Here's a small but good start in better school efficiency. This was an 85 student district in rural Seminole county serving K-8. Basically 9 students per grade. That's a freaking waste. How many other districts out there could do the same thing?
I believe in making education a priority, but I don't believe in the politics behind it. Let's cut out waste before asking for more money.
Rural Seminole County school district to be annexed by neighbor
By Associated Press
Published: 11/3/2010 10:14 AM
Last Modified: 11/3/2010 10:14 AM
SEMINOLE — A rural Seminole County school district soon will merge with a larger neighbor.
Voters in the Pleasant Grove district voted Tuesday to merge with the Seminole Public Schools by a 202-93 count. The merger will take effect on Nov. 17.
The Shawnee News-Star reports that Pleasant Grove's budget problems led to the annexation proposal. School officials have said the Pleasant Grove district didn't have enough money to make it through the school year.
Pleasant Grove is a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade district and finished the 2009-10 school year with 85 students.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20101103_19_0_SEMINO681509
Our legislature won't do it. They protect the smaller districts.
My sister works as a school principal in Florida where they have one school district per county.
Tulsa County has 14 public school districts. Tell me which of the newly elected politicians is going to suggest that Union Public Schools merge with Tulsa Public Schools.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 04:37:15 PM
Our legislature won't do it. They protect the smaller districts.
My sister works as a school principal in Florida where they have one school district per county.
Tulsa County has 14 public school districts. Tell me which of the newly elected politicians is going to suggest that Union Public Schools merge with Tulsa Public Schools.
I don't think I would call Union or TPS small. Try picking a few rural areas. I understand that protectionism would be encountered.
Easy there RM, you sound like one of the Whirled commenters.
Merging larger districts like Union or Jenks in with TPS would certainly save some in admin costs but it would never happen.
I suggest looking at all districts, create a size threshold, along with determining what would
be a reasonable distance for students to live from a school and start consolidating. One person who commented on the story said Seminole County has 10 high schools in a 20 mile radius. That's a lot of properties to heat, cool, and maintain and more administrative salaries.
Maybe it made sense 50 years ago to have so many districts out of convenience to children.
Decentralization of services is costly. Do we really need 50 or so universities or 50 or so prisons in the state? The reason for all this inefficiency is because decentralization creates many more jobs and gets politicians re-elected because it beings money to rural areas.
Instead of lamenting the failure of this bag-of-smile bill, I'm interested in exploring real solutions to improve common education in Oklahoma. Let's not focus on "We can't do that" let's focus on what we can do. I wasn't kidding when I said I was interested in finding real solutions which make a difference in the classroom.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 10:10:51 PM
Easy there RM, you sound like one of the Whirled commenters.
Merging larger districts like Union or Jenks in with TPS would certainly save some in admin costs but it would never happen.
I suggest looking at all districts, create a size threshold, along with determining what would
be a reasonable distance for students to live from a school and start consolidating. One person who commented on the story said Seminole County has 10 high schools in a 20 mile radius. That's a lot of properties to heat, cool, and maintain and more administrative salaries.
Maybe it made sense 50 years ago to have so many districts out of convenience to children.
Decentralization of services is costly. Do we really need 50 or so universities or 50 or so prisons in the state? The reason for all this inefficiency is because decentralization creates many more jobs and gets politicians re-elected because it beings money to rural areas.
Instead of lamenting the failure of this bag-of-smile bill, I'm interested in exploring real solutions to improve common education in Oklahoma. Let's not focus on "We can't do that" let's focus on what we can do. I wasn't kidding when I said I was interested in finding real solutions which make a difference in the classroom.
I looked at the numbers, and if you forced all counties with with less than 40,000 people to go to a county wide school district and then also forced all districts with less than 2,000 students (thats about 80 teachers or less) to consolidate we would end up with about 70 county wide districts and about 100 total districts. That would be 8-10 districts in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties and 2-4 in five more mostly metro counties. You don't have to close schools necessarily, just consolidate the administration of the schools.
Quote from: swake on November 04, 2010, 09:08:12 AM
I looked at the numbers, and if you forced all counties with with less than 40,000 people to go to a county wide school district and then also forced all districts with less than 2,000 students (thats about 80 teachers or less) to consolidate we would end up with about 70 county wide districts and about 100 total districts. That would be 8-10 districts in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties and 2-4 in five more mostly metro counties. You don't have to close schools necessarily, just consolidate the administration of the schools.
I think it's worth trying to sit down with our new state superintendent and looking at. I wanted to gather some ideas from here and draft a letter to Janet Barresi as well as my state representative and senator.
What are some other cost-cutting measures or re-appropriations which could benefit the classroom aside from consolidation without cutting into popular programs like sports? Obviously administration, maintenance, and utility costs are items which take money away from the educational experience.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 09:15:19 AM
I think it's worth trying to sit down with our new state superintendent and looking at. I wanted to gather some ideas from here and draft a letter to Janet Barresi as well as my state representative and senator.
What are some other cost-cutting measures or re-appropriations which could benefit the classroom aside from consolidation without cutting into popular programs like sports? Obviously administration, maintenance, and utility costs are items which take money away from the educational experience.
Cutting any music/art and most physical activity seems to be popular.
I'd imagine all foreign language classes could go now.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:23:10 AM
Cutting any music/art and most physical activity seems to be popular.
I'd imagine all foreign language classes could go now.
So we will only teach Spanish now? It seems like English is now a foreign language.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 04, 2010, 09:34:16 AM
It seems like English is now a foreign language.
Really?
The idea of merging TPS and Union is just the big dog peeing on the underdog because the underdog had the gall to succeed. Similar to when TPS stole Mayo elementary.
Also keep in mind that Union already is a consolidated school district, they took in people from 9 communities, mostly rural property that only provided any decent tax money in the last few years of the school's history.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:23:10 AM
Cutting any music/art and most physical activity seems to be popular.
I'd imagine all foreign language classes could go now.
Nope, I'm not looking to cut curricula, teachers, sports, nor culture. I think music and art has a very good place in school as well as sports. Think outside the classroom for savings.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 09:39:41 AM
Nope, I'm not looking to cut curricula, teachers, sports, nor culture. I think music and art has a very good place in school as well as sports. Think outside the classroom for savings.
That's my point. How often does that happen?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 09:15:19 AM
I think it's worth trying to sit down with our new state superintendent and looking at. I wanted to gather some ideas from here and draft a letter to Janet Barresi as well as my state representative and senator.
What are some other cost-cutting measures or re-appropriations which could benefit the classroom aside from consolidation without cutting into popular programs like sports? Obviously administration, maintenance, and utility costs are items which take money away from the educational experience.
I don't think there is much to cut. Most of the money goes to the classroom now, it's just not enough. Consolidating 400 districts might save a couple of hundred million dollars a year, and while that's real money, it's not a huge amount compared to the overall school budget. We chronically underfund schools and we have the results to show for it.
This is from the state chamber, but it really bears repeating: We are 49th in per student school spending, 41st in bachelor's degree attainment, 42nd in advanced degree attainment, 46th in technology concentration, 44th in high tech wages, 42nd in venture capital investment per capita, 47th in R&D spending per capita and 49th in exports per capita.
That all sounds bad, but at least we rank 8th in the teen pregnancy rate. Oh wait, that's bad too. Ok, so we don't allow courts to use Sharia Law. We got that going for us, which is nice.
The Republicans are firmly in control of the state now, there is zero ability for Democrats to even influence decision making in the state anymore. What is our Republican leadership going to do to fix schools and the state? My guess based on the last two years is that we will see even more attention on new and stricter laws regarding immigration, English only, gun rights, abortion and fighting Obama. In other words nothing meaningful at all.
The state will face some serious budget shortfalls this year. Instead of cutting funding to education why not consolidate the school districts? This is the time for that to be done. The Republicans have said they want job creation and economic development to be their many priorities. Education is a big part of that.
Quote from: swake on November 04, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
I don't think there is much to cut. Most of the money goes to the classroom now, it's just not enough. Consolidating 400 districts might save a couple of hundred million dollars a year, and while that's real money, it's not a huge amount compared to the overall school budget. We chronically underfund schools and we have the results to show for it.
This is from the state chamber, but it really bears repeating: We are 49th in per student school spending, 41st in bachelor's degree attainment, 42nd in advanced degree attainment, 46th in technology concentration, 44th in high tech wages, 42nd in venture capital investment per capita, 47th in R&D spending per capita and 49th in exports per capita.
That all sounds bad, but at least we rank 8th in the teen pregnancy rate. Oh wait, that's bad too. Ok, so we don't allow courts to use Sharia Law. We got that going for us, which is nice.
The Republicans are firmly in control of the state now, there is zero ability for Democrats to even influence decision making in the state anymore. What is our Republican leadership going to do to fix schools and the state? My guess based on the last two years is that we will see even more attention on new and stricter laws regarding immigration, English only, gun rights, abortion and fighting Obama. In other words nothing meaningful at all.
Look, if you want to continue to focus on partisan stereotypes that's your prerogative. I'm very solution-oriented, not problem-oriented. If you are truly concerned about improving the quality of education of this state move beyond the problem and start thinking of innovative solutions instead of a bunch of crap about Republican road blocks.
Here's a snapshot of how our school funding is spent:
Figures for '07/'08
Total common ed revenues: $5.482 bln
Instruction expenditures: $2.845 bln
Support services expenditures: $1.760 bln
Non-instruction expenditures: $327 mm
$4.932 bln "current" expenditures out of a total of $5.4 bln education expenditures.
Basically, for every dollar spent on "instruction" there's an additional 75 cents spent on support services and non-instruction expenditures. When I was putting together stats on our region, I noticed Oklahoma has a disproportionate amount of NI expenditures with our peers.
Some interesting stats not noted in the vote yes campaign was that in our region, our education spending as a percent of local and state total budgets (based on the '07/'08 table) is second only to Texas at 35.19% vs. 35.22% for Texas. Dollars spent per pupil becomes somewhat less relevant when you take into account Oklahoma's cheap cost of living and real estate, and start looking at what percent of overall dollars are being spent on instruction.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=full&displaycat=2&s1=40
nces.ed.gov is a great repository of statistics.
Quote from: SXSW on November 04, 2010, 10:31:39 AM
The state will face some serious budget shortfalls this year. Instead of cutting funding to education why not consolidate the school districts? This is the time for that to be done. The Republicans have said they want job creation and economic development to be their many priorities. Education is a big part of that.
I don't want to cut funding. I want to cut wasteful spending.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 10:59:01 AM
I don't want to cut funding. I want to cut wasteful spending.
If Broken Arrow schools over the past couple of years is any example, wasteful spending is subjective.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 11:00:45 AM
If Broken Arrow schools over the past couple of years is any example, wasteful spending is subjective.
How much did they get charged to torch a mini-storage?
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 11:00:45 AM
If Broken Arrow schools over the past couple of years is any example, wasteful spending is subjective.
How about a 9500 square foot indoor baseball practice facility for Cimmaron Public Schools out in western Oklahoma or middle school weight rooms? That makes great sense.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2010, 11:35:26 AM
How about a 9500 square foot indoor baseball practice facility for Cimmaron Public Schools out in western Oklahoma or middle school weight rooms? That makes great sense.
My point is the people receiving the money do not think the spending is wasteful. (HVAC companies et al) So they'll push back anytime someone says it is.
The students don't normally push back so the story will be "We don't have the money for a music/art department."
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
How much did they get charged to torch a mini-storage?
Good example. Imagine where this would have gone if someone had died in that fire.
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 09:39:00 AM
Really?
Maybe I just shop in the wrong WalMart, Lowes, etc. Maybe I should put earplugs in my ears to avoid overhearing conversations.
Guess what I just got in the mail, the annual report for Jenks Public Schools.
Let's look at the numbers.
Jenks has 10,165 students and had a total annual operating budget of $63,947,342 for 2009-2010.
Per pupil spending $6,291
Jenks has 1,383 employees of which 730 are "certified" personel. From another source I found that 528 are teachers which means that 202 are Principals, Councilors, Therapists, Speech Pathologists, Curriculum experts etc. You can argue that schools shouldn't be in the business of therapy, speech pathology and the like, but the real world fact is that many kids with a lot problems that in the past weren't in schools have now been mainstreamed and the schools have to provide services to them. It's a huge part of the increase of the cost of schools over the last couple of decades.
Jenks also has another 201 employees who are teaching assistants/paraprofessionals. These people help with the large class sizes in the elementary grades and most of all with those handicapped kids. Some are assigned one aide to one handicapped kid.
That's 931 people out of 1,383 who are directly involved with teaching (and caring for) kids.
Who are the rest of the employees?
Well, 88 of them are daycare/before and after school care people. These salaries are largely self funding by fees to the parents that use the services so they don't really count. Then there's 83 people in transportation. Part time bus drivers aren't really a big impact to the budget. 89 cafeteria workers, again, to an extent self funding and they are often just part time anyway. That's now 1,192 employees out of 1,383 that are directly involved with kids. That leaves 191 "support" people. 8 cops, 12 people in IT, 14 print shop and warehouse people, 70 maintenance/custodians and finally 89 clerical/business office people. That is not a large support staff. Where would you cut there? That's 191 people to support 1,200 employees that work with over 10,000 kids.
Let's look at the budget. $63,947,342. Seems like a lot but $50,494,412 is salaries. Another $7,769,740 is benefits. 91.1% of the budget is Salary and Benefits. $978,189 of the remaining $5,683.190 is to outsourced services. Only 7.4% of the budget isn't employee related.
