The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

So, I started reading about SQ 744 to see how I'm going to vote on it. For those who don't know, SQ 744 calls for a state constitution amendment that would require the state's education budget the match the per pupil average for neighboring states.

The text of the question is as follows:


Relevant websites:
http://www.nosq744.com
http://www.yeson744.com


I have a quick question. Can somebody tell me the percentage of the budget that these neighboring states spend on "common schools" (pre-k through 12th)? I'm curious about this fact. So far, this isn't looking like a thought out proposition.

I would rather see it written as "the individual school districts per pupil reimbursement rate set to the regional state average, so long as the total amount is no more than X% of the projected state income."

A little o/t, but I think important. Below is a link to all the ballot initiatives for this election cycle. I can only assume it's accurate.

http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2010/07/oklahoma-state-questions-in-2010.html

Wow, that list is strong evidence of a paranoid streak in our state.

The sentiment is good, but we need to figure out where the funding is going to come from.
Maybe if we cut back on air support for OBNDD's annual fall pot harvest...   ;)

I am voting for state question 744.

I figure my comments will get me in trouble with many in the community so I may delete this post in the future.

All the power players in the state government are against it, including the Governor, the department heads of highways, agriculture, and prisons. Chamber of commerces and the major universities all oppose it as well. All the "haves" are against it. That alone should make others look more closely at why.

Here are some of the reasons why I support state question 744...

1) Oklahoma is 49th in education funding and last in the region. 49th. We have been this bad for some time. The legislature has proven year after year that they are fine with being 49th.

2) Oklahoma continues to fund other crap at ridiculous levels. Prison funding has tripled in the last 15 years. We are now number one in female prisoners per capita and number four overall. We are now at 650 inmates per 100,000 people. We now have state run correctional facilities in Altus, Ardmore, Beaver, Elk City, Enid, Frederick, Healdton, Hobart, Hollis, Idabel, Lawton, Lexington,  Mangum, Muskogee, Sayre, Walters, Waurika and more than two dozen others. Why do we fund so many?

3) Of course, we also fund higher Education at similar levels. Higher Ed has a budget this year of one billion and 70 million dollars. They also charge tuition, but require over $350 per person this year in state subsidy. My family of four is paying $1,400 and they still refuse to put a four year campus in the second largest city.

4) The question says that the legislature has three years to find a way to fund the increase in prek through 12th grade . The question only brings us up to the regional average. What is so wrong about expecting nothing less than average?

I just don't trust the legislature to ever do the right thing. I want to have one area in their job that they have to fund at an average level.

More later...

RM, you bring up some compelling points. Don't delete them, they are worthy of consideration. My problem with the bill is we fund a lot of administration and infrastructure (ie facilities, buses, etc) at the expense of teachers.  I'd like to see a comprehensive audit prior to asking for more money from the tax payers. I'd like to see that before any more significant funding increases for any government service for that matter.

I know how you must feel. I have been up for days, sweating and shaking, waiting for you, the all powerful and influential RM, to weigh in. /sarc

I think 744 is full of good intentions that won't necessarily get the desired results.  

The entire education system in Oklahoma needs a good shake down, from the top down.  But even reworking the system won't do anything if we don't have financing in place to cover the costs.  This is in no way the full answer to getting education in Oklahoma to an acceptable level, but it is a start.  Now the SQ that I worry about is 754.  I still need to sit down and read this one, but supposedly it not only would negate 744 (provided it is voted in) but could not be repealed or amended.

You hide behind a fake name...people do know who I am. It is not that I think I am all that influential, but I do get yelled at for my comments on TulsaNow.

The sweating and shaking you have been feeling...it is a new feeling? Probably your conscience...

I do not disagree.

I agree completely.

I agree with the audit.  The intension may be good, however there is nothing in this bill specifying where the money will go or how it would be spent.  As for the "average" argument, there are other factors that apply.  We currently spend about $7,000 per primary/secondary student per year.  The national average is about $10,000 (as of 2007).

Many factors affect this number.  Our cost of living/food/transportation/construction materials/energy are significantly lower than other parts of the country.  These and other factors have a large impact on the "Cost" of education.

The most alarming thing is that the "Cost" associated with primary/secondary education has increased reliably every year, but the quality has not.  I think I would rather see legislation that attaches funding to standards.  Just like in the private sector, capital should be related to performance.  To simply continue to throw money at a problem without any associated measurement of success is the same thing we've been doing for years, and will produce the same result.

This is not a well thought out bill, it's a "hey lets spend like the Texas, and everything will be OK!" bill.  The bill sets forth NO provisions for accountability as not to limit the ability of the Education Oversight Board to spend the money as they wish respective of administrative cap limits.  The alarming thing, is that if you skim the YES744 website, the site is written to look like the bill offers accountability measures, however if you actually analyze the language you find phrases like "Here are is a list of accountability measures that could be funded properly if SQ 744 passes:. . ." followed by a bold list of accountabilities that exist NOWHERE in the actual legislation.

While the idea SOUNDS good, the plan does not exist.  It's another "Underpants Gnome" piece of legislation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Gnomes_plan.png)

Phase 1: Legislation
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Victory

If you are not familiar with "Underpants Gnomes," it's a reference to a Southpark episode illustrating the development of a poor business model.  This bill simply attaches money to success without making any determination of what that money will be used for.  This is dumb. That's really all I can say about it.

Of course the cost has increased. Buildings get older and require more maintenance, new ones have to be built, and inflation makes everything more expensive. Is there anything in your life, other than electronics, that has decreased in cost as time goes on?

I agree that it's flawed and I likely will vote against the amendment, but that's because I have an aversion to enshrining spending in the state Constitution, as I mentioned previously.

Also note that the audit idea that's kicking around, while a good one, will further increase the cost since we'll have to pay for that also.

I liked some of the causal relationships RM made in his post.  Think about it: we have amongst the highest per capita prison populations but some of the lowest education spending in the country- possible relationship?  But, I feel as a nation we are getting "money lazy".  For some reason the logic has become that money will fix every single problem and it's just not so.  Invent another spending bill and performance and morale will improve.  Life doesn't work that way.

I still maintain the biggest part of this problem has less to do about money that isn't getting spent in the education system, it's about a pattern of apathy in our state toward education which leads to poor outcomes and a pattern of inefficiency which happens when the public sector gets bloated.  You can throw money at it until the world looks level, but if the community and families aren't behind the students, there's simply never going to be real improvement in our results.

I can see some logic for wanting a bill like this, but until we can identify ways to make education more efficient by doing some unpopular things like merging more rural school districts and coming up with a size standard over a given square mile area to better serve communities, we don't need to throw more money at it.  Figure out which layers of administration are unnecessary, end programs which don't contribute to the overall educational experience if there are any (I believe the arts and athletics are an important part of the scholastic experience).  Find ways to improve transportation and better manage energy demand on schools (i.e. gas & electric).  Attach performance standards to teachers and quit protecting the bad ones with tenure so we can afford the best and brightest teachers who care about their job.  In addition, communities can step up with more volunteerism to help maintain schools and give time in helping teachers as volunteer aides and in tutoring/mentoring programs.

