The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I know that many of you have expressed reasons why you are voting no. I am also aware that the Governor, The Chamber of Commerce, and the daily newspaper are all opposed to this question.

I guess I am just a rebel because I am voting yes. I am also stubborn because I am starting another thread to try to convince at least someone else to vote yes.

http://www.yeson744.com/

We overfund higher ed, then underfund common ed. We hire prison guards instead of teachers. We pay our politicians the highest in the region and our teachers the lowest in the region.

This vote forces the state to fund one area equal to what is the average other state is doing. If it means that other state agencies, politicians, and corporate tax breaks have to get a little less this year, so be it.

I am embarrassed by what our state funds and so should you. Voting yes will give our children the support that they need. 49th in education spending has led us to be 49th in many other things.

Vote Yes.
 

But it doesn't change the funding for anything else, just says we have to put more money into education.  I would like to see more accountability written into this than just "here is more money for education, spend it wisely".

At this point, I would support other state funding being linked to regional averages.

Maybe then we would cut back on building new prisons and state universities in every small town.

We must close the spending gap!
(http://www.bradkent.com/images/dr_strangelove.jpg)

I do NOT support any of our state funding based on regional averages.  We need to do what we need to do regardless of the states around us.  We probably need to toss our bums out and elect some representatives with the guts to do the right thing.

Tall order, I know.

We both know that ain't going to happen. These are the same legislators that are giving away billions in tax breaks and voting to cut taxes at the same time.

We can only vote on our representative. I get to vote for one state representative and one state senator. There are 147 others I can't influence at the ballot box. Colorado only has one third that amount of state officials. Our representatives are also the highest paid in the region. They will vote to give themselves higher pay but not vote to hire more teachers.

This state law helps take back our legislature.

No, it puts it in the hands of our neighboring states.

Am I having deja vu all over again?  I thought we already had a thread on this.

RM, you will love this: DOC employees are saying they aren't getting enough funding now.

Prison employees want more funding, end furloughs

By AP Wire Service
Published: 10/18/2010  7:15 AM
Last Modified: 10/18/2010  7:15 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma Department of Corrections employees plan a news conference to call for more funding for prisons and an end to furloughs for DOC employees.
The news conference is scheduled for 2 p.m. Monday at the Oklahoma state Capitol hosted by the union representing state employees — the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.

The prison employees want the Legislature to provide supplemental funding to prisons in order to end unpaid furloughs of employees. The furloughs were ordered because of state budget cuts due to the recession.

The regular session of the Legislature begins in February.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101018_11_0_OKLAHO491196

One of the reasons our operating budgets are so high is because for years, legislators have supported a system of decentralizing governement services like prisons, colleges, and schools.  While it brings jobs to outlying rural areas and supports the construction trades it's incredibly inefficient and the people hired into corrections jobs, instead of being grateful for them grumble about being underpaid.  If you work in a prison, you know the working conditions suck before you take job and chances are, you aren't exactly a Rhoades Scholar.

They don't get enough funding for the number of prisoners we send them. If we'd stop sending people to prison for nonviolent offenses, that problem would be solved. ;)

Read the comments section of the story, it gets better.  Someone suggested the tribes pay for it since their casinos are the reason for the uptick in crime.  No wonder our prisons are crowded: stupidity runs rampant in this state.

That would be deja moo. The unmistakable feeling you have seen this bull before.

Why try keeping up with the Joneses when you should be trying to surpass them? 744 is a poorly thought out resolution. I would certainly support one that made sense. 744 does not.

According to OCPA, someone is cooking the books to show we aren't spending enough on education.  Comparing the numbers for '07-'08, the "official" number was $7,615 while the "actual" figure should read more like $10,257.  I don't really see how depreciation of building and assets would amount to accountable costs as it relates to educating children.  Dollars spent per pupil is somewhat relevant until you consider Oklahoma has a very low cost of living.  We also need to know is the accounting the same on school funding the same from state-to-state?  Otherwise it's hardly a relevant point to show Oklahoma is 49th on the list.  Of which, I still can't find a list which shows us as 49th, closest I can get is 46th, which I realize is not vastly better.

"For approximately three times, OCPA research fellow Steve Anderson, a Certified Public Accountant and a former state-certified teacher with 17 teaching certifications, has attempted to calculate just how much money Oklahomans really pay for their schools.

