we can't kill off the sacred cow of a rural state. We could redesign the system but it seems a bit late for that.
So, given the constraints outlined, what is the best path? Spend less in hopes of strangling the rural interests till they give in? They'll die first. Spend more in hopes that we can catch up with the rest of the world but pay more taxes and enable a sick puppy to live longer? Also not likely.
What?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2011, 12:30:48 PM
What's the guarantee, or better yet a proven corollary that more school spending makes for better outcomes?
There is no guarantee.
What is the guarantee that the millions we started spend on airport security makes us any safer? What is the guarantee that if we build a park people will use it?
I don't know if there is a proven corollary...I do know that cutting spending is resulting in less prepared students.
Read the opening post. We are in trouble and the answer seems to be cut spending.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 10, 2011, 01:20:25 PM
There is no guarantee.
What is the guarantee that the millions we started spend on airport security makes us any safer? What is the guarantee that if we build a park people will use it?
I don't know if there is a proven corollary...I do know that cutting spending is resulting in less prepared students.
Read the opening post. We are in trouble and the answer seems to be cut spending.
Stupid is as stupid does.
We would be the example of low spending getting bad results. We are the proof to that.
RM and Water,
I think a lot of the backlash on the education bill - other than the extreme right wing running the show in OKC - is due to past efforts, like 1017 and the "lottery for education". All previous efforts have been corrupted by "you-know-who" and this one would likely be also. This bill might have made it better by defining a fixed position on funding. (Would be nice to know if that would have helped.)
But when you have a state that makes noise about education/jobs/etc that elects people who actually cut the tax rate from 5.75 to 5.25 and brag about it with the problems this state has, well it ain't ever gonna get any better. And now the governor (she doesn't rate a capital G) is ranting and raving about making things more attractive to business to get more jobs. Well, the education system for that just isn't there. And won't be for a long, long time. And lower taxes and minimum wage pay rates and "right to work" and giving the store away hasn't helped. We have a lot of great companies here and hopefully more will come, but this ain't EVER gonna be like Texas. (At least, I hope not.)
AND she is ranting/raving about cutting tax rate some more!! This state is truly insane. In all senses of the word.
And the "problems" I am talking about - the big three anyway, in no particular order - are;
Roads
Education
Prisons
Would also be nice to fix the county commissioner system to reduce some of that graft/corruption, but I know that will never happen either.
Sixth worse state in decline in reading scores...Yet we think everything is OK.
It reminds me of a Bobcat Goldthwait routine.
Bobcat says when he was young he took a standardized test and the teacher told him he tested in the sixth percentile. He didn't understand so the teacher explained that if 100 kids took the test, he would be smarter than five of them.
Bobcat replied, "I would find those five kids and I would become their leader".
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 10, 2011, 01:42:53 PM
Sixth worse state in decline in reading scores...Yet we think everything is OK.
It reminds me of a Bobcat Goldthwait routine.
Bobcat says when he was young he took a standardized test and the teacher told him he tested in the sixth percentile. He didn't understand so the teacher explained that if 100 kids took the test, he would be smarter than five of them.
Bobcat replied, "I would find those five kids and I would become their leader".
Well, that explains how the Tea Party was founded.
Quote from: swake on February 10, 2011, 01:51:35 PM
Well, that explains how the Tea Party was founded.
Once again, well played.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 10, 2011, 01:35:24 PM
RM and Water,
I think a lot of the backlash on the education bill - other than the extreme right wing running the show in OKC - is due to past efforts, like 1017 and the "lottery for education". All previous efforts have been corrupted by "you-know-who" and this one would likely be also. This bill might have made it better by defining a fixed position on funding. (Would be nice to know if that would have helped.)
I went to the capitol to support 1017 and met with some legislators. They had no particular interest in school funding and flatly told me that there were more pressing needs in the state. You guessed it..."we need to make the state more attractive to business". And that was, what, 10 years ago?
We have had many discussions on this forum about the dismal failure of the "lottery for education". I never supported it. It was a lie, people knew or should have known it was a lie and they pushed it through anyway. Just like the compact for gambling. Those who know the way our legislators work, knew that they would spend little, if any, more real money towards school funding. How depressing to have watched all that unfurl.
It could be worse than Texas. We could be just a mining state like NM, exploiting its people for natural resources, fighting to keep immigrants at bay, drug trafficking manageable, wages low and struggling to be something besides a drive through state. We are different ...right?
Actually, I wasn't disparaging Texas. They have had a remarkable growth in their economy, probably as big percentage wise, if not bigger, than California. (And yet, now they are out of water and want some court to make us give them ours.) And lest the short term lack-of-visionaries say something about California, I am talking about a long term time frame. 80 years. And today's problems notwithstanding, I bet CA will be back in a few years. My company is seeing improvement in the business we do there. Recovery will probably be slower there that most places this time.
Texas still not somewhere I want to live. Visit the gulf coast from time to time, but not live there.
I joke about Texas and wouldn't want to live there, but they know how to grow. Part of their growth comes from providing lots of upper level education opportunity just like Cali. And growth brings opportunity. Just too many dang real cowboys for my taste.
But the water fiasco going on in SE OK right now is what I'm seeing as a canary in the mine shaft for Oklahoma. Combine that with a failure to match competing states funding of education, a failure to address financial problems and a fairy tale view of what attracts business to a state and you see a "donor" state environment starting to emerge. We showed our hand when a religious state like ours whored ourselves out to the lottery and gambling because we needed the cash since we were losing many of our big energy players.
When natural resources are more important than human resources things get out of balance. Look at New Mexico. Even Louisiana or Iowa. They have tourism but mostly are not really growing. They are economies seriously skewed towards low education industries, oil, gas, farming and mining. Georgia- car production. Tennessee- coal production. Alaska. There is no need to worry about education when most of your state is dedicated to providing energy, minerals, food or water to stronger states. Instead you concentrate on the bread and butter hot issues that fuel the tea party movement, things like crime, morality, creeping socialism, taxes, immigration, religion, constitutional issues etc. None of that stuff makes a state much money or growth but keeps unscrupulous politicians re-elected. Those politicians then have to turn to selling off natural resources to pay for basic services.
Without a change in strategy, I see Oklahoma as a donor state for natural resources within 20 years. Our most profitable businesses will continue to be prisons and retirement homes. Our greatest export, besides natural gas and water, will continue to be the best educated students our colleges graduate.
Waterboy, I think you are being a bit extreme. You ramble on about how bad our education system is (I'm not arguing that point), but you provide no solution except to pour more money into a failing system. I think that yes, we need to give more money to our schools, but we must also make our schools more efficient. If we do nothing to reform our schools, a very high percentage of the money we give them will be wasted. We need a better solution than just "give more money."
Quote from: ZYX on February 10, 2011, 09:58:04 PM
Waterboy, I think you are being a bit extreme. You ramble on about how bad our education system is (I'm not arguing that point), but you provide no solution except to pour more money into a failing system. I think that yes, we need to give more money to our schools, but we must also make our schools more efficient. If we do nothing to reform our schools, a very high percentage of the money we give them will be wasted. We need a better solution than just "give more money."
I don't think there's anyone arguing against more efficiency etc; but really, to simply achieve parity with nearby states -- none of whom are shining stars, either -- there's simply nothing else that will do but more money.
And to suggest that somehow money WON'T help is to completely ignore one of the fundamentals of market economics, which we all know but really want to ignore when it comes to government: you get what you pay for.
But I also think that, at heart, there's a difference in the way we think. Waterboy, RM, and I (and I'm sure others) see this as a resource scarcity problem. My bet is that others see this as a system failure problem. You think the system is fundamentally flawed and no amount of money will fix those flaws, so why put more money in? Our side of the coin says simply that, yes, more money WILL help.
It's simple....A lack of parental interest in childrens education at home.....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 11, 2011, 07:22:17 AM
It's simple....A lack of parental interest in childrens education at home.....
Yea we get that. How do you propose to fix that and how much will that cost? How do you force people (many who may be children themselves, and or poorly educated, and or without good life skills, etc.) to be good parents? Heck a high percentage of people in this state can't even take care of their very own health, or eat or drink right.
Quote from: we vs us on February 11, 2011, 05:38:03 AM
I don't think there's anyone arguing against more efficiency etc; but really, to simply achieve parity with nearby states -- none of whom are shining stars, either -- there's simply nothing else that will do but more money.
And to suggest that somehow money WON'T help is to completely ignore one of the fundamentals of market economics, which we all know but really want to ignore when it comes to government: you get what you pay for.
But I also think that, at heart, there's a difference in the way we think. Waterboy, RM, and I (and I'm sure others) see this as a resource scarcity problem. My bet is that others see this as a system failure problem. You think the system is fundamentally flawed and no amount of money will fix those flaws, so why put more money in? Our side of the coin says simply that, yes, more money WILL help.
Completely wrong.
It was the bill we were asked to vote on that was terribly flawed. There wasn't any guarantee that the "flawed system" would actually get any of the money to do the things that needed to be done. All of the money could have gone to build fancy olympic sized swimming pools or repaint the busses, repave the school parking lot, pay the deficit on teachers retirement or healthcare for all we know without the teachers actually getting anything more, the students not seeing any change (in education/scores or anything else) etc.
All I wanted to know was where in the "flawed system" the money was to go? Teacher pay raises? More teachers? School supplies? Planting begonias on the schoolground? Just simply wanted to know where the money was going to go. Was that really too much? I think it would be irresponsible to ask for anything less. We do it for local school bonds here. This much will go to update this and that facility, this much will go to new computers, etc. Why couldn't the state do that rather than ask for a blank check and say "Trust Us"? We did that recently with the lottery and a lot of people are flat out angry at what happended to that money.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 11, 2011, 08:01:15 AM
Yea we get that. How do you propose to fix that and how much will that cost? How do you force people (many who may be children themselves, and or poorly educated, and or without good life skills, etc.) to be good parents? Heck a high percentage of people in this state can't even take care of their very own health, or eat or drink right.