Where do you "reform" this, what cuts do you make to "put more money in the classroom"?
It's a fallacy. Certainly there is waste, any system that involves people is going to have waste, but there is no golden pot at the end of the budget rainbow that's going to fix schools without a lot more money.
You want better schools? It's really simple.
1. Pay teachers more to encourage more and better qualified people to become teachers. The starting salary for a teacher in Oklahoma is $29,174. That's with a degree, and post grad certification program and an internship. Dish Network has a huge sign on 71st where they will start anyone who can fog a mirror at $11.50 an hour. That's $23,920 to start. Average pay for a teacher is $38,772. It's damn hard to raise a family on just under 39k, even in low cost Oklahoma. Anyone with talent and smarts coming out of college, without a spouse making real money, is going to be hard pressed to choose to struggle through life because they wanted to teach. There are a lot of bad teachers, even in ideal teaching world Jenks. This is why.
2. Extend the school year. Again, that will drive more cost. Kids forget a lot over a 3 month summer. I've had teachers tell me that the first 6-8 weeks of the school year is a review time to get back what was forgotten over the summer.
3. Class sizes. More individualized attention leads to better learning, especially among kids that that come from less than ideal environments. We can say that learning starts in the home, and that is very true. But can we afford to create a permanent and angry underclass of people that schools fail because they come from bad parents. The kids of bad parents are only going to become the next generation of bad parents. The cost here is astronomical in welfare, criminal justice, and lost potential productivity alone. We have to work to break that cycle of poverty and it starts with schools, not welfare.
All three solutions will work, and all cost money. Certainly get rid of all these ridiculous tiny school districts. Root out administrators that do nothing. But at the end of the day the amounts of money you find there will not really address the real needs in the classroom.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 04, 2010, 12:54:32 PM
Maybe I just shop in the wrong WalMart, Lowes, etc. Maybe I should put earplugs in my ears to avoid overhearing conversations.
Oh you mean "Kiss yer momma and git in the truck." and "Hey ya'll, watch theeis."
Quote from: swake on November 04, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
Guess what I just got in the mail, the annual report for Jenks Public Schools.
Let's look at the numbers.
Jenks has 10,165 students and had a total annual operating budget of $63,947,342 for 2009-2010.
Per pupil spending $6,291
And yet at the state level is is $7,685
So it costs $1,400 to give $6,291 to Jenks?
Quote from: Townsend on November 04, 2010, 01:30:37 PM
Oh you mean "Kiss yer momma and git in the truck." and "Hey ya'll, watch theeis."
Maybe you are fluent enough to hear and think in Spanish. I am not. I only had Spanish lessons for a while in Junior High School and that was a l-o-n-g time ago. I actually don't care if someone wants to speak Spanish. I only ask that if they want to live in the US, that they be functional in English. Even Spanglish is not too bad since at least some level of communication can be obtained. I don't care about accents too much either. My grandfather still had a bit of a Polish accent in his English up to when he passed away at age 95.
Quote from: swake on November 04, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
Guess what I just got in the mail, the annual report for Jenks Public Schools.
Let's look at the numbers.
Jenks has 10,165 students and had a total annual operating budget of $63,947,342 for 2009-2010.
Per pupil spending $6,291
Jenks has 1,383 employees of which 730 are "certified" personel. From another source I found that 528 are teachers which means that 202 are Principals, Councilors, Therapists, Speech Pathologists, Curriculum experts etc. You can argue that schools shouldn't be in the business of therapy, speech pathology and the like, but the real world fact is that many kids with a lot problems that in the past weren't in schools have now been mainstreamed and the schools have to provide services to them. It's a huge part of the increase of the cost of schools over the last couple of decades.
Jenks also has another 201 employees who are teaching assistants/paraprofessionals. These people help with the large class sizes in the elementary grades and most of all with those handicapped kids. Some are assigned one aide to one handicapped kid.
That's 931 people out of 1,383 who are directly involved with teaching (and caring for) kids.
Who are the rest of the employees?
Well, 88 of them are daycare/before and after school care people. These salaries are largely self funding by fees to the parents that use the services so they don't really count. Then there's 83 people in transportation. Part time bus drivers aren't really a big impact to the budget. 89 cafeteria workers, again, to an extent self funding and they are often just part time anyway. That's now 1,192 employees out of 1,383 that are directly involved with kids. That leaves 191 "support" people. 8 cops, 12 people in IT, 14 print shop and warehouse people, 70 maintenance/custodians and finally 89 clerical/business office people. That is not a large support staff. Where would you cut there? That's 191 people to support 1,200 employees that work with over 10,000 kids.
Let's look at the budget. $63,947,342. Seems like a lot but $50,494,412 is salaries. Another $7,769,740 is benefits. 91.1% of the budget is Salary and Benefits. $978,189 of the remaining $5,683.190 is to outsourced services. Only 7.4% of the budget isn't employee related.
Where do you "reform" this, what cuts do you make to "put more money in the classroom"?
It's a fallacy. Certainly there is waste, any system that involves people is going to have waste, but there is no golden pot at the end of the budget rainbow that's going to fix schools without a lot more money.
You want better schools? It's really simple.
1. Pay teachers more to encourage more and better qualified people to become teachers. The starting salary for a teacher in Oklahoma is $29,174. That's with a degree, and post grad certification program and an internship. Dish Network has a huge sign on 71st where they will start anyone who can fog a mirror at $11.50 an hour. That's $23,920 to start. Average pay for a teacher is $38,772. It's damn hard to raise a family on just under 39k, even in low cost Oklahoma. Anyone with talent and smarts coming out of college, without a spouse making real money, is going to be hard pressed to choose to struggle through life because they wanted to teach. There are a lot of bad teachers, even in ideal teaching world Jenks. This is why.
2. Extend the school year. Again, that will drive more cost. Kids forget a lot over a 3 month summer. I've had teachers tell me that the first 6-8 weeks of the school year is a review time to get back what was forgotten over the summer.
3. Class sizes. More individualized attention leads to better learning, especially among kids that that come from less than ideal environments. We can say that learning starts in the home, and that is very true. But can we afford to create a permanent and angry underclass of people that schools fail because they come from bad parents. The kids of bad parents are only going to become the next generation of bad parents. The cost here is astronomical in welfare, criminal justice, and lost potential productivity alone. We have to work to break that cycle of poverty and it starts with schools, not welfare.
All three solutions will work, and all cost money. Certainly get rid of all these ridiculous tiny school districts. Root out administrators that do nothing. But at the end of the day the amounts of money you find there will not really address the real needs in the classroom.
Good work.
Jenks has always been a pretty efficiently run district. One of the reasons my kids have gone there is they are a model district in my book in terms of proper priorities, results, and parental involvement.
I've done considerable research on this and there's no credible studies showing that class size has a significant impact on students beyond the elementary level. There's also no credible research showing a higher spending level per student provides better results. Washington DC is near or at the top in spending per student and has some of the worst results.
And at some point we need to quit being apathetic toward waste. We have got to quit the line of thinking that $200 million isn't significant in a system with a $5 bln budget or that $1 bln in a federal budget into the trillions isn't significant. Find $800 mil more in waste in other areas of state government and you've suddenly come up with an additional 20% to put toward common education.
From another thread on SQ 744 regarding the meme of low teacher pay, it's in line with their peers with bachelors degrees for annual days worked:
People forget that the state-mandated minimum teacher's salary of $31,600 for nine months worth of work is $3511 per month, equivalent to 42,133 per year. The teacher is free to take a job of their choice in the off months and many do while still enjoying great benefits like health insurance and a pension that many of their peers right out of college don't have. In addition to that, they will have Social Security benefits upon retirement as well.
http://sde.state.ok.us/Teacher/Salary/default.html
Their pay is in line with other occupations requiring a bachelor's degree, considering they get a three month holiday every year, plus the school holidays to boot. (Recyclemichael said in that thread it's more like 2 months off. A teacher in the Tulsa school system works 183 "contract" days). In other words, teaching isn't that bad of a gig. (considering the rest of us work approximately 240 to 250 days per year) For advance degree holders, I'd like to see a higher pay scale more commensurate with the effort and expense put into earning a master's or doctorate.
In addition, teachers get a pension which is a perk most of us in the non-union public sector don't get. From the TPS web site, TPS is paying approximately $449 per month in health insurance and I believe they have attractive dental and vision plans.
Median salaries, along with years of experience for those with bachelor's degrees. Keep in mind, the teacher's salaries from the link above are state minimums. Many districts pay above that scale.
(edited to add: thanks for breaking down the staffing and the other numbers at Jenks. It was a very well written and thoughtful post)
Great post Swake.
I am baffled as to why we still have a 3 month summer break? There is absolutely no real reason to have a break that long. I MAY take a one week vacation once a year myself. 3 friggin months?! Thats insane! Make it a 3 week summer break at most, then have another week, perhaps two, spread out during other times of the year, then add the rest of the time the teachers work to their salaries.
The main problem I have with schools is apportionment of funds. The schools that have students that don't need as much help (usually have good parents that make sure their child does well) often get the most money, while the schools that have students that need more help (lets say bad parenting and or socio-economic circumstances) seem to get the least funding. One school with the good parents could actually be fine with larger class sizes, while the other school might be better with smaller class sizes (but I would like to see a proven program implemented over just adding more teachers and calling it a day).
The other question I have is whether or not the different school types aka, suburban middle class students and urban or poor students get the appropriate "school type" or teaching styles. Each type of demographic is going to require different methodologies, how the school is run, how the teachers teach, number and type of teachers, types of programs, etc. You see successful examples and best practices that fit different demograpic/social situations all over the country. I would like to see these best practices appropriately applied to schools here.
When they were just asking for more money, my first thought and concern was... Where specifically will the money go? What specifically will it go to? What programs, which schools, etc? For instance, perhaps they dont need more teachers per pupil in Jenks, or a new olympic sized pool, BUT I would like to see assistance going to a "proven to work for inner city type kids from distressed neighborhoods and homes" type program in some Tulsa schools.
1. Find out the situation in each school
2. Find a best practices model for each situation
3. Tell me what is needed and how much it will cost to implement...THEN ask me for more money if that is what is required.
I can't for the life of me see how they could show that they needed more money, or how much would be needed until they showed me what specifically it would go towards.
Don't just ask for some vague "Getting us to the regional average" thing. NOT gonna happen. I want specifics. Even with the specifics you would have a hard time in conservative Oklahoma. Without it, you have lost even liberal leaning me. I want to know that the money is going to go to the right places and to the right, proven to work things. Plus, if you implement and fund specific programs, ways of running the school, teaching styles, etc. you can then properly assess whether or not its working or not down the line and then be in a much better place to make changes. But ya can't just ask me to throw more money at it without having a clue as to what is going to happen with it. And I still havent been shown that more money is whats needed and why specifically its needed?!
Give me something here other than "averages" lol. I want to know whats going to work, then how much its going to cost to fund that. THEN we can talk money.
They should use technology to make everything cheaper and more effective. South Korea will have robots in all of their classrooms within the next few years. Textbooks should be replaced with laptops or e-readers. Maybe have higher paid instructors teach online classes for multiple school districts. I also feel like schools do a poor job of preparing students for college and the workforce. Put emphasis on math and science rather than sports and music or else the US will lose out to India and China soon. Sports and music should be funded by private money. Home schooling or private schools are the best way to go and it would be nice if there were vouchers to help with those options. If public school is the only option, parents should be allowed to send their kids to any district they want. If a school district doesn't have enough students it should be closed.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on November 04, 2010, 03:17:51 PM
If public school is the only option, parents should be allowed to send their kids to any district they want.
That's an interesting thought. Why even worry about brick and mortar schools? Why not 100% online?
You'd save on construction, upkeep, power, transportation, lunches. Any student could be taught in any district/state/country.
And screw text books. They should be updatable readers of some sort.
Aw, hell, be done with it. We don't need no schools with fancy learnin. The church did a fine job for hundreds of years. Got us through medieval times just fine till folks learned to read the bible on their own. Then the problems began. We're the leaders of the world right now, right here in Oklahoma. We're the fattest, the dumbest, the most unhealthy and the most opinionated. We have the most mosts. So lets show the rest of the world how to do it.
First, teachers are a waste of money and prone to thinking outside the church since they have read many more books than the bible and have been exposed to girls gone wild and science. Useless...need retraining at the least. Give the internet to the Catholics who will know how to use it for real teaching, wrest the rest of the media from the Jews and give it to the Southern Baptists who are experts on good taste and moralism. Then extend the ban on Sharia law to include rap music or any music that uses the word love or any of its myriad of pseudonyms. That ain't the way to have fun, son.
The real advantage is that if there is any waste, its confined to non taxpaying entities. Win win for everyone. Unless of course, you tithe which even then should be limited to the middle and lower classes so as not to interfere with the prosperity of those wealthy members who are most carrying the heaviest burden in the expansion of downtown churches.
Pretty soon Oklahoma will be revered for its steadfast resistance to well funded public education, moral turpitude in the form of liberalism and of course, the outside world. Not in my lifetime, but soon I'm sure. i'm kidding, i think.
Quote from: waterboy on November 04, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Aw, hell, be done with it. We don't need no schools with fancy learnin. The church did a fine job for hundreds of years. Got us through medieval times just fine till folks learned to read the bible on their own. Then the problems began. We're the leaders of the world right now, right here in Oklahoma. We're the fattest, the dumbest, the most unhealthy and the most opinionated. We have the most mosts. So lets show the rest of the world how to do it.
