The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

A bill to cut 111,000 Oklahomans from Medicaid advanced from the House of Representatives’ full Appropriations and Budget Committee late Tuesday despite agreement all around that the measure would violate federal law.
Also advancing was a bill requiring public high schools to incorporate an anti-abortion message teaching the “humanity of the unborn.”
 
House Bill 2665 by Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, would instruct the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to seek a federal waiver allowing the state to exclude from Medicaid all able-bodied adults under 65 with dependents.
According to statements during the committee meeting and a Feb. 8 subcommittee meeting, those affected would be adults with at least one dependent child and annual household income under $9,500. Many and perhaps most would be single parents with pre-school children.
Cox acknowledged the federal waiver is unlikely to be granted, but said the bill would “send a message to the federal government about the situation here in Oklahoma.”
With the state facing a $1.3 billion general revenue reduction in the coming fiscal year, Cox said his bill was the best of many unpalatable options.
The alternative, he said, would be reductions in aid to the elderly and children.
House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, and Rep. Mike Brown, D-Tahlequah, argued that the bill demonstrated the state’s misplaced priorities.
Brown referred to business incentives given the Oklahoma City Thunder pro basketball team, while Inman said the $111 million saved in state revenue would cost twice that in federal matching funds and take more than $300 million out of the “state’s health care economy.”
The bill passed 14-7, with Republicans John Bennett of Sallisaw and Pam Peterson of Tulsa joining the five committee Democrats in opposition.
House Bill 2797 by Rep. Ann Coody, R-Lawton, would require public high schools to teach the “humanity of unborn” and that abortion is murder.
The bill would have little immediate affect because of the state’s budget situation, but Coody amended it to assure that any money that does reach the program cannot be used “for instruction on human sexuality.”
A retired educator, Coody turned aside questions about why her bill not only doesn’t include a sex education component but now specifically excludes it.
“We tried that,” she said. “It didn’t work. It teaches methods, mainly, and condones sexuality. … All that teaches is how to have intercourse.”
The bill passed 17-2, with term-limited Democrats Jeannie McDaniel of Tulsa and Wade Rousselot of Wagoner in opposition.

I think I could come up with a descriptor stronger than “scumbag”.

This is precisely the kind backwards-donkey thinking that forced my hand to leave the Oklahoma GOP and become IND.  It’s also the same kind of thinking which has MC and I looking for another state to retire to.  Low taxes is nice in concept, but living in a place where education, the health and welfare of the underclass, and maintaining public infrastructure is the least of our priorities is not the kind of place we care to live.

Yeah, let’s dance around this budget hole while we try and roll back daylight savings time and add 15th century mentality to our public school curricula.

SMH

I think I could come up with a descriptor stronger than “scumbag”.

This is precisely the kind backwards-donkey thinking that forced my hand to leave the Oklahoma GOP and become IND.  It’s also the same kind of thinking which has MC and I looking for another state to retire to.  Low taxes is nice in concept, but living in a place where education, the health and welfare of the underclass, and maintaining public infrastructure is the least of our priorities is not the kind of place we care to live.

Yeah, let’s dance around this budget hole while we try and roll back daylight savings time and add 15th century mentality to our public school curricula.

SMH

House Bill 2665 by Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, would instruct the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to seek a federal waiver allowing the state to exclude from Medicaid all able-bodied adults under 65 with dependents.

According to statements during the committee meeting and a Feb. 8 subcommittee meeting, those affected would be adults with at least one dependent child and annual household income under $9,500. Many and perhaps most would be single parents with pre-school children.

I thought that was what the Obamacare was supposed to cover....   Aren't the poor supposed to get all sorts of health insurance credits?

Don't be idiotic. Medicare is and always has been for the poor. Obamacare expanded Medicare to include the poorest of the working poor. Oklahoma lovingly declined that expansion. 

Obamacare then set up exchanges for everyone else not covered by insurance to be able to pool together to buy insurance at decent rates with some help with paying for people with smaller incomes.

The state is now planning to cut out Medicare for the truly poor which Obamacare never addressed because at the time they were covered by Medicare. But Oklahoma is moving forward with a bold new plan now. No insurance for the poor at all! Screw the poors.

You do mean "Medicaid" rather than "Medicare," don't you?

  Of course, we will find a way to spend millions trying to make it clear that deteriorating the health of the poorest people, having a sickly workforce, and removing money from our healthcare industry is a priority.

I am all for the state cutting taxes and spending.... especially if they then let the cities and the counties have the flexibility to tax and spend the way the state does.  