Throw more money at it like the libby's in the thread said to do...... ;D
Quote from: we vs us on February 11, 2011, 05:38:03 AM
And to suggest that somehow money WON'T help is to completely ignore one of the fundamentals of market economics, which we all know but really want to ignore when it comes to government: you get what you pay for.
You pay for what you get but you don't always get what you pay for.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 11, 2011, 08:01:15 AM
Yea we get that. How do you propose to fix that and how much will that cost? How do you force people (many who may be children themselves, and or poorly educated, and or without good life skills, etc.) to be good parents? Heck a high percentage of people in this state can't even take care of their very own health, or eat or drink right.
Personally I think we should make parents responsible again. I remember if I skipped school too much and got into trouble, my parents would get a fine. Eventually I might have ended up in juvi, but my parents would have fit a larger court bill first. Now, parants are not held accountable at all.
Still, that is only a part of the equation. As it's been said, the system is broken. Yes, it needs more money, but blindly throwing money at it isn't going to do anything except make money disappear. If the bill had passed as it was, I have a real funny feeling that the administrators salaries would have doubled, while the educators might have gotten at most a %5 increase. All the football teams would have gotten new equipment while five students still had to share one book.
I too generally had 30 students to a class, and I don't see where even having a teacher to myself would have improved anything, much less a class size of 15. Small class size in the higher grades really just sounds good to parents who want "the best" for junior. What we need are teachers that know the subject, and can teach. Pay grades should depend more on performance than tenure. Fixing the system includes increasing spending, but it encompasses more than just that.
edited to take out a typo
O now cust...That will never work, mo money and the internets will learn them just fine.......
Quote from: custosnox on February 11, 2011, 09:07:57 AM
Personally I think we should make parents responsible again. I remember if I skipped school too much and got into trouble, my parents would get a fine. Eventually I might have ended up in juvi, but my parents would have fit a larger court bill first. Now, parants are not held accountable at all.
Still, that is only a part of the equation. As it's been said, the system is broken. Yes, it needs more money, but blindly throwing money at it isn't going to do anything except make money disappear. If the bill had passed as it was, I have a real funny feeling that the administrators salaries would have doubled, while the educators might have gotten at most a %5 increase. All the football teams would have gotten new equipment while five students still had to share one book.
I too generally had 30 students to a class, and I don't see where even having a teacher to myself would have improved anything, much less a class size of 15. Small class size in the higher grades really just sounds good to parents who want "the best" for junior. What we need are teachers that know the subject, and can teach. Pay grades should depend more on performance than tenure. Fixing the system only includes increasing spending, but it encompasses more than just that.
Spot on, Cust.
Lets start charging parents an "Impact Fee" at birth (the city does this to certain buisnesses) The money(s) collected can go into an education endowment....Lets say 5000.00 per child due before the child reaches kindergarten....Fee will be waved for parents enrolling children in private school...... If said child does end up attending public school "Impact Fee" will be pro-rated.......Ya...That will work.....
I had several classes at college in my Freshman and Sophomore years that were huge (100+ students) lectures by a professor for a few hours per week and then smaller sessions (20 to 30 students) with Grad Students once or twice a week. Most of my engineering classes for the first 2 years were about 30 students. By the Junior and Senior years, enough students had either changed majors or dropped out all together that class size was frequently 10 to 15.
A few large classes in High School might be good preparation for college.
For those of you who are new to the conversation we had another thread on this after 744 FAILed. There were some good solutions stated and rather than re-posting stats I uncovered, I figured I'd link to the post. Certain stats were state vs. local contribution to educational spending, which made the 744 campaign somewhat misleading, finding out that for every dollar spent on instruction, an additional 75 cents is spent on non instructional expenses. Townsend also floated out the idea of making more instruction web based as a cost-saving measure. It's working on the university level and I think it's something worth looking into.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=16444.0
As an historical retrospective and why I'm skeptical about more money and more teachers makes a difference, all one has to look to is HB 1017. Teacher's salaries have doubled since 1989 and according to national statistics our student/teacher ratio is about 13.9:1. In other words, we've thrown more money at education and we've brought down the size of the average class, yet we are still lacking in outcome. I honestly can't see a better example of the flawed logic that throwing more money at a problem will make it better. More educational funding would not hurt, but until families take education more seriously outcomes won't improve.
We are under the mistaken notion that all of a child's education occurs between 8am and 3:30pm M-F.
Jenks is a great example of a school district which spends less per student, but has great performance. One thing I've seen through my days as a student there and through my daughters being students there is it's got very high parental participation.
It's simply an immutable fact: children who have the full support and interest of their family will do better in school. You can send a child to a school where teachers are paid $80,000 per year and it's still no guarantee that child will get any more out of it if they don't have a support system at home to keep them interested in it.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 10:23:45 AM
I'm looking for logical and serious solutions.
I've heard a lot about what the problems are:
-Underpaid teachers,
-Student teacher ratio is too high
-Too many school districts and administrative overhead
-Administrators and legislators will be reluctant to accept consolidation
-Massive amounts being spent on school building projects like performing arts centers and athletic training facilities
-We cannot cut funding
Here's the real numbers from NCES as it relates to the issues:
Oklahoma has a student/teacher ratio of 13.9:1 vs. a national average of 15.3:1
Arkansas & Kansas have populations of approx. 2.4mm people each. Arkansas lists 1151 schools, Kansas lists 1447. Oklahoma has about 800,000 more residents and 1806 schools. Colorado has approx. 900,000 more residents than Oklahoma and 1837 schools. I'd say that makes a reasonable case that Oklahoma is operating too many schools. All four of those states have large chunks of rural areas, so I think it's a fair comparison.
Teacher pay is actually on par with other occupations requiring a bachelor's degree given the number of work days per year and the benefit package is generally better than those in the private sector
Solutions:
-Consolidate rural districts, find a logical population size and what would constitute an unusual hardship for travel to and from school to determine which districts must consolidate.
-Higher teacher pay to attract better teachers into common ed instead of the private sector or university level instruction
-Tone down the thirst for facilities which don't directly affect the learning process
-Find and eliminate waste wherever possible, come up with some sort of reward system for school districts who are determined to be operating at an efficient fiscal level and achieving performance results
-Target areas of wasteful state general spending so those funds can be placed into common education (this is precisely what SQ 744 was attempting to do)
-More home-school programs
More ideas, please.
Inflation since 1989 to 2011 shows a dollar then is equivalent to $1.80 today.
It is disengenious to say teachers salaries doubling has been throwing money at the problem.
All I want is for common education to receive they average that other states spend on common education.
In Oklahoma, we fund higher education to ridiculous amounts compared to common education...a few examples...
Common Education (k-12) $3.181 billion 639,000 students $4,978 per
Northeastern State $174 million 9,780 students $17, 779 per
Southwest Oklahoma State $104 million 4,841 students $21,467 per
Northern Oklahoma College $ 58 million 2,700 students $29,057 per
https://okreporting.ok.gov/analytics/saw.dll?Dashboard&_scid=ziMPcT-C7t8
Let's look at what we spend on incarcarating Oklahomans...
Department of Corrections $563 million 25,000 prisoners $22,520 per
Lets make having children a right and not a privelege...We could test the potential parents for intelligence if they pass they can have a child....Ya that will work....Or we could just throw money at it.....
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 10:51:15 AM
All I want is for common education to receive they average that other states spend on common education.
In Oklahoma, we fund higher education to ridiculous amounts compared to common education...a few examples...
Common Education (k-12) $3.181 billion 639,000 students $4,978 per
Northeastern State $174 million 9,780 students $17, 779 per
Southwest Oklahoma State $104 million 4,841 students $21,467 per
Northern Oklahoma College $ 58 million 2,700 students $29,057 per
https://okreporting.ok.gov/analytics/saw.dll?Dashboard&_scid=ziMPcT-C7t8
So ignoring all other reality presented to you, or relevant outcome you simply want parity in funding, is that what I'm hearing?
I believe raising teacher pay is a solution that is almost guaranteed to help. I have a parent who is a teacher and at one point, we considered moving to NW Arkansas because of the higher teacher pay there. If we raise what we pay our teachers we could attract more potential teachers who would otherwise go into different careers.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 11:28:08 AM
So ignoring all other reality presented to you, or relevant outcome you simply want parity in funding, is that what I'm hearing?
What reality? Posters thinking we are using state funds to build fancy olympic sized swimming pools? Posters thinking we should have classroom sizes of 100 students?
All I have ever said is that the legislature has their funding priorities wrong. Other states make common education funding a priority.
Oklahoma does not. We build prisons. We build state funded colleges in every town with an influential politician.
We pay prison guards with a high school degree and two years experience more than we pay teachers with a bachelor's degree ad the same amount of experience.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
What reality? Posters thinking we should have classroom sizes of 100 students?
My point was that small class size alone does not fix the problem.
Edit:
Forgot to say that although I realize your real goal is to get the kids a better education, your posts only indicate that you want to spend what our neighbors do regardless of the outcome.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
We pay prison guards with a high school degree and two years experience more than we pay teachers with a bachelor's degree ad the same amount of experience.
That's because teachers unions are evil and public safety unions are good.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
What reality? Posters thinking we are using state funds to build fancy olympic sized swimming pools? Posters thinking we should have classroom sizes of 100 students?
All I have ever said is that the legislature has their funding priorities wrong. Other states make common education funding a priority.
Oklahoma does not. We build prisons. We build state funded colleges in every town with an influential politician.
We pay prison guards with a high school degree and two years experience more than we pay teachers with a bachelor's degree ad the same amount of experience.
We have over 1800 common education schools and over 600 districts which on a per capita basis is higher than Arkansas, Kansas, or Colorado. How can you honestly say common ed has NOT been a priority with the Oklahoma legislature when you consider all these schools on a per capita basis with peer states? Essentially, we build more schools per person.
Consolidate a lot of these smaller districts and our spending towards
instruction will improve.
Geez, Conan....
Ok, first, teachers salaries for 1990 school year was $17,000 (from the evaluation of 1017 report). I'm giving you an extra year of that "huge" throwing of money at the issue. 2010 the salary is $29,174. That is a 1.71 ratio or about 75% more, NOT doubling.