Following generally accepted accounting principles, Mr. Anderson compiled the federal, state and local expenditures for Oklahoma's public schools. He discovered that Oklahoma's per-pupil expenditure for the 2007-08 school year -- the latest year for which data were available -- was not $7,615, the oft-cited "official" number. Rather, he estimated it was $10,257.

If the CEO or chief financial officer of any public company disseminated misleading financial data to the same extent as Oklahoma's education officials, they would be subject to criminal and civil prosecution. Indeed, according to Frederick Hess, a former public high school teacher and current director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, "school accounting guidelines would bring smiles to an Enron auditor."

How, you may ask, can the "official" reports be so far off the mark?

It's really quite simple. When computing expenditures, the government's school accounting systems simply exclude many significant costs. A few examples:

• depreciation of buildings and other capital assets;

• spending via "dedicated revenues," which are funneled directly to schools without going through the appropriations process;

• retirement benefits as a cost in the year incurred; and

• interest on unfunded pension obligations resulting from our repeated failure to fund benefits as they are earned.

Disturbingly, there are even more costs, which could have been included but were not. For example, there are many public-school costs that are carried on the budgets of other government agencies, such as the cost of remedial instruction borne by the higher education system."

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A30628

I appreciate your passion on the issue, but now I think you really are:

(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f159/RaulMonkey/Animated/beating-a-dead-horse.gif)

The election is fifteen days away. This is still one of the most discussed issues in the state and clearly the most well funded campaigns for both sides.

Beat your own horse.

Good grief RM, I have been accused of beating the dead horse on wanting stricter access to abortion laws, which in my opinion is far more contentious of an issue that this school funding bill could ever hope to be.

Who besides RM is in favor of 744 in this forum?

You'd think the Republicans would be in favor of this question in light of Grover Norquist's quip about making government small enough to drown in a bathtub.  If this passes and it strangles every agency except education, their dream may be realized.  

Personally I am still undecided.  I have mixed thoughts on it.

Excellent point, Ed.

Because Grover Norquist speaks for all republicans. Jeez, channel Janeane Garofalo much?

You are not in charge of discussions. Stop trying to control them.

Many people also read this forum without commenting. I hope to reach some of them.

Well, we get your slap at repubs on the issue (color me surprised), what's your position on 744?

Is your method just to dismiss everybody else on this thread?

I gave you your props on your passion, and proceeded to point out you essentially started a brand new thread regarding a previously (and by the way laboriously) discussed issue without making a single damned new point. In my opinion, that's beating a dead horse. As for my "dismissive" approach, grow a pair will you? Man you can be thinned skin sometimes. Interesting how you gave Ed a pass, and indeed, praised him on his slap though.

And by the way, if you would bother to follow Garafolo in the slightest, you will know that she consistently tries to attach Norquist's views on tax policy, as if he is the end all voice, to all republicans.

I respectfully disagree. I have discussed funding for other departments and have individually discussed funding for roads, prisons, and higher ed. On this thread I pointed out the pay for legislators and how it compares to the region.

I have many points that have led me to support passage of state question 744. Ed's point that passing this measure might also help reign in other state spending is also valid.

In particular, passage of this measure will force every department to look for waste. This bill might single-handedly make all other areas of state government more efficient. You would support that, correct?   

I would look favorably on your and Ed's position if that intended consequence actually occurred (and for what it's worth it is a good argument in support 744); but where has such ever occurred. As for the bill, I have detailed the reasons for my opposition in the earlier thread.

RM, you and I have fought on several occasions over numerous issues, but I have always given you yours because you get off your a$$ and actually do something in support of what you believe--which is damned sure more than bomb throwers on both sides do. I would ask you please remember that next time.

I definitely support SQ 744.  Something has to force this legislature into accountability.  Let's kick up some dirt.  I will have to say, based on my experience living in Texas, that schools in Texas may have a higher per pupil expenditure, but it is drastically distributed unequally.  I have seen some very run-down ragged schools in some Texas cities, while others have a campus that resembles a high-tech research institute.

I am hoping if SQ 744 passes, that funding is on a more equitable level across all school districts.

Hope is not a strategy.  (Seen on the instrument panel of a competition sailplane.)

The flip side of strangling every agency is that in lieu of being able to cut other budgets, it could create the need to boost taxes by 40% according to one article I was reading yesterday from last spring.  Legislators don't seem to be very adept at cuts.

