We're #3, We're #3........... in running out of smart people.

[Conan71]

There is a difference between voting no because it can be better and voting no because it's not good enough.  This falls into the second category.  Personally I did a lot of waffeling on this one because I want to see more money going towards education.  It was hard to vote not on it.  But I wanted to send the message that there should be processes in place to ensure the money goes to actual education, not funneled into this person or that persons pockets. Is it really too much to ask to be given an actual number for the increase, and at least a breakdown of percentage going to what area of education such as transportation, educator saleries, materials ect?

My summary?

It was a pile.

Nothing more needs to be said. 

[Red Arrow]

I know things are not as they were when I was a kid but.....
we almost always had 30 to 32 kids in a class from 1st grade through high school.

[Conan71]

I know things are not as they were when I was a kid but.....
we almost always had 30 to 32 kids in a class from 1st grade through high school.

Somehow this notion sprang forward that we shouldn't have more than 15 kids per class.  Studies do show at earlier learning ages, more personal attention yields better results.  However, it doesn't appear near as critical after third grade.

Seems like school systems have focused too much on growth and keeping the construction and real estate trades flush by building all these multiple campus sites.  Then there's the race to see which school can out do the others on athletic facilities and separate training/practice facilities for every sport.  I feel athletics and extra-curriculars are an important part of the experience.  Professional level training facilities aren't required for kids to perform at their best.

Oklahoma still has the distinction of being one of the more dense in school districts per capita in the entire country.  Even states with more sparsely spread populations have fewer districts per capita than us.  Prisons and schools have become the symbol of widespread pork in our state.  If a legislator scores funding for a new school district or prison, it means more jobs for the area that other school districts wind up essentially losing potential funding to cover.

[waterboy]

The 1950's Red? That was acceptable when the baby boomer kids were flooding the schools and new schools were being built, new teachers trained etc. And that was also sufficient education during those times when we were primarily a manufacturing society.  But we're not there now. To have 30 kids in a classroom when school age population is decreasing, we're closing schools and selling off the buildings AND we're in dire need of improving math and science for a technological society, is not a good thing.

Had this legislation passed, it would have been revisited by this new administration just like we're about to revisit the national health care bill. Changes would be made and specific details would emerge. Now we have to start from scratch, behind everyone else while we do even more blood letting.

To make things worse, the new state legislature has cut ties with the existing base of lobbyists, who served a role as a fount of continuuing knowledge for incoming members. Love them or hate them, lobbyists are the link between industry, education and legislation. When you sever that tie, in favor or ideology, you have to re-invent the wheel.

[Conan71]

The 1950's Red? That was acceptable when the baby boomer kids were flooding the schools and new schools were being built, new teachers trained etc. And that was also sufficient education during those times when we were primarily a manufacturing society.  But we're not there now. To have 30 kids in a classroom when school age population is decreasing, we're closing schools and selling off the buildings AND we're in dire need of improving math and science for a technological society, is not a good thing.

Had this legislation passed, it would have been revisited by this new administration just like we're about to revisit the national health care bill. Changes would be made and specific details would emerge. Now we have to start from scratch, behind everyone else while we do even more blood letting.

To make things worse, the new state legislature has cut ties with the existing base of lobbyists, who served a role as a fount of continuuing knowledge for incoming members. Love them or hate them, lobbyists are the link between industry, education and legislation. When you sever that tie, in favor or ideology, you have to re-invent the wheel.

You said it yourself, school age population is decreasing WB.  Why build more school buildings with operating budgets which eat up money which could be spent on hiring and retaining better educators?  25 to 30 student classes was the norm up through the 80's at major metro public schools.  Why are we dumbing down today's students?  What's changed significantly for them that they need any more attention than those who were in school 20 years before them?  Going from a manufacturing society to more of a tech and service society really doesn't dictate class sizes, IMO.

[Red Arrow]

Mid 50s thru late 60s.  We lived in a mixed white and blue collar community in suburban Phila. PA.  My graduating class was about 400 kids.  I don't have exact numbers but a significant number, probably 30%, went on to college.  We had groups for college bound kids, vo-tech bound kids and some in the middle.  It ticked me off that I wasn't allowed to take shop classes since I was in the college bound group.