In the meantime, the minimum wage in 1989 was 3.35. Today it is 7.25. After the most miserable period of not just lack of pay progress, but very real regression by any metric available. That ratio gives 2.16, or slightly more than double.
So I guess if you feel that lagging WAY behind the minimum wage as "throwing money" at the problem, ok, we did that. But if one lives in any semblance of a real world, that is shameful!! And what we do to teachers in this state is shameful!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
.
We pay prison guards with a high school degree and two years experience more than we pay teachers with a bachelor's degree ad the same amount of experience.
Prison guards have about 240 to 250 work days per year. Ever been inside a prison? Not ideal working conditions. Teachers roughly 180-190. Teachers also get far better benefits than those of us in the private sector like pension and health insurance. In order for me to enjoy as good a retirement scenario, I have to do that out of personal savings. Take all that into account and teachers are paid pretty well. I suppose we could bring their pay in line with the private sector and take away their pensions and let them save for retirement like the rest of us.
Look, I'm not hating on teachers, and not picking on your personally. It's simply not providing an accurate comparison unless you take all these things like actual work days, pension, and paid health insurance into account which are perks their peers don't have.
If you blindly throw more money at education for the sake of throwing money at it, you wind up with more administration and more programs which don't do a thing to better the outcome of the student.
Next...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 12:45:22 PM
Geez, Conan....
Ok, first, teachers salaries for 1990 school year was $17,000 (from the evaluation of 1017 report). I'm giving you an extra year of that "huge" throwing of money at the issue. 2010 the salary is $29,174. That is a 1.71 ratio or about 75% more, NOT doubling.
In the meantime, the minimum wage in 1989 was 3.35. Today it is 7.25. After the most miserable period of not just lack of pay progress, but very real regression by any metric available. That ratio gives 2.16, or slightly more than double.
So I guess if you feel that lagging WAY behind the minimum wage as "throwing money" at the problem, ok, we did that. But if one lives in any semblance of a real world, that is shameful!! And what we do to teachers in this state is shameful!
You are looking at minimums, not averages on your teacher salary figures. Point being, has outcome increased with more money spent on education and smaller classrooms? Answer that simple question, please.
Apparently it has not if we need to throw even more money at it because HB 1017 must not have brought us the desired results.
Full time work is roughly 240 days per year, taking into account holidays, vacation (if get any) and weekends. Roughly 22 days per month.
Prison guards get overtime. Teachers don't.
Plus, your private sector is paying you about 2 1/2 times entry level what a teacher makes with same entry level ed. So, they get a 25% bonus on "time off" (except that doesn't count the evening hours ALL of them spend working) while you get a 250% increase in pay. Yeah, they are sure working the system with that one....
And the divide deepens every year.
And averages follow along with that. 1989 average was $22,000. 2010 average is $38772. That is 1.76 ratio. 76% over that time. Ok, 76% is magnificently greater that 71%...you got me there.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 12:56:44 PM
Full time work is roughly 240 days per year, taking into account holidays, vacation (if get any) and weekends. Roughly 22 days per month.
240 days per year, 22 days per month. Trying to prove how bad the school system has always been?
240/12 = 20 unless you are using self esteem math in place of the old fashioned kind.
;D
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 12:42:31 PM
Consolidate a lot of these smaller districts and our spending towards instruction will improve.
I agree 100%.
There are too many school districts. My sister is a school principal in Florida and they have one school district per county. There is probably millions in savings alone just having less superintendents.
By the way, she used to teach in Oklahoma but left for much more pay.
I don't think that just spending more money will solve all the problems. I just know that not spending what the other state's spend is clearly showing lower test scores.
Yeah, there's a discrepancy there, but some places use 22 per month, some use 240, 220, 260, etc. Depends on holidays, vacation, etc. One place I worked at was 6 days a week, 52 weeks -- 312 days a year. Fun, but short term. That was Harvard MBA math rather than Engineer math.
Now, I think I am around the 238 mark. But still only have two weeks vacation, so that will go done as the V goes up.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 01:10:18 PM
I just know that not spending what the other state's spend is clearly showing lower test scores.
Probably a good guess but you don't
know that.
Where's your competitive spirit? Are you saying we are incapable of putting out a better product for less cost than our neighbors?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 01:18:42 PM
That was Harvard MBA math rather than Engineer math.
That explains a lot right there.
And now for something entirely different...
http://www.liveleak.com/mp53/player.swf?config=http://www.liveleak.com/mp53/player_config.php?token=07b_1284580365%26embed=1
If this doesn't make you just a little bit tense, then you need to have your entire neural system checked out.
Sorry Conan, but if you think teachers only work when school is in session, you are MAJORLY incorrect. Many teachers go in early and stay late. They take home papers to grade, etc. Teachers work much longer hours than M-F, eight to three, with summers off.
That's what I tried to tell him. He didn't listen to me, either.
Side note; my legs are still shaky after that video. Got dizzy and fell out of my chair the entire foot and a half to the ground!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 01:36:40 PM
And now for something entirely different...
Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Again?
(something other than a rabbit appears)
I gotta get a new hat.
(Rocky and Bullwinkle)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 12:48:45 PM
Prison guards have about 240 to 250 work days per year. Ever been inside a prison? Not ideal working conditions. Teachers roughly 180-190. Teachers also get far better benefits than those of us in the private sector like pension and health insurance. In order for me to enjoy as good a retirement scenario, I have to do that out of personal savings. Take all that into account and teachers are paid pretty well. I suppose we could bring their pay in line with the private sector and take away their pensions and let them save for retirement like the rest of us.
Look, I'm not hating on teachers, and not picking on your personally. It's simply not providing an accurate comparison unless you take all these things like actual work days, pension, and paid health insurance into account which are perks their peers don't have.
If you blindly throw more money at education for the sake of throwing money at it, you wind up with more administration and more programs which don't do a thing to better the outcome of the student.
Next...
I hate to bring this up, but . . .
You're a sales guy. I'm not sure how things are structured for you but one way or another if you hit your goals you can make some serious cabbage. If you're in upper mgmt -- and I assume you are -- and the company hits its goals you can make even MORE cabbage. In some cases A TON more cabbage. In some cases, a 1/3 to a 1/2 of your salary -- again.
I'd also like to point out that, if your company is worth its salt, you'll be given a great opportunity to save for retirement with a matching contribution (401k) and you'll get some sort of healthcare, which the company will pay a good deal towards.
You paint this rosy picture of teacher bennies and union support system and it just simply doesn't add up to how it works in real life. I have a feeling you don't hang out with too many of them.
Signed,
All of my Parents and Parents in Law are Teachers.
Quote from: ZYX on February 11, 2011, 01:39:17 PM
Sorry Conan, but if you think teachers only work when school is in session, you are MAJORLY incorrect. Many teachers go in early and stay late. They take home papers to grade, etc. Teachers work much longer hours than M-F, eight to three, with summers off.
Quite well aware of that. I have many friends who are teachers and appreciate the work they do. I'm also quite aware they get many perks those of us in the private sector don't get. For their pay and hours worked, they are not far off their peers with the same level of degree.
Also consider that many salaried bachelor level positions are more than 40 hours a week.
Quote from: we vs us on February 11, 2011, 02:01:32 PM
I hate to bring this up, but . . .
You're a sales guy. I'm not sure how things are structured for you but one way or another if you hit your goals you can make some serious cabbage. If you're in upper mgmt -- and I assume you are -- and the company hits its goals you can make even MORE cabbage. In some cases A TON more cabbage. In some cases, a 1/3 to a 1/2 of your salary -- again.
I'd also like to point out that, if your company is worth its salt, you'll be given a great opportunity to save for retirement with a matching contribution (401k) and you'll get some sort of healthcare, which the company will pay a good deal towards.
You paint this rosy picture of teacher bennies and union support system and it just simply doesn't add up to how it works in real life. I have a feeling you don't hang out with too many of them.
Signed,
All of my Parents and Parents in Law are Teachers.
With such a piss poor comparison, I'm surprised you grew up around educators. ;)
I chose sales because of the money I can make in sales, anyone else with the aptitude to sell can do the same and probably even do better. I'm not comparing myself to a teacher in the first place. I have a great gig, others have an even better gig. It's what I chose. Along with all those great opportunities to earn great cabbage, I also stand to lose. Ever take a 30% hit in income in a year while staying in the same position or have that sustained for two years? I have. During that time, teachers did not. It's all a part of the game and chosen profession.
I'm making a comparison of average baccalaureate level compensation. In the private sector, paid health insurance and a fully vested pension are rare as hen's teeth. Someone earning $50K per year in the private sector does not have it as good as a teacher earning $50K per year. The private sector worker works 240 days on average, pays a percent of their health care and must save a percent for retirement unless they plan to depend on SSI when they retire.
So, here's the difference in teaching vs. private sector:
Job security for teachers with seniority. If sales drop in the private sector non-union employees have little protection
Stable pay
Insurance benefits
Vacation time far in excess of the private sector which can also allow them to earn a 2nd income
Relatively well insulated from economic downturns
Pension plan in addition to social security
Teachers compensation isn't the travesty it's made out to be. That said, I have absolutely ZERO problem with merit-based increases all around. I'm simply tired of the meme that if we just paid teachers more money our kids would suddenly be smarter.
Signed,
It's not all rosy all the time in Salesville
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 01:10:18 PM
I agree 100%.
There are too many school districts. My sister is a school principal in Florida and they have one school district per county. There is probably millions in savings alone just having less superintendents.
By the way, she used to teach in Oklahoma but left for much more pay.
I don't think that just spending more money will solve all the problems. I just know that not spending what the other state's spend is clearly showing lower test scores.
But how do you explain some of the highest spending states (or districts) having such poor test scores then?
I'm not badgering, I'm simply trying to get someone to provide solid evidence that spending above a certain level equals results.
My present employer matches a portion of my 401K savings but not all of it. Previous employers provided a 401K but did not match any of my savings.
Quote from: Breadburner on February 11, 2011, 11:18:37 AM
Lets make having children a right and not a privelege...We could test the potential parents for intelligence if they pass they can have a child....Ya that will work....Or we could just throw money at it.....