As long as school systems set having weight rooms for middle schoolers, indoor baseball practice arenas (for a 2A size school, no less), activity buses which look like Prevost motor coaches, football stadiums which look like a Div. 2 college field, multiple layers of administration, and more sprawl while clamoring for fewer students per teacher, the OEA can go piss up a short rope.  When I have time I'm going to go back about two or three years and take a look at other construction projects which seem ridiculous in our school systems.

RM, your passion on the issue has caused me to better educate myself on the issue and frankly, while I suspected there's a fair amount of waste in school systems, I'm truly shocked at the nature of some of these programs and building projects.  We need to be consolidating school districts and quit taking union-recommended student to teacher ratios at face value without some sort of scientific basis to prove the educational experience is vastly improved with fewer students per teacher.  In the absence of such evidence, all I see is the creation of more union dues paying jobs.

Yesterday corrections workers plead their case at the Capitol.  They are complaining of being understaffed and are having to take furlough days.  How well do you think budget cuts will play at the DOC?

Interesting read, this letter says we already spend over $5bln a year on secondary education.  This measure would require $1.7 bln over three years, so do you shut down DHS, cut even further on prisons, cut health care, cut colleges?

"According to the website Datamasher.org, Oklahoma has an average SAT score of 1149 with an average spending of $6,610 per student. Of the five states surrounding Oklahoma only Missouri and Kansas have higher average scores and they spend $1,200 to $1,300 per student more and only get a 24 or 39 point increase for their money. The State of Oklahoma beats Texas by 150 points and Texas spends $636 per student more. Just spending more per student does not insure the students will do better. The State of Utah (lowest per student spending in country) spends $1,394 per student less than Oklahoma and their average score is only 35 points less than ours. The District of Columbia has the highest spending per student ($13,348) and their average score is 209 points lower than Oklahoma.

Since the people behind State Question 744 do not try to show a source of the increased money, one has to assume one of two things: a tax increase or shift money from another program to education. Using data from the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the average student population for Oklahoma this physical is expected to be 658,242 with an average of $7,638 per student being spent. With the $1,600 per student increase, we would need an additional $1,053,187,200.

Oklahoma's budget for FY 2011 for a few of the departments are:

Secondary Education: $5,057,273,286

Higher Education: $1,003,000,000

Health Care Authority: $963,000,000

Dept. of Corrections: $462,000,000

DHS: $43,000,000"

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32527

/ Edit to add: I'm not sure where this reader came up with his budget numbers, in fact, I keep finding numbers all over the board from any number of sources, it's pretty maddening.  I've found a site where I can compare, peer-to-peer budget items from surrounding states.  When I've got time I'll post some conclusions.  Suffice to say that $$ spent per student is an awkward yardstick to use when a neighboring state like Texas might have a total state budget which is double that of Oklahoma's.  At least from what I've pieced together so far, 40% of our state budget is directed at "common education".

Yes. the letter to the editor in an alternative weekly that you quoted had some messed up budget numbers.

Here is where you find the actual state budget...      http://www.ok.gov/osf

The Education budget for 2010/2011 is $3,697,137,460. That is broken in out these areas...

Arts Council                   $       4,621,068
Career Tech                   $    145,503,952
Common Ed                   $ 2,493,678,678
OETA                            $       4,344,414
Higher Ed                      $ 1,033,964,088
Libraries                       $        6,545,040
School Science and math $       6,771,282
Teacher Prep                  $       1,718,937  

Common Ed gets 67% of the budget and Higher Ed get 27% of the budget and everybody else splits the remaining 6%.

Just two points: Sports are sacred in Oklahoma schools.  There's a wonderful line in "Mr. Holland's Opus" when a coach says, "Gosh, I hope they don't shut down the football program."  Holland replies, "Don't worry, they'll close the school first."  Owasso has over 30 coaches for all their programs, and I really have to wonder how much of it is necessary.  But this isn't the time for a diatribe about sports.

Here's the other point - even if this question passes, it's extremely unlikely that it will lead to a tax increase since the legislature requires a super majority to enact any increase.  Given that the Republican majority would prefer to slice off their own fingers rather than raise taxes, an increase is highly unlikely.