Also the nature of: "Let's use the standards of our neighbors to set our own" seems a bit arbitrary to me, especially when we don't have the funding to begin with.  We have got to figure out ways to cut spending on failed and/or inefficient programs and initiatives before we invent new ways to blow more money.  It's hard work and it's painful in some cases, but we can't keep on coming up with unsustainable government spending programs.

The audit doesn't necessarily have to cost more.  There's more than enough administrators both in the state education department and in the various school districts who could perform this function, especially if it were mandated by law.  I do realize you are going to have superintendents who want to protect their own little fiefdom and might skew results.  It's very possible to do this, it's simply making people do the job they were hired to do in the first place.

/edit to add: Public servants, elected or hired have a certain fiduciary responsiblity to those they serve: the tax payer.  Some have a bigger responsibility than others, but they all deal with publicly-owned assets.  It's unfortunate so many of them don't understand that.

I hide behind a fake name, really recyclemichael? As for getting yelled at a TNF, that was not what you posted. You were worried about how taking your position would be received by "many" in the "community". Time to dial back the "I am a very important person" switch.  ;D

I knew who recyclemichael was when I was when I was 15 and never even met the guy.  So yes, that passes for his name. 

We've been through the stage name thing before.  RM may have allowed his real name to be introduced but there are few who don't know his real name.

I think I've even seen write ups with that as his name. 

Last names are a modifier in addition to a first name to be able to differentiate people who may have the same first name.  Michael is obviously from the Scottish clan Recycle.  That way you don't get confused with ReduceMichael and ReuseMichael which were Irish clans.

An audit is pretty much worthless unless it's conducted by an independent organization. I'm of two minds on the independent audit requirement at the federal level: On the one hand, it gets a third party in there to look at the books and see that everything is being accounted for properly. On the other hand, it usually ends up being make work for the auditor, since opinions rarely get issued.

Also, what about RelaxMichael?

I really hate this, we are going to get more money but no specifics of how it will be used.  We need specifics on laws like this. At least that 95% is going to be passed to individual schools and not burned at some sort of Oklahoma DOE bon fire or something.

Just make sure they didn't go to public school.  We will be fine :D

I get your point, but we don't even demand much in the way of accountability out of administrators, bureaucrats, and even the people leaning on shovels.  Demand more accountability and require proven results or they go off the gov't teat.  On the issue of education, there's simple ways to measure performance- standardized test scores, graduation rates, GPA's, student population, teachers and administrators on payroll, and line-item budgets.

I don't want to make this thread about me because then guido will get all jealous again...

Back on the topic...

I realize that this bill puts our funding of one area of state government into the hands of the legislatures of other states. I cringe that non-Oklahomans could set our priorities on funding. I also feel there is a lot of waste in education funding, especially having hundreds of different school districts in the state.

My sister is a school principal in Florida and they have one district per county. We have Skiatook, Owasso, Sand Springs, Jenks, Bixby, Tulsa, Broken Arrow and Union. By the way, she used to teach in Oklahoma and left when she found out she could make 30% more in Florida.

I just want better schools and I want the state to fund them. I am tired of building highways to nowhere, prisons in every little town with an influential politician, and monuments to state agencies on Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City.

Doesn't the bill have a "or more" clause in it?  I know, I really need to take the time to read it.  But if it does, than that would be more along the lines of the surrounding states setting the bar, not setting the amount.  Granted, with the way Oklahoma is, they will rest right on that bar, but hey, at least the bar will be higher.

Honestly folks, I did not hi-jack RM's account this morning.

LOL.  I was ready to welcome him into the party.

If not this morning, when did you hi-jack his account?    ;D

I am glad you all sense the passion in my comments here. If I, an affirmed liberal who loves government can see there is a problem with state funding of schools, then maybe then others can understand. If you want to stop the out of control state government spending in all other areas, vote for this bill. If it takes away 5% or 10% of the funding from the other departments, they will be forced to look at their own wasteful spending.

Vote yes on state question 744 and tell the legislature to stop the out of control state government and fund our schools at the level we need so our students can compete.

Okay, I am getting scared now. Has anyone checked on the temperature in hell lately?

33F and dropping

This part is still liberal, not spending enough.  You're OK here.


This is the part where we think someone has a weapon to your head.   ;D

That or I was looking to see if they had a beer bash at the MET this morning, no evidence of that.  I better call his wife and have her check his meds.

I think there is really only one cure for what's ailing RM:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ml59PlBGnC0/R6NY3AOEAYI/AAAAAAAAC3s/brZbX2VCoXc/s400/nicholson.jpg)

That would be great if the numbers showed a direct correlation between student performance and per student funding, but it does not.  Many of the best funded districts have some of the worst student performance, and many of the lowest funded districts have excellent student performance.

It's cheaper and easier to teach kids that want to learn. I'm sure you can overlay poverty rates on that and find that poverty is a great driver in cost.

You would think so, and I'm sure that is a factor, but some of the poorest districts in states with the lowest spending actually show the highest performance.  For instance. . . North Dakota is 37th in spending, yet the kids are ranked 4th in the nation in reading and math.  North Dakota has an average income of about $47k per household.

Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut boast our highest average household incomes, but out of those states only Connecticut scores in the top 10 (at #10) for student performance and Maryland (with the highest average income at almost $70K) scores in the bottom 20 (not that much higher than Oklahoma).

It's not the "how much", but the "how" that is most important.  Throwing money at things is easy.  Changing "how" we do things is hard. 

I know that saying that throwing money at a problem doesn't work is a well-used catch phrase, but we have never actually tried it in education funding in Oklahoma. We have been 49th or so in funding kindergarten through 12th grade for a long, long time.

This question doesn't raise taxes. It just gives the legislature three years to fund education at the level they should have been doing all these years. Do we really want to continue to have stupider kids than Arkansas?

A no vote means that you are satisfied with the way Oklahoma spends its money. A yes vote changes everything and takes care of the children. How can any of you vote no?

Here's one way to vote no:

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGL3E3IE-RTEtgnhDdiGwQ9jBOzlkN4r9W0pFcvRO4VbmkNBc&t=1&usg=__LIHghtorNNsggHHxqWMn4Q3CIhI=) :D

RM,
You have made some good points but I'm afraid we part company here.  744 will guarantee we spend more money but I don't think it will guarantee better school performance.

You said earlier "I just want better schools and I want the state to fund them."  I agree.  I think public schools should provide an acceptable level of education.  I think the state should support higher level minimum standard.  Opening a new can of worms, do you believe local areas should be allowed to support local schools above the state minimum?  I do.  If not, why not jump another level and say the federal government should support all schools equally, perhaps with some adjustment for cost of living and eliminate state and local funding.  Wow does that ever sound efficient.

Whatever happened to Proposition 17 (I think) that we passed years ago.  It was supposed to be a cure all for the Public Schools and, as I remember, raised taxes to pay for it.

What!!! We have to send our ballots to California to be counted? 

