Let's Bailout the Teachers!!!

[Conan71]

OK ... I'll bite.

One thing that we can cut is the number of administrators. Regional superintendents are pretty much worthless, and just about any teacher in TPS can tell you that the main office in midtown is a soul-suck of bureaucracy and busywork.

Ever walk through that building?  Whole lot of mediocrity walking around in there.  I'm still not quite sure what everyone does there, but there are a bunch of bureaucrats and bureaucratic assistants.

[rwarn17588]

Ever walk through that building?  Whole lot of mediocrity walking around in there.  I'm still not quite sure what everyone does there, but there are a bunch of bureaucrats and bureaucratic assistants.

Yes, I've been through that building. I concur with your assessment. You could chop the number of positions in half there and the work would still easily get done.

[guido911]

Guido, if kids were riding the bus a mile or less to school, I'd have more a problem with it.  I believe the majority ride the bus much further.  I simply think you are being harsh with the implication that lazy parents are free-loading on the school system by sending their kids to school on a bus.  How many full time good jobs will allow for someone to come in at 8:30 after dropping kids off at a few school sites and leave at 2:45 every day to start the task of rounding up the kids?  None.  It allows parents to be more productive.  I understand why transportation would be an easy target for cuts, I just don't think you've thought through carefully who it is that actually rides the bus.  

For proper disclosure, my kids never rode a bus when they went to private or public schools (Jenks- large far-flung suburban district).  We always lived close enough, and fortunately my ex and I had pretty good flexibility in schedules so there wasn't really a need.  I realize not every family has that luxury.

With magnet schools and far-flung suburban systems, it serves a valuable purpose to the kids and families.  Just because it fits your own schedule and lifestyle to take your kids to school, it doesn't mean it fits for everyone else.  Personally, I think admin costs are one place we should be looking at for cuts as well as facility costs.  I don't believe in cutting out sports as I think they serve a valuable purpose in the overall scholastic experience.  In fact, they are even a requirement at one or more of the prominent private schools in the Tulsa metro.

FAIK, Bishop Kelley still has a bus service and Holland Hall used to.

Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it.  Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).

[waterboy]

How about we work from the perspective that the system is functional and worthy of funding adequately, then look for ways to streamline its operation that are not based on politics, religion and simple solutions?

I'll start. We could hold those responsible who assured us that new revenues from Casino gambling and lotteries would go towards education funding without admitting that they would be cutting other education revenue sources that were more stable at the same time. The result being that real education budgets actually shrank when the economy shrank. It was a lie that our state legislators and governor used to get them approved. The shortfall could come from their pet projects in OKC and the rural areas that always seem to get funded. Or we could make sure they aren't re-elected.

Seriously, though, I do have an idea that might create some addl. funding though it would require some legal changes I'm sure. What if we recognized that school properties are often prime real estate locations. Consider selling them to commercial entities (foundations?) and then leasing them back to the school district at a very low rate for a specific period. Eventually the school will be outdated and the demographics around them will change creating changes in attendance levels. At that point the leasor and lessee could easily end their contract. No firesale school properties. No struggling for site improvement funds. A great opportunity for a long term entity like a foundation to acquire strong properties and a chance for a school to receive a funding stream and plan a budget. It wouldn't end taxpayer funding but augment it.

I know its fraught with problems but the opportunity to continually renew schools at low taxpayer expense is tasty.

[waterboy]

Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it.  Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).

You're viewing the process as an outsider Guide. Are you sure they are their parents? Could be relatives, care providers etc. I sit a block from a school and watch the kids get picked up by mostly grandparents, older siblings, sitters and spouses. It is a traffic jam btw. I wish they would avail themselves more of busses. My hourly paid shift co-workers who have kids are always jockeying with their schedules to make sure one of the spouses can deliver or pick up their kids. It gets complex and families often spread that responsibility around.

I also think you pay for their transportation in one way or another. I think your real objection is that as a private school parent you have to pay for any of it at all. Consider it noblesse oblige.

[Conan71]

Holland Hall has a service, but very very few use it. I am not arguing that buses make it easier on families, my point is that I do not believe I should pay for it.  Again, go through my posts in this thread and see where I am coming from, in particular the post where I point out that there are parents in my neighborhood picking up their kids at bus stops in their freakin cars (oh, and the school is less than a 1 1/2 miles away).

Over the last 21 years, I've paid proportionately more property taxes in the Tulsa district (I only personally lived in the Jenks district four years, I continued to own a house there for another four years while I lived back in mid-town) for the operation of TPS and have never had a child go to school in the district.  It's just the way it works.  I prefer to live in mid-town and not the 'burbs.  After next May I will no longer have a child in any public school system.  I will be paying college tuition AND helping fund the TPS. 

I've never been particularly clear on the whole voucher system for private schools, but it sounds as if it becomes yet one more drain on government revenue which we have to find a way to fund.  Feel free to explain it.