Change the state constitution if need be.  I am all for smaller state government.   Why should Tulsa pay for paper shuffling jobs in OKC?  Why should Tulsa send our taxes to OKC, then we have to turn around and beg for a portion of it back?

Lets turn this perceived lemon of "the state wanting to cut state taxes and not wanting bureaucrats in far away places telling the people of Oklahoma what to do" into lemonade and get them to do just that here at home by giving us the power to do with our tax money as we see fit.  

Tulsa Public Schools is considering shortening the school week to four days and eliminating transportation for everyone except special education students as possible scenarios to deal with anticipated budget cuts next year.
Tulsa Public Schools Superintendent Deborah Gist sent employees an email Wednesday evening laying out these and other options as possible cuts to the district’s budget next year.
In her email, obtained by the Tulsa World late Wednesday night, Gist says the cuts for next school year likely will be between $7 million and $20 million.
“Therefore and unfortunately, it is unlikely that we can protect our students and teachers from feeling the effects directly next year,” she said in the email, sent out around 7 p.m.
Gist shared a few scenarios for next year, emphasizing that they were simply to show the magnitude of the situation.
“These are NOT decisions or even options at this point,” she wrote. “Rather, I’m trying to give you a sense of what it takes to put together a package of reductions that meet what we may have before us.”
Below are some of the scenarios Gist listed:
Central office: A 5 percent reduction in administrative staffing would yield a savings of about $820,000. A 15 percent reduction could net a savings of about $2.4 million.
“These reductions would result in fewer, or perhaps in some cases slower, essential services provided to our schools, students, teachers, and families,” Gist said.
Shorter school week: Gist said she and her team are exploring a four-day school week as a possible scenario. However, she said this scenario would save only $1.4 million.
“Of course, this would result in our students having an additional day each week away from school,” she wrote. “It also means that parents would need to make accommodations for a full day of child-care, which could be extremely challenging for them. It would also mean that site and classroom schedules would need comprehensive revisions.”
Program reductions: Gist said the district could also consider reducing or eliminating programs such as athletics and fine arts.
“Even a total elimination of athletics would only provide $2.3 million,” she said. “Elimination of fine arts would mean $8.1 million in savings.”
But Gist said that “these are unfathomable considerations.”
Increased class sizes: Gist called this a “terrible option to consider” but explained that an increase of just one student across the board could provide $2.6 million in savings. Then she added, “In some cases, we might have to consider larger increases” and said an increase of four students would create $9.6 million in savings.
Transportation: Gist said Tulsa Public Schools “may have to consider reducing or eliminating transportation,” noting that limiting transportation services to only special education students, for whom transportation is required, would net the district about $8 million per year.
Campus security: The superintendent said that “arguably, the need for campus security has never been higher” but that the elimination of the campus police and security services would save $3.5 million.
Gist's letter

From: "Gist, Deborah" <gistde@tulsaschools.org>
Date: February 24, 2016 at 6:58:19 PM CST
To: TPS Employees
Subject: TPS team member update on the state revenue shortfall
Hi team,
I write to you after spending much of the day in our schools. Once again, I am impressed, inspired, excited and grateful. That makes it exponentially harder for me to share the news I'm bringing about our financial situation. I wanted to reach out to you directly, via this email and video, so that you hear this news from me rather than through the media. I know that doesn't make the overall problem any better, but I thought that was important.
Over the last few weeks, I've worked with the TPS district leadership team to carefully review the potential impact of state budget reductions and to determine our best--or perhaps I should say "least bad"--next steps. We have two budgets to consider. First, we need to manage the mid-year state budget cuts for our current school year. We have a plan for that and are working with the board. These cuts, which should not be directly felt by those of you in our schools, will be reflected in a budget amendment to go before the Board of Education in March.
Second, we have a projected state deficit and expected cuts for next year, the 2016-2017 school year. These will be much more significant based on our state's revenue shortfall. A 15.9% reduction is expected statewide although we don't know for sure how state leaders will manage it. We are doing everything we can to minimize the impact these reductions will have for our students, classrooms, and teachers. Right now, we are anticipating that the 2016-2017 district budget cuts will be anywhere between $7 million and $20 million. Therefore and unfortunately, it is unlikely that we can protect our students and teachers from feeling the effects directly next year.
We are now faced with making extremely difficult decisions about the future of our district. In order to help illustrate the magnitude of this challenge and the kinds of difficult decisions we have before us, I wanted to share a few scenarios. These are NOT decisions or even options at this point. Rather, I'm trying to give you a sense of what it takes to put together a package of reductions that meet what we may have before us.
Central office