I think we agree on more than we disagree. Thank you.

Yes. Spending more money doesn't always relate to better. We taxpayers need to make sure that the money is well spent. We should insist on reasonable oversight and sometimes needed audits on all levels of spending.

Our legislature needs to hear that we the voters have a different set of priorities this time. There are many problems, but I believe that good schools help solve many of the others. Businesses will relocate to states with better schools and bring jobs with them. Crime rates go down when the populace is better educated. Higher education will have students better prepared to succeed in college.

I also know that this forum is filled with people who are voting no ( and many of you always vote no). I also see how many of the people and organizations I respect helping to fund the no campaign. My only hope is that some of you agree with me and give our public schools a chance.

Remember, this bill doesn't put unreasonable demands on state funding. It only funds it to the regional average.  

No, a no vote means that I don't think that spending should be enshrined in the state Constitution. Look where that sort of thing has gotten California! I am all for increased school funding, I just think the benefits are outweighed by the inflexibility inherent in a Constitutional amendment.

Moreover, our state tends to be countercyclical, so when other states are running out of money, we tend to not be, and vice versa. Using the surrounding states to set the bar seems unwise in that situation.

Obviously, the current situation is unsustainable. Districts like Jenks, who have mostly new buildings, requiring less maintenance and having a lower operating cost, can dedicate more funds to the actual educational programs. Districts like Tulsa, who are saddled with ancient buildings that need constant maintenance and have a higher cost just to keep the school building open can't dedicate as much to salaries, books, and the like.

I love your passion but the above phrase is not correct. 

A no vote means that we continue to be DISSATISFIED with the way Oklahoma spends OUR money.  A yes vote changes nothing when the sponsors offer no provisions on how the money is spent.

I am all for increasing funding for education, if legislation is offered with reasonable guidelines as to how the money is to be spent.  Is that so hard? 

Reward teachers that teach better.  Reward schools for higher test scores.  Reward improvement, innovation, and success.  I will fund performance.  I will not subsidize failure in the spirit of "taking care of the children."

Actually, a quick Google search reveals starting salary for a teacher in the Jenks system to be $3000 less than TPS.  Jenks and TPS both list their "average" teacher pay in the $38K range.  Tulsa also pays up to $409 a month for health insurance coverage which I'm also assuming would be average.  TPS may well have more layers of administration and support due to their buildings being spread out over a much larger area.

Jenks' building inventory is largely made up of facilities which are 20+ years old.  Aside from the PAC, some stadium improvements and additions to the Frank Herald Gym, the bulk of the main HS campus was there when I started 6th grade at Jenks 33 years ago. 

http://www.tulsaschools.org/depts/hr/cb/payteach.shtm

While a reasonable premise on your part, you fail to recognize that our suburban schools tend to have a very high parental participation rate in the educational process.

That's actually an interesting topic in itself.  I recently attended my daughter's back to school night at Jenks.  I was impressed to see that every parent for every child was there.  Both the father and the mother.  There was only one child who's father did not attend, and that was because he was fighting in Afghanistan.

Every father signed up for one of the "Donuts With Dads" breakfasts where you come in with donuts and read to the kids.  The wife of the soldier said that her husband would be interested in participating too, so we arranged for him to attend via webcam for his "Donuts With Dads" day.

Two things impressed me.  The first was the total lack of single parent families.  The second was that every father attended, even though it was a chore to get from the office, to the house, and then to the school in time.  It was a diverse group with quite a few non-English speaking parents, fast food workers, a mechanic and a few suits. 

I was also impressed with the technology in my daughter's class room.  A big-screen touch-screen monitor has replaced the chalk-board giving the teacher the ability to write, and control multimedia presentations from the screen.  My daughter at one point went to the board and wrote her name on the screen with her finger.  The teacher could then slide her written name to a side of the screen and make room for the next student.  I had no idea there was this type of technology available in the first grade.

Last week I went to lunch with my daughter in the cafeteria.  At every little table there were at least two or three moms or dads who had stopped by to have lunch with their kids.  I was amazed and very pleased at the amount of interaction between parents, kids, and teachers. 

Money is no substitute for responsibility.  I recall parents being very involved in the process at Barnard Elementary as well as Jenks and Cascia Hall.  Until you can figure out the magic elixir to get rid of apathy amongst students and their families, you could throw $10 bln more at education in Oklahoma and still not see a marked improvement in results.

Most of my classmates at Barnard have gone on to very successful careers in business, medicine, the law, investments, banking, etrepreneurship.  Some have become important business leaders, civic leaders, and even politicians.  I can say the same for my contemporaries at Jenks and Cascia.  I could also tell you the names of most of the most successful kid's parents simply because they were the baseball coaches, den mothers, classroom volunteers, or were regularly working on school events.

I have a great idea. We can fix this with one word.
                       "LOTTERY"

They have actually had these smart boards at Eugene Fields since they built the new building.  I haven't seen them an many other TPS schools though.  They are a great peice of technology to have in the class room

We do need more parental involvment in the schools.  The majority of the time in districts like TPS the parents only show up when the kid is in trouble, if they bother even then.  That involvment is very important.  Unless we can find a way to get parents to care, then we aren't going to get much out of them.  But the kids are what are important.  If we can't get the parents to be more involved, then the school needs to be in order to motivate these kids.  We can't just cut the kids adrift out of spite of their parents.

I agree with parental involvement making a difference. My wife is a home room mom and soccer coach and I coach the chess team. We also spend time every night helping/checking homework.

We can't vote on making parents involved in our schools. We can vote on getting proper funding and the vote is in four weeks. Oklahoma is 49th in per pupil funding. 49th.

This bill forces other state agencies to cut waste and gives our kids an equal playing field when competing for colleges and careers. Vote yes.

Arkansas spends 30% more per student than Oklahoma. Want to see the difference? Look at test scores.

Linky?

I wish more families were like yours, RM, you and Mrs. RM are raising some amazing kids.

RM, I am actually only speaking to the last line in your quote. I am on the board of Family and Children's Services and we are having a presentation on this issue later this month. At our last board meeting however our executive director commented on the potentially delitorious effect passsage of this bill could have on our (F&CS) budget. I am sure there are areas of waste that could be culled but I would suspect that it would be handled by an across the board type of action to alleviate having to actually go through a process to identify waste vs. needed expenditures. In this event, F&CS fears a significant cut to their operating budget. Sitting on the Finance committee of the board I can tell you that F&CS is one organization that the citicens of Tulsa and Northeast Oklahoma get a considerable amount of bang for their buck. DHS funding is vital for these services to continue. While the goal of the bill is admirable, the methods used to accomplish its goal appear to leave much to be desired.

BOKworker: I appreciate the work of Family and Children's services. Thank you for your service on their board. I didn't know that you had very much state funding. I looked up some past financials and only saw info on two state grants that represented 5% of the operating budget. Is that right?

To Conan: Thank you for your kind words about my children. We do have two good kids that work hard to maintain good grades. I am proud that both of them have always had straight A' s.