First, teachers are a waste of money and prone to thinking outside the church since they have read many more books than the bible and have been exposed to girls gone wild and science. Useless...need retraining at the least. Give the internet to the Catholics who will know how to use it for real teaching, wrest the rest of the media from the Jews and give it to the Southern Baptists who are experts on good taste and moralism. Then extend the ban on Sharia law to include rap music or any music that uses the word love or any of its myriad of pseudonyms. That ain't the way to have fun, son.
The real advantage is that if there is any waste, its confined to non taxpaying entities. Win win for everyone. Unless of course, you tithe which even then should be limited to the middle and lower classes so as not to interfere with the prosperity of those wealthy members who are most carrying the heaviest burden in the expansion of downtown churches.
Pretty soon Oklahoma will be revered for its steadfast resistance to well funded public education, moral turpitude in the form of liberalism and of course, the outside world. Not in my lifetime, but soon I'm sure. i'm kidding, i think.
(http://itsallfreeonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Kleenex.jpg)
Quote from: waterboy on November 04, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Aw, hell, be done with it. We don't need no schools with fancy learnin. The church did a fine job for hundreds of years. Got us through medieval times just fine till folks learned to read the bible on their own. Then the problems began. We're the leaders of the world right now, right here in Oklahoma. We're the fattest, the dumbest, the most unhealthy and the most opinionated. We have the most mosts. So lets show the rest of the world how to do it.
Not gonna happen. We are so bad we can't even be the worst, only 49 out of 50. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 04, 2010, 09:00:31 PM
Not gonna happen. We are so bad we can't even be the worst, only 49 out of 50. ;D
No matter how hard I try, I just cannot be the fattest or dumbest or most opinionated. I bet there is a school somewhere for this though.
Quote from: waterboy on November 04, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Aw, hell, be done with it. We don't need no schools with fancy learnin. The church did a fine job for hundreds of years. Got us through medieval times just fine till folks learned to read the bible on their own. Then the problems began. We're the leaders of the world right now, right here in Oklahoma. We're the fattest, the dumbest, the most unhealthy and the most opinionated. We have the most mosts. So lets show the rest of the world how to do it.
First, teachers are a waste of money and prone to thinking outside the church since they have read many more books than the bible and have been exposed to girls gone wild and science. Useless...need retraining at the least. Give the internet to the Catholics who will know how to use it for real teaching, wrest the rest of the media from the Jews and give it to the Southern Baptists who are experts on good taste and moralism. Then extend the ban on Sharia law to include rap music or any music that uses the word love or any of its myriad of pseudonyms. That ain't the way to have fun, son.
The real advantage is that if there is any waste, its confined to non taxpaying entities. Win win for everyone. Unless of course, you tithe which even then should be limited to the middle and lower classes so as not to interfere with the prosperity of those wealthy members who are most carrying the heaviest burden in the expansion of downtown churches.
Pretty soon Oklahoma will be revered for its steadfast resistance to well funded public education, moral turpitude in the form of liberalism and of course, the outside world. Not in my lifetime, but soon I'm sure. i'm kidding, i think.
You deserve an award for the best attempt at channeling Shadows that I've seen. Until that last sentence, I thought you'd been sipping out of one of his mason jars.
Just having a little cerebral fun. I love Oklahoma even though she's like the girl from Ipanema for me. Some counseling is in order.
Why not skip brick and mortar schools? Would it have a huge effect on the child's ability to get along in crowds?
They'd save on school clothing. No need for much of the admin cost. Text books would be almost un-needed.
The build and upkeep of schools must be a huge expense. HVAC being one of the things that'd be almost instantly cut.
Am I way off here? I'm asking.
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.
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2010, 10:22:57 AM
Why not skip brick and mortar schools? Would it have a huge effect on the child's ability to get along in crowds?
They'd save on school clothing. No need for much of the admin cost. Text books would be almost un-needed.
The build and upkeep of schools must be a huge expense. HVAC being one of the things that'd be almost instantly cut.
Am I way off here? I'm asking.
That's basically what home schooling is. I think it's a great idea worth investigating. It would require one stay at home parent or one with a very flexible schedule. I like the idea.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 10:26:37 AM
That's basically what home schooling is. I think it's a great idea worth investigating. It would require one stay at home parent or one with a very flexible schedule. I like the idea.
No no, I don't mean homeschool.
I mean log in and learn online.
webcams, attendance can easily be tracked with a response every few minutes. The technology is there. If anyone has issues with expense, the PC/laptop/Ipad would easily be cheaper than the schools/textbooks/HVAC/janitor etc.
Maybe start at junior high level.
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2010, 10:47:34 AM
No no, I don't mean homeschool.
I mean log in and learn online.
webcams, attendance can easily be tracked with a response every few minutes. The technology is there. If anyone has issues with expense, the PC/laptop/Ipad would easily be cheaper than the schools/textbooks/HVAC/janitor etc.
Maybe start at junior high level.
I think it's a great idea, the initial knee-jerk response I can hear will be parental supervision where you have two income families. How do we get around breaking down that paradigm? I'm not making a problem here, just seeking a solution to how we deal with the supervision issue to make sure little Billy isn't surfing porn or playing X-box in between responses.
What bothers me about this discussion is its primary focus on money first,,, then not really taking much consideration at all about performance and quality, improving test scores, graduation rates, etc. That just seems backwards to me.
The tendancy seems to be to focus on shuffling around money, adding money here, taking it from there, having the kid learn there, with a book, with a computer etc.
I would look at the programs, the process, the methodologies, etc. that are needed to get good student performance outcomes, THEN most of the rest will fall into place for then you know what you need to do. Now I agree we need to cut costs and consolidate when and where we can, but lets not lose sight of the most important goal which is to improve student performance.
Example
When I was a kid I went to a grade school in east Tulsa. Then over time the demographics shifted. Many of the teachers stayed the same, the new ones werent any worse per the pay than the ones I had. I could go on but suffice it to say that it wouldnt matter much on the test score/student performance if the pay was higher, the school was in a larger district, waste was cut or whatever IF THE PROGRAMS, TEACHING METHODS, etc. dont change to meet the change in demographics, the particular needs of the school.
Improving education and our schools to me means focusing on student performance outcomes. Money is something we can talk about, but it seems to be putting the cart before the horse until you know what type of schools, programs, etc you need to fund first. Adding to teachers salaries doesnt do that, thats just money talk again and not fixing the problem. Smaller class sizes? To what end? Whats the whole program your implementing? Having the same books, computers, teachers and teaching methods and shifting the size of the classes may not do a danged thing to "improve education". It may in some situations with some demographics with some programs, but in others, may not do a danged thing.
I will watch these documentaries where in some school district they implemented a particular type of teaching program and test scores went up, graduation rates went up, etc. Now it may or may not have cost more money, they may or may not have shuffled money from here to there, BUT the focus was the right program to fit the circumstances FIRST.
Again, consolidate if thats warranted, add to teacher pay if thats warranted. BUT thats a side show imo, an important side show no doubt, but thats not what is ultimately going to improve our schools, our educational system, and our student performance outcomes. And I dont see hardly any talk about the things that will.
In a Nutshell...
If ya found every bit of waste, consolidated every school ya wanted, doubled teacher salaries...
If you had the teachers doing the same thing, teaching in the same way, in the same school/program environment...
You wouldn't have improved education one bit.
William, thank you for your usual good insight. Improving quality is first and foremost on my mind with this discussion. Money isn't the end-all in a better education if we look at the example in Washington DC. I primed the conversation with finance as that was what 744 was all about in the first place, finding more funding for schools. As you know, I'm a huge believer a great education starts at home and nothing will ever change my mind about that. But, it would be nice to examine where we can make education more efficient from every angle, including classroom resources and spending.
I make the point repeatedly that there's no credible study which can honestly say that there is a magic teacher to student ratio for optimum learning results. In my mind, it's simply the teacher's unions trying to convince the public we need more teachers who would be dues-paying members. I grew up with 25 to 30 student classes, without assistants, aides, or paraprofessionals and I can't see that education results have markedly improved in the last 30 years with down-sizing of classrooms and adding more people to each classroom.
We are becoming a lazy society. Rather than finding solutions which require time and people caring about their work, we are increasingly believing that additional funding is always the solution. It's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of misguided government and believing government will always have the appropriate solution if they can just throw enough money at it. The reason this happens is because lobbyists and people who run SIG's are feeding out of this trough. This is how they stay in a job: funneling government money in all sorts of directions and they wind up with a cut.
It could be argued that the reason why many schools are struggling as compared to 30 years ago is that people, on the whole, are poorer and work longer hours. When I was a kid, at least half the families had a parent who either didn't work or only worked a half day in the morning, so there was both time and energy left for parents to help kids with schoolwork, make them do it, or whatever.
I think it's a damn shame we don't do more to attack poverty in this country, as reducing it would reduce the severity so many other problems. The programs we do have (like housing) end up putting families in crappy neighborhoods where there are a lot of bad influences on the kids. This is one of my biggest problems with section 8 housing. It's all concentrated in not great neighborhoods instead of spread out across the community. I find it difficult to believe that has zero effect on kids' school performance.
There's no easy solution to poverty other than at the individual level. Someone has to decide they are tired of living like that and do something about it. Again it's a mis-guided notion that government can cure everything. Section 8 housing by it's very nature attracts crime because it's a government-sponsored ghetto. We have spread Sec. 8 through the city of Tulsa and all it's done is spread crime throughout the city. 25 years ago, 61st & Riverside was actually a really good area. I had friends who lived at Sand Dollar apartments and they were very much a hip place to live. The apartments to the east of there were older but not run down.
Same thing with east Tulsa.
Government solutions to poverty have done nothing but increase dependence on government. I really don't know what a better answer is, all I can say is what we've done about it in the past has been a complete failure. Far as I'm concerned the only solution that works is someone working their way out of it on their own with help from the community, and there's plenty of help there for those who really want out of the cycle.
That's the thing. There isn't that much help. I do agree that change has to come from within, but in many cases there are medical issues or a lack of education preventing people from helping themselves. I think that, in the main, government's help should be primarily focused on making sure people get enough to eat and have the help needed to remove roadblocks to their improving themselves.
A kid can't learn very well if they don't eat and if they don't have any idea where they're going to be sleeping tonight.
Like you, I've got no farking clue what the solution is, but agree that what we're doing obviously isn't working.
When I said section 8 should be decentralized, I mean really decentralized. Even today, section 8 housing is concentrated in a few areas in town. TBH, I'd like to see a few folks in my neighborhood, a few folks in your neighborhood, and a few folks in everybody's neighborhood. Never should there be 20 or 30 section 8 recipients living in the same apartment complex. Few are willing to see the house next door turned into subsidized housing, though.
And there aren't all that many landlords interested in taking the vouchers, which is part of the reason why the recipients end up concentrated in a few areas.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 03:40:58 PM
That's the thing. There isn't that much help. I do agree that change has to come from within, but in many cases there are medical issues or a lack of education preventing people from helping themselves. I think that, in the main, government's help should be primarily focused on making sure people get enough to eat and have the help needed to remove roadblocks to their improving themselves.
A kid can't learn very well if they don't eat and if they don't have any idea where they're going to be sleeping tonight.
Like you, I've got no farking clue what the solution is, but agree that what we're doing obviously isn't working.
When I said section 8 should be decentralized, I mean really decentralized. Even today, section 8 housing is concentrated in a few areas in town. TBH, I'd like to see a few folks in my neighborhood, a few folks in your neighborhood, and a few folks in everybody's neighborhood. Never should there be 20 or 30 section 8 recipients living in the same apartment complex. Few are willing to see the house next door turned into subsidized housing, though.
And there aren't all that many landlords interested in taking the vouchers, which is part of the reason why the recipients end up concentrated in a few areas.
I agree sprinkling sounds like a great idea, but with what the government can spend on vouchers, it's going to wind up in the same areas of smaller houses, lower rents, and well, we know what follows. You simply can't get Section 8 into Maple Ridge, Riverview, Florence Park, or even Lortondale. It's not economically feasible. As well, when Section 8 comes in, the rats come with it. That's not to say everyone who is on Section 8 is a criminal, it simply seems to follow them around and you slowly decrease the value of properties around the Section 8's.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 03:51:45 PM
As well, when Section 8 comes in, the rats come with it. That's not to say everyone who is on Section 8 is a criminal, it simply seems to follow them around and you slowly decrease the value of properties around the Section 8's.
To be fair, people with recent criminal records and drug/alcohol abuse problems aren't eligible for section 8. (or much other help, for that matter, which probably doesn't help recidivism)
Ideally, the economy would work for everybody, and then it wouldn't be such a problem. With unemployment so much higher for folks without college degrees (around 30% a few months ago) and under 25s, there's no money coming in for them to use to better themselves. It's a vicious cycle, and it's been getting worse for 30 years now. Most of the progress we've made in getting people off the welfare rolls have been due to the peaks in our economic cycles and just straight kicking people off assistance after several years.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 03:54:52 PM
To be fair, people with recent criminal records and drug/alcohol abuse problems aren't eligible for section 8. (or much other help, for that matter, which probably doesn't help recidivism)
It doesn't keep them from moving in with GF/BF's or family members who are eligible.
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2010, 03:56:22 PM
It doesn't keep them from moving in with GF/BF's or family members who are eligible.