The rest of the state budget would be squeezed, and in all honesty, I don't know how that would play out.  I'm a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, but I'm beginning to think that 744 would be mildly positive rather than the debacle its opponents try to portray.

So for Guido's benefit, I'm in favor of this question.  If it doesn't work - just as Colorado's TABOR law didn't work out - then it's our responsibility as voters and citizens to see that the law is changed.  Simply doing nothing is not a responsible option.

Ed, I'm truly intrigued with the idea of forcing ourselves to re-order our priorities and perhaps state government needing to figure out it's perhaps offering services which are not essential and that there's a lot of bloat on the payroll.

However, we really don't know what consequences result.  Do we start releasing more violent offenders because we have to cut DOC further?  Does it become harder for lower income students to realize the dream of a college diploma?  Do we cut important services from DHS which protect families and children?  Would we see a spike in unemployment with government layoffs?

Believe me, I'd love to take a cleaver to the state budget, but without careful review it could have very many unintended consequences.

Like I said, I'm only mildly positive about this.  Sure, we could see layoffs of government employees, violent offenders returned to the streets, or our roads and bridges deteriorating even more.  Or perhaps we'd see more realistic sentencing or even treatment for non-violent drug offenses.  Maybe we'd see money going into the classrooms rather than Taj Mahal offices for administrators. 

We send our legislators to Oklahoma City to represent us and make hard choices about allocating our tax monies.  In theory, if they're responsive to the electorate, they'll keep their jobs.  But what does it say about them and us when they can pander to the most reactionary elements in the state without fear of consequences?  It's almost as if Oklahomans are proudly ignorant and determined to remain that way.

Maintaining the status quo will do nothing to improve Oklahoma education.  Attracting and keeping well-qualified teachers takes money, lots of money.  Why stay in a low paying teaching job when the same skills bring more income elsewhere?  The gratitude of the local community doesn't pay the mortgage or put food on the table. 

It seems that the something-for-nothing crowd believes that education will improve if we simply ignore the problems until they go away.  They use the teacher's union as a whipping boy, perhaps in the belief that if only they could be disbanded, education would undergo a magical transformation as teacher pay and benefits were forced downward.   

Thanks for taking a position, although I respectfully disagree with it. That said, doing something for the sake of doing something is hardly a basis for passing legislation that provides zero cost controls and zero accountability on schools and their teachers.

Has any state question addressed cost controls and accountability for its provisions?  I'm not asking that in a sarcastic sense, I'd really like to know.

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.  In other words, teaching isn't that bad of a gig.  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. 

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.

I know that question was not sarcastic, and by the way it is a good one. My only thought would be legislation that is specific to controls and accountability, such as minimum test scoring and teacher performance in the context of education reform, would address the issue. Instead, your and RM's point is looking for a "side effect" of 744 to address those issues.

I am going to walk back my initial "attack" on Mike's essential re-posting of this thread, mainly because the passion on this subject is so high.

In the book SuperFreakonomics, the authors make the claim that the quality of teachers has been reduced significantly since 1960 because more women get more advanced college degrees and the really smart ones have better opportunities for higher paying employment than teaching today. If that's true, about the only thing we can do is increase teacher pay to get some of these more capable folks back into teaching.

Their central premise that people respond to incentives, not some innate altruistic sense, is plainly how the world works.

Your math is slightly off. Tulsa schools now have teachers required to be at work on August 18th and there till June 7th. My experience with our children's teachers is that they are also there a week early preparing the classrooms.

I don't disagree that teachers are paid a fair wage. I want more teachers to reduce classroom size. I want better technology like smart boards to help them teach better. I want education to include arts and music programs.

How does a smart board help them teach better?  I'm not being a smartass, I've simply never seen one in action and it seems like a pretty high-priced gizmo that is another vanity purchase for the classroom which won't affect the outcome significantly.  We got real good learnin' and eddycashuns with chalk and those new-fangled dry-erase boards where I came from.

Please explain how it's a great teaching tool, I'm willing to listen.

$32,900 was the starting pay for TPS in '09/'10.  That's still pretty close to their peer average right out of college at $3290 a month or $39,480 a year for 12 months of employment.  They also paid $442 a month for health insurance.  Contract schedule days are 183 a year, or 36 1/2 five day work weeks.  Basically 15 1/2 weeks off a year unless my public school math failed me.

The meme of underpaid teachers is wearing thin on me.