I just have an over-inflated sense of responsibility to raising kids. Maybe it is just crazy liberal talk but I have led my life and work toward helping. the ones who matter most to me; the young, the old, and the disabled. One of my favorite quotes that has influenced my life was made by Hubert H. Humphrey who said, "that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life – the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

There are other causes that my family and probably most of your families contribute to including ending homelessness, helping the mentally ill, and stopping domestic violence. I also see those as a responsibility for us.

Our state government needs to properly fund public schools for our children. Period. They have failed to do so and won't unless this bill passes.

I think the bill is well written and gives the legislature three years to figure out how to get to the average of our surrrounding states. Clearly, there are some groups that will need to make the case to political budget leaders that they can't afford to have their budget lowered. I think the legislature can do both and still find other areas to find savings.

So basically this becomes a mandatory reapportionment (and re-prioritization) of funds More or less by force. In some ways I like that, but I can see pit falls. This isn't terribly unlike what I wish the Feds would do: you have x $ to spend and you may not borrow a cent more nor raise tax rates, pick your priorities and fund them according to necessity.

I agree they have failed.  They have always failed.  They failed when they spend 1/2 as much per pupil and they are failing to an even grater extent now that they spend twice as much.  If this bill passes there is no mandate for how the money is to be spent.  There is no guidance in this bill.

This is not the bill that will improve our schools. . .In fact the word "Improve" appears neither in the text of the legislation or in the question posed to the voters.  From a PR standpoint, I would at least try to sneak in some phrase that implies the money will be used to "Improve" the quality of education. 

If anything, they should at least re-write it and hint at improving education.  This is not a Liberal vs Conservative thing.  Anyone can see that this bill lacks any reason to pass.

just an off the wall thought here, but since we can't exaclty punish bad parents, why not reward good parents?  Incentives to parents who attend conferences, have kids that do their homewhere, that have kids that have good grades and so forth, ect.

I completely agree. This question is about what the state of Oklahoma over funds and under funds.

I believe we over fund prisons, highways and universities. I believe we also continue to build monuments in OKC to house more and more state employees.

I want to send a message that Oklahoma school children are important.

Overfund highways??  Interesting idea.  Apparently have not actually ridden on a highway lately.
Plus the $2 billion in debt the turnpike authority has hanging over the roads.  With substandard turnpikes all around.

But they are supporting big oil in the state by slobbering a couple inches of asphalt around from time to time.

As opposed to rebuilding the roads.  Properly.

There are incentives now: raising productive, bright, and responsible humans is very gartifying and generally costs parents less in love ups down the road.

It's sad we even need to think of having to put artificial incentives out there as a motivator, but appreciate your point. What sort of incentives do you have in mind?

You are confusing road building with funding. ODOT last year spent over $38 million in administration costs, and $82 million in engineering and only $65 million in operations. Their budget for last year was $1.8 billion and Obama dollars was another $462 million last year. Look at what we got for the $2.3 billion. Crappy roads.

Department of Corrections has a budget $477 million ($50 per month for a family of four). Any wonder why we are fifth in the nation in prisoners per capita (and first in female incarceration)?

I believe we could find some savings to help fund our children's education.

I agree, a parent should be a good parent for the sake of raising a child properly, it's a shame so many do not anymore. 
About the only incentive I could think of was a tax credit.  I figure at the very least, a parent that is involved with their kids today will potentially save the taxpayers the cost of caring for that child later, rather it be through walfare or through prison.
Personally I think parents should be held responsible for their kids.  Whatever happened to the good ole days where if your kid kept skipping school the parent got fined, same if the kid was out causing trouble.

"Those parents must just be victims of their own poor upbringing, so we can't expect them to be good parents and certainly can't hold them accountable"  Where's one of those puke emoticons when you need it?

Ahh: (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/puke.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Isn't this post counter to your point? Throw money at ODOT? Fail. Throw money at prisons? Fail. Oh, but throw money at public schools, Win!

I don't know how our road funding compares to other states, but our prison funding is sky high in comparison to others, while our school funding is nearly the lowest in the nation.

I've never really understood why we have so many prisons in the state.  You think a state of our size could operate on five or six large facilities rather than 46 facilities.  That count includes institutions, community corrections centers, community work centers, and private facilities.  You can add nine halfway housese to the list as well.

Staffing via a count on Wiki lists about 4500 total DOC employees.  2800 are listed as "insitutional staff" which I assume means prison employees.  The rest serve varying posts in probation, medical, admin, etc.

Our larger school systems are much the same way.  In sprawling metro areas like Tulsa and OKC we've got huge administrative staffs, buses, many campuses, etc.  How could we better consolidate without setting off the alarm on teacher to student ratios?  What is considered "ideal" these days?

I believe at Barnard the average class size was 25 or so, at Jenks it was around 30, and at Cascia, I had a history class with less than 10 in it and no class I can remember as being larger than 20 or so.  I didn't find it any more difficult to learn in a larger class environment.

And over half the ODOT budget goes to counties - you know, those shining lights of integrity and honesty - around the states.

Two inches of asphalt at a time over every road in the state still leaves garbage.

Prison Guard Unions use law and order conservative politicians and victims’ rights groups to push legislation locking up more and more people for longer and longer prison terms in order to increase the size and power of the union under the guise of protecting the public.

We should be spending more on schools and cops to prevent crime, but it pays the union to lock up as many people as possible.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/26/359/29521

http://prisonlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/crime-victims-united-sues-california-over-early-release-plan/

Unions in bed with conservatives?  Say it ain't so!

Swake, sounds a little black helicoptery to me:

"Public Defender Dude, a practicing Public Defender in California with a great blog, has a new piece up on the grossly excessive political clout of the California Prison Guards' Union. He says the power of the Abu Ghraib guards pales by comparison.

In California, the prison industry is the fastest growing industry around. In fact, if you want to talk about pure political muscle, there is no lobby quite as strong as the prison lobby. Consider what the prison guard's union has helped to accomplish in the last 20 years. They have increased tenfold the number of inmates in prison, they have increased exponentially the number of prisons, they have backed numerous draconian laws to ensure that more and more people go to prison for longer and longer for doing less and less.


The prison union has done more than that, though. They have also leaned on politicians to ensure that only district attorneys are appointed as judges. In the administrations of Governors Duekmeijian and Wilson (16 years total from 1982-1998), and even Gray Davis, judges were overwhelming chosen from the District Attorney's office. Thus, the judiciary is filled with law enforcement, with an agenda of putting away as many people as possible, no matter how much we have to subvert the laws to do it.

We'd note that Colorado's Governor Owens has the same plan--appointing former prosecutors as judges, ignoring the criminal defense bar. Here's more from the Dude, but go read the whole thing:

The effect on Criminal law has been dramatic. Through the tyranny of a doctrine known as "harmless error," the California Courts have managed to uphold a startlingly high amount of death senteces, no matter how flawed (the Federal Courts of Appeal in the 9th Circuit has been reversing these rulings an equally startling rate recently). The main thrust of every opinion is this: sure he didn't get a fair trial, and his statement shouldn't have come in as evidence, and the DA shouldn't have been able to bring out the fact that he likes pornography, and the police did do an illegal search, and the defense lawyer was prevented from cross-examining the witnesses, and wholesale hearsay was allowed in without a proper ability to confront it, but hey, we know he's guilty, and those errors were harmless, now let's kill him already.