It is so important that you know that we are carefully reviewing administrative staffing, functions and expenditures at the central office and identifying what reductions could be made. If we made a 5% reduction in administrative staffing, we could realize $820,000 in savings. A 15% reduction could realize approximately $2.4 million. Keep in mind that the central office provides many essential services such as payroll and benefits, student enrollment, bond projects and facilities management, IT infrastructure and support, maintenance management, and professional development. These reductions would result in fewer, or perhaps in some cases slower, essential services provided to our schools, students, teachers, and families.
Shorter school week

Some school districts are considering a four day week, and some of you have asked about this as an option. We are exploring this schedule change as one of the possible scenarios for next year. We would protect learning time by lengthening the school day, but we would only save approximately $1.4 million. Of course, this would result in our students having an additional day each week away from school. It also means that parents would need to make accommodations for a full day of child-care, which could be extremely challenging for them. It would also mean that site and classroom schedules would need comprehensive revisions.
Program reductions

We could consider reducing or eliminating important programs like athletics or fine arts. Even a total elimination of athletics would only provide $2.3 million. Elimination of fine arts would mean $8.1 million in savings. These are unfathomable considerations. We know that the arts and athletics are extremely important avenues of opportunity for our students. We know that they help to educate the whole child, ensuring that our graduates are well-rounded young adults. In addition, school schedules are built using these classes as a way to provide planning time for our teachers.
Increased class sizes

We are analyzing the savings that could result from increased class sizes. For example, an increase of one student could provide $2.6 million in savings. In some cases, we might have to consider larger increases. To give you a sense of what that would mean, an increase of four students would create $9.6 million in savings. We already know that our current classes are too large, so any increase is a terrible option to consider.
Keep in mind that due to both educator attrition and our strong hiring numbers for this year, larger class sizes could mean a decrease in the number of new teachers hired into TPS next year.
Transportation

We may have to consider reducing or eliminating transportation of students in the district. For example, if we limited transportation services to special education students only, we would save approximately $8 million per year. Of course, it would also mean that more than 7,000 students and their families would need to find alternate transportation to school. For most of our families, that would be a tremendous hardship. It could mean increased absenteeism of our students as well.
Campus security

We are fortunate to have our campus police and campus security available to deal with a wide variety of safety concerns. If we completely eliminated these services, we would save $3.5 million. Of course, safety is a priority for our district. In fact, above everything else, we have to be sure that our students and teachers are safe, and we know that our world has changed. Arguably, the need for campus security has never been higher.
I want to reiterate that we have NOT made any decisions. In addition, these are not the only possibilities. What I'm sharing with you is information to consider. We are working hard to identify solutions that allow our district to continue to serve Tulsa students and families well and prepare our children to succeed in college and careers.
This afternoon I met with our school leaders, and they are available for site-based staff to share concerns, ideas and questions. Central office staff members can contact their chiefs and executive directors to discuss this message and any questions or concerns. You can also reach out to me directly. I will continue to keep you updated during this challenging time especially as more information becomes available. I want you to be aware of the conversations happening within the district leadership team and Board of Education as we determine how to manage the shortfall.
I know it is a really difficult time to be working in education in our state, and I am so grateful for you! We will get through this painful time together. I made a video to accompany this email, and you can find it here: video message.
Best,
Deborah
Deborah A. Gist | Superintendent
Tulsa Public Schools

This isn't cutting "paper shufflers in OKC" anymore, these cut are going to be real and very deep. Call you representatives.

Tulsa Public Schools considers four-day school week, eliminating buses to meet next year's budget cuts

Tulsa Public Schools considers four-day school week, eliminating buses to meet next year's budget cuts - Tulsa World: Education (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/tulsa-public-schools-considers-four-day-school-week-eliminating-buses/article_e6b49f9c-de8a-59bf-a7f6-8c6cc778f73c.html)

The education cuts are very alarming. Something drastic needs to change in Oklahoma City.

Parks and tourism has seen a 50% reduction in budget since 2009 (keep in mind, Oklahoma was booming during that period).

The arts budget has been slashed.

Per Pupil spending on education is down in the same period.

Our infrastructure grade is still "deficient."

And our solution was to cut taxes on anyone making above average, propose raising taxes on everyone (more sales tax), and take away subsidies for poor people.

What this says is that our current leadership feels the problems facing our state is too much spending on public infrastructure, too much spending on quality of life, the wealthiest people need more help from government, the poorest people need to pay more in taxes, and that our education system is over funded. If that isn't delusional, I don't know what is.

This isn't cutting "paper shufflers in OKC" anymore, these cut are going to be real and very deep. Call you representatives.