Technically, it does, but there's not strong enforcement.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 03:54:52 PM
To be fair, people with recent criminal records and drug/alcohol abuse problems aren't eligible for section 8. (or much other help, for that matter, which probably doesn't help recidivism)
Ideally, the economy would work for everybody, and then it wouldn't be such a problem. With unemployment so much higher for folks without college degrees (around 30% a few months ago) and under 25s, there's no money coming in for them to use to better themselves. It's a vicious cycle, and it's been getting worse for 30 years now. Most of the progress we've made in getting people off the welfare rolls have been due to the peaks in our economic cycles and just straight kicking people off assistance after several years.
People with prior convictions aren't the problem, it's people with
future convictions that is. But that's getting a little 1984. ;D
Well anyway, I'm sticking with my idea of online classes with the ability to chime in as a test of attendance.
People with more intellect than I can come up with the usage rules.
Charge a per kid fee.
Quote from: Quinton on November 05, 2010, 07:07:33 PM
Charge a per kid fee.
(http://www.pc-surgeon.net/images/cforum/smileys/TripleFacePalm.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 03:51:45 PM
I agree sprinkling sounds like a great idea, but with what the government can spend on vouchers, it's going to wind up in the same areas of smaller houses, lower rents, and well, we know what follows. You simply can't get Section 8 into Maple Ridge, Riverview, Florence Park, or even Lortondale. It's not economically feasible. As well, when Section 8 comes in, the rats come with it. That's not to say everyone who is on Section 8 is a criminal, it simply seems to follow them around and you slowly decrease the value of properties around the Section 8's.
Actually, in some places (usually in cities that have much lower crime rates, hmmmm) its required that every new housing development, neighborhood, apartment complex, condo building, etc. have a small percentage be for low income. We all pay for low income/section 8 housing one way or the other.
Quote from: TheArtist on November 05, 2010, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, in some places (usually in cities that have much lower crime rates, hmmmm) its required that every new housing development, neighborhood, apartment complex, condo building, etc. have a small percentage be for low income. We all pay for low income/section 8 housing one way or the other.
So in those places where those who may not want to live around Sec. 8/low income housing are forced to?
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2010, 08:38:02 PM
So in those places where those who may not want to live around Sec. 8/low income housing are forced to?
Redlining has been against the law for quite some time now.
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2010, 04:36:16 PM
Well anyway, I'm sticking with my idea of online classes
My dog crashed my hard drive with the homework on it..
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 08:39:52 PM
Redlining has been against the law for quite some time now.
Who in the hel! is talking about redlining?
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2010, 04:36:16 PM
Well anyway, I'm sticking with my idea of online classes with the ability to chime in as a test of attendance.
People with more intellect than I can come up with the usage rules.
It's a good idea generally, but reliable internet service has to be much more available than it is now. In a lot of rural places it's nonexistent, or limited to dialup or worse.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2010, 08:48:54 PM
Who in the hel! is talking about redlining?
You did, by implying that you somehow have the right to keep people you don't want in your neighborhood out.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 09:59:24 PM
You did, by implying that you somehow have the right to keep people you don't want in your neighborhood out.
Sorry Nate, but when I would shop around for apartments back in the day, first question I'd ask the manager was do you accept Section 8 housing applications. If they said yes, I moved on.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 09:59:24 PM
You did, by implying that you somehow have the right to keep people you don't want in your neighborhood out.
I made no such implication. I merely questioned whether that in certain areas in those places Artist discussed are people forced to live near low income housing.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
I made no such implication. I merely questioned whether that in certain areas in those places Artist discussed are people forced to live near low income housing.
You're not forced to live near it any more than you're forced to live near whoever buys the house next door or to whoever they rent. The developer, on the other hand, is indeed forced to do something in that scenario. I don't have any more of a problem with that than I do impact fees and stormwater management and everything else they are required to do.
In the article by Mark Fisher (Foreshadowing the rise and fall of the American empire?) "Worse, like the ancient Romans, a sense of entitlement has replaced the drive and motivation we once championed".
So it is now the noble political elite search through the ashes to find a reason the SQ 744went down in flames as the commoners want the school system to revert to education and less sports. Still we are the only super power in history that has been able of converting a tree into paper to be printed in assorted values, to claim it has a abstract value. This group of crazy nephews/nieces are tired of fancy building that issue diploma's to their children who cannot read the diploma.
Quote from: shadows on November 06, 2010, 03:44:42 PM
In the article by Mark Fisher (Foreshadowing the rise and fall of the American empire?) "Worse, like the ancient Romans, a sense of entitlement has replaced the drive and motivation we once championed".
So it is now the noble political elite search through the ashes to find a reason the SQ 744went down in flames as the commoners want the school system to revert to education and less sports. Still we are the only super power in history that has been able of converting a tree into paper to be printed in assorted values, to claim it has a abstract value. This group of crazy nephews/nieces are tired of fancy building that issue diploma's to their children who cannot read the diploma.
You're a poet.
Quote from: we vs us on November 06, 2010, 05:39:52 PM
You're a poet.
Didn't know it, either.
Doesn't act like they know much of anything.
Quote from: shadows on November 06, 2010, 03:44:42 PM
So it is now the noble political elite search through the ashes to find a reason the SQ 744went down in flames as the commoners want the school system to revert to education and less sports. Still we are the only super power in history that has been able of converting a tree into paper to be printed in assorted values, to claim it has a abstract value. This group of crazy nephews/nieces are tired of fancy building that issue diploma's to their children who cannot read the diploma.
Aren't you the same shadows who has repeatedly said he dropped out of elementary school?
Yet you call us the "noble political elite" for trying to improve schools for our children...
You also say that your nephews/nieces have diplomas but cannot read...
Color me surprised...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 06, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
Aren't you the same shadows who has repeatedly said he dropped out of elementary school?
Yet you call us the "noble political elite" for trying to improve schools for our children...
You also say that your nephews/nieces have diplomas but cannott read...
Color me surprised...
Every time I see a post by Shadows, during my reading of it my internal soundtrack is usually playing 'Dueling Banjos'...
To the original question; nothing - we won't do much different, just like we always do.
Since about 1/3 of us can't be bothered to finish high school, there remains the general impression that a 'bigger' number is better, so when we sit at 48 or 49 in education, that is thought to be great! We got 49 times the education of that poor sucker who only has 1 or 2!!
Heiro...Which one are you... ???
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jSuDzhHnf9A/TCEjBPlBdmI/AAAAAAAAAe0/slV9etDh-VE/s1600/TOM.jpg)
All of the above.
More of a realist, actually.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 06, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
Aren't you the same shadows who has repeatedly said he dropped out of elementary school?
Yet you call us the "noble political elite" for trying to improve schools for our children...
You also say that your nephews/nieces have diplomas but cannot read...
Color me surprised...
You got the wrong shadows. The one you are looking for is out trying to make it mandatory to collect all paper for recycling it in $20,00 bills since the only product needed is paper and a little ink. We already go the machines to do it. Ever person that is paid by government will support it. Course China is alarmed but they are buying our industries, property and utilities and the political elite is calling that equalizing the balance of trade. Send the autos to the crusher for China cause they have jobs and our steel mills closed several years ago. We have become the paper hanger of the world while the president dances through other countries.
A sectary of education made the made the statement that we issue some 600,000 diplomas to people each year, "That cannot read the damn diploma".
Jefferson started 7 year classes, we added it to eight and a diploma, then 12 years, now we are trying to add another 4 years of college that in the end will be the same as the eighth grade learning but look at the cost for extra teachers needed since 1920.
Shadows, you is one messed up dude.
Really, Shadows. Really? We should carry gold pieces, ignore the rest of the world and homeschool everyone. Would that do it?
On the evening new last night they were comparing private salaries to government salaries. Their conclusion was the cost of salaries from 2009 to the present has doubled. One cannot name a superpower in the last 2500 years who has not failed as more and higher salaries are to be paid by the working poor. SQ 744 was shot down because an addition to a debt, that cannot be paid, with bogus money. Remember the paper currency of the south nation become worthless after their defeat. In the once superpowers in central and south America, they used color strings with knots in them to show individual balance of payment. Gold was so available that it was used for ornaments.
The "tea party" is gaining strength each day in order to bring some sanity to another spend superpower. It is not the building nor the ability of the teachers that has created the dilemma as we no longer are a world producer but instead the world debtor. I have a $ 50 dollar gold piece issued by an off shore island when gold was pegged a $20 dollars an ounce. Figure up how many of the promise me notes this 2.5 ounces of gold is worth today.
But we will find the money for our patriotic children who fall victim to the "pill" or the abortion clinic's that could have made up the fighting forces to protect our right of choice.
Quote from: shadows on November 11, 2010, 09:23:36 PM
On the evening new last night they were comparing private salaries to government salaries. Their conclusion was the cost of salaries from 2009 to the present has doubled. One cannot name a superpower in the last 2500 years who has not failed as more and higher salaries are to be paid by the working poor. SQ 744 was shot down because an addition to a debt, that cannot be paid, with bogus money. Remember the paper currency of the south nation become worthless after their defeat. In the once superpowers in central and south America, they used color strings with knots in them to show individual balance of payment. Gold was so available that it was used for ornaments.
The "tea party" is gaining strength each day in order to bring some sanity to another spend superpower. It is not the building nor the ability of the teachers that has created the dilemma as we no longer are a world producer but instead the world debtor. I have a $ 50 dollar gold piece issued by an off shore island when gold was pegged a $20 dollars an ounce. Figure up how many of the promise me notes this 2.5 ounces of gold is worth today.
But we will find the money for our patriotic children who fall victim to the "pill" or the abortion clinic's that could have made up the fighting forces to protect our right of choice.
Yeah, the 'conclusion' was made by Scott Brown and his fellow tea-partiers. Rand Paul parroted this point. Guess what?
Incorrect.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/03/scott-brown/politifact-debut-brown-says-federal-jobs-pay-twice/
Step away from the teabags.
Correct, the homogenious statement that gov't employees earn twice as much as counterparts in the private sector is not true in all cases nor as an average. However, in many cases they do out-ern their peers plus they get a pension AND social security retirement benefits, something most non-union civilians don't have.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 09:47:55 PM
Correct, the homogenious statement that gov't employees earn twice as much as counterparts in the private sector is not true in all cases nor as an average. However, in many cases they do out-ern their peers plus they get a pension AND social security retirement benefits, something most non-union civilians don't have.
In some cases they might out-earn their peers. Folks in IT certainly don't, and auditors don't, but I'm not going to generalize that experience to everyone. They do get a much better pension than I get (zip), and about the same as my SO, AIUI. Yes, her company has a pension plan in addition to their 401(k) matching. You go get a graduate degree, work crappy hours, and get a difficult-to-obtain license from the government and you can get a pension, too!
The main difference is that in government, even non-professional positions get the benefits, whereas in private industry, that's becoming less and less common. But they still have to contend with usually being paid less than their private sector counterparts, although there tends to be less overtime involved in government jobs.
Interesting dichotomy Nathan. Along with manufacturing jobs going overseas, so has the great benefit of pensions. We are trading up to more technical jobs yet our workers are trading off more secure retirements for more $ today and the risk of their retirement evaporating entirely if their 401k tanks and Social Security dries up.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 11:05:02 PM
Interesting dichotomy Nathan. Along with manufacturing jobs going overseas, so has the great benefit of pensions. We are trading up to more technical jobs yet our workers are trading off more secure retirements for more $ today and the risk of their retirement evaporating entirely if their 401k tanks and Social Security dries up.
Yeah, people think of government jobs as necessarily cushy, but they're not in many ways. If you have a brain, they can be maddening. Perhaps the benefits seem better today than they were in the past, but that's due to deterioration of working conditions for people in the private sector, not because government workers have been getting a bunch more money or anything. They've just been better at keeping what they had.
That's not to say that we don't waste plenty of money on the government payroll, after all, we still have Thousands Standing Around, but that's just as much a problem in the private sector. How many of us can say with a straight face there's no dead weight in our workplaces unless we own the business? :P
You've actually hit upon one of the most striking changes caused by the financial crisis. There are (reportedly, I haven't seen the data myself) a lot more contractors and self employed folks than there were a few years ago. The meager benefits they were getting before are now completely gone for a lot of folks.
Honestly, I think companies jettisoned most of their dead wood and floaters (and I don't mean balsa wood). The days of "stroking a check" are pretty much over in private industry. Private companies cannot afford to keep unproductive people on the payroll, especially right now in a period of stagnant to slow economic growth. The government operates under a different set of rules: profitability is not and has never been a concern. Government agencies can justify their existence simply because they say they are essential, or if they have enough protection in the legislative or executive branch.
BTW- love how you sneaked in the euphemism for TSA, clever!
Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. I work almost exclusively for very small businesses, and even they have folks who don't really pull their weight. The reason they stick around? They're better than nothing. In the larger businesses I deal with, incompetence and flat out refusal to do anything is depressingly common. You'd think that they'd have laid off the low performers, but instead they laid off the more expensive, better performing, employees. Why lay off three people when you can lay off two instead and still get the same savings? :P
The industries my clients operate in are apparently full of morons.
Quote from: nathanm on November 12, 2010, 08:34:55 AM
The industries my clients operate in are apparently full of morons.
Should we use that statement to draw a conclusion about yourself? :P
Quote from: Conan71 on November 12, 2010, 10:28:48 AM
Should we use that statement to draw a conclusion about yourself? :P
If I was dumb enough to leave myself wide open like that, you probably should.