We now have a judiciary that makes Mississippi's look like Earl Warren. California used to be a shining light of example for the rest of the country, now we're sneered at. Courts in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and other deep south states used to affirm an abnormally high rate of death sentences, something like 60-70%. California's affirmance rate is in the high 90s. And so much of this is thanks to the prison guard's union (I'm sure any right wing readers will be dusting off their checkbooks at this point to mail a donation to this union - don't bother, they're doing just fine looting the treasury instead).

Here's the kicker:

In fact, an article today in the LA Times details to what extent the prison guard's union runs this state's prnal system. They choose wardens, they get paid so much money that no one wants to become a supervisor - they have to leave the guard's union and they make less money). They get so much sick time they don't know what to do with it, and now they no longer need doctor's notes when they are suspected of abusing it. Overtime costs have skyrocketed, their pay keeps going up higher than any other public employee, and if they are asked to work a shift due to someone else calling in sick, they get paid overtime, even if they have called in sick themselves.

It is a total scam, and yet, I am more scared of them than I am of anyone else, because if, God forbid, I ever got into their sights as someone they wanted to get, they could get me. Have me put into prison for some trumped up reason, and they can guarantee that you never walk out alive. Their power makes Abu Ghraib look tame by comparison.

Oklahoma Hospital Association against 744


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20101005_11_0_OKLAHO941838

I'm a "No" for other reasons.

I am not surprised when other agencies who recieve state funding are opposed to properly funding education. I do not know the merits of every agency.

I do agree that sending out a press release using the word "devastating" is meant to be a scare tactic.

Remember folks, all the surrounding states find enough money to fund roads, hospitals, etc. and still have enough money to pay for their children's education. If they can do it, so can Oklahoma...but it will only happen if you vote yes.

This is a chance to make the legislature fund education properly. Take charge and make them do it. A no vote allows them to fund less important things for political reasons.

Is there one other issue where Oklahoma is 49th in funding? Is there one other issue more important than our children's education?

Are you freakin serious? And get a grip.

good comeback.

Comeback to what? Your over the top, overreacting, freak out over education funding?

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NcVGxysPQJMZnM:http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/5/9/633774963280280015-Overreaction-t.jpg&t=1)

As for what's more important; I'll bite:

Finding good paying and permanent employment for the chronically unemployed
Feeding hungry children
Feeding hungry everybody
Finding safe and permanent housing for the homeless
Protecting innocent people from crime
Protecting children from abuse and sexual predators

Personal:
Ending abortion on demand
Ending the death penalty

You must know something we don't. 

I will vote YES if you can demonstrate how passage of this measure will "properly fund education."  I'm not asking for amounts or comparisons to other states.  I am asking for the important initiatives that are attached to this funding. . .the "properly" part. 

I've noticed that use of the term properly is the established talking point among the operatives sent out to push support of the measure, however they don't seem to be using the term. . .well. . .properly.  The term "Proper" when referring to such a subject matter as funding, would imply funding within strict limitations to produce an intended outcome.

We have not been presented any limitations outside of existing funding requirements, and they have made no attempt to establish any process for this money.  Basically there is no established goal, and no process to achieve it. My further analysis renders my previous reference to "Underpants Gnome Legislation" mute, because even the Underpants Gnomes had an established goal, be it a vague, Profit.

What improvements are to be made through this funding?
What metrics will be put in place to measure the success of proposed improvements?

I'm glad you mention streets and hospitals.  Funding for both requires research and the establishment of a clear set of initiatives to be achieved.  Performance measures are set in place and goals are clear and well understood. 

I think this is the first piece of proposed legislation I have ever seen that requests a significant shift in spending without offering ANY goal or measurement outside of a comparison to other markets.  More money to throw at the same problems without innovation, only serves to reward the same failure.

So. . . on the subject of "Proper" funding of education, I'm 100% in favor.  All they have to do is show me what they intend to spend the money on and what the goal is.  Even a vague goal is better than nothin!

Read this then:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/penology/news/Union%20Keeps%20Tight%20Rein%20on%20Prisons.htm

There was also a lengthy NPR bit on it as well that I can't find now.

We are #1 or near it in locking people up and just about last in school spending. That needs to be flipped. My father used to the Psychologist at McAlester, he said that even there, at Oklahoma's supermax prison (something most states don't even have) most inmates are there for drugs, and mostly for pot.

I remember something on NPR about bail bonds and how this practice should be abolished.  It would significantly decrease prison population.  The argument sounded reasonable.

Can you elaborate on that? As posted, it sounds as that after we arrest and charge someone with a crime (and I will qualify the remainder with "petty" crimes since it would be absurd to lump in capital/violent offenses) they should be released.

What is real common is that people get time for a relatively minor offense, dealing pot, burglary, what have you. They go to a medium security prison and do something stupid like get into a fight with a guard, or a fight with another inmate and someone gets hurt. They now are charged with a violent crime adding more time and moving them up the prison ladder. One of the guys at McAlester that my father dealt with was in one of those cells within a cell like from Silence of the Lambs, his original crime? Knocking the head off of a parking meter and stealing quarters. But after fights and escapes and running cons from inside of prison, he was treated like he was Hannibal Lecter and is now in prison for life. I’m sure it wasn’t his first offense, but we sent him to prison for stealing $8-10 bucks on a non violent crime and now are spending probably 60-70k per year at least in a supermax specialty prison cell for the rest of his life.

It was long and distinguished (insert pop culture joke here) but mostly it was about smaller time criminals (petty theft, pot) getting thrown in jail instead of being released on their own recognizance because a judge thought they would be able to bond out when they couldn't come up with the 10%.

If the bondsmen didn't exist, the judge would let them out until their court date. 

IOW, they'd be in jail until court, get fired from their job, lose their home, family, etc and never be able to pay their fines and go to jail.

An example was a contractor who was down on his luck and stole a $12 blanket on a cold night from a large retailer who prosecutes on every theft.  He'd been held for many months waiting on his hearing because he couldn't come up with the $300 bond he needed to get out.  If the bond system didn't exist he most likely would've been released and could work to pay his fines, pay for the blanket, etc.  Instead he was in jail waiting.  That was a very expensive blanket for him and the taxpayer.  The bondsmen are cool with it though.

My concerns about bail reform are flight risk and witness intimidation, which on their face are concerns about public safety. It would only take one of these incidents to undo any reform such as that apparently advocated by NPR.  Incidentally, I have personally observed several instances of petty offending pretrial detainees unable to make bail and wind up in a far worse situation--including one case where the detainee was killed. So, I do see Swake and Townsend's point.

Both articles cite California's prison system.  I have not found yet whether DOC guards are union or not.  If anything, I might lend credence to a decentralization of the system due to pet projects by legislators to get prisons built to help bring employment to struggling areas or to help the construction lobby.