"Benefits:
•11.00/mo dental
•Life insurance - 1 1/2 times employee's annual salary
•Long Term Disability
Health Ins:
Oklahoma statutes provide that the District shall pay health insurance premiums not to exceed the "Health Choice High" individual premium amount for each teacher (certified) who elects coverage. Teachers not electing to take health insurance through the District (provided other coverage is in force) shall be paid a taxable cash "in-lieu" payment in the amount set by statute. The HCH premium amount to be paid by the District for 2009 is $409.12 per month, for 2010 it will be $442.80 and the "in-lieu" payment amount is $69.71 per month.

Note: The School District's existing agreement provides a career increment in the amount of $1,000.00 after 20, 25, 30, 34, 37 years of creditable service. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, teachers who complete their 20, 25, 30, and 34 years of service during the first semester will move to the appropriate career increment for the second semester. The salary adjustment will be one-half the amount indicated for the yearly career increment.

A maximum of five years will be granted on the salary schedule for prior active military service.

* Schedule 183 contract days"

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

I agreed with you on fair pay.

Smart boards are high tech white boards that serve as computer monitors and capture images drawn by students.

http://eduscapes.com/sessions/smartboard/

Our PTA has purchased a few for some classrooms. They really help kids learn.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to tell much about the smart board from the link that was of use to me.  Gaspar seemed impressed with it as well, I'd like to actually see one in use in the classroom.  I'll ask my younger daughter if she's seen them in action.  I'm intrigued with it and if it improves learning and retention significantly then I'm for it.  My concern is of them being a novelty which winds up requiring expensive repairs and upgrades, but I admit to being completely ignorant of the concept.

As far as student/teacher ratio, Oklahoma averages 13.9 students per teacher, the national average is 15.3.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=full&displaycat=1&s1=05&s2=20&s3=29&s4=40

Still, there's not universal agreement amongst experts that class size and student/teacher ratios make a huge difference in outcome.  I would agree that on the idea that smaller classes are a benefit to primary education as students at that point of development do require more individual attention.

"Class size is another statistics also often considered when looking at schools. In an article entitled, "Class Size and Student Achievement," the Center for Public Education says that “some researchers have not found a connection between smaller classes and higher student achievement, but most of the research shows that when class size reduction programs are well-designed and implemented in the primary grades (K-3), student achievement rises as class size drops."

Intuitively, it makes sense that the more attention a teacher can focus on each student, the more the student will benefit and, therefore, perform at a higher level.

While both student-teacher ratio and class size impact teacher workload, the National Center for Education Statistics points out the importance of other factors, including the number of classes for which a teacher is responsible and the number of classes taken by students."

http://www.muninetguide.com/articles/StudentTeacher-Ratio--Is-Smaller-255.php#continue_reading

I saw the smartboards in action a lot when my kids were at Eugene Fields.  They extend the computer to the board, and add a level of interactivity for the kids by using touch detection software.  At the simplist they can be used to do something like put math problems in the board for kids to work out, and display  tips when stumped. I know, something the teacher can do with a chalk/dry erase board.  But it allows for a wider availablility of interaction, such as one program that I saw where the kids would play musical instruments on the board by touching keys, or shapes or whatever.  It also replaces things like the overhead projectors and tv's.  At the very least they will draw kids more into the enviroment, allowing them to interact more than they would have previously.  

Conan...didn't you go to private schools and didn't your kids go to private schools?

I was in public schools both TPS and Jenks from 2nd through 9th.  Both my daughters went/go to public schools and the older one is attending a public university now.  If you are trying to imply I don't care to fund public schools because I don't utilize them, you are fishing with the wrong bait, even if both my daugters were privately educated.  Public schools are one of the most important government services, I don't have a problem funding them, nor increasing funding in a logical manner.

If there were some sort of credible studies which showed a good correlation between $$ spent and outcomes, I'd be more willing to consider this bill.  Washington DC spends more per pupil than the rest of the nation and ranks amongst the worst of school systems.  Also, if this bill showed accountability with the funds, and had an orderly plan for which agencies would take budget cuts I could get behind it.  Unfortunately, it does none of the above.

Simply throwing more money at a problem where we alreay mis-manage our funds and priorities won't necessarily fix the problem.  Is the problem our students under-perform or is the problem that we don't spend as much per pupil as our neighbors?  Texas spends $600+ more per pupil and yet their average performance is worse.