I'm very interested in ideas about how to legislate better parenting. Can we institute, perhaps a weekly check in by an enforcement team for parents who are marginally performing? What's a good review process, and should it be based around a 3 strikes or you're out template?
Another question I have revolves around my -- as a parent -- responsibility to schedule one hour or two hours nightly for instruction? Or can I spread it out over a business week (5 days) or a full calendar week (7 days)? Similarly: my daughter is only 20 months old; what's the Minimum Allowable Pre-School Instruction Time to guarantee her 1) maximum reading ability by 5 yrs and 2) instill the highest possible CIJ (China-India-Japan) Comparative Math and Science Quotients and still allow me to work 60 hours a week?
I mean seriously.
The allergy to funding anything at a satisfactory level is nearly pathological. It's as if moralizing about the Fall of the American Family has become a substitution for everything else, including working on ways to fix the problem. If we were at the top of the funding list and still having miserable outcomes, sure, by all means, let's work on efficiencies and consolidation. Hell, if we were at the middle of the funding list and still have miserable outcomes, let's focus on efficiencies or consolidation. But there comes a point when we're so miserably behind both in outcomes and in funding that the answer is obvious.
But really, we're just making very sure of the kind of people who will live here. We're certainly not saying "dear young professionals: bring your families and we'll be happy to educate them while you enliven and enrich our state." You're saying, "we believe in cheaping out on one of the primary drivers of future growth in the global economy, and we aren't afraid to brag about it!"
Wevus, in light of BB's post, look no further than the social stats of this state if you are still mystified about poor performance.
One of the highest teen pregnancy rates, highest rate of female incarceration just for starters. That shows a poor attitude in the community toward family and responsibility. When drugs and sex appear to still be the priorities, spending more and more on education has not worked. It's pretty safe to say that kids who come up in a home with some sort of moral compass will do far better as a student and citizen.
Spend all you like on education, but for parents who refuse or are incapable of being as responsible and loving as you and Mrs. Wevus are or myself, it's really not going to improve the outcome with the child. It's next to impossible to force responsibility onto a parent. Either they have a tendency for it or they don't.
I suspect, like me and my daughter's mother have been, you and your wife will be very involved in your child's education and not leave it all up to the teachers. And your child will succeed quite well.
Something else to consider then I will shut up:
The best outcomes spring from better role models at home. In general the children of professionals and hard-working blue collar workers are going to do better than those raised in homes on public assistance (note, I said in general. There have been great successes which have come from the ghetto and no not all public assistance is going to "moochers") and coming from parents who have an apathetic outlook on life. Attract more professionals and high level blue collar/technical jobs, and you will attract better parents, and ergo better students.
I've worked in a variety of occupations in my lifetime which have allowed me to observe and learn a lot about human nature and human behavior. My theories certainly aren't the end-all but they are from very keen observations on life.
Wow. Good conversation. I would like to add some "real life" here as well. I'm not as organized debate oriented as you are Conan or as smart and savvy as many of you. However, I have seen a lot of teachers come into our retail store the last few years.
Some are applying for work to try and make up for the loss in salary after moving here from other states. I get to talk to those privately. Often they are working on a masters because if you don't, there is no way to increase your income. Most are looking for good buys on school supplies. They are using their own money to do so and rarely complain about it. They are the first ones in the store at 7am, and the last ones in the store between 5-8pm. BTW it doesn't seem to matter whether they are public or private school employees, they are all spending out of their own pockets, on their own time. They start the process about mid July to be able to get the best stuff and buy in large quantities to get the lowest prices. Must be a great job eh? I don't remember my nephew having to pay for prisoners supplies when he worked at Moss Correctional Center. Nor would he have done so on his own time. He left because he was truly fearful of becoming as crazy as the inmates. :)
Conan et. al. I would ask you all this. Why focus on the pay period? Pay them monthly for 12 months if that makes you happier. I doubt that if they held year round class that you would increase their pay, right? After all you feel they are already well paid. That seems to be the biggest red herring of the whole conversation. Do you look at other public professionals the same way? Do firemen, paramedics and policemen have their wages calculated in such a way as to show they are indeed the highest paid, well trained, well educated employees of all? Because they are. They spend large amounts of time ....doing nothing but sitting, lifting weights, listening to music, sleeping and cooking and getting paid for it. Most have second jobs because they have such large amounts of free time with a 24 on 24 off type situation, not because they need the money.
Maybe we should pay them by the fire? Successfully quelled fires please. Police by the domestic disturbance call? Only those that didn't lead to protective notices please. Paramedics by the accident? Only those without fatalities please. That seems ludicrous but when you use the same logic with teaching then it has traction. So, pay them monthly and require them to teach summer school so that argument goes away.
And why focus on outcomes so heavily? You all admit it has to do more with home environment, which I don't disagree, but why not pay police, fire and paramedics the same way? After all the ones with the best records of life saving and putting out fires should be better compensated shouldn't they? Only we all know that its less likely the new McMansion in Jenks will catch fire than the postwar clapboard house in north Tulsa. Same with murders. Same with cars. So, we pay all these professionals the same and rely on seniority, training and education to justify pay increases. But not teachers? Why are teachers held to such higher standards yet receive lower respect?
Lastly, if you've made it this far, doesn't it seem a little humorous that many of these well articulated, logical, persuasive arguments being made are espoused by folks who seem to think their school, their time period of schooling, and their education was better than average, yet its the same system more or less that we've underfunded for many decades?!
Answer those questions with something other than political rhetoric and we may make some headway.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 12:56:44 PM
Full time work is roughly 240 days per year, taking into account holidays, vacation (if get any) and weekends. Roughly 22 days per month.
Prison guards get overtime. Teachers don't.
Plus, your private sector is paying you about 2 1/2 times entry level what a teacher makes with same entry level ed. So, they get a 25% bonus on "time off" (except that doesn't count the evening hours ALL of them spend working) while you get a 250% increase in pay. Yeah, they are sure working the system with that one....
And the divide deepens every year.
And averages follow along with that. 1989 average was $22,000. 2010 average is $38772. That is 1.76 ratio. 76% over that time. Ok, 76% is magnificently greater that 71%...you got me there.
FYI, national average for a bachelor's degree for 2010 graduates was approximately $47K. In Tulsa that average is probably less based on how we usually fare nationally on such stats.
Step 0, in TPS for 2009-2010 was $32,900. I believe this is in line or just above the state minimum.
Unless you are proving the uselessness of public school math, $47K is hardly 2 1/2 times $32,900.
Using those numbers: $47K/240 working days and $32.9K/183 working days, the private sector worker earns $195 per day, plus pays a larger share of their health insurance and funds part or all of their retirement plan. The teacher earns $179 per day with paid pension, health insurance, disability, life insurance, and dental. That's a package worth over $500 per month not including pension.
Add that in and the teacher receives a total compensation of $211 per day worked plus pension. That's $16 more per day than their private sector entry-level bachelor's degree holder.
And yet one more perk: they will credit up to five years military experience on pay scale and calculating retirement. Definitely something you don't run into in the private sector.
Tulsa Public Schools 2009-2010
Benefits:
11.00/mo dental
Life insurance - 1 1/2 times employee's annual salary
Long Term DisabilityHealth Ins:
Oklahoma statutes provide that the District shall pay health insurance premiums not to exceed the "Health Choice High" individual premium amount for each teacher (certified) who elects coverage. Teachers not electing to take health insurance through the District (provided other coverage is in force) shall be paid a taxable cash "in-lieu" payment in the amount set by statute.
The HCH premium amount to be paid by the District for 2009 is $409.12 per month, for 2010 it will be $442.80 and the "in-lieu" payment amount is $69.71 per month.
Note: The School District's existing agreement provides a career increment in the amount of $1,000.00 after 20, 25, 30, 34, 37 years of creditable service. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, teachers who complete their 20, 25, 30, and 34 years of service during the first semester will move to the appropriate career increment for the second semester. The salary adjustment will be one-half the amount indicated for the yearly career increment.
A maximum of five years will be granted on the salary schedule for prior active military service.
* Schedule 183 contract days
http://www.tulsaschools.org/depts/hr/cb/payteach.shtm
Ok, so make school year round and pay teachers more?
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
Wow. Good conversation. I would like to add some "real life" here as well. I'm not as organized debate oriented as you are Conan or as smart and savvy as many of you. However, I have seen a lot of teachers come into our retail store the last few years.
Some are applying for work to try and make up for the loss in salary after moving here from other states. I get to talk to those privately. Often they are working on a masters because if you don't, there is no way to increase your income. Most are looking for good buys on school supplies. They are using their own money to do so and rarely complain about it. They are the first ones in the store at 7am, and the last ones in the store between 5-8pm. BTW it doesn't seem to matter whether they are public or private school employees, they are all spending out of their own pockets, on their own time. They start the process about mid July to be able to get the best stuff and buy in large quantities to get the lowest prices. Must be a great job eh? I don't remember my nephew having to pay for prisoners supplies when he worked at Moss Correctional Center. Nor would he have done so on his own time. He left because he was truly fearful of becoming as crazy as the inmates. :)
Conan et. al. I would ask you all this. Why focus on the pay period? Pay them monthly for 12 months if that makes you happier. I doubt that if they held year round class that you would increase their pay, right? After all you feel they are already well paid. That seems to be the biggest red herring of the whole conversation. Do you look at other public professionals the same way? Do firemen, paramedics and policemen have their wages calculated in such a way as to show they are indeed the highest paid, well trained, well educated employees of all? Because they are. They spend large amounts of time ....doing nothing but sitting, lifting weights, listening to music, sleeping and cooking and getting paid for it. Most have second jobs because they have such large amounts of free time with a 24 on 24 off type situation, not because they need the money.
Maybe we should pay them by the fire? Successfully quelled fires please. Police by the domestic disturbance call? Only those that didn't lead to protective notices please. Paramedics by the accident? Only those without fatalities please. That seems ludicrous but when you use the same logic with teaching then it has traction. So, pay them monthly and require them to teach summer school so that argument goes away.