Our priorities are interesting.  During the DA elections, people gripe about how Tim Harris is an impotent prosecutor because there's a revolving door of criminals in and out of the DL Moss and the DOC.  Then there's the other side of the coin when it comes to prisons eating up too much money which could go to education: we incarcerate far too many people.  It's also funny that communities don't want prisons on their front lawn, but they don't seem to mind the jobs they bring.

We can't have it both ways. Either we have less DOC funding and higher repeat crime rates, or vice versa (I'm not pointing a finger at you, this is simply a logical conversation to bring this up in).

If you were at my desk all day, you'd actually find it rather impossible to believe that we are only 49th in education spending in the US since one in about every three construction projects which come out on the construction trade wires are public school projects.  Everything from safe rooms, to heating and cooling upgrades, to performing arts centers, new classroom buildings, renovations of wings or entire schools, and stadiums.  There's a lot of construction money being spent on school districts.  Perhaps we need to quit funding PAC's, expensive energy overhaul programs, stadium improvements, etc and fund teachers instead.  Perhaps we should review an objective study on what is an acceptible class size for various grades and subjects and look at how we can consolidate facilities and classrooms.

One problem we do have is sprawl within agencies like DOC and our school systems and large administrations.  Perhaps this will become a lesson to those who don't blush at the thought of large government and how that can prevent us from funding the areas which really should matter.  We eat up a ton of money on administration in government, but they are usually good paying jobs so apparently that makes it even less important to people to cut the size of government.

Woops, maybe I should make clear that it was a story on NPR...I should've made that more clear.  My apologies.  I can't say NPR was supporting the position.  Just that the story was there.

This was my bad. I misread what you posted.

I am not freaking out. I am passionately writing about something I fell strongly about.

You have your personal issues, I have mine.

I respect your opinion despite your lack of respect for anyone else's.

Oh whatever RM. You are as big as a lefty bomb thrower as anyone else like you out there. Get over yourself...

You two have issues

You cannot be serious.  Talk about pot and kettle.  Jeez.

Guido a lefty bomb thrower?  I don't think so.

This is how it started on page one of this thread. Guido tries to belittle posters. He is a bully on this playground.

I will try to not comment on anything he says.

Here's the thing: Better educated people are less likely to turn to crime. Part of the reason we spend so much on prisons is that we refuse to spend enough on schools. Also, I don't really care if some guy gets rearrested for smoking pot after he gets released from jail after being arrested for smoking pot. Sure, it breeds contempt for the criminal justice system, but to be honest, as it presently is here in Oklahoma, it deserves contempt. Violent criminals need to be locked up, with rare exception. Nonviolent criminals probably don't.

Also, with the never ending creep of misdemeanors being turned into felonies, it makes it difficult to impossible for petty offenders to get their lives back on track.

Regarding school capital spending, at least in the case of new heating/cooling and other energy efficiency upgrades, that work helps, over the long term, to free up money for operating expenses, like teacher salaries. To some degree our schools and our roads are in similar situations. We've been dumping a relatively large amount of money into our roads the last couple of years and it's hardly made a dent due to the decades of deferred maintenance. So it goes with the schools. Dumping money on them won't change anything this year or next, but over the longer term it will put them in a better position to educate more of Oklahoma's children.

The key to both of these issues is eliminating poverty. Education is one of the best ways to do that. With education, the parents who many of you look down on for being uninvolved will be able to get better jobs and work few enough hours to support their family that they can get involved in their child's education. It's hard to do that after 14-16 hours a day on the job(s).

lol

  I will be voting No on this state question as well.  You all know that I am no arch conservative.  I want a better education system, and am willing to pay more for it, but frankly I am baffled and amazed that we are even being asked to vote on this, imo, absurd State Question.

    You can't just ask for more money and not give me some specifics as to what your going to do with it.  I need to know or have some reasonable feeling that what is going to happen with the money will make an effective, cost effective, best possible, positive, accountable, difference. If they can't tell me those things as a matter of course,,, it makes me worry that perhaps they don't have a plan for what they will be doing with the money?  Its for our schools?  Thats rather vague folks.  Helloooooo?   

   The incompetency of this state question is staggering and does not instill ANY confidence that they have what it takes to then be competent with any increase in funding.  I am just stunned and floored by this whole thing.  And frankly I am saddened and disheartened since this shows just how far things will have to evolve before we can do what needs to be done for our schools.

Wow.  How about lefty vs righty?  You guys amaze me sometimes.  Something about forest and trees now applies.

I believe everyone agrees that better educated people are less prone to crime, except for the "banksters" and Shrub's buddies at Enron, of course.  ;)

There's a misconception on energy efficiency programs- the payback can often be as long as ten years.  The total upgrade program Honeywell, JCI, Trane, Carrier, etc. market are based on 10 year paybacks.  Those programs involve lighting, building energy management systems, and HVAC equipment.  That's all great if the equipment doesn't require a heavy over-haul or replacement in 10 years and if it's still operating as efficiently as it was originally designed for and it's all been maintained properly.  Those are all scenarios that seldom play out as presented.  If natural gas were to remain at $8 to $10 per dekatherm, it's easy to show great paybacks, when it's staying in the $4.00 range, there's not much payback to be had, as electric rates will also trend with NG to an extent.

These companies regularly make changes to their BAS software and sensors.  There's a lot of obsolescence in these systems in a 10 year span.  As parts fail, you have to upgrade to the new platform.  These companies don't stay in business by selling one-off systems, they stay in business by creating customers for life.  I'm also quite well aware that school systems mostly only employ maintenance workers who have basic knowledge of mechanical systems, and the systems seldom get the regular PM's as recommended because those departments seem to be chronically under-staffed due to budget constraints.
Certainly there are energy savings to be had, but they are not as great as you think when you start looking at what the costs are to attain and maintain them.

Also, remember each principal and administrator in a school system has their own little fiefdom.  One is never willing to turn their budget money loose to another department if they don't need it.  Many school systems have "use it or lose it" budgeting.  If a department doesn't spend all their money one year, they lose what they don't spend.  I have literally seen stacks of flourescent tubes and 55 gallon drums of floor wax in school warehouses which won't be consumed in five years because a department head did an end of year spending spree with left-over funds instead of simply allowing those funds to go back to the general fund for re-distribution to where they might be needed.  Lower operating costs finding their way into hiring more teachers is actually a very hard trick.

I've worked with a lot of school districts over the last 16 years and seen a whole lot of waste and wasteful habits.  Something many citizens are not aware of is "use it or lose it" budgeting.  There's a lot of waste we pay for as a reult of that in so many different government agencies.

Conservatives and Liberals are always going to be at an impasse when it comes to how to improve education.  Liberals seem to think throwing money at a problem makes it better and conservatives assume many problems can be changed by altering people's behavior and emphasizing personal responsibility.  

I don't look down upon someone who is working two jobs, 16 hours a day.  There are plenty of kids having successful educational experiences in two income households or even where there's only one parent working two jobs.  Those children are getting a better view of work ethic and having that instilled in themselves.  The problem parents, for the most part, are the ones who are barely working one job, or none completely by choice or mired in drug and alcohol addiction.