[swake]

I am in favor of vouchers to private schools and charter schools. I'm actually in favor of doing away with mandated school districts and allowing complete open choice. Much like healthcare we spend too much money on education in this country with too little returns. A school will get a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled with bonuses for good performance. The goal should be to pay good teachers more which in turn should help to recruit good new teachers and get rid of bad teachers. Competition is good and should bring costs down and performance up over time. The goal being that bad schools will die and schools that do well, will thrive and grow.

Let there be standards for teachers, but don't have a set pay scale except for a minimum starting salary and no tenure. If a teacher gets great performance, let them work for the school that pays them the most. If they have bad results, let them go. Schools in order to survive would have to spend their money on good teachers instead of on huge administrations.

One restriction, If a religious private school accepts vouchers, their curriculum must be approved by local school boards and church activity should not be allowed at the school. School boards should set curriculum and set minimum progress standards and pretty much be hands off after that, the differences between a private school, a charter school and a public school should be very negligible.

I understand that not all kids are created equal and it's more expensive to teach some kids than others. Start with a sliding scale for how much a school gets when a child enrolls based on the parents economic background. A school would get more money for teaching (and helping) disadvantaged kids. There would be real economic benefit for a for profit business to run a school in a poor area and have the students and that school do well. Today we are on the verge of creating a permanent underclass based on lack of education, this could go a long way to reversing that.

Schools can certainly can have competitive admissions, but they would then automatically get the minimum amount of money per child enrolled and have no bonuses for good performance.  School payments will be "all or nothing", if a private school accepts vouchers, it cannot accept payments above those amounts from students. If they want to charge more, they will have to forgo vouchers.

Lastly, a huge part of the budget problems for schools is that teaching and caring for disabled students has passed to the public school systems. My kids have often had "mainstreamed" kids in their classes with issues so severe that they have a personal teacher sit with them through all their classes. There are entire classes of disabled students with only 5-6 kids and the teachers struggle even with that kind of class size. In the past these kids didn't go to public schools, today they do and the cost to the schools per student has to be staggering.

I think these costs should not be part of the public school system and should be managed elsewhere, these are medical (mental or physical) issues and should be treated as such. If a child can't be mainstreamed, then they should not be part of the normal educational system, if they can only be mainstreamed with help, that help should be paid for as medical help. Mainstreamed or not, schools can certainly take these kids and receive the same payment as students, but the increased incremental cost associated with the child's disability should be a medical cost, not an educational one.

[Gaspar]

I am in favor of vouchers to private schools and charter schools. I'm actually in favor of doing away with mandated school districts and allowing complete open choice. Much like healthcare we spend too much money on education in this country with too little returns. A school will get a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled with bonuses for good performance. The goal should be to pay good teachers more which in turn should help to recruit good new teachers and get rid of bad teachers. Competition is good and should bring costs down and performance up over time. The goal being that bad schools will die and schools that do well, will thrive and grow.

Let there be standards for teachers, but don't have a set pay scale except for a minimum starting salary and no tenure. If a teacher gets great performance, let them work for the school that pays them the most. If they have bad results, let them go. Schools in order to survive would have to spend their money on good teachers instead of on huge administrations.

One restriction, If a religious private school accepts vouchers, their curriculum must be approved by local school boards and church activity should not be allowed at the school. School boards should set curriculum and set minimum progress standards and pretty much be hands off after that, the differences between a private school, a charter school and a public school should be very negligible.

I understand that not all kids are created equal and it's more expensive to teach some kids than others. Start with a sliding scale for how much a school gets when a child enrolls based on the parents economic background. A school would get more money for teaching (and helping) disadvantaged kids. There would be real economic benefit for a for profit business to run a school in a poor area and have the students and that school do well. Today we are on the verge of creating a permanent underclass based on lack of education, this could go a long way to reversing that.

Schools can certainly can have competitive admissions, but they would then automatically get the minimum amount of money per child enrolled and have no bonuses for good performance.  School payments will be "all or nothing", if a private school accepts vouchers, it cannot accept payments above those amounts from students. If they want to charge more, they will have to forgo vouchers.

Lastly, a huge part of the budget problems for schools is that teaching and caring for disabled students has passed to the public school systems. My kids have often had "mainstreamed" kids in their classes with issues so severe that they have a personal teacher sit with them through all their classes. There are entire classes of disabled students with only 5-6 kids and the teachers struggle even with that kind of class size. In the past these kids didn't go to public schools, today they do and the cost to the schools per student has to be staggering.

I think these costs should not be part of the public school system and should be managed elsewhere, these are medical (mental or physical) issues and should be treated as such. If a child can't be mainstreamed, then they should not be part of the normal educational system, if they can only be mainstreamed with help, that help should be paid for as medical help. Mainstreamed or not, schools can certainly take these kids and receive the same payment as students, but the increased incremental cost associated with the child's disability should be a medical cost, not an educational one.

I agree with 96.5% of that.  Great post!  I wish more people could engage in common sense.