And why focus on outcomes so heavily? You all admit it has to do more with home environment, which I don't disagree, but why not pay police, fire and paramedics the same way? After all the ones with the best records of life saving and putting out fires should be better compensated shouldn't they? Only we all know that its less likely the new McMansion in Jenks will catch fire than the postwar clapboard house in north Tulsa. Same with murders. Same with cars. So, we pay all these professionals the same and rely on seniority, training and education to justify pay increases. But not teachers? Why are teachers held to such higher standards yet receive lower respect?
Lastly, if you've made it this far, doesn't it seem a little humorous that many of these well articulated, logical, persuasive arguments being made are espoused by folks who seem to think their school, their time period of schooling, and their education was better than average, yet its the same system more or less that we've underfunded for many decades?!
Answer those questions with something other than political rhetoric and we may make some headway.
Good stuff.
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
Wow. Good conversation. I would like to add some "real life" here as well. I'm not as organized debate oriented as you are Conan or as smart and savvy as many of you. However, I have seen a lot of teachers come into our retail store the last few years.
Some are applying for work to try and make up for the loss in salary after moving here from other states. I get to talk to those privately. Often they are working on a masters because if you don't, there is no way to increase your income. Most are looking for good buys on school supplies. They are using their own money to do so and rarely complain about it. They are the first ones in the store at 7am, and the last ones in the store between 5-8pm. BTW it doesn't seem to matter whether they are public or private school employees, they are all spending out of their own pockets, on their own time. They start the process about mid July to be able to get the best stuff and buy in large quantities to get the lowest prices. Must be a great job eh? I don't remember my nephew having to pay for prisoners supplies when he worked at Moss Correctional Center. Nor would he have done so on his own time. He left because he was truly fearful of becoming as crazy as the inmates. :)
Conan et. al. I would ask you all this. Why focus on the pay period? Pay them monthly for 12 months if that makes you happier. I doubt that if they held year round class that you would increase their pay, right? After all you feel they are already well paid. That seems to be the biggest red herring of the whole conversation. Do you look at other public professionals the same way? Do firemen, paramedics and policemen have their wages calculated in such a way as to show they are indeed the highest paid, well trained, well educated employees of all? Because they are. They spend large amounts of time ....doing nothing but sitting, lifting weights, listening to music, sleeping and cooking and getting paid for it. Most have second jobs because they have such large amounts of free time with a 24 on 24 off type situation, not because they need the money.
Maybe we should pay them by the fire? Successfully quelled fires please. Police by the domestic disturbance call? Only those that didn't lead to protective notices please. Paramedics by the accident? Only those without fatalities please. That seems ludicrous but when you use the same logic with teaching then it has traction. So, pay them monthly and require them to teach summer school so that argument goes away.
And why focus on outcomes so heavily? You all admit it has to do more with home environment, which I don't disagree, but why not pay police, fire and paramedics the same way? After all the ones with the best records of life saving and putting out fires should be better compensated shouldn't they? Only we all know that its less likely the new McMansion in Jenks will catch fire than the postwar clapboard house in north Tulsa. Same with murders. Same with cars. So, we pay all these professionals the same and rely on seniority, training and education to justify pay increases. But not teachers? Why are teachers held to such higher standards yet receive lower respect?
Lastly, if you've made it this far, doesn't it seem a little humorous that many of these well articulated, logical, persuasive arguments being made are espoused by folks who seem to think their school, their time period of schooling, and their education was better than average, yet its the same system more or less that we've underfunded for many decades?!
Answer those questions with something other than political rhetoric and we may make some headway.
That's rather interesting. I thought teachers weren't moving here because our salaries are lower. The ones who do move here must have been laid off elsewhere or they are the second income in the family unless there's another family tie which brought them here. The teachers who tell you they are going for a masters to improve their pay aren't very savvy if they are planning on staying in education. It results in about a $1600 annual pay raise. Hardly worth the investment for what would amount to a net difference of about $70 per month.
You entirely miss the point of compensation discussion. It's been trotted out how poorly teachers are paid vs. their peers with similar education levels and time on the job. That's a red herring if there ever was one. It's not a matter of pay period. It's a matter of
days worked when comparing if a teacher is paid close to their peer group. I just posted with benefits and all calculated in a teacher is paid about $211 per day. Take out the basic bennies $179 per day (vs. $195/day for their peer group). Certainly if we go to year round school there should be a commensurate pay raise. I wouldn't work significantly more hours than I agreed upon for the same money.
As I understand, teachers "contract" with the school system annually. TPS lists the contracted days as 183 days. I would assume the contract amount would be adjusted higher for more days of work.
Everyone should be well aware that teachers frequently buy their own school supplies and are un-reimbursed. I'm also aware of teachers silently paying for children's lunches or bringing food. Why aren't parents taking responsibility for those costs in the first place and why aren't schools prioritizing funding to make sure all needed supplies are provided by the system?
But to be perfectly clear, not all teachers must buy supplies on their own dime.
And
why not focus on outcome unless the issue is we simply want to spend more on education just for the sake of spending more on it? Does that make good sense? If that's the real goal and not improving results or demanding better results then that makes it even easier at saying we solved the problem. I rather like that, give common ed $1bln more a year to spend and we can have the pride in saying we spend more than our peers on education. We may still have crappy results, but hey, we stepped up and we spend more which makes us feel better.
And finally, "Spend more money on education" is some of the most worn out political rhetoric of all.
I realize that teacher pay is a small part of the equation of funding for schools. But here is the state comparisons. Remember the average years of experience of teachers in Oklahoma is 15 years.
Average teacher salaries for region
Oklahoma $41,053
Kansas $42,697
Missouri $42,750
Arkansas $43,580
Louisiana $45,090
Colorado $47,030
Texas $49,900
New Mexico $52,523
We are not talking about massive pay increases to get to the regional average. That would amount to a $375 a month pay raise per teacher. If we gave them half that much as a pay raise, we would at least be competitive with Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 03:50:23 PM
And finally, "Spend more money on education" is some of the most worn out political rhetoric of all.
Don't forget "do it for the kids". Usually has nothing to do with education.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
We are not talking about massive pay increases to get to the regional average.
Then why should it make such a huge difference?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 04:15:26 PM
Why would it not make a difference?
I'm getting dizzy again.
You just got done posting that it was not a significant amount to bring the salaries up to average.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
I realize that teacher pay is a small part of the equation of funding for schools. But here is the state comparisons. Remember the average years of experience of teachers in Oklahoma is 15 years.
Average teacher salaries for region
Oklahoma $41,053
Kansas $42,697
Missouri $42,750
Arkansas $43,580
Louisiana $45,090
Colorado $47,030
Texas $49,900
New Mexico $52,523
We are not talking about massive pay increases to get to the regional average. That would amount to a $375 a month pay raise per teacher. If we gave them half that much as a pay raise, we would at least be competitive with Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas.
Given the cost of living and some of the horrific schools in St. Louis and Kansas City, I'd think there would be an influx of qualified candidates moving here from at least the large urban centers of Missouri.
I've never said I was against teacher pay raises, I simply spent time digging into the issue and proving that teachers are not underpaid on a peer basis and that previous attempts at higher spending haven't given us the results we'd like to see.
I'm curious why the pay is so much higher in New Mexico, even higher than Texas. I can see where it would be more expensive to live in Taos or Santa Fe, but some place like Raton or Roswell can't be terribly expensive a place to live. Albuquerque can't be much more expensive a place to live than Tulsa or OKC can it?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 11, 2011, 04:18:07 PM
I'm getting dizzy again.
Maybe you should just sit down and have a rest.
Do you not think there is a difference in attitude/performance/motivation in being the lowest paid and getting average pay?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 04:22:11 PM
Do you not think there is a difference in attitude/performance/motivation in being the lowest paid and getting average pay?
Depends on how much the difference is, what working conditions are, what my cost of living is, availability of things to do when not at work......
No matter how much you make, you always want more. Oddly enough, salary is not considered a satisfier according to some courses a former boss took at TU business school.
I really think we need year round school. Raise teacher pay a commensurate amount for the change.
Quote from: swake on February 11, 2011, 04:28:07 PM
I really think we need year round school. Raise teacher pay a commensurate amount for the change.
I'd agree. You think the teacher's unions would go for that? ;)
/Edit: Actually, that's probably the best solution of all as far as outcome and increased teacher pay, unless a year round work schedule is deemed as a negative to potential candidates.
Just throw some more money at it....Ya...That will work....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 11, 2011, 04:49:27 PM
Just throw some more money at it....Ya...That will work....
We are having a good discussion here. Maybe you should just let others do the talking.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 03:50:23 PM
That's rather interesting. I thought teachers weren't moving here because our salaries are lower. The ones who do move here must have been laid off elsewhere or they are the second income in the family unless there's another family tie which brought them here.
Yes, second income, laid off due to bad economy elsewhere or to be near family for support. Just like any other professional I guess.
The teachers who tell you they are going for a masters to improve their pay aren't very savvy if they are planning on staying in education. It results in about a $1600 annual pay raise. Hardly worth the investment for what would amount to a net difference of about $70 per month.
Investment? Spoken like a truly gifted salesman engineer! They chose a profession based on their own interests which obviously are not money related. Personal satisfaction. So do social workers, paralegals and nurses. Having chosen that field you can't blame them for wanting to increase their pay while increasing their job opportunities can you?
You entirely miss the point of compensation discussion. It's been trotted out how poorly teachers are paid vs. their peers with similar education levels and time on the job. That's a red herring if there ever was one. It's not a matter of pay period. It's a matter of days worked when comparing if a teacher is paid close to their peer group. I just posted with benefits and all calculated in a teacher is paid about $211 per day. Take out the basic bennies $179 per day (vs. $195/day for their peer group). Certainly if we go to year round school there should be a commensurate pay raise. I wouldn't work significantly more hours than I agreed upon for the same money.