Everyone was required to take English and Phys Ed every year. Due to some "accelerated" programs, many of us had 2-1/2 yrs algebra, 1/2 yr trig, 1 yr geometry, and either Sr. Math, Sr. Advanced math which included 1/2 yr of differential calculus, or the whole Sr yr of calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, and possibly a second yr of chemistry or biology, up to 4 yrs of a foreign language, Social Studies or History at least 3 yrs.  Some of the advanced programs started in 8th grade.  

I think that the parents' involvement and the attitude toward education was a plus.  Discipline was typically not a problem but I won't say there were no problems.  I really don't know how the schools in the city of Phila. fared.

[we vs us]

There's not going to be a "better" bill to vote on down the pike.  There's not going to ever be an acceptable proposal that includes either as a stated provision or even as a hint down the line an increase in taxes. We are under the misguided impression that savings and efficiencies can be found at current funding levels, and that if we just consolidate districts one more time, or take another swipe at school lunch funding (or school transportation funding, or what-have-you); or if we can only finally and permanently break the back of the teachers union so that we can institute merit based pay (and offer the bulk of beginners 8$ an hour with no bennies); if we could only put vouchers on on the table and just activate the wonders of markets-based competition a million young scholars would bloom and flourish and our poor little hardscrabble state -- which is falling farther and farther behind not only the rest of the country but behind the world economy -- will somehow bloom and flourish as well.

There are so many ways we can redirect this discussion away from the core problem, which is that we spend far too little in comparison to almost everyone everywhere.  None of these things will do what we need to do, which is add money into the system.  This will never happen, however, because our first priority in this state is to not ever ever ever raise taxes ever for anything. Full stop.

[TheArtist]

  I get the notion that many conservatives don't like big government and even the need to cut spending in general, but what I don't like is cutting at the state and federal level but then not give us at the local/city level the ability to take up the slack if and how we would like . I may be wrong, but from what I gather, a city can vote to build more school buildings, but can't fund more teachers or school supplies? If your going to cut at the state level (which I am all for lol) at least fight to allow us to then do the same task for ourselves at the local level if we wish.

Its like the lottery thing.  I believe I heard of a school district that got money from the lottery for certain funding for the teachers (went to retirement fund I think, which is probably being raided for something else and doesn't really exist lol) , but they were still scrabbling for pencils and paper.  Was another example of, more money for education, but the devil was in the details.

[swake]

 I get the notion that many conservatives don't like big government and even the need to cut spending in general, but what I don't like is cutting at the state and federal level but then not give us at the local/city level the ability to take up the slack if and how we would like . I may be wrong, but from what I gather, a city can vote to build more school buildings, but can't fund more teachers or school supplies? If your going to cut at the state level (which I am all for lol) at least fight to allow us to then do the same task for ourselves at the local level if we wish.

Its like the lottery thing.  I believe I heard of a school district that got money from the lottery for certain funding for the teachers (went to retirement fund I think, which is probably being raided for something else and doesn't really exist lol) , but they were still scrabbling for pencils and paper.  Was another example of, more money for education, but the devil was in the details.

Jenks tried to get a measure passed to allow for supplemental local funding but it didn't get far.

The whole idea has big problems in the courts because if it were to pass then wealthy, white suburban districts would have better funding and schools than poorer urban and heavily minority urban districts, which actually need higher levels of funding to help to overcome the inherent disadvantages that the urban kids come to school with.

[Conan71]

There's not going to be a "better" bill to vote on down the pike.  There's not going to ever be an acceptable proposal that includes either as a stated provision or even as a hint down the line an increase in taxes. We are under the misguided impression that savings and efficiencies can be found at current funding levels, and that if we just consolidate districts one more time, or take another swipe at school lunch funding (or school transportation funding, or what-have-you); or if we can only finally and permanently break the back of the teachers union so that we can institute merit based pay (and offer the bulk of beginners 8$ an hour with no bennies); if we could only put vouchers on on the table and just activate the wonders of markets-based competition a million young scholars would bloom and flourish and our poor little hardscrabble state -- which is falling farther and farther behind not only the rest of the country but behind the world economy -- will somehow bloom and flourish as well.

There are so many ways we can redirect this discussion away from the core problem, which is that we spend far too little in comparison to almost everyone everywhere.  None of these things will do what we need to do, which is add money into the system.  This will never happen, however, because our first priority in this state is to not ever ever ever raise taxes ever for anything. Full stop.