Quote from: nathanm on November 12, 2010, 11:32:23 AM
If I was dumb enough to leave myself wide open like that, you probably should.
Are you coming to lunch on Monday with us?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 12, 2010, 11:37:26 AM
Are you coming to lunch on Monday with us?
I know I'm not Nate, but I forgot about that. I think I'll try and make it, even though it is downtown...
Sounds like oil and airlines. My company is big and I don't see the 'slacker' approach very much at all. Like not.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 12, 2010, 11:37:26 AM
Are you coming to lunch on Monday with us?
If I manage to get back from Arkansas on Sunday, there's a possibility.
The TPS is mulling consolidation, imagine that:
"TULSA, Okla. -- The Tulsa Public Schools board is considering a proposal that Superintendent Keith Ballard says could lead to consolidation within the district.
Ballard says the goal of "Project Schoolhouse" is to determine how the district can more efficiently use its money and facilities. He says the issue has to be deal with because the district's financial resources are shrinking because of state funding shortfalls.
He told the Tulsa World the district has already downsized its teaching force and that the smallest schools were hit the hardest as a result. Ballard says he does not know how many Tulsa schools might be closed.
The district now has 41,224 students housed in 90 schools.
Under the proposal, Ballard would present recommendations to the school board in March so that consolidation could be finished by fall 2011."
http://www.koco.com/news/25789284/detail.html
If I'm not mistaken, enrollment is approximately 1/2 what it was in 1980 with more facilities.
Of course this comes at the expense of the most sacred of political cows: public education. However, it's proof that if you finally tell government you can't have any more money and actually you have to make do with less, they will find a way to survive, much as we've all had to do the last couple of years.
Cut down on vandalism and save electricity by replacing the prison-yard floodlighting with motion detectors.
Just because every school district that has tried it has succeeded doesnt mean that TPS should try... ::)
So many little things we could be doing that could add up, yet we seem to want one big huge panacea.
http://www.culpeperschools.org/FECBA-R3.pdf
http://www.willis.com/Documents/Publications/Services/Pooling/Pooling_Bulletin_School_Security.pdf
http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/SANA/topics/170035
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2010, 01:13:27 PM
The TPS is mulling consolidation, imagine that:
"TULSA, Okla. -- The Tulsa Public Schools board is considering a proposal that Superintendent Keith Ballard says could lead to consolidation within the district.
Ballard says the goal of "Project Schoolhouse" is to determine how the district can more efficiently use its money and facilities. He says the issue has to be deal with because the district's financial resources are shrinking because of state funding shortfalls.
He told the Tulsa World the district has already downsized its teaching force and that the smallest schools were hit the hardest as a result. Ballard says he does not know how many Tulsa schools might be closed.
The district now has 41,224 students housed in 90 schools.
Under the proposal, Ballard would present recommendations to the school board in March so that consolidation could be finished by fall 2011."
http://www.koco.com/news/25789284/detail.html
If I'm not mistaken, enrollment is approximately 1/2 what it was in 1980 with more facilities.
Of course this comes at the expense of the most sacred of political cows: public education. However, it's proof that if you finally tell government you can't have any more money and actually you have to make do with less, they will find a way to survive, much as we've all had to do the last couple of years.
I'm not saying the some consolidation of schools is or isn't a good idea, but I question what is behind this. These articles are all very misleading. From what I have found TPS enrollment did peak in the 1960's at 85,000 students and did drop for years after that. But TPS closed a bunch of schools in the mid to late 1980s due to that drop. And since the 80s enrollment has been steady. TPS is actually a little larger than it was in 1989. In 1989 TPS had 41,000 students, today there are 41,300 students.
I get that some facilities are outdated and there could be some savings in consolidation. But why mislead people into what the situation facing schools is. These articles from multiple sources (which means it's TPS framing the argument) all make it sound like enrollment has been steadily dropping since the 1960s and that simply isn't true. Enrollment fell during a period 30-40 years ago that ended with a lot of schools being closed. But since those closings enrollment has been steady for the last 25 years.
Article from 1989 talking about a district with 41,000 students:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?no=subj&articleid=84998&archive=yes
Quote from: swake on November 22, 2010, 02:03:32 PM
I'm not saying the some consolidation of schools is or isn't a good idea, but I question what is behind this.
I think it is all money related. Yes, the amount of students has been stabilized, but the costs have not. There is a projected shortfall next year when Federal dollars go away.
I think the district is being pro-active and saying they need a plan to be more efficient with their limited dollars. Isn't that what we want all levels of government to do?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 02:43:36 PM
I think it is all money related. Yes, the amount of students has been stabilized, but the costs have not. There is a projected shortfall next year when Federal dollars go away.
I think the district is being pro-active and saying they need a plan to be more efficient with their limited dollars. Isn't that what we want all levels of government to do?
Some thinking needs to be adjusted as well. I've found it hard to get specific numbers listed in studies or I'm looking in the wrong area for some results. What I can find will mention improvement but does not quantify it. Studies I've managed to find claim minorities and K through 3 benefit most from reduced class sizes. Instead of mandating this throughout districts, why not target schools in predominately minority areas for smaller class sizes and programs in K-3 in elementary schools. It does stand to reason that in poorer areas, if parents are less likely to mentor their children, we should attempt to provide better mentorship and more individual attention. I can also buy the idea that children need more individual attention when they are learning basic skills which they will use throughout their educational careers.
For some reason we've tried to apply the smaller classroom model across the entire common education range and it's created a lot of inefficiency and expense.
One other intersting note is that HB 1017 sought to improve the quality of education in Oklahoma. It was claimed increased teacher's pay would help accomplish this goal. Over 19 years, we've almost doubled the average teacher's pay yet we claim to still have some of the worst results in the country. Can anyone else think of a private sector industry in Oklahoma where the average pay almost doubled in 19 years?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2010, 03:01:43 PM
Can anyone else think of a private sector industry in Oklahoma where the average pay almost doubled in 19 years?
The federal minimum wage was $3.37 in the summer of 1987 and is now $7.25. That is more than double in 23 years.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 03:49:40 PM
The federal minimum wage was $3.37 in the summer of 1987 and is now $7.25. That is more than double in 23 years.
. . .and if anything, the quality of my McRib has diminished!
It must be harder to find McAnimals these days.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 03:49:40 PM
The federal minimum wage was $3.37 in the summer of 1987 and is now $7.25. That is more than double in 23 years.
Minimum wage also stagnated at $3.35 from 1981 to 1990, it was accelerated, and needed to be. I also agree that teacher's pay needed to be more than it was in 1989 at an average of around $22K. I'm simply puzzled why it is, we've almost doubled it, yet that still seems to be one of the main excuses why our public education system in Oklahoma
sucks is lacking.
How about jobs which require a minimum of a bachelor's degree, same as teachers? I don't think as a whole baccalaureate holders doubled down the last 20 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2010, 04:15:04 PM
I'm simply puzzled why it is, we've almost doubled it, yet that still seems to be one of the main excuses why our public education system in Oklahoma sucks is lacking.
I don't believe I have ever used teacher pay to complain. I believe it is overall education spending that holds us back. I want better technology in our schools. Our PTA buys the computers for my children's schools. We parents hawk wrapping paper and over-priced chocolate to our co-workers so our schools can have enough computers for a class at a time.
I also love the smart boards our PTA bought. They are super tools in education today. I also support more arts and physical fitness programs in our schools. Many elementary schools share a PE teacher with another school.
Misdirection.
Minimum wage went up about 50% for 25 years. (1983 to 2008). Then another 30% since then.
And the real, adjusted rate peaked in 1968. In 2010 dollars, it was the equivalent of $10.10. Or another 30% raise from today.
So, US corporations have not only been the beneficiaries of massive increases in worker productivity - the largest in the world for decades - but have also been given a windfall of a true reduction in labor rates of about 30%. No wonder all those CEO's are so rich!
But somehow it is all the fault of the UAW! Riiiigggggghhhhhtttttt!
And the Murdochian Warp and Lie Machine just keeps on rolling!! (Think 'Locomotive Breath' by Jethro Tull.)
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 05:48:23 PM
I don't believe I have ever used teacher pay to complain. I believe it is overall education spending that holds us back. I want better technology in our schools. Our PTA buys the computers for my children's schools. We parents hawk wrapping paper and over-priced chocolate to our co-workers so our schools can have enough computers for a class at a time.
I also love the smart boards our PTA bought. They are super tools in education today. I also support more arts and physical fitness programs in our schools. Many elementary schools share a PE teacher with another school.
I never thought the chocolate was over-priced ;)
You might not have complained about teacher pay, but it's usually one of the first solutions suggested when problems in education come up in conversation. It's also heavily used to promote bills like HB 1017 and SQ 744. HB 1017 was a pretty responsible piece of legislation and did bring up our standards as well as provide accountability and demand results.
Looking at the breakdown of funding mechanisms since it went into affect it's disappointing to see that gaming/tobacco compacts and corporate taxes have amounted to a little less than 10% of total reciepts:
20 YEARS OF REVENUES
Personal income tax: $3.37 billion
Corporate income tax: $728.45 million
Sales tax: $2.89 billion
Use tax: $206.36 million
Other voter approved contributions (tribal gaming, tobacco, horse track, license tags, estate and gas taxes): $5.14 million
Total: $7.7 billion
http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions-early/14319339-1.html
More than anything I'm disappointed that tobacco and gaming have not contributed more. I have a sinking suspicion we could have had a whole lot more funding collected for various state needs if it were not for the explosion of casinos over the last ten or so years. It's stifled sales tax revenue as every dollar spent at the casinos costs the state 4.5 cents in lost sales tax revenue. Far as I know, the tribes do not pay a penny in sales tax on goods they use in the casinos.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 23, 2010, 07:56:55 AM
I never thought the chocolate was over-priced ;)
You might not have complained about teacher pay, but it's usually one of the first solutions suggested when problems in education come up in conversation. It's also heavily used to promote bills like HB 1017 and SQ 744. HB 1017 was a pretty responsible piece of legislation and did bring up our standards as well as provide accountability and demand results.
Looking at the breakdown of funding mechanisms since it went into affect it's disappointing to see that gaming/tobacco compacts and corporate taxes have amounted to a little less than 10% of total reciepts:
20 YEARS OF REVENUES
Personal income tax: $3.37 billion
Corporate income tax: $728.45 million
Sales tax: $2.89 billion
Use tax: $206.36 million
Other voter approved contributions (tribal gaming, tobacco, horse track, license tags, estate and gas taxes): $5.14 million
Total: $7.7 billion
http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions-early/14319339-1.html
More than anything I'm disappointed that tobacco and gaming have not contributed more. I have a sinking suspicion we could have had a whole lot more funding collected for various state needs if it were not for the explosion of casinos over the last ten or so years. It's stifled sales tax revenue as every dollar spent at the casinos costs the state 4.5 cents in lost sales tax revenue. Far as I know, the tribes do not pay a penny in sales tax on goods they use in the casinos.
Conan, where does the money go that's spent at a casino?
The money must go to KS, MO, AR, TX, NM, and CO. ;D
Quote from: swake on November 23, 2010, 08:11:37 AM
Conan, where does the money go that's spent at a casino?
A portion goes to payroll which does eventually find it's way back into the local economy. A portion goes to vendors, which to my knowledge do not collect sales tax from casinos, and a portion goes out of state to gaming companies.
I'm glad you brought this up as it did make me dig a little deeper to see if there's some sort of breakdown on gaming revenues, and I was rather surprised at what I found. I'm always willing to admit (begrudgingly) when I'm
wrong er mistaken.
On the state level, based on 4.5% sales tax on $2.9 bln, that's roughly $130mm. The state recieved $118mm in revenue from the gaming pacts, so that's a net loss of $12mm to the state, which isn't as bad as I thought. However, local communities lose property tax and their share of the sales tax, except for what finds it's way back into the community via consumption by casino employees.
I can see the good in Indian gaming as well. It can also be argued that tribes have contributed to tourism. Tribal members have by-and-large been plagued by poverty for years. Gaming has taken pressure off federally-funded programs as tribes have become more self-sufficient in terms of housing, healthcare, and the overall welfare of their members. But saying there's no drain on the sales tax base nor some societal problems as a result of Indian gaming would be an absolute falsehood.
Oklahoma revenues from Indian gaming have skyrocketed, bringing a record $118.2 million to state coffers.
BY RANDY ELLIS Oklahoman 40 Published: August 15, 2010
State revenues from Indian gaming have soared in recent years, largely due to the success of casinos operated by the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee nations.
Oklahoma Indian tribes paid the state a record $118.2 million in gaming fees during fiscal year 2010, which ended June 30.
Following is a breakdown of the fees paid by 30 tribes:
• Absentee Shawnee: $278,389
• Apache: $336,199
• Cherokee Nation: $12,208,042
• Cheyenne-Arapaho: $2,850,210
• Chickasaw Nation: $33,330,424
• Choctaw Nation: $22,753,832
• Citizen Potawatomi: $5,499,238
• Comanche Nation: $2,277,850
• Delaware Nation: $374,534
• Eastern Shawnee Tribe: $1,453,270
• Fort Sill Apache: $1,461,604
• Iowa: $1,141,585
• Kaw Nation: $394,152
• Kickapoo: $895,422
• Kiowa Tribe: $2,314,546
• Miami Tribe: $343,742
• Muscogee (Creek): $8,635,061
• Osage: $4,858,438
• Otoe-Missouria: $5,051,242
• Ottawa: $196,563
• Pawnee: $267,580
• Peoria: $470,940
• Quapaw Tribe: $5,706,714
• Sac and Fox: $1,050,365
• Seminole: $250,537
• Seneca Cayuga: $601,761
• Thlopthlocco Tribal Town: $12,116
• Tonkawa: $2,451,375
• Wichita & Affiliated: $309,075
• Wyandotte: $436,897
Combined, the three tribes are responsible for 58 percent of the record $118.2 million in gaming fees paid to the state last fiscal year by 30 Indian tribes, according to records obtained from the Office of State Finance.