So if we spread their work over more months you would pay them more? Then your argument that its all about compensation seems even weaker. First, their pension plan is not all that secure or that lucrative. I had better in a corporate setting. Their insurance sounds on a par with mine at a lowly retail store. Compared with the jobs I've had, and I do have a BA, they are poorly paid. I never had a job that required so many different skills till I got into sales. Not surprising that the best salespeople are often former teachers. Its not about compensation, its about what duration that compensation is paid.
As I understand, teachers "contract" with the school system annually. TPS lists the contracted days as 183 days. I would assume the contract amount would be adjusted higher for more days of work.
Yeh, they contract. Some of those contracts have become temporary and dependent upon funding that may or may not be renewed. Stuff like special ed. I never had a corporate job that was so dependent on funding sources that I couldn't plan a few years ahead. They have to because the state, the feds or the student count may screw them out of a position. Just one of those perks you don't think about.
But to be perfectly clear, not all teachers must buy supplies on their own dime.
They don't have to and not all of them do. Enough do that it is worth noting. Many work to find silent donors or corporates with a heart. So, part of their job is fund raising as well.
And why not focus on outcome unless the issue is we simply want to spend more on education just for the sake of spending more on it? Does that make good sense? If that's the real goal and not improving results or demanding better results then that makes it even easier at saying we solved the problem. I rather like that, give common ed $1bln more a year to spend and we can have the pride in saying we spend more than our peers on education. We may still have crappy results, but hey, we stepped up and we spend more which makes us feel better.
Yeh, as soon as we put them on the same footing with other degreed professionals as noted above. If they are so instrumental in delivering education success in spite of the social problems surrounding their students, and less resources available than surrounding states, then fine. To put this in some perspective, what if the sales territory given to you consisted of Detroit proper? And you were to be judged, and paid, depending upon what others' estimation of that market was? The guy next to you gets Austin with the company plane. You have to travel business and pay for your own meals. You both get the same base pay but commissions make up most of your income. You game?
And finally, "Spend more money on education" is some of the most worn out political rhetoric of all.
Agreed. That's why I didn't use it! I would like to see some discussion of what the real reasons for historic, consistently low funding for common education in OK really are. Then the solutions will be forthcoming.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2011, 05:03:58 PM
We are having a good discussion here. Maybe you should just let others do the talking.
Maybe you should start saving for college....
QuoteBut to be perfectly clear, not all teachers must buy supplies on their own dime.
No, but it goes to show how much teachers do care about quality education. If they stopped doing this, the quality of education would go down even further.
Hey...I would work 8 months a year for 5200 hundred a month plus bene's.......
So would most teachers.
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 05:22:33 PM
So would most teachers.
They do....Just talked to one over the snow break.....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 11, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
They do....Just talked to one over the snow break.....
Is that implying that snowdays are "free"...?
Quote from: ZYX on February 11, 2011, 05:30:18 PM
Is that implying that snowdays are "free"...?
She was free....
I agree in saying that you should just leave the conversation. You are not contributing anything positive.
Quote from: ZYX on February 11, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
I agree in saying that you should just leave the conversation. You are not contributing anything positive.
You are not making any sense with silly questions......
Quote from: Breadburner on February 11, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
They do....Just talked to one over the snow break.....
Likely not an Oklahoma teacher. Try going back to pictures.
Quote from: Hoss on February 11, 2011, 06:16:34 PM
Likely not an Oklahoma teacher. Try going back to pictures.
Yup...She was.....Known her for years....
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2011, 04:30:41 PM
I'd agree. You think the teacher's unions would go for that? ;)
/Edit: Actually, that's probably the best solution of all as far as outcome and increased teacher pay, unless a year round work schedule is deemed as a negative to potential candidates.
Yes. Surveys of teachers in other states show that the majority of teachers would prefer year round schools. The multi-month break just forces them to start all over again in so many ways.
Oklahoma City is going to year-round schools next year. Salt Lake City is stopping it next year and going back to a traditional calendar.
The year-round calendar has four breaks three or four weeks long instead of a ten week summer and two weeks off for Christmas and half weeks off for spring and summer.
Year-round schools also allow flexibility so that some teachers only teach one or two sessions and work elsewhere the rest of the year.
Quote from: Hoss on February 11, 2011, 06:16:34 PM
Likely not an Oklahoma teacher. Try going back to pictures.
I'm sure there are teachers who break 40k per year. In fact that may be the average but that is not the median. Just like other businesses once you start to make a decent salary you have a target on your back by management. They know they can hire two employees for your pay. Without tenure they will do just that wasting valuable trained resources in favor of cheap, hungry, unquestioning newbies. Tenure also protects against the politics used to railroad teachers who may be proficient but not palatable to the latest whim of the torch bearers.
Nonetheless, BB would like to ignore any effort at understanding the big picture of the job discussed above, relying in fact on his bumper stickers and his zipper for guidance in these matters.
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
You entirely miss the point of compensation discussion. It's been trotted out how poorly teachers are paid vs. their peers with similar education levels and time on the job. That's a red herring if there ever was one. It's not a matter of pay period. It's a matter of days worked when comparing if a teacher is paid close to their peer group. I just posted with benefits and all calculated in a teacher is paid about $211 per day. Take out the basic bennies $179 per day (vs. $195/day for their peer group). Certainly if we go to year round school there should be a commensurate pay raise. I wouldn't work significantly more hours than I agreed upon for the same money.
So if we spread their work over more months you would pay them more? Then your argument that its all about compensation seems even weaker. First, their pension plan is not all that secure or that lucrative. I had better in a corporate setting. Their insurance sounds on a par with mine at a lowly retail store. Compared with the jobs I've had, and I do have a BA, they are poorly paid. I never had a job that required so many different skills till I got into sales. Not surprising that the best salespeople are often former teachers. Its not about compensation, its about what duration that compensation is paid.
I got the impression Conan was talking about more days worked, not spreading the existing days over more months.
I was trying to flesh out that even if teachers were to work year round that few legislators would support higher compensation for them. They are already considered overpaid and under producing. That would infer that the real issue is not their pay, but their pay over a 10 month period rather than 12.
I use 10 months for this reason. People throw around the days worked, 183, 240 etc. Truth is that school starts in August and ends in May. That is 10 months. The teachers actually start preparing for each school year a month earlier without pay and usually stay until mid June to finish up. (I live a half block from a grade school and the teachers park on our street). Its not the plum job people make it out to be.
They do get 8 weeks (unpaid) plus a break between semesters and spring break but the corporate world is not as hardworking as people might think. For instance, this forum would be half its size if corporate workers didn't post during company time on company computers. ;) Sick pay, personal time and vacation time accrue and are widely abused by office workers. We have all done it and companies know it. Hell, they wrote the rules that allow it.
When we respect common education, by funding it at a similar level as other states, the same way we do other professions, I'll consider that the real discussion here is about compensation. Teachers will work year round if required to. Then you'll find the opposition to education will focus on "outcomes". The target will always shift because those are not the real reasons for the persecution of public education.
Quote from: waterboy on February 12, 2011, 11:21:26 AM
I was trying to flesh out that even if teachers were to work year round that few legislators would support higher compensation for them. They are already considered overpaid and under producing. That would infer that the real issue is not their pay, but their pay over a 10 month period rather than 12.
One of the "benefits" of losing local control of our schools.
QuoteI use 10 months for this reason. People throw around the days worked, 183, 240 etc. Truth is that school starts in August and ends in May. That is 10 months. The teachers actually start preparing for each school year a month earlier without pay and usually stay until mid June to finish up. (I live a half block from a grade school and the teachers park on our street). Its not the plum job people make it out to be.
One of my aunts was a teacher, long ago. I remember her and my uncle visiting and she had to work on grading papers, lesson plans etc. I know that teaching is not a clock-in, clock-out job. Not many professional jobs really are.
Quote
They do get 8 weeks (unpaid) plus a break between semesters and spring break but the corporate world is not as hardworking as people might think. For instance, this forum would be half its size if corporate workers didn't post during company time on company computers. ;) Sick pay, personal time and vacation time accrue and are widely abused by office workers. We have all done it and companies know it. Hell, they wrote the rules that allow it.
My employer went to Paid Time Off (PTO). It includes sick time, vacation, doctor and dentist appointments, long lunches, fishing, golf, anything you want. It's available in 0.1 hour increments. There is a maximum amount of PTO allowed per year depending on how long one has been employed. Excess vacation is use it or lose it. There is no long term accrual of sick time since it doesn't exist. One of the justifications was that, assuming you got occasional raises in salary, you would be taking time off at a higher salary than the salary you earned the sick time. The transition from the old system to the new was brutal for some. Many lost hundreds of hours in accrued sick time.
Any employer that expects you to be 100% productive 100% of the time will probably not retain too many employees. Restroom breaks, coffee and smoke breaks, need to get up and walk around breaks are part of most work places. Sometimes things are busy and everyone works their tails off. Sometimes things are slow and "we" can make a few posts on TNF.
Quote
When we respect common education, by funding it at a similar level as other states, the same way we do other professions, I'll consider that the real discussion here is about compensation. Teachers will work year round if required to. Then you'll find the opposition to education will focus on "outcomes". The target will always shift because those are not the real reasons for the persecution of public education.
Education needs to be funded to produce a desired outcome, not just to match our neighboring states. Part of that funding is attracting good teachers. Salaries should be regionally adjusted to allow a similar standard of living. I don't know what those exact numbers would be.
I like that PTO plan. It makes sense to recognize human nature and give an employee a chance to manage their own life yet gives the employer the ability to plan. I wish there were more of that.
You are moving towards what I think are the real issues with public education k-12. Control, cost and quantification.
I remember having these discussions in my high school Bus. Law class as far back as 1969. My teacher had a masters degree and was married to a local lawyer. By today's standards she would be a high performing instructor but wasn't paid any better than a featherbedding instructor. It didn't matter to her. She wasn't teaching for the money. She initiated a conversation with our class of college prep path students about pay based on student performance and measured by grades and test scores. It was hot discussion then as well. She asked how do you accurately compare teachers' performance when there are so many variables involved. And who sets up, monitors and evaluates that performance? A scientist can control those variables and then measure results. But with human beings it is far more difficult.