This is the mistaken notion that throwing more money at a problem makes it go away.  Liberal thinking seems to engender the idea that government and government institutions are so massively huge as it is now, it's too big to do anything about except spend more money and create more layers of administration to supposedly create more accountability to tax payers.  There's no reason for government and it's institutions to be "necessarily larger" in this day and age.  If anything, advances in technology should make a smaller government much more of a reality.  We don't have a problem with spending too little in education in Oklahoma.  We have a problem of mis-spending.  Take a look at the facility operation costs and administrative costs of running 603 districts in 77 counties and tell me that's just chock full of efficiency.

According to this link, there are 603 school districts in Oklahoma.

That's 603 districts to serve 77 counties and 626,000 students.  There are 15.95 students per full time teacher.  This does not include teacher's aides or "ungraded teachers"  There's no shortage of teachers, and we seem to be hitting the goal of maintaining around a 15:1 student teacher ratio.

Here's a full run down on the metrics:

Oklahoma School District Statistics

Oklahoma School Districts:   603
Total Students Pre Kindergarten - 12 Grade:   626,160
Total Males:   322,392
Total Females:   303,767
American Indian Students:   115,771
Asian/Pacific Islanders :   9,396
African Americans:   68,315
Hispanic:   47,828
White:   384,849
Total Staff:   71,313
Fulltime Teachers:   39,251
Ungraded Teachers:   4,267
Oklahoma Pre Kindergarten Teachers:   865
Oklahoma Kindergarten Teachers:   1,636
Oklahoma Elementary Teachers:   15,768
Oklahoma Secondary Teachers:   16,717
Elementary Guidance Counselors:   522
Secondary Guidance Counselors:   973
Total Guidance Counselors:   1,494
LEA Administrators:   710
School Administrators:   1,932
LEA Admin Support Staff:   1,664
School Admin Support Staff:   3,485
Student Support Services Staff:   2,293
Other Support Staff:   12,466
Library Media Support Staff:   722
Librarians Media Specialists:   997

[RecycleMichael]

Yes. There are inefficiencies and waste in our education system. Yes. There are ways to consolidate school districts and even close some schools. That is already happening.

But we are still 49th in spending per pupil.

All I want is for us to be in the middle on spending. The average. That is all the last bill proposed.

Average. Oklahoma needs to be OK. We can't afford great or even good but we need to be at least OK.

Ain't going to happen with the current Governor and legislature...

[Red Arrow]

I would rather have our schools turn out average or better students than have the right to claim we spent a certain amount of money.  The two are not seperable but neither are they necessarily tied at 1:1 to our neighbors.

[Conan71]

Yes. There are inefficiencies and waste in our education system. Yes. There are ways to consolidate school districts and even close some schools. That is already happening.

But we are still 49th in spending per pupil.

All I want is for us to be in the middle on spending. The average. That is all the last bill proposed.

Average. Oklahoma needs to be OK. We can't afford great or even good but we need to be at least OK.

Ain't going to happen with the current Governor and legislature...

What's the guarantee, or better yet a proven corollary that more school spending makes for better outcomes?

Some of the biggest spending districts in the U.S. puts out the worst students and have the highest drop out rates.  If spending more money on education would relate to better results, then by all means do it, but there doesn't seem to be any relationship other than teacher's unions trying to make it so.  To increase spending simply for the pride of saying: "We are in the upper 1/2 or middle of per pupil spending" is completely asinine.

[ZYX]

I think we need a combination of both. We need to give more money to schools, but that is not all of the solution. We don't need to throw drastic sums of money into the system, that will just further put us in debt. I think we should slightly raise the amount of money spent on education, and then work to use that money efficiently. 603 districts for 626,000 students is insane. Not every tiny little town needs a school. Make a central hub in several of the small towns, and then bus kids in from surrounding communities. This could allow for more quality facilities, and not just quantity of facilities.

[waterboy]

Are you aware that most of the state, most of those districts and most of those legislators voting on such a plan....are categorized as rural? That is never going to happen.

I am reminded of a sweatshirt I see every once in awhile. "Harley makes a great bike, but would you fly in a plane powered by one?"  The hard facts are that the more you spend on a quality product the better the product generally performs. You can't just improve a harley motor and put it in a plane. Pragmatically we can't kill off the sacred cow of a rural state. We could redesign the system but it seems a bit late for that.

So, given the constraints outlined, what is the best path? Spend less in hopes of strangling the rural interests till they give in? They'll die first. Spend more in hopes that we can catch up with the rest of the world but pay more taxes and enable a sick puppy to live longer? Also not likely.

What?