/edit: And along the lines of what The Artist added: I heard ads from both sides on TV this morning over breakfast.  I'm amazed at the money being spent on this issue.  It's all about special interests fighting over YOUR tax dollars.  I too am entirely disturbed by making a constitutional amendment without so much as specific performance goals.  This was not too dissimilar to why I loathed the river tax plan.  They basically said: "Give us the money and we will know what to do with it.  Details are unimportant, just give us the money.  Trust us."

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Artist on this one.  It blows my mind they're not showing more information than "we'll get the money from other programs" to justify this.  I want more money for education but this is like the islands vote.  There's little to no information that I've seen to justify this.

I’ve seen new commercials since yesterday to justify the cost by stating something about “taking money from the corrupt and overpaid programs” or something like that.  I have a hard time believing that.

Why haven’t the backers been more forthcoming with what it’ll do or why it benefits us?  They need to do a better job selling it.

They are even pimping the little moppets in the "no" ads now.

Why even run a "No on 744" campaign? Just tell everyone "Vote Yes on 754"

Or even better "Vote Yes on 744 and 754"

I am really torn on this issue. For one, I do think that education at all levels is the most important thing that the state does. And I do think that the state’s spending is all out of whack with what the states priorities are, or what they should be. I also don’t trust that angry band of idiots we call a legislature to do anything more meaningful than pass crap like state questions banning Sharia law and English only.

That does not mean that there are not other important things that the state does, and that’s the problem. The state does wildly overspend on some things, like thousands of pointless jobs in Oklahoma City on Lincoln Drive, all these tiny directional college campuses, dozens of unneeded independent school districts and the seeming need to lockup people like we are part of Soviet Russia. I have this great impression that OTA and ODOT are these back holes for money designed to make certain companies rich instead of in the business of building roads. But there are lots of other places in the state the state does important work, in fact places where more money and more personnel is needed, not less.

I just don’t know, I like the idea of taking the funding of education out of the hands of a legislature that plainly has proven they really don’t care about education. But this doesn’t direct the money anywhere and doesn’t address systematic problems in education like too many school districts. And it says nothing about which services would be cut to pay for this. My guess is that the staffing levels at the capitol complex would take a budget hit long after budget items like health care or higher education.

This  bill only guarantees that we spend what the other states spent THREE YEARS AGO, and how sad is it that we don’t even come close to spending what lowly states like Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and New Mexico spent three years ago. But, getting to that meager level could really hurt other  important programs.

But my son has 28 kids in his class. 28th 4th grade kids in one class. That’s way too many.

I’m leaning yes, but I’m not convinced, that this is an issue really makes me want to reassess my living in Oklahoma.

Why is 28 kids too many if all the children are getting good grades?  What would be a more agreeable number and how do we determine that number? 

I'd posted earlier that's between the average classroom size I was used to between my time at TPS and Jenks and found I could get proper attention from the teachers when it was needed and that students weren't suffering.

We all want a Cadillac when it comes to government services, but we only want to pay a Chevrolet price for it and hope someone else will subsidize the cost of it.  I hope this is an awakening for those on this board who aren't as concerned about bloated, inefficient government.  We have got to get government sprawl under control.  The only way I know how is to toss out special interests who are making a ton off government and friendly legislation.  If you look on the registered list of lobbyists in the state of Oklahoma, it's a large list.  I'm curious why companies like AT&T have 18 registered lobbyists?  Why would the Kaiser Family Foundation need a lobbyist?

https://www.ok.gov/ethics/lobbyist/public_index.php

I heard on the radio that Fallin and Askins are both against 744.

I'm trying to remember. Did my parents have to kick this kind of crap around voting back in the day ?
Or is it I'm just happy that I blissfully didnt know or care.

When I went to school, back in the 80s at Jenks, I usually had about 30 kids per class. 

Class sizes seem to be much smaller than they were when I was in school.  My daughter's first grade class at Jenks is under 20, but it has one teacher, a "professional teaching assistant" and a "reading specialist" so I guess it's about 7 students per teacher if you count the extra "grown-ups."  A few days a week they also have a homeroom mom, so that brings the count down to about 5 Kpgu.

Oh. . .and I used to have to walk to school up-hill both ways in the winter with paper bags for shoes. 

You had paper bags?!?!?!

I just want to make it clear that I'm not a supporter of this amendment. I will probably vote no. I don't think spending should be enshrined in the Constitution, even if it's "for the children." I would love to see the legislature appropriate enough funds to get us closer to the national average for school spending, though.

There are a lot of non-mechanical things and low maintenance items that can significantly improve energy efficiency. Better insulation, better windows, and otherwise reducing the amount of conditioned air escaping makes an enormous difference just on its own. LED lighting could help reduce electric bills, and the list goes on. I agree that throwing out reasonably efficient mechanical systems that are otherwise in working order is rarely, if ever, a positive thing.

That is a good point, Nathan.  Better insulation and windows offer permanent cost savings on utilities.  Fortunately, a lot of that is standard in new buildings and most schools have already long since gone in and upgraded windows.

Yes, I went to Jenks, so they were from Petty's.

"I also know that this forum is filled with people who are voting no ( and many of you always vote no). I also see how many of the people and organizations I respect helping to fund the no campaign. My only hope is that some of you agree with me and give our public schools a chance."
posted by RM


Before I make up my mind...
Does the Chamber have a position on this issue?

At the risk of drifting, TPS could learn from other school districts and get rid of the expensive leased floodlights.  They are nothing but work lights for vandals and thieves (didnt prevent the theft of AC compressors this summer) and actually encourage kids to congregate on school property and do their mischief. 
Neighbors arent providing any useful "natural surveillance" because they are using blinds and drapes to combat the nuisance.
Campuses that are dark attract attention when someone is trespassing because their lights stand out, and neighbors are more likely to have drapes open to see them.

Sorry about the drift, but sometimes we needlessly spend money on "solutions" that arent, simply because we refuse to consider any other way.

All the Chambers, State and Local have come out against 744.  

I was at the Owasso Chamber monthly meeting today and they made it known on more than one occasion they were against 744.  

I am an Ambassador for the Owasso Chamber and at our last two Ambassador meetings it has been made very clear the State Chamber and all the local Chambers were not supporting 744. 

Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?  What happened to your sense of humor?

If/when spending the average of the surrounding states on education does not raise the education level of OK students (which is undefined in 744), do we have another Constitutional amendment to spend, say, the average of the surrounding states plus 25%?

The real goal of 744 is to raise the education level but instead only specifies that we spend the average of the states around us.  If we want to compare ourselves to the states around us, maybe the Question should state that funding should be sufficient to match the graduation rate,  standardized test scores, or something along that line of the surrounding states.  If the schools cannot match the surrounding states in performance,  then Oklahoma schools should be required to show how increased funding will achieve the performance goals.  Generic statements like better teachers, smaller classes would not be sufficient.  At that time, the legislature would be required to increase funding to obey the Constitution.