Don't get me wrong, we have always set standards for schools and should keep altering them to match the changing world, but to say some teachers should be paid more because they perform better is cross culturalization. It is taking business world practices and applying them to an institution with different goals. As a former commission only salesman, I learned that the territory or category of prospects you are presented with is the main determinant in your success. That's fine with me cause I like a challenge and I'll work that territory to improve it, but it is hardly fair to compare my final results with another salesman who snags a better territory, is lazy, ineficient and stupid but ends up with more sales. Thats the way business works, not education.
Her next question was to ask us what the ramifications of designating some teachers as superior and paying them more than others. She said, "think like your parents". That was easy. No one wants their kid to be taught by the low pay teacher. In college or the real world that manages itself. Good managers attract the better employees from the rest of the company. In college the word gets around quick who the good profs are, where to get the gravy grades and who prepares you the best. Their classes fill up while others languish. In k-12 now, its gossip among parents and a fight to get in the "right" class. If you de facto quantify that gossip you eventually just have to make everyone mad or fire a lot of functionally good teachers. Then the best evaluated go to private schools anyway. Its lose/lose and its based on faulty assumptions of what high performing consists of.
Once I graduated and BTW was designated as a magnet school many of our teachers from the downtown CHS moved to BTW and IIRC it was for little or no extra pay. Some humorously requested "combat" pay. The reason they did move was for the challenge and to be a part of something they thought was going to improve education in general and the social fabric of the city. Those teachers wouldn't have been graded as superior by today's standards because CHS had lots of poor performing families feeding into the school. Not many college bound seniors. TPS looked for racial tolerance, personality, attitude, drive and sociability, all hard to measure factors. They succeeded and the school became a leader in scholastics and athletics.
Cost- a lot of complaining about public education stems from private school parents resentful of having to pay for both systems. I understand that. I do believe there should be a tax deduction for those parents much like we allow mortgage deductions. But not a total exemption from helping to fund those not able to afford private schools.
Control- What are they teachin' them youngun's at school?! Local control, and private schools can keep their kids from learning about things they consider politically wrong, spiritually wrong or just plain wrong. Unfortunately the world doesn't conform to any one outlook on life and we fail our kids when we shield them from competing views. Ever meet one of those kids that don't even know what evolution is? Ever watch an Iowa focus group, with educated adults, insist that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate Muslim? That's scary.
I'm sorry this post is so long. But I know that you will read and understand my words where some around here wouldn't do either no matter how short it was.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 10, 2011, 09:37:46 AM
I know things are not as they were when I was a kid but.....
we almost always had 30 to 32 kids in a class from 1st grade through high school.
Me too. Heck, I had a general science survey class in college that had nearly 200 students. Law school classes in excess of 50.
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 08:39:32 PM
I'm sure there are teachers who break 40k per year. In fact that may be the average but that is not the median. Just like other businesses once you start to make a decent salary you have a target on your back by management. They know they can hire two employees for your pay. Without tenure they will do just that wasting valuable trained resources in favor of cheap, hungry, unquestioning newbies. Tenure also protects against the politics used to railroad teachers who may be proficient but not palatable to the latest whim of the torch bearers.
Nonetheless, BB would like to ignore any effort at understanding the big picture of the job discussed above, relying in fact on his bumper stickers and his zipper for guidance in these matters.
If I wanted any lip off you I would peel it off my zipper....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 13, 2011, 09:02:55 AM
If I wanted any lip off you I would peel it off my zipper....
You're always so....imaginative. I suppose I should be honored to be a part of one of your fantasies, but alas, I'm straight.
Quote from: waterboy on February 13, 2011, 09:40:57 AM
You're always so....imaginative. I suppose I should be honored to be a part of one of your fantasies, but alas, I'm straight.
Mental capacity of a 10 year old. Probably why he and Guido like each so much.
Last attempt at illustrating why it is Oklahoma teachers are not paid grossly less than their peers in degree and/or profession. This study takes into account cost of living and actual salary paid by state. COL is one factor ignored when we start trying to compare what we spend on education with our neighboring states. A dollar in Oklahoma goes further than in many other states.
If you want to keep inventing your own realities after reading the study, go right ahead.
Again, I think teaching is one of the most important occupations and it should be rewarded as such, especially the best performers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/mccluskey-high-teacher-pay-oklahoma-june-2009.pdf
Quote from: waterboy on February 12, 2011, 01:50:27 PM
You are moving towards what I think are the real issues with public education k-12. Control, cost and quantification.
Anyone choosing a profession strictly for the money will probably have a disappointing career. The pay rates for any particular profession depend on many things, including supply and demand, training required, and local conditions and union influences. One reason I did not stay in the Norfolk, VA area after I got out of the Navy is that salaries were often depressed by retired military personnel willing to work for lower salaries because they had their check of the month from the military.
Evaluating a worker's performance objectively often depends on the job. It's not too hard to evaluate a production line worker. How many parts did you make? Did they pass QA? Do you show up on time, sober, etc. Most are more difficult. The scientists on the Manhattan Project would probably be given the equivalent of a "C" using today's evaluation methods. Their goal was to develop an atomic bomb. They did it. They met expectations. Grade = C. Your example of a bad sales territory is a good example. In my opinion, a sales person making inroads into a difficult territory deserves consideration for the difficult territory above someone who merely takes orders from an easy territory. I am not in sales so I don't know if this is ever given any consideration. Science and engineering are not as slam-dunk as you indicate. Schedules and costs are frequently a SWAG, often driven by marketing without regard to physics. My uncle took over a money losing manufacturing facility in El Paso many years ago. He turned it around in just a few years. Management told him he had to grow by 15%. He said he could give them 12% but not 15%. They fired him. The plant grew by less than 12%. Assuming you take your car to be serviced/repaired, would you rather have it worked on by the highest paid senior mechanic or maybe one that was paid less but just got through the factory school on your car. You are going to pay about $100/hr on the flat rate schedule regardless of which mechanic you get.
My point is that teachers can be evaluated. Consideration needs to include the type of students. Improvements in the students' knowledge and maybe even the students' attitude toward school should be included. Not all of these things are easily measured. It is not possible to 100% objectively evaluate everything on earth. That's life. Teaching should not be a popularity contest but teachers that make learning enjoyable while getting the material across are more valuable than one that makes kids hate school even if the test results are the same. More value, more money. It might make the drudge work teachers want to improve their methods. Your reference to college professors is only partly true. In many cases there are required core courses that only a few professors teach. You don't get a choice. This may be more true in engineering and sciences than in the liberal arts programs.
I will have to admit to being somewhat inconsistent in my attitudes toward public education funding. I think that every child in the US is entitled to a certain minimum level of education. Everyone pays to obtain this level. It's somewhat socialistic but it's one program I agree with. If you want to send your kid to private school and can afford to do so, fine. You still pay to get everyone's child educated. It will be cheaper in the long run as the adults that result will be better able to support themselves. No deductions. I don't have kids and I still pay. If a local area wants to support education above and beyond the minimum, including teachers salaries, they should be allowed to do so. This of course brings cries about equality for less affluent areas. My only response would be that the minimum level of education should allow the graduates of high school to proceed to the next step. That might be Junior College, Vo-tech, possibly on loans or grants. There was an article in today's TW that maybe not everyone needs to go to college. Make sure that a High School graduate has enough skills to do something with their life.
Control of the schools includes financing as well as subject matter. Financing is above. I'm going to have to be a big government guy concerning subjects. I believe there should be some minimum standard, perhaps federal, regarding subjects. The 3 Rs hit the top spot. Science and religion often appear to conflict. I think evolution should be taught in public schools. The fact that the theory of Creation exists should also be mentioned. Not mentioning evolution in private schools is cheating the students of information they will need in the real world. If you want your kids to be taught Creation, send them to Sunday school. Your version may be different than someone else's. When they are old enough to make up their mind, they will be able to do so. The basics of the major religions should be taught as a route to understanding other cultures. I don't mean to hold Sunday school but rather to present what the "other" religions believe. How many of us really know what Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus.... believe in? When I was in elementary school (before rocks turned into dirt) we had a classroom Christmas Tree. Kids brought in decorations from home. We also had a section where the Jewish kids put up a presentation about Hanukkah. Teaching about a religion is not the same a teaching it. Having a private school education does not automatically imply a better education to me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2011, 02:49:31 PM
Anyone choosing a profession strictly for the money will probably have a disappointing career. The pay rates for any particular profession depend on many things, including supply and demand, training required, and local conditions and union influences. One reason I did not stay in the Norfolk, VA area after I got out of the Navy is that salaries were often depressed by retired military personnel willing to work for lower salaries because they had their check of the month from the military.
Evaluating a worker’s performance objectively often depends on the job. It’s not too hard to evaluate a production line worker. How many parts did you make? Did they pass QA? Do you show up on time, sober, etc. Most are more difficult. The scientists on the Manhattan Project would probably be given the equivalent of a “C” using today’s evaluation methods. Their goal was to develop an atomic bomb. They did it. They met expectations. Grade = C. Your example of a bad sales territory is a good example. In my opinion, a sales person making inroads into a difficult territory deserves consideration for the difficult territory above someone who merely takes orders from an easy territory. I am not in sales so I don’t know if this is ever given any consideration. Science and engineering are not as slam-dunk as you indicate. Schedules and costs are frequently a SWAG, often driven by marketing without regard to physics. My uncle took over a money losing manufacturing facility in El Paso many years ago. He turned it around in just a few years. Management told him he had to grow by 15%. He said he could give them 12% but not 15%. They fired him. The plant grew by less than 12%. Assuming you take your car to be serviced/repaired, would you rather have it worked on by the highest paid senior mechanic or maybe one that was paid less but just got through the factory school on your car. You are going to pay about $100/hr on the flat rate schedule regardless of which mechanic you get.