[waterboy]

Boy, I got suckered again. I thought this was a discussion on different ways of funding education. Instead it begins yet another opportunity to pimp vouchers and private school systems.

I got to wise up. Waterboy moving along now.

[Conan71]

I agree with much of what swake said, although I'm not in complete agreement about funding the disabled as "medical" rather than "educational".  That seems like pulling the same money from a different pocket to me and "mainstreaming" is what society wanted for special needs students.  FWIW, Jenks had special ed when I was there in the late 1970's/early '80's, it's nothing new.  Prior to that, many kids were institutionalized at places like Hissom. 

My whole problem with swake's post stems from the enormity of the monolithic public schools system and how do you dismantle the present system without turning the education system into one big chaotic mess?  I like the idea of rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay, rather than by how long they've been there.  If there is a way to change to a system which makes better use of funds with better outcomes, I'm all for it.  I'm simply in the dark as to how you take a school system like TPS with an enrollment of around 47K (is that still correct?) and suddenly start parceling out schools to for-profit educational companies and start a voucher system for existing private schools.

Keep in mind for those of you who are afraid of social stratification, this system would not end that.  Schools would most likely each have their own admission standards which would each seek to find the best performing students.  I don't know how you are going to find a way around that.

[Gaspar]

Boy, I got suckered again. I thought this was a discussion on different ways of funding education. Instead it begins yet another opportunity to pimp vouchers and private school systems.

I got to wise up. Waterboy moving along now.

Sorry.  Only two ways to go.

Produce a better product, or throw money at the problem until you reach terminal insolvency.

It's NOT about the schools, or the teachers, the unions, or the votes they represent. . . It's about the kids.

Vouchers work to improve the quality of education.  They produce smarter kids.  They've worked everywhere they've been applied. That's all that matters. 

[swake]

I agree with much of what swake said, although I'm not in complete agreement about funding the disabled as "medical" rather than "educational".  That seems like pulling the same money from a different pocket to me and "mainstreaming" is what society wanted for special needs students.  FWIW, Jenks had special ed when I was there in the late 1970's/early '80's, it's nothing new.  Prior to that, many kids were institutionalized at places like Hissom. 

My whole problem with swake's post stems from the enormity of the monolithic public schools system and how do you dismantle the present system without turning the education system into one big chaotic mess?  I like the idea of rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay, rather than by how long they've been there.  If there is a way to change to a system which makes better use of funds with better outcomes, I'm all for it.  I'm simply in the dark as to how you take a school system like TPS with an enrollment of around 47K (is that still correct?) and suddenly start parceling out schools to for-profit educational companies and start a voucher system for existing private schools.

Keep in mind for those of you who are afraid of social stratification, this system would not end that.  Schools would most likely each have their own admission standards which would each seek to find the best performing students.  I don't know how you are going to find a way around that.

I'm not against mainstreaming, and I know it's just moving money from one pocket to another, it's just that people crow about the inflating cost of education, and most of it comes from schools taking on more and more disabled students. It's more about when people cry the private schools can teach kids cheaper than public, when that's not really the full picture at all. It's easy (and cheaper) to teach upper middle class kids that want to achieve and hard to teach kids that can barely speak and have a mean streak.

That's why I would give more money to teach kids from poor areas and if a school has any admissions standards at all, they automatically get the minimum amount per student, for all students. If you want the sliding scale, you let everyone in.

[waterboy]

Sorry.  Only two ways to go.

Produce a better product, or throw money at the problem until you reach terminal insolvency.

It's NOT about the schools, or the teachers, the unions, or the votes they represent. . . It's about the kids.

Vouchers work to improve the quality of education.  They produce smarter kids.  They've worked everywhere they've been applied. That's all that matters. 

That's always been your problem around here Gas. Your world is small and has few choices and you're too self assured about simple solutions. I would point out, it's NOT about you and your consistently simple, small view of the world. But I doubt you'll ever figure that out.

Conan is the voice of reason in this conversation.

[Conan71]

I'm not against mainstreaming, and I know it's just moving money from one pocket to another, it's just that people crow about the inflating cost of education, and most of it comes from schools taking on more and more disabled students. It's more about when people cry the private schools can teach kids cheaper than public, when that's not really the full picture at all. It's easy (and cheaper) to teach upper middle class kids that want to achieve and hard to teach kids that can barely speak and have a mean streak.

That's why I would give more money to teach kids from poor areas and if a school has any admissions standards at all, they automatically get the minimum amount per student, for all students. If you want the sliding scale, you let everyone in.

I think we all want the same end result, it's simply figuring out the means by which you do it and how to go about dismantling thousands of little fiefdoms around the country over very strong resistance from government, teacher's unions, uninformed parents, etc.  Higher pay doesn't necessarily mean that you will get the best teachers to teach the worst kids.  It's more like mercenary pay 

[we vs us]

I just came in here to say good luck.  We're all going to need it.