I feel that's a major difference between liberal and conservative ideology: liberals think money will fix anything, conservatives think personal responsibility is usually the best solution.  I would imagine the truth is a reasonible combination of both.  School systems need to start showing a better sense of priorities and be willing to consolidate to lower operating expenses.

I wouldn't start down that road, if I were you. I'm surprised you didn't hear the uproar and see the flames and smoke from the metaphorical rioting when Arkansas decided to consolidate the smaller districts with nearby larger districts.

Did Arkansas succeed in consolidating them?

I realize it's an unpopular stance. A Superintindent doesn't want to give up their $100k + job as well as the rest of the administrative layer. Schools are good for construction and heating & air trades. It's nice to have schools within a convenient distance from home. Parents and students like smaller districts where they might not have as many issues with drugs and social stratification.

Problem is, all these conveniences, services, and government-created jobs are becoming unsustainable. That's what budget shortfalls are. We can argue until the world looks level about whether we are spending too much or not collecting enough revenue. In either case, we can't afford all this duplication and decentralization of services.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't care about public schools, Conan.

I know you well enough to realize you truly care about the right things and are willing to step up and make a difference. But guido has mentioned that his kids attend private schools and I know you had gone to a private school for a little while.

You both are very vocal in your opposition to this bill. It is safe to say that private school parents are more opposed to this measure in part because it takes away from others areas to fund a school system? It makes sense. I know that the others who have been most vocal against the measure also seem to have their kids in private school. This includes the head of the chamber, the editor of the local newspaper. etc.

I just think it was more than a coincidence that the most vocal opposition had this in common.

I don't know if you can call it success. They still have 246 school districts as of last school year, many of which don't actually have all the state required courses and programs due to budget issues. The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeatedly declared the funding formula unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, beginning in 1982 but they finally worked that out (sort of..it's not so bad it's unconstitutional anymore) a few years back.

The thing about Arkansas is that the vast majority of the large districts are good to excellent. The rural schools, on the other hand, are still chronically underfunded, just not quite as badly as before. This is largely due to the way the funding is done. As here in Oklahoma, a large part of the property tax millage goes to the school district. In Arkansas, there is a state minimum millage that each district must levy (when I was in school it was 26.5 mills). That money goes into a pot at the state level and then gets divided on a per-pupil basis among the various districts across the state.

A district can, if they so choose and the voters approve, levy a higher millage and keep the entirety of the extra funds. In the larger cities, it tended to run around 40-50 mills total in the larger districts. The problem is that the smaller, more rural districts either choose not to ask for property tax increases or the residents of the district refuse. (the former is largely driven by the latter)

I went to high school in Fayetteville, which is a fairly large district by Arkansas' standards. There are three smaller school districts whose schools are within 10 miles of Fayetteville's high school (Farmington, Greenland, and Elkins) and have total enrollments of 2,000 or less. Fayetteville has around 8,000 enrolled, Farmington about 2,000, Greenland under 1,000 and Elkins is right about 1,000. I leave you to decide what you think about how well consolidation has progressed. I suppose it's better than the somewhere north of 3,000 districts they had a hundred years ago. (they had two big waves of consolidations that each eliminated over 1,000 school districts before 1950)

Sorry for the length, I didn't really intend to write a treatise on Arkansas' schools, but hopefully it might shed some light on our present conundrum.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20101021_262_0_hrimgs54586

Five education board members say they support SQ 744By Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY — Five members of the state Board of Education say they will vote for a ballot measure to increase education spending.

Board members Tim Gilpin of Tulsa, Herb Rozell of Tahlequah, Sue Arnn of Ardmore, Gail Foresee of Shawnee and Gayle Miles-Scott of Oklahoma City told reporters Thursday that they support State Question 744.

The sixth appointed board member, Betsy Mabry of Enid, says she remains undecided about the issue.

The proposed constitutional amendment would require Oklahoma to meet the regional average of per-student spending in surrounding states within three years.

Estimates of how much the proposal would cost Oklahoma during the next three years range from about $900 million to $1.7 billion. The ballot measure has no funding mechanism in place and does not call for a tax increase.

If they want to raise more money put a $25.00 tax per year per child using the schools ?

And how do they apply that tax?

That would raise approximately $16.35 million per year, far short of what SQ 744 is attempting to raise