The Chickasaw Nation paid the state $33.3 million, the Choctaw Nation paid $22.7 million and the Cherokee Nation paid $12.2 million.
The other 27 tribes, combined, paid the state about $50 million.
Together, the 30 tribes are responsible for boosting state revenues from Indian gaming 5,000 percent in six years as tribes have expanded their casino operations and shifted to more Las Vegas-style games.
Indian gaming has become a huge industry in Oklahoma, with tribes generating about $2.9 billion in 2008, according to the 2009-2010 edition of Casino City's Indian Gaming Industry Report, authored by California economist Alan Meister.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-indian-gaming-revenues-soar/article/3485404#ixzz167L6TkGE
Quote from: Conan71 on November 23, 2010, 09:04:59 AM
A portion goes to payroll which does eventually find it's way back into the local economy. A portion goes to vendors, which to my knowledge do not collect sales tax from casinos, and a portion goes out of state to gaming companies.
I'm glad you brought this up as it did make me dig a little deeper to see if there's some sort of breakdown on gaming revenues, and I was rather surprised at what I found. I'm always willing to admit (begrudgingly) when I'm wrong er mistaken.
On the state level, based on 4.5% sales tax on $2.9 bln, that's roughly $130mm. The state recieved $118mm in revenue from the gaming pacts, so that's a net loss of $12mm to the state, which isn't as bad as I thought. However, local communities lose property tax and their share of the sales tax, except for what finds it's way back into the community via consumption by casino employees.
I can see the good in Indian gaming as well. It can also be argued that tribes have contributed to tourism. Tribal members have by-and-large been plagued by poverty for years. Gaming has taken pressure off federally-funded programs as tribes have become more self-sufficient in terms of housing, healthcare, and the overall welfare of their members. But saying there's no drain on the sales tax base nor some societal problems as a result of Indian gaming would be an absolute falsehood.
Oklahoma revenues from Indian gaming have skyrocketed, bringing a record $118.2 million to state coffers.
BY RANDY ELLIS Oklahoman 40 Published: August 15, 2010
State revenues from Indian gaming have soared in recent years, largely due to the success of casinos operated by the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee nations.
Oklahoma Indian tribes paid the state a record $118.2 million in gaming fees during fiscal year 2010, which ended June 30.
Following is a breakdown of the fees paid by 30 tribes:
• Absentee Shawnee: $278,389
• Apache: $336,199
• Cherokee Nation: $12,208,042
• Cheyenne-Arapaho: $2,850,210
• Chickasaw Nation: $33,330,424
• Choctaw Nation: $22,753,832
• Citizen Potawatomi: $5,499,238
• Comanche Nation: $2,277,850
• Delaware Nation: $374,534
• Eastern Shawnee Tribe: $1,453,270
• Fort Sill Apache: $1,461,604
• Iowa: $1,141,585
• Kaw Nation: $394,152
• Kickapoo: $895,422
• Kiowa Tribe: $2,314,546
• Miami Tribe: $343,742
• Muscogee (Creek): $8,635,061
• Osage: $4,858,438
• Otoe-Missouria: $5,051,242
• Ottawa: $196,563
• Pawnee: $267,580
• Peoria: $470,940
• Quapaw Tribe: $5,706,714
• Sac and Fox: $1,050,365
• Seminole: $250,537
• Seneca Cayuga: $601,761
• Thlopthlocco Tribal Town: $12,116
• Tonkawa: $2,451,375
• Wichita & Affiliated: $309,075
• Wyandotte: $436,897
Combined, the three tribes are responsible for 58 percent of the record $118.2 million in gaming fees paid to the state last fiscal year by 30 Indian tribes, according to records obtained from the Office of State Finance.
The Chickasaw Nation paid the state $33.3 million, the Choctaw Nation paid $22.7 million and the Cherokee Nation paid $12.2 million.
The other 27 tribes, combined, paid the state about $50 million.
Together, the 30 tribes are responsible for boosting state revenues from Indian gaming 5,000 percent in six years as tribes have expanded their casino operations and shifted to more Las Vegas-style games.
Indian gaming has become a huge industry in Oklahoma, with tribes generating about $2.9 billion in 2008, according to the 2009-2010 edition of Casino City's Indian Gaming Industry Report, authored by California economist Alan Meister.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-indian-gaming-revenues-soar/article/3485404#ixzz167L6TkGE
About 25% of casino revenue goes to employee cost and directly back into the economy. Most of the vendor money is spent with local companies and goes back into the economy. All of the profit goes to the tribes and is spend locally back into the economy. $200 blown at a casino is far better for the local economy than $200 spent at Best Buy or other big box retailers with miniscule labor costs and nearly totally non local vendors/suppliers and where almost all profits go out of state. And those stores have exactly zero tourism draw from out of state so all dollars spent at those stores is from locals.
Even with the loss of some sales tax dollars casinos are far better for the local economy than any Wal-Mart Supercenter. They are certainly very harmful to certain individuals but I would argue that people with a tendency to blow too much money at a casino in the absence of a casino would find something to blow all their money on. A casino is an efficient vehicle to further these peoples problems, not the reason for their problems.
Powerball Lotto money goes where? If we take the higher education out of that and send it to the local middle and high schools would that be a start?
Quote from: TulsaMoon on November 29, 2010, 09:57:42 AM
Powerball Lotto money goes where? If we take the higher education out of that and send it to the local middle and high schools would that be a start?
Welcome aboard!
My original understanding from the marketing spree for getting the lottery was how it would help the kids. Was everyone else under the impression too it was going to elementary and secondary education?
Found this link. Seems that 45% K - 12 and 45% to higher education.
http://www.oklahomalottery.com/where-does-the-money-go.html
The Oklahoma Money Grab machine - the state legislature - takes each new idea, lottery for example, and determines how much will be coming in - say $100 million. Then they add that to the education pile of money, while at EXACTLY the same time diverting $100 million that WAS there back to the general fund.
Okies are sold the bill of goods with the explicit implication that the $100 million will be ADDED to what is already being spent. It is not. It replaces other monies that are now free to go back to the general fund.
Welcome TulsaMoon.
Yes. I like your idea of taking the 45cents of every losing powerball ticket away from Higher Ed and giving it to Common Ed (k-12).
I agree with conan...that is the impression we all have. It is money for the kids (whom I define as under 18 years of age.
The Higher Ed board of regents is like having the mafia as a partner. They get half of whatever you get, no matter how much or how little it is.
Tuition grants, loans and scholarships to citizens of this state to enable such citizens to attend colleges and universities located within this state, construction of educational facilities, capital outlay programs and technology for all levels of education, endowed chairs for professors at institutions and programs & personnel of the Oklahoma School for the Deaf and the Oklahoma School for the Blind.
Am I to understand that those items would come out of the general fund regardless of a lotto "donation"?
Just seems to me that we should not allow higher education a 45% piece of the pie. Yes I understand that certain class/race/whathaveyou stand a better chance of obtaining the funds to attend due to this, but it should dare I say must start with the K-12. I would like to see 80% K-12, 10% higher education, 10% Blind/Deaf schools.
Which brings us right back around to throwing money at it to fix the problem.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on November 29, 2010, 04:01:47 PM
Tuition grants, loans and scholarships to citizens of this state to enable such citizens to attend colleges and universities located within this state, construction of educational facilities, capital outlay programs and technology for all levels of education, endowed chairs for professors at institutions and programs & personnel of the Oklahoma School for the Deaf and the Oklahoma School for the Blind.
Am I to understand that those items would come out of the general fund regardless of a lotto "donation"?
Just seems to me that we should not allow higher education a 45% piece of the pie. Yes I understand that certain class/race/whathaveyou stand a better chance of obtaining the funds to attend due to this, but it should dare I say must start with the K-12. I would like to see 80% K-12, 10% higher education, 10% Blind/Deaf schools.
Which brings us right back around to throwing money at it to fix the problem.
All our educational institutions need to learn to spend their money a lot smarter and we need to get used to consolidation. Until SQ 744 came around, I had no clue we had so many higher ed facilities (or prisons) scattered around the state. Even amongst states with vast rural areas, we still have a fairly unusual number of schools per capita.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Until SQ 744 came around, I had no clue we had so many higher ed facilities (or prisons) scattered around the state.
Those were the points of my three weeks of rambling on the state question. Normally, I don't attack government employees or programs but I can't ignore the terrible job the state has in funding priorities.
The legislature loves higher ed spending because when they retire, many of them get jobs there.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 29, 2010, 06:01:36 PM
The legislature loves higher ed spending because when they retire, many of them get jobs there.
Boren **cough** **cough** Hargis **cough****cough**
Something of interest, I just got a call to perform in a survey on 744. Of course I was of the group that they already had a quota on so don't get to participate, but it seems they are trying to figure out why it failed, and looking to make another run at it.
Proof that higher per pupil spending wouldn't guarantee an improvement in the quality of education:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g
"Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can't Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest"
Quote from: Nik on February 22, 2011, 10:27:47 AM
"Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can't Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest"
Two-thirds of Oklahoma public school 8th graders answered with "What's 'read proficiently'?"
Quote from: Nik on February 22, 2011, 10:27:47 AM
Proof that higher per pupil spending wouldn't guarantee an improvement in the quality of education:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g
"Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can't Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest"
It's obvious that they didn't spend enough. Money fixes everything.
Nice selective use of one piece of information.
Did you happen to go to the actual Department of Education website? No. You just posted a story from a right wing blogger site.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Why look. Wisconsin is ahead of the national average in every category, including reading proficiency.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 22, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
Nice selective use of one piece of information.
Did you happen to go to the actual Department of Education website? No. You just posted a story from a right wing blogger site.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Why look. Wisconsin is ahead of the national average in every category, including reading proficiency.
I'm impressed with Milwaukee . They've had the longest running education voucher system in the country. The public schools score right up there with the private schools and they compete for students. Over 15,000 families choose vouchers to attend private schools. They are a model education system for the country!
I've leaned quite much about public school teachers, their unions, and now those that support both. You can count me out from supporting any effort every one of those persons/groups get behind to improve education. They are vile and disgusting.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 22, 2011, 12:00:36 PM
Nice selective use of one piece of information.
Did you happen to go to the actual Department of Education website? No. You just posted a story from a right wing blogger site.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Why look. Wisconsin is ahead of the national average in every category, including reading proficiency.
You didn't seem too interested in the metrics I presented from that site when we were talking about whether or not Oklahoma is spending enough on education.
(http://i.imgur.com/S29ap.jpg)
Since Q744 has failed that leaves the only source for the children to be brought up to the world standard of learning and will require limiting sports grossly. Once we have reached this goal we will be able to recognize why it was Germany who produced the V2 rockets, the buzz bombs and the jet airplanes. They lacked only the fuel to operate them. Then they were unable to remember the score in the last football game
Quote from: shadows on March 03, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
Since Q744 has failed that leaves the only source for the children to be brought up to the world standard of learning and will require limiting sports grossly. Once we have reached this goal we will be able to recognize why it was Germany who produced the V2 rockets, the buzz bombs and the jet airplanes. They lacked only the fuel to operate them. Then they were unable to remember the score in the last football game
Look. It's TNF's own Charlie Sheen!
Quote from: Breadburner on February 23, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/S29ap.jpg)
Is that real or photoshopped?
Quote from: guido911 on March 03, 2011, 04:10:36 PM
Is that real or photoshopped?
It appears that Hooked on Phonics worked for her.
Generally, when something is stuck in the foreground and it seems to good to be true, photoshop is to blame.
Per this lengthy and ongoing debate...
Oklahoma has tried skimping on education for a very long time. It has bought us high crime (which costs $), low wages (which lack money), a myriad of health problems (obesity and smoking are inverse to education and wage), and children consistently among the poorest educated in the industrialized world. In general, Oklahoma has uneducated people.
We have more people who didn't go to high school than people who have a graduate degree.
We have more people who dropped out of high school than those who graduated from college.
To pretend those statistics do not support or crowded prisons or low wages is unrealistic.
Also, there is a strong correlation between smart spending and results. Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it, but what we are doing now isn't working. We spend significantly less on education than Arkansas or New Mexico.
I'm open to plans. So far the best realistic idea I've had a chance to vote for is to throw money at the problem. And that's better than the status quo.
- - - - -
Per vouchers: I'd have no problem with vouchers under a couple criteria. 1) the program strips less money from public schools than the cost per pupil. That is to say, if the cost per pupil is $7000 the voucher is only for $5k, thereby enabling public education while making it easier for people to choose private education if they want. And 2), strict curriculum control of voucher schools. In Iowa private schools are often private schools that also have religious classes. In Oklahoma I've seen way too many religious institutions that also teach other stuff sometimes. If a school has a book called "American History for Christians" or "Science for Christ's Followers" it has no business getting public money (I've actually seen American History for Christians, which has epic lies about the good Christian founders of our nation... like Jefferson and Franklin).