I have yet to see anyone show evidence that we need smaller classes nor that our student performance is vastly inferior to our neighboring states. The whole issue in the question is about how much we spend. Can anyone offer these stats?

Well, among the folks who take the ACT, Texans tend to do about the same, Kansans tend to do a little better (surprising, since they have a higher test rate), and Arkansans tend to do a little worse.

I've seen studies that show that the best predictor of average standardized test scores prior to graduation is the poverty rate. Attacking that side of the equation might actually make more sense than just increasing school funding. Since we seem to have decided in this country that most people living below the poverty line are just lazy freeloaders, that's not really a politically viable option, though.

You mean they aren't?  8)

Many are too lazy to freeload.

You are only hearing one side of the argument. Don't listen to anti-education forces...

The bill actually increases accountability in spending. This bill requires accountability by forcing a open review of how the money is spent, something other agencies are not required to do.

“The Education Oversight Board and the Office of Accountability shall publish an annual report on the expenditure of common education revenue, which shall include reports regarding the expenditures for classroom instruction and for administrative costs. The Education Oversight Board and the Offices of Accountability shall also publish an annual report on student achievement results and the overall performance of common schools.”

Why isn't this more obvious to us, the uneducated masses?  They need to inform better.

I agree. I have no relationship with the campaign and don't know anyone involved. I don't even have a yard sign.

I just post my thoughts on here so others can argue.

Reporting on how you do your job != Doing your job well

Think of how many reports we have on the work done by our elected officials, but we still keep electing them.

This is "provisional" it is a task that the DOE already requires, and has required for decades.  The reports are available for ALL states on the data.gov website as well as the DOE websites for most individual states.  The state is also required to report an analysis of expenditures from all funding sources and comparative data on student performance.

This and several other "provisional" items are included in the measure to make it seem like some NEW analysis will be taking place, when the preperation of such reports only requires a request for data collected from the DOE, or simply downloading the file and slapping an Education Oversight Board cover on it.  There is no mention of any new metric or reporting, simply citation of practices already performed. 

Reading the measure in context helps. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_State_Question_744,_constitutional_text_changes#cite_note-0

I found this article while searching for some sort of standard to measure academic performance versus our neighboring states.  It's not what I was looking for but the article maintains it's good reform, not money which will make the biggest difference in outcomes:

"In 1998, Oklahoma students outscored Florida students, on average, by 13 points on NAEP’s fourth-grade reading exam. In 2009, however, on the same test, Florida students scored 9 points higher than Oklahoma students, almost a grade level ahead according to NAEP. In addition, between 1998 and 2009, Oklahoma’s Hispanic students improved their average score by 3 points on NAEP’s fourth-grade reading test. Florida’s Hispanic students, meanwhile, increased their average score by 25 points.

“Contrary to what some might think, Florida’s progress is not a product of more money but rather the result of an aggressive series of educational reforms,” Bill Price, chairman of the Oklahoma School Choice Coalition, said. “Recently, Oklahoma has adopted some of these reforms, and if Florida is any indication it would be wise to expand them.”

Price is referring to several recent reforms including an alternative teacher certification path that will enlarge the potential pool of quality teachers in Oklahoma, which the legislature enacted in 2009. In addition, the state improved its charter school law and created a private school choice program in 2010—the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program—for students with special needs. However, according to the study, Oklahoma’s state testing, school choice opportunities, and accountability measures still need strengthened.

“Florida’s experience shows that a number of strategies must be employed to raise student achievement levels, especially among disadvantaged youth,” Phyllis Hudecki, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Business & Education Coalition, said. “Just as Florida did, we must look at our own areas in need of improvement and make necessary changes to ensure our students are receiving educations that prepare them for life.”

http://www.edchoice.org/Newsroom/News/Oklahoma-academic-performance-suffers-without-widespread-reform.aspx

There's some interesting metrics in school finance, it's not simply about gross dollars spent, nor dollars spent per pupil.  Interesting to note though, Oklahoma actually spends more per pupil than California. 

http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/17sos.h29.finance.pdf

Oklahoma also ranks very high on course and grade-specific standards (top 10) and is also one of only seven states so far to adopt policies which tie teacher review criteria to actual student performance

http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/17sos.h29.saa.pdf

http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/17sos.h29.teaching.pdf

http://www.edweek.org/media/2009/12/18/stateofstates-c1.jpg

So, apparently, we already have many high standards of achievement in place.  I'm not sure how long these have been in place to see how they are working.

Many are < 1yr

Reading through the construction news this morning, thus far I've uncovered a 9600 sq. ft. indoor practice facility for the Chisholm, Ok. school system and a 30,000 sq ft. community center bidding to the Kiefer Public Schools, a new multi-purpose building for Friend Public Schools, a 1750 sq ft early childhood building for Kildare Elementary in Ponca City, Statue Viewing Plaza Project - Pioneer Technology Center Ponca City, a 4100 sq. ft. middle school weight room and locker room for Deer Creek, etc. ad nauseum.

In other words, school systems can find the money to build more and more PAC's, weight rooms for middle schoolers, and indoor baseball practice facilities yet the idea is we don't put enough funding into education.  Once they learn proper priorities, I'll start to sympathize that they need more money. 

Public schools in Oklahoma have a football player quota to meet.

I don't disagree that education money has been spent for the wrong priorities and that there is plenty of waste. I feel that there is plenty of waste in other areas of government too. We just don't scrutinize it as much. Most people have no clue as to the amount of state prisons we have built or state roads that only serve a rural politician's few constuents.

But I refusing to fund all schools because some are prioritizing differently is unfair to all the others. Did you demand we stop paying for our troops when we learned of $1,000 toilet seats or when Halliburton got a billion dollar no-bid contract? Did you stop contributing blood to the Red Cross when it was uncovered that they had given six-figure bonuses to New York staffers after 9/11?

Of course not. We support these causes because we also see the good work that they do.

Vote yes.

People complain about the waste but they won't ever vote against it.  People want members of Congress to get vigilant about run-away spending and the one member who is doing that is villified

I'm sorry RM, but at some point someone has to make that first step.  We apparently have just recently enacted some accountability measures for teachers, let's see what those do for our performance.  By some accounts we are 49th in spending, but we don't appear to be 49th in results.  Voters, as the owners of school systems and government, need to send a message to those who serve us we are tired of waste and self-serving measures.  I find no new accountability measures in this bill, it simply confiscates money from other areas like DHS, without regard for which areas of DHS could be hit hardest.  If they will come back later with a set of priorities and performance-specific goals, I'll consider voting for such a measure.  I'm not going to give them more money to build indoor baseball practice facilities for podunk school districts which should probably be consolidated in the first place.  No thanks.

This is simply too much like the river tax where they were in a huge rush to tie up tax dollars and give us the details on where that money would go later on.  Just this week, three years after the river tax went down in flames, we find out it may be up to four years before the USACE is done with their studies on the river corridor.

I promise if there's a state question like this for prisons, roads, or more monuments in OKC, I'll be against it.