My point is that teachers can be evaluated. Consideration needs to include the type of students. Improvements in the students’ knowledge and maybe even the students’ attitude toward school should be included. Not all of these things are easily measured. It is not possible to 100% objectively evaluate everything on earth. That’s life. Teaching should not be a popularity contest but teachers that make learning enjoyable while getting the material across are more valuable than one that makes kids hate school even if the test results are the same. More value, more money. It might make the drudge work teachers want to improve their methods. Your reference to college professors is only partly true. In many cases there are required core courses that only a few professors teach. You don’t get a choice. This may be more true in engineering and sciences than in the liberal arts programs.
I will have to admit to being somewhat inconsistent in my attitudes toward public education funding. I think that every child in the US is entitled to a certain minimum level of education. Everyone pays to obtain this level. It’s somewhat socialistic but it’s one program I agree with. If you want to send your kid to private school and can afford to do so, fine. You still pay to get everyone’s child educated. It will be cheaper in the long run as the adults that result will be better able to support themselves. No deductions. I don’t have kids and I still pay. If a local area wants to support education above and beyond the minimum, including teachers salaries, they should be allowed to do so. This of course brings cries about equality for less affluent areas. My only response would be that the minimum level of education should allow the graduates of high school to proceed to the next step. That might be Junior College, Vo-tech, possibly on loans or grants. There was an article in today’s TW that maybe not everyone needs to go to college. Make sure that a High School graduate has enough skills to do something with their life.
Control of the schools includes financing as well as subject matter. Financing is above. I’m going to have to be a big government guy concerning subjects. I believe there should be some minimum standard, perhaps federal, regarding subjects. The 3 Rs hit the top spot. Science and religion often appear to conflict. I think evolution should be taught in public schools. The fact that the theory of Creation exists should also be mentioned. Not mentioning evolution in private schools is cheating the students of information they will need in the real world. If you want your kids to be taught Creation, send them to Sunday school. Your version may be different than someone else’s. When they are old enough to make up their mind, they will be able to do so. The basics of the major religions should be taught as a route to understanding other cultures. I don’t mean to hold Sunday school but rather to present what the “other” religions believe. How many of us really know what Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus.... believe in? When I was in elementary school (before rocks turned into dirt) we had a classroom Christmas Tree. Kids brought in decorations from home. We also had a section where the Jewish kids put up a presentation about Hanukkah. Teaching about a religion is not the same a teaching it. Having a private school education does not automatically imply a better education to me.
I dont' think evaluating teachers need be that complicated. They have more than one student, and patterns will appear after a year or two. Start looking for things like more than normal low grades in the class, disipline problems, attandance. This would show in reverse for signs of a better teacher. While children differ on a case to case, as groups they tend to be more uniform. Red flags do appear.
Its dead horse beating time again. I think we've all laid out our positions and spent some gray matter defending them. At least we're all more enlightened now than we were.
I think fair teacher evaluations are incredibly complex.
The teachers in public schools get what they are given. At one school the kids may have many other challenges in their lives and have come from poor feeder programs. Those teachers who inherit kids who are failing have a much more difficult task that the teacher at a school that always has high test scores.
How do you rate a teacher with also weighing all the other factors in?
If you tie pay too directly to performance, every teacher will just want to be in the best schools.
I believe in performance pay, but to do it fairly ain't so simple.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
I think fair teacher evaluations are incredibly complex.
The teachers in public schools get what they are given. At one school the kids may have many other challenges in their lives and have come from poor feeder programs. Those teachers who inherit kids who are failing have a much more difficult task that the teacher at a school that always has high test scores.
How do you rate a teacher with also weighing all the other factors in?
If you tie pay too directly to performance, every teacher will just want to be in the best schools.
I believe in performance pay, but to do it fairly ain't so simple.
I have no problem with the concept of "hazardous duty" or "combat" pay to entice teachers to lower performing schools. How are you going to keep the low performing teachers out without some kind of evaluation? Are you saying all teachers are created equal and no evaluation is required?
Of course not.
My experiences with my two children's teachers have varied greatly.
The baselines are being set by continual testing. Soon we will have composite scores that will allow individual teachers to be graded better.
I also know that sometimes kids do poorly on tests because of other things outside a teacher's influence.
I waited to have children till later in life. It made me a better parent and provider for my children. I also have a point in my career that allows me to spend some quality time working with my kids and their homework. When I was twenty, I was working two jobs and driving an unsafe car.
Some schools have lots of parents like me and of course, in general, those kids do better on testing days. In my daughter's class, one child has missed many days this past two months and another has parents who just are getting divorced. Testing days are coming up quick. Will those kids and their scores count against the teacher? Yes.
Good teachers can be rewarded and bad teachers fired. It just takes a little more than just giving bonuses to the teachers after tests are graded.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2011, 07:03:12 PM
Good teachers can be rewarded and bad teachers fired. It just takes a little more than just giving bonuses to the teachers after tests are graded.
I agree.
waterboy and hoss;
It's breadburner. Bringing his oral sex fantasies into this discussion. Always in his race to the bottom.
Would like to know where the bread is burned, so could avoid it....worry about food contamination in public food providers as it is.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
I think fair teacher evaluations are incredibly complex.
The teachers in public schools get what they are given. At one school the kids may have many other challenges in their lives and have come from poor feeder programs. Those teachers who inherit kids who are failing have a much more difficult task that the teacher at a school that always has high test scores.
How do you rate a teacher with also weighing all the other factors in?
If you tie pay too directly to performance, every teacher will just want to be in the best schools.
I believe in performance pay, but to do it fairly ain't so simple.
The yardstick in determining how much we need to spend on education, or that we need to spend more on education is standardized test results. Or at least, that's what's cited when we talk about whether or not our schools are successful. It's really not that hard to come up with a fair subjective yard stick for performance. You simply have to create an equivalency factor for "at-risk" schools and offer higher pay for those schools if we are in agreement higher pay might attract the best talent to teach our kids.
Let's face it though, the best teachers didn't get into teaching for money in the first place, they did it because of very likely a life-long ambition to help others. Please don't misconstrue that to say they should not be well compensated because that's not at all where I'm coming from.
There are many ways to judge performance fairly.
Quote from: waterboy on February 13, 2011, 09:40:57 AM
You're always so....imaginative. I suppose I should be honored to be a part of one of your fantasies, but alas, I'm straight.
You brought my zipper into the conversation.....It must have been on your mind....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 14, 2011, 02:55:46 PM
You brought my zipper into the conversation.....It must have been on your mind....
Your quotes and pics often include that area of anatomy. I figured that was a key determinant in your viewpoints. I was just taking a dig at you for fun. Knew you couldn't pass it up. ;)
Quote from: waterboy on February 14, 2011, 04:33:41 PM
Your quotes and pics often include that area of anatomy. I figured that was a key determinant in your viewpoints. I was just taking a dig at you for fun. Knew you couldn't pass it up. ;)
Just don't let him near your buns
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 10:06:37 PM
Just don't let him near your buns
I like to call them warm pillows.....
Quote from: Breadburner on February 16, 2011, 02:31:15 PM
I like to call them warm pillows.....
John Candy hand warmers.
http://www.ktul.com/story/16925266/oklahoma-gets-f-for-science-education?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Oklahoma Gets "F" For Science Education
QuoteA study comparing science education ranks Oklahoma among one the worst in the country. Oklahoma was one of 10 states to receive an "F" by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C.
In the overview of Oklahoma's report they state that "Woefully little science content appears, and what is present is often flat out wrong, oddly worded, or not up to grade level." The report continues on to say "It is difficult to see how any curriculum that emerged from these standards would not be fatally flawed."
Oklahoma scored 1 point out of 3 on their scale for clarity and specificity, and 1 point out of 7 for content and vigor.
Other states receiving an "F" grade include Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Quote from: Townsend on February 13, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
http://www.ktul.com/story/16925266/oklahoma-gets-f-for-science-education?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Oklahoma Gets "F" For Science Education
We don't needs no science. We'z got religions.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 13, 2012, 04:16:41 PM
We don't needs no science. We'z got religions.
Just constant punches in the BUPA regarding anything to further this state. I blame myself.
Considering my science teacher is a complete a$$ with inaccurate information, I can see how we got this ranking.
At least we wren't #1 on this list!
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_campaign=CBS+Chicago%27s+Most+Popular+News+Stories
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
At least we wren't #1 on this list!
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_campaign=CBS+Chicago%27s+Most+Popular+News+Stories
Obviously we're too stupid.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
At least we wren't #1 on this list!
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_campaign=CBS+Chicago%27s+Most+Popular+News+Stories
Better be careful or Mayor Rahm might be sending his blazer to his family with a dead mackerel in it.
We will have to be in line at least a few down the list. New Orleans has got to be a very close contender to Chicago.
Quote from: Townsend on February 13, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
http://www.ktul.com/story/16925266/oklahoma-gets-f-for-science-education?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Oklahoma Gets "F" For Science Education
Just wanted to point out that this study is being reported as saying something it does not purport to say. The study is of state-issued science education standards, not the actual science education delivered (or received).
Doesn't one follow the other?
I get your point, but when you teach kids low level standards of science, it doesn't matter how good you are at delivering the science.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 15, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Doesn't one follow the other?
I get your point, but when you teach kids low level standards of science, it doesn't matter how good you are at delivering the science.
I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. If the standards are indeed bad, that may make it a bit more of an uphill climb, but is there really any reason they would restrain a good science teacher from delivering a good science education? (According to Oklahoma's science standards: "The science standards are not a scope and sequence or a district curriculum guide. They provide a framework for schools to develop and aligned science curriculum and for teachers to develop their own classroom lessons."
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 15, 2012, 12:49:49 PM
I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. If the standards are indeed bad, that may make it a bit more of an uphill climb, but is there really any reason they would restrain a good science teacher from delivering a good science education? (According to Oklahoma's science standards: "The science standards are not a scope and sequence or a district curriculum guide. They provide a framework for schools to develop and aligned science curriculum and for teachers to develop their own classroom lessons."
They have to have their lesson plan approved. God knows what that can be like.
The instructors have to be willing to deal with the salary and science budget.
They must be willing to deal with any parent who is displeased with the sciences. I'd imagine that happens every so often here in Oklahoma.
Our text books are approved by the TX board of education per a news story I read a few months ago. That board has gone quite a bit further toward bible science.