Tulsa Public Schools considers four-day school week, eliminating buses to meet next year's budget cuts

Tulsa Public Schools considers four-day school week, eliminating buses to meet next year's budget cuts - Tulsa World: Education (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/tulsa-public-schools-considers-four-day-school-week-eliminating-buses/article_e6b49f9c-de8a-59bf-a7f6-8c6cc778f73c.html)

I don't think legislators in OK give a flip about proper funding of public schools. We need to work around them in the short term. With that in mind I want to propose a solution to part of the funding that may provide some synergy to our city and state. Please don't dismiss it with a few short snappy retorts like the legislators do. Give it some thoughtful consideration.

The one part of TPS I know something about is the bus system. It struggles to maintain its purpose with less than adequate funding, just like the rest of TPS. It also suffers from the same level of mediocre management the rest of the system labors under. However, no amount of top level management can make up for the fact they are both underfunded and over criticized.

Consider eliminating all or most of the yellow bus system and replace it with city metro service from MTTA.

This frees up budgeting to allow history, athletics, music and arts to continue which is infinitely more important than a "free" ride to school. This is not unprecedented. I attended public schools in Tulsa during the 1950's and 1960's when Tulsa experienced growth in suburbs and downtown. We didn't have school buses. Never saw one at Kendal, Wilson, Central or the other outlying schools. We either walked to school, rode with our parents or ....took the city bus. I walked a mile to Kendal, rode my bike to Wilson and walked a couple blocks to catch the 6th street bus to Central.

I know, times have changed. We didn't have special needs classes (we mainstreamed a lot of what we call special needs today, the rest we committed to facilities like Hissom or juvenile detention). We had a majority of stay at home moms and single income families. The suburbs hadn't really exploded yet. We were content to accept separate but equal, so busing was delayed here. We only had two expressways, I-44 and the BA expwy. So, yes times have changed.

But times are changing again. The trend now is towards inner city, heavier density, private schools, charter schools and religious schools. Even suburbs tend to be self sufficient as in Stone Bluff in Owasso. That argues for more public transportation, and private school buses. At some point I believe the pendulum will swing back to neighborhood schools with less need for yellow bus transportation. As we press to increase public transportation of all kinds the funding for yellow buses can be transferred.

MTTA is a better employer for the dislocated TPS drivers and staff, since it doesn't carry the stigma of public school waste the legislators hate so much. And, their funding is more secure. The IBC bus manufacturer in east Tulsa (who strangely does not provide to the local system) can easily retool for more public trans buses or change their strategies. They will adjust, or not. The Lift, also managed by MTTA,  is well qualified and suited for real disability students and can easily meet that need. Federal funding is available for each special needs passenger. Many special needs classified students are merely behavioral, low performing or mild autism who can and should be riding with their peers on regular buses.

So, the bottom line is we have less duplication of efforts, more routes serving more people who then become adjusted at an early age to public transportation, more budget for education's main mission and less dependence on state malevolence toward them.

My next step is to find someone on the board to listen to me. Listening is the most important, yet rarest, skill these days.

Sounds like Dr. Gist is already willing to consider sacrificing that system. 

Guido mentioned something about getting rid of bus service in public schools some time back and he was basically called an insensitive dick.  I do believe the genesis of TPS starting to rely on bus service was when the administration finally was willing to admit how much worse the schools were in poorer parts of the TPS system.  Rather than put more effort into making those schools much better within their own community, they started integrating north side kids into south side schools. 

When I was growing up, elementary schools were within walking or bicycling distance or a very short drive on crappy weather days, and for the most part, still are.  I have to question the wisdom of TPS continuing to bus kids 10-15 miles for high school students.

There’s no need for school systems to own over the road coaches for out of town events.  That’s nothing more than a vanity contest amongst school administrators.  If the athletes need a cushy ride out of state, Kincaid has a whole fleet they can rent, including the driver.

Owning the bus is cheaper to schools than renting it. Due to our methods of school funding districts can get the capital funds they need locally, it's the operating costs that come from state funding and schools are prohibited from raising more operating funds locally.

Aqua, you and I had similar ways of getting to school and I really don’t remember TPS having much of a bus system prior to 1980 or so.  I’ve shared on here before that I used MTTA to get around quite a bit as a latch key kid.  I think you make great points.  When we moved to 81st & Yale and started going to Jenks, yellow buses made sense because MTTA did not serve that area of the city and Jenks was the school district for south Tulsa from roughly 65th from Yale to Lewis and on south.  

And the bill to drop Medicaid for over 100k Oklahomans passes the house.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-cutting-from-medicaid/article_e2bb35ee-f174-5c27-a0c9-5e9021164c8e.html