Tulsa Public Schools Spending

[heironymouspasparagus]

So you're saying we simply need to spend more money, and then, once that money is wasted, assess why spending more money hasn't helped anything?

Whaaaaaa?

Oh, wait...maybe I missed something here...not reading and comprehending the last few posts?  Are you gonna try to claim "public school educated" on us?

[ZYX]

So, you are as simplistic as Gaspar??

Was there anything else I was supposed to read into that? How is throwing more money at schools not a simplistic answer?

[ZYX]

Oh, wait...maybe I missed something here...not reading and comprehending the last few posts?  Are you gonna try to claim "public school educated" on us?

If feel as though I've made my opinion as to what the problem with our schools is pretty clear. My solution would cost money, but would require a change in the system, which would therefore not be simply throwing more money at the schools, but a solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Was there anything else I was supposed to read into that? How is throwing more money at schools not a simplistic answer?

Because, it is NOT just throwing more money at it.  It is about much more, like getting to the point where we are competitive to other states in our immediate neighborhood.  It is about getting enough materials, equipment and infrastructure in the classroom, so we don't have all these local campaigns - fundraisers - to get the items needed in a classroom to conduct a class.  

Cutting class size has been the "holy grail" since I was in school, and we never had it here in Oklahoma, for either myself, my kids, and now the grandkids.  We had it in another state where I lived for a few years during elementary school.  The actual support by that school system explains why it took from 6th grade until 8th grade in Oklahoma to get into NEW material that was already covered in the other state.  This problem goes back a long, long time - and no sign of being fixed.

Change is good.  Wish we could get some.  Spending on a par with surrounding states is kind of like giving a small drink of water to someone lost for a week in the desert - the first step in change.  THEN it becomes possible to change clothes, shower and eat something.


We spend about $8,000 per year (2009) per child in public schools.  guido has mentioned a number of $30k for his two kids to go to private school (does that include books and supplies?).  Which means the private school solution is to throw $15,000 per year at the problem - almost 100% more than our public schools.  If that doesn't fit your definition of "throwing money" at the problem, I guess there is no such thing.  Texas is about $9 k - and they are going down.  National average is around $11 k.  So we are more than 3,000 behind.  About 30% increase from our current budget.  And still way behind the "private solution."

[custosnox]

If feel as though I've made my opinion as to what the problem with our schools is pretty clear. My solution would cost money, but would require a change in the system, which would therefore not be simply throwing more money at the schools, but a solution.

The school system is severely under-funded.  So bringing it up to the fund level it needs to at least operate is not throwing money at it, it's common sense.  Do we need to do more beyond that?  Obviously, but we have to get to that point first.  Continuing to keep the system operating on shoe string budgets because giving them enough to actually do something with would be considered throwing money at the problem is just asinine. 

[ZYX]

Because, it is NOT just throwing more money at it.  It is about much more, like getting to the point where we are competitive to other states in our immediate neighborhood.  It is about getting enough materials, equipment and infrastructure in the classroom, so we don't have all these local campaigns - fundraisers - to get the items needed in a classroom to conduct a class. 

Cutting class size has been the "holy grail" since I was in school, and we never had it here in Oklahoma, for either myself, my kids, and now the grandkids.  We had it in another state where I lived for a few years during elementary school.  The actual support by that school system explains why it took from 6th grade until 8th grade in Oklahoma to get into NEW material that was already covered in the other state.  This problem goes back a long, long time - and no sign of being fixed.

Change is good.  Wish we could get some.  Spending on a par with surrounding states is kind of like giving a small drink of water to someone lost for a week in the desert - the first step in change.  THEN it becomes possible to change clothes, shower and eat something.


We spend about $8,000 per year (2009) per child in public schools.  guido has mentioned a number of $30k for his two kids to go to private school (does that include books and supplies?).  Which means the private school solution is to throw $15,000 per year at the problem - almost 100% more than our public schools.  If that doesn't fit your definition of "throwing money" at the problem, I guess there is no such thing.  Texas is about $9 k - and they are going down.  National average is around $11 k.  So we are more than 3,000 behind.  About 30% increase from our current budget.  And still way behind the "private solution."