Private schools CAN have quality education, but it is no guarantee of such.
Frankly, as long as parents are lazy and uneducated breaking the cycle is damn hard. Maybe 1/2 of learning can take place in a school.
/ramble
I wonder if Holland Hall would qualify as an acceptable school for vouchers under CF's criteria. This school does have a religious affiliation and I have seen the pre-K classes saying prayers before they eat. I wouldn't call it a "religious" school by any means though.
Up to a point, throwing money at the problem does help. The problem is that here in Oklahoma, when we throw money at the problem, the school boards often spend it unwisely, on things like gigantor football stadiums (believe me, I love me some football, and regularly defend college ball from haters) and incredibly expensive (and unproven) technology.
Regarding vouchers, the reason I'm generally against them is that a large part of what keeps education costs affordable is volume. If you dropped TPS' enrollment by a third, its cost per pupil would skyrocket because they (and every other school district) has high fixed costs.
Also, I've seen first hand that throwing money at the problem makes a big difference. Fayetteville Public Schools is one of the best districts in the State of Arkansas precisely because the residents of the district are willing to throw money at it. In smaller neighboring districts, they struggle because they don't have nearly 50 mills of property tax supporting the district, instead choosing the bare minimum required by state law.
I just think it's funny that people are willing to spend godawful amounts of money on frivolous things like foreign wars or throwing illegal aliens out, but are unwilling to invest in our future world dominance. If we continue to turn out a large proportion of dumbasses, we'll soon have even bigger dumbasses running the country than we do now. You think we can win an economic battle with China and the EU if our populace is uneducated?
And saying a prayer before meals sounds pretty strongly like religion to me. ;)
Nate:
So HH, one of the finest college preparatory schools in the state, would not qualify for receiving voucher money because their student's pray? You would deprive an underprivileged child a chance at real academic success because of that?
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2011, 12:27:29 PM
Nate:
So HH, one of the finest college preparatory schools in the state, would not qualify for receiving voucher money because their student's pray? You would deprive an underprivileged child a chance at real academic success because of that?
Would you be so quick to defend vouchers for an otherwise equal school but different religion? Let's pick the favorite, Islamic.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 05, 2011, 12:32:21 PM
Would you be so quick to defend vouchers for an otherwise equal school but different religion? Let's pick the favorite, Islamic.
That's an intriguing question. Since I am really unsure what other religious attributes HH has, especially since it has a large Jewish student population, it's hard to answer. What would the Islamic school be doing from a religious point of view?
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2011, 12:36:21 PM
That's an intriguing question. Since I am really unsure what other religious attributes HH has, especially since it has a large Jewish student population, it's hard to answer. What would the Islamic school be doing from a religious point of view?
I was thinking about prayers 5 times a day. I don't know whether HH teaches Christianity but if it does, then the same concepts for any other religiously affiliated school. As I have said in other threads, I don't mind teaching about a religion. I just don't want my public tax dollars teaching a religion. As I remember, my childhood friends that went to Catholic school were being taught how to be good Catholics. OK, just not on my dollar.
HH would probably pass my test. If they accepted vouchers I think they would have to give kids/parents the option of skipping religious classes. Otherwise in places like Tulsa thw voucher program would come with the caveat that your child be indoctrinated in Christianity.
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. We had muslims, jews, and other non catholics. 95% of the time religion did not come up; it did not effect the math curriculum, chemistry, science, history etc. Teachers would on occasion answer questions about how x or y doesn't match the bible (or have a priest or whoever do so), but nothing was withheld or changed because of religion. Even in sex ed they taught about birth control while emphasizing abstinance.
The non catholics had the option of participating and giving their view in our religion classes, going to our weekly services - or doing another approved curriculum.
The problem with a fundamentalist religion getting public money to teach is that they must teach from the bible/koran or whatever. If their book and science conflict, the book wins. And that's not education - its religion. Since public money can't be used to encourage religion...
Hence, that's the biggest issue with vouchers in tulsa.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2011, 09:07:43 AM
HH would probably pass my test. If they accepted vouchers I think they would have to give kids/parents the option of skipping religious classes. Otherwise in places like Tulsa thw voucher program would come with the caveat that your child be indoctrinated in Christianity.
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. We had muslims, jews, and other non catholics. 95% of the time religion did not come up; it did not effect the math curriculum, chemistry, science, history etc. Teachers would on occasion answer questions about how x or y doesn't match the bible (or have a priest or whoever do so), but nothing was withheld or changed because of religion. Even in sex ed they taught about birth control while emphasizing abstinance.
The non catholics had the option of participating and giving their view in our religion classes, going to our weekly services - or doing another approved curriculum.
The problem with a fundamentalist religion getting public money to teach is that they must teach from the bible/koran or whatever. If their book and science conflict, the book wins. And that's not education - its religion. Since public money can't be used to encourage religion...
Hence, that's the biggest issue with vouchers in tulsa.
In fairness to this discussion, here is a link to HH's page relating to its "Episcopal" identity.
http://www.hollandhall.org/about/school-profile/episcopal-identity-community-service/
I am not Episcopalian, rather I am Roman Catholic. I have never seen anything remotely offensive or threatening about the religion aspect at HH.
Interesting how Guido would say, "I wouldn't call it a "religious" school by any means though." Even when the school bills itself as an Episcopalian preparatory school. A lot like saying Oral Roberts University isn't a religious school.
Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? And how now days we so arrogantly look down on "self made" men and women who had those 8th grade educations thinking we are so much better because we finished high school? Well at least some of us finished high school....
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run.'
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000.. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
[Do we even know what this is??]
1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks
and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each..
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.
Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.
Gives the saying 'he only had an 8th grade education' a whole new meaning, doesn't it?!
Also shows you how poor our education system has become. And how we CAN challenge our kids just a little bit more.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2011, 09:07:43 AM
HH would probably pass my test. If they accepted vouchers I think they would have to give kids/parents the option of skipping religious classes. Otherwise in places like Tulsa thw voucher program would come with the caveat that your child be indoctrinated in Christianity.
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. We had muslims, jews, and other non catholics. 95% of the time religion did not come up; it did not effect the math curriculum, chemistry, science, history etc. Teachers would on occasion answer questions about how x or y doesn't match the bible (or have a priest or whoever do so), but nothing was withheld or changed because of religion. Even in sex ed they taught about birth control while emphasizing abstinance.
The non catholics had the option of participating and giving their view in our religion classes, going to our weekly services - or doing another approved curriculum.
The problem with a fundamentalist religion getting public money to teach is that they must teach from the bible/koran or whatever. If their book and science conflict, the book wins. And that's not education - its religion. Since public money can't be used to encourage religion...
Hence, that's the biggest issue with vouchers in tulsa.
Sounds pretty much like my experience at Cascia Hall. Non-Catholics were not required to take religion classes, though I did take a survey of world religions class as an elective. Aside from developmental psych, probably the most interesting course I ever took in HS or college. We were required to assemble in the chapel every morning for announcements, the pledge, and morning prayer.
If schools sponsored by churches were excluded from accepting vouchers, I believe that would remove all about three or four of them from the list in the Tulsa area.
Based on what heiron posted, I just learned that the University of Tulsa, where I graduated, is a religious school because of its affiliation with the Presbyterian church.
Nice try, but no cigar.
TU specifically says they are "The University of Tulsa is a private, non-sectarian institution that is formally related to the Presbyterian Church (USA) by a mutually articulated covenant with the Synod of the Sun."
HH specifically says, right under their name, "an independent college preparatory Episcopal school".
Sectarian versus non.
Hey! How about that! I graduated there, too!! (TU, not Holland Hall)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 07, 2011, 01:16:08 PM
Nice try, but no cigar.
TU specifically says they are "The University of Tulsa is a private, non-sectarian institution that is formally related to the Presbyterian Church (USA) by a mutually articulated covenant with the Synod of the Sun."
HH specifically says, right under their name, "an independent college preparatory Episcopal school".
Sectarian versus non.
Hey! How about that! I graduated there, too!! (TU, not Holland Hall)
And I'm telling you that as a parent of two at HH that I see very little "religion" there. Any other TNF folks have kids there with a thought rooted in actual knowledge?
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2011, 12:27:29 PM
Nate:
So HH, one of the finest college preparatory schools in the state, would not qualify for receiving voucher money because their student's pray? You would deprive an underprivileged child a chance at real academic success because of that?
If prayer and/or religious education (think Sunday School as opposed to Comparative Religious Studies) is required of all students, then yes, I would indeed deprive Holland Hall of state funds to enroll children were I King. If the religion is optional (as I understand it to be at TU), that's perfectly fine by me. Note that I don't speak for the ACLU. ;)
Perhaps they have decided that religious beliefs are an intensely personal decision that should not be rammed down someones throat. I applaud HH! I have had friends in the past who went there (70s) and they were good people who got a decent education. I hope your kids do well! And only give you a minimum of teen grief! (Absolutely no irony, satire, or sarcasm here at all - only truth.)
Quote from: guido911 on March 07, 2011, 01:25:56 PM
And I'm telling you that as a parent of two at HH that I see very little "religion" there. Any other TNF folks have kids there with a thought rooted in actual knowledge?
I went to HH until 8th grade. I did have Father Taylor for English. Don't remember much religion being taught? About half of the kids were Jewish anyway, so I doubt you could classify it as a Christian school.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 08, 2011, 01:40:20 PM
I went to HH until 8th grade. I did have Father Taylor for English. Don't remember much religion being taught? About half of the kids were Jewish anyway, so I doubt you could classify it as a Christian school.
There were numerous Bar and Bat Mitzvah parties last year that my child attended.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 08, 2011, 01:40:20 PM
I went to HH until 8th grade. I did have Father Taylor for English. Don't remember much religion being taught? About half of the kids were Jewish anyway, so I doubt you could classify it as a Christian school.
I hadn't thought of him for years. I went to HH K and 1st. There were a couple of others I remember serving in the EC when I was growing up.
Supreme Court clears way for tax credits for private school scholarships.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/04/tax-credits-for-religious-school-scholarships-ruled-constitutional/
Wondering if I can create the "Guido911 Scholarship" and award it to my children each year. ;D
Hey, it's your buddies writing the tax law, so why not??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2011, 12:16:52 PM
Hey, it's your buddies writing the tax law, so why not??
Can I expect a donation to my scholarship fund?
Sure...when you pay me that consulting fee for saving you $300,000 per year...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2011, 09:04:36 PM
Sure...when you pay me that consulting fee for saving you $300,000 per year...
Post of the year candidate. lol
That pretty well makes the whole point I have been getting at!
Thanks!
More changes coming it seems.
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday providing tax subsidies for private school scholarships.
Proponents of Sentate Bill 969 say it provides a way out of ineffective schools for poor students.
The legislation allows up to $3.5 million a year in tax credits for contributions to a fund providing up to $5,000 scholarships to private schools. Scholarship recipients must either meet certain low-income standards or reside in attendance districts of schools on the state's need-improvement.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20110426_336_0_OKLAHO311994
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
More changes coming it seems.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20110426_336_0_OKLAHO311994
So we are going to reward people who made bad decisions on where they live?
Quote from: swake on April 26, 2011, 01:17:32 PM
So we are going to reward people who made bad decisions on where they live?
I think it is more about educating children that have zero choice on where they live.
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 02:16:57 PM
I think it is more about educating children that have zero choice on where they live.
Now you are coming around.
And yet another example of how wonderful public education is.
Quote"APS is run like the mob," one teacher told investigators, saying she cheated because she feared retaliation if she didn't.
The voluminous report names 178 educators, including 38 principals, as participants in cheating. More than 80 confessed. The investigators said they confirmed cheating in 44 of 56 schools they examined.
The investigators conducted more than 2,100 interviews and examined more than 800,000 documents in what is likely the most wide-ranging investigation into test-cheating in a public school district ever conducted in United States history.
The findings fly in the face of years of denials from Atlanta administrators. The investigators re-examined the state's erasure analysis — which they said proved to be valid and reliable — and sought to lay to rest district leaders' numerous excuses for the suspicious scores.
http://www.ajc.com/news/investigation-into-aps-cheating-1001375.html
And whatever credibility those surveys rating the quality of each state's education are in the toilet. This sort of academic fraud could be widespread.
Yeah, those for-profit schools would never resort to such tactics.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
Yeah, those for-profit schools would never resort to such tactics.
Yes...Because they certainly need too.... ::)
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
Yeah, those for-profit schools would never resort to such tactics.
Let's talk about it then. I'll start with "this fraud was committed using innocent taxpayers money that funds public schools" point. And I goggled "private school teachers cheating test scores", and here's what hit:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1025&bih=431&q=private+school+cheating+teachers&btnG=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=cyz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&source=hp&q=private+school+teachers+cheating+test+scores&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1ec92a21f3882047&biw=1025&bih=431
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
Yeah, those for-profit schools would never resort to such tactics.
Most private schools are not for profit.
Quote from: ZYX on July 07, 2011, 09:18:22 PM
Most private schools are not for profit.
I think Nate was referring to private schools in general since I took issue with public schools in general.
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 02:16:57 PM
I think it is more about educating children that have zero choice on where they live.
More like zero choice on where they can send their children to school!
It will continue to be that way. Sad. :-[
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2011, 08:41:48 AM
More like zero choice on where they can send their children to school!
It will continue to be that way. Sad. :-[
If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do.
If your not a good parent, A. There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway) B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.
