State Question 744

[guido911]

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

[DolfanBob]

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.

[Gaspar]

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

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. 

[Conan71]

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?!?!?!

[nathanm]

/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 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.

[Conan71]

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.

[Gaspar]

You had paper bags?!?!?!

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

[Rico]

"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?

[patric]

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.

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.

[GG]

"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?

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. 

[Red Arrow]

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

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

[Red Arrow]

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.

[Conan71]

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?

[nathanm]

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.

[Conan71]

Since we seem to have decided in this country that most people living below the poverty line are just lazy freeloaders,

You mean they aren't?