I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school. It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed. It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most. IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference. If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well. Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc. Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have? We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here. It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.
But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.
Artist,
Exactly!!
Quote from: TheArtist on July 08, 2011, 09:57:11 AM
If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do.
If your not a good parent, A. There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway) B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.
I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school. It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed. It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most. IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference. If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well. Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc. Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have? We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here. It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.
But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.
Certainly can't disagree with that logic. Unfortunately we have a society of parents that no longer make the sacrifice necessary to be
parents. At 7:30 am the kids go to daycare, then to school, then to daycare, and finally home just a few hours before bed.
The primary adult aside from the teacher these days is a person paid just over minimum wage to keep a pack of kids alive until their parents pick them up. The village is raising the child.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 08, 2011, 09:57:11 AM
If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do.
If your not a good parent, A. There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway) B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.
I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school. It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed. It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most. IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference. If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well. Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc. Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have? We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here. It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.
But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.
Have you attended or sent kids to a private school?
Quote from: guido911 on July 08, 2011, 01:13:50 PM
Have you attended or sent kids to a private school?
No. I went to a lot of different Tulsa schools as a kid. Went to high school in Owasso. Was a good school with some good teachers, but also some not so good teachers. One of my science classes for instance was taught by a coach. It was his first year teaching this class. I would read the chapter and know more than he did. At one point I raised my hand and asked him to allow me to explain something that another student had asked and that he was unsure of. After that there were many days when he would let me get up and teach the class lol. I could tell that he wasnt interested in the subject and would have rather have been off doing other things while me being a science nerd jumped at the chance to get up and yack about zoology for an hour lol. My mom was a geology professor so perhaps thats where I got it from. But anyway, ya get the book, all the kids got the book and could take it home. Whether you even have a teacher or not, if you do your job and study the material, you will learn it and pass the test. In the best scenario the teachers will help you, but regardless its up to the parents to make you. For the most part those kids in my class were determined to pass the classes and do very well with their SAT's, ASVAB's etc. so they could go to a good college. Good teachers or not, they were going to do well because they were expected to from home. They were going to volunteer, learn languages, win awards, get the best grades, get the best summer jobs they could, help little old ladies across the street... whatever it took to fluff up their resumes so they could go out and conquer the world. You think they mostly got that from the school?
I do remember one shy kid who sat next to me in my senior english class. My guess was that he was one of the poor country kids originally from the area, not one of us new kids whose families had just moved to a fancy new home in the suburbs. One time he was asked to read a few paragraphs. He barely made it through as he really struggled to slooowly, agonizingly sound out each word. He was never asked to read outloud again. I felt so bad for him. And I think it struck me because he also happened to look a lot like me as well, someone had actually asked us if we were brothers once. There but by the grace of God... I still wonder what happened to him. I hope he is well. He somehow passed and graduated, but in all honesty he shouldn't have. The school failed him? (we all failed him) What if most of the students had been like him in this "great and wonderful Owasso" public school? How would their test scores and rankings have been then?
The trick is for those kids without good parents or from unfortunate circumstances, the school has to step in and do things differently than you might find in a "traditional" school, even a traditional private school. Things either have to be different or extra, or both. Things as in, teaching methods, discipline, school structure, the curriculum and how it is taught, counciling, etc. You could take all of that from a wonderfully successful private or public, middle/upper middle class school,,, plop all of it down in the middle of an area full of "nontraditional" students,,, and it would likely do poorly, unless it changed to meet the different needs of those particular students. Yes change can require more money, but money alone will not ensure change, nor the right kind of change.
What you are saying Artist makes a lot of sense as a practical matter. In my experience with private schools, particularly the really pricey ones, the family has made up its mind that their child's education is important. Now, there are those families send their kids to these places for other reasons perhaps.
If a child goes to a school, yes a good parent can make sure that the child succeeds, but if the school doesn't have the resources to do their part it becomes that much harder. By your logic we might as well just close the schools and have all kids home school. If what the school has to offer doesn't matter, than why have them? And not all kids learn that way
Quote from: custosnox on July 08, 2011, 06:31:54 PM
If a child goes to a school, yes a good parent can make sure that the child succeeds, but if the school doesn't have the resources to do their part it becomes that much harder. By your logic we might as well just close the schools and have all kids home school. If what the school has to offer doesn't matter, than why have them? And not all kids learn that way
Are you speaking to me? Because all I want for all of our country's kids is to get them the best education possible so they can have the best shot at succeeding. I am on record in here as being pro school choice for that reason alone. It really saddens me to see our children left in a failing school because of parental apathy or their family's financial situation. Neither of those two factors (of perhaps many) are within a child's power to fix.
I travel abroad quite often. Three years ago while in Jamaica I got a real eye-opener on what third world poverty looks like, but the children there were in uniform at school trying to learn.
Quote from: guido911 on July 08, 2011, 07:30:17 PM
Are you speaking to me? Because all I want for all of our country's kids is to get them the best education possible so they can have the best shot at succeeding. I am on record in here as being pro school choice for that reason alone. It really saddens me to see our children left in a failing school because of parental apathy or their family's financial situation. Neither of those two factors (of perhaps many) are within a child's power to fix.
I travel abroad quite often. Three years ago while in Jamaica I got a real eye-opener on what third world poverty looks like, but the children there were in uniform at school trying to learn.
Sorry, was on my phone responding so didn't make it clear (and kind of skipped the quoting part). Was responding to Artist.
Artist, what you are saying is mostly true, but that logic is not always correct. Parents play an important role in education, but students do not learn as well with a bad teacher as they would with an excellent teacher. I have had several bad teachers (won't name people but I desperately wish I could) and I did not learn nearly as much in their classes because there was no motivation too. Nobody tries too hard to please someone who is too stuck up in theirself to care. [end certain past teacher rant] A teacher that cares makes a much more comfortable and easy learning environment. Teachers are EXTREMELY important, and hiring great ones, is also extremely important.
I don't want to imply that schools make no difference, its that the schools need to fit the demographics, be appropriate for the students especially when we are talking about troubled or "nontraditional" students (sorry I wish I had a better word).
Yes good teachers can indeed make a difference, but they too must have skills tailored to specific demographics.
One size does not fit all. More money alone will not ensure an appropriate fit. Choice alone will not ensure an appropriate fit. There will still be a large swath of students that will not get their needs met.
Lets say we go with school choice. I am not completely against it. Its my opinion that ultimately it would cost more. Partly because A. I don't think as many students as one might hope would end up at the right school. B. I don't think that the new schools would be the right fit for a majority of those "difficult, nontraditional, etc." students. And if they were set up to cater to those students, why couldn't you have gotten the original school to have catered to them (thus ending up with paying for 2 schools that arent the best fit)? Again, one size will not fit all and I don't think the schools that would pop up would necessarily have the right programs to take care of the all the variety of demographics we see around the city. Would one intentionally arise on its own that would cater to those kids? Why don't we make the schools we have fit those kids? Schools will have to continually evolve as demographics change. What worked the best at one time, will not always work the best forever. The best teacher in one situation, will not be the best in another.
We can look around the city and see that different areas have different demographics with specific needs. Perhaps you need teachers that can speak and deal students and parents who speak a second language in one for instance. A teacher who would be super good in one environment will not neccesarily be the best in another. Why not tailor the school and its teachers to its areas demographic?
"Certain" students really need a more specific environment.
"Others" can get by in even mediocre ones. (though yes thrive in a good school with good teachers that fit them)
Those "certain" students would not thrive as well as they could in the "others" school if that school does not cater to the "certain" students needs.
Hope you could follow all that, its early for me lol.
Your attitude is good Artist. Especially for a guy with no children having gone through the system. And I don't fault anyone for sending their kids to a private school if they can afford it and if its for the right reasons. Guido points that out and its rare for me to agree with him. But if you are sending your kid to private school so he can grow up with the "right" associations and make good connections for later life then you should reconsider. That usually produces well connected, successful, narrow minded adults who know how to drink well and hire their friends for key positions. It insulates them from the rest of the population. Just my opinion.
Neither great parents or Private school per se is the key to a good education though. Too many variables to pick just those two. Anyone know any grads of the local, now defunct, Mrs. Simpson's School? It was private, located in a prestigious hood with small class sizes etc. and had no better success rate than the public school nearby.
Artist, there are employees of TPS whose only purpose is to help those students who learn in different ways. They work to assist those students whose demographics don't match the core of the school they attend. However, because of poor funding there are few of them. I know one of them. Unfortunately, she is usually placed in the schools that are already doing well. Administratively, that assures the success of the position.
Public schools are seriously harmed by the notorious failures of systems like Atlanta and high profile failures like LA and New York. It is a mistake to think that all public schools are in the same mess. No system public or private has all good teachers, uniformly good programs with leadership to match. Parental involvement in both systems is sketchy. I would ask you to remember your college experience with poor quality grad students who were teaching some of the survey courses or elective courses. True in Stanford as well as North Texas State. The serious, the talented, the bright ones find a way to learn.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2011, 01:10:34 PM
Certainly can't disagree with that logic. Unfortunately we have a society of parents that no longer make the sacrifice necessary to be parents. At 7:30 am the kids go to daycare, then to school, then to daycare, and finally home just a few hours before bed.
The primary adult aside from the teacher these days is a person paid just over minimum wage to keep a pack of kids alive until their parents pick them up. The village is raising the child.
That would be one of the costs of having most families earning two incomes.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2011, 09:02:01 PM
That would be one of the costs of having most families earning two incomes.
Yep!
We thought about it, but then decided to just live in a smaller house and drive older cars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/305395/thumbs/r-EDUCATION-RANKINGS-large570.jpg)
Arkansas better than OK. Man, that hurts.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 11, 2011, 01:15:13 PM
Arkansas better than OK. Man, that hurts.
Like I wrote earlier, ever since that Atlanta teacher cheating scandal was discovered, I will never trust another attempt to compare state to state education quality. Hell, Georgia ranks higher than Oklahoma? For all we know, the fact that we are "blue" could mean Oklahoma is the most honest state.
It's like a competition on who sucks the least. This survey is only related to science and engineering.
When it comms to spellin and talkin real good, were the tops!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 11, 2011, 04:30:05 PM
It's like a competition on who sucks the least. This survey is only related to science and engineering.
When it comms to spellin and talkin real good, were the tops!
And if those stats have any validity, does anyone wonder why I am tired of feeding the public education beast as it exists now?
Oklahoma as the most honest state!
Wow! That paints a picture! Just when I lose all hope in guido, he comes up with something SO laughable that it just makes my day!
*chuckles*
Oklahoma... honest state.... LOL,LOL,LOL.... gotta laugh....
*more chuckles*
I love it!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2011, 09:53:45 PM
Oklahoma as the most honest state!
Wow! That paints a picture! Just when I lose all hope in guido, he comes up with something SO laughable that it just makes my day!
*chuckles*
Oklahoma... honest state.... LOL,LOL,LOL.... gotta laugh....
*more chuckles*
I love it!!
Most honest, or most unable to get away with cheating?
It gets away with plenty of cheating. Sadly.
Quote from: custosnox on July 11, 2011, 10:01:18 PM
Most honest, or most unable to get away with cheating?
Thanks for getting my point. Heiron is plainly losing it and may be on an aox watch.
Quote from: guido911 on July 12, 2011, 01:43:53 PM
Thanks for getting my point. Heiron is plainly losing it and may be on an aox watch.
REMINDER! Abnormal is the new normal.
Ahhh...how tragically hip!
Irony, right?? Yeah...I thought so...
No more free school bus rides--at least in one North Texas town. Awww.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/07/18/north-texas-students-may-have-to-pay-to-ride-school-bus/
I loved the point that one student lived a whopping two miles from a school.
It sucks to be one of the states followed up with "Why should we help them?". As in, "Oklahoma? Pfffft. Why should we help them?"
Oklahoma loses out in Race to the Top funding
QuoteWASHINGTON – For the third time, Oklahoma came up short Friday in the Obama administration's competition for school reform funds.
This round of Race to the Top funding was focused on early learning, and the state's record in that area was expected to give it a boost.
Tulsan George Kaiser made that point last May when he joined Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Washington, D.C., event to roll out the latest round of the competition.
The program was giving away $500 million in this round, and Oklahoma was competing for $60 million for early childhood education.
On Friday, Duncan and Sebelius announced the nine winners: California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20111216_19_0_WASHIN264266
Judging by where they rated on the map, it looks like only two states, CA and NC were below average in the rankings. The others were at or above average. How do those states rank in red/blue colors? Maybe that was the real criteria. Or maybe it had something to do with the combative nature of our State Superintendent Janet Barresi?
It's a bit older, but this is what one police officer's idea is as to what to do with common education:
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
It's a bit older, but this is what one police officer's idea is as to what to do with common education:
Guido just loves that dark side stuff....
I should have put that video in the Gov. Walker thread, because that is sort of what the Wisconsin electorate did to the teachers' union after the recall fail...
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2012, 07:38:12 PM
I should have put that video in the Gov. Walker thread, because that is sort of what the Wisconsin electorate did to the teachers' union after the recall fail...
I'm not sure why you think that stealing is amusing. I suspect you would have been cheering Walker on if he decided to take 10% of last year's cash pay directly out of their bank accounts, too.
Slapping a cop is always a good idea. Well, maybe not. I need a translation of whatever they were saying.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 09:25:38 PM
Slapping a cop is always a good idea. Well, maybe not. I need a translation of whatever they were saying.
The translation is at the youtube link.