If the private school presents material in about the same way as a public school, then yes, that is just throwing mney at the problem.

Why can't we add money to the schools, AND make a major change in the system at the same time. We aren't going to see any kind of major change simply by giving more funding to schools. Do they need it? Yes. Is how they operate working as well as it could? No.

That's why I feel that we should give more money to the schools only when we are ready to make a change in them. Otherwise, it's just spending more money to procrastinate on a solution.

[ZYX]

The school system is severely under-funded.  So bringing it up to the fund level it needs to at least operate is not throwing money at it, it's common sense.  Do we need to do more beyond that?  Obviously, but we have to get to that point first.  Continuing to keep the system operating on shoe string budgets because giving them enough to actually do something with would be considered throwing money at the problem is just asinine. 

I don't propose we keep under funding them. I propose a change in the way that schools are run and students are taught. Otherwise, giving the schools more money is simply giving more money to a broken system.

Why do we think the quality of TEACHING, which is what schools are meant to do, will increase with more funding. Sure, class sizes may be smaller, but that only helps if the teacher has the right attitude going into it. The public school (as well as certain private) teaching philosophy is flawed. That's what really needs fixed.

I said it already, but I'll say it again. My solution requires more money to be spent, but it is Presenting a solution to the problem that is only partly consisting of money. The vibe I am getting from some participating in this discussion is that the only problem with schools is that they are under funded. That is purely incorrect.

[custosnox]

I don't propose we keep under funding them. I propose a change in the way that schools are run and students are taught. Otherwise, giving the schools more money is simply giving more money to a broken system.

Why do we think the quality of TEACHING, which is what schools are meant to do, will increase with more funding. Sure, class sizes may be smaller, but that only helps if the teacher has the right attitude going into it. The public school (as well as certain private) teaching philosophy is flawed. That's what really needs fixed.

I said it already, but I'll say it again. My solution requires more money to be spent, but it is Presenting a solution to the problem that is only partly consisting of money. The vibe I am getting from some participating in this discussion is that the only problem with schools is that they are under funded. That is purely incorrect.

I already said we need more than just funding, but right now we need funding before anything else.  It's hard to have any teachers worth anything when other states are willing to pay them more.  What makes you so sure the system is broken?  Have you ever seen it fully funded and running?

[Gaspar]

None of this is applicable to Oklahoma due to the facts that RM is talking about - education is not keeping up, which means it is being cut.  If we were even in the top 1/3, then the notion about "throwing money" might be a point to look at.  But since we are about #45 or so, that whole premise is a typical Fox type BS moment - cutesy little sound bite, but only the most casual connection to planet Earth reality.

That would be fine if there was evidence of a correlation, however there is not.  California, Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii, and DC all spend far more than we do, and produce lower performance.  Then there are states like Utah and Idaho that spend far less and perform unbelievably higher. http://www.census.gov/govs/school/

To say that we have to "keep up with the Jones'" just for the sake of spending money does not address the problem, however it does represent classical liberal entitlement philosophy. "They are spending more, so we should spend more. They have more, so I should have more."

Throwing more money at the problem is not a solution, it's a symptom of the problem itself. This is the Oroboros. I am fine with increasing funding to education if there is a return, however we keep doing it without return.

[AquaMan]

So you're saying we simply need to spend more money, and then, once that money is wasted, assess why spending more money hasn't helped anything?

Whaaaaaa?

Here is the kernel of your mistake. "....once that money is wasted...". You assume a negative, then no further argument is acceptable. No details of waste, no description of amount, nothing to back up the statement other than common belief.

How indeed does one look at a 45th out of 50 states in per pupil expenditure then say we are spending too much money and can't throw anymore at it to solve the problem?

[AquaMan]

Bear in mind, Gas has a feature on his software that drops the words, "entitlement philosophy, liberal, unions, wasteful government spending" and a host of other phrases into every missive. He then must fashion sentences around those phrases.

The link is problematic. He leads you to believe that it makes his point but it requires you to download excel documents to do so and strangely, there is no document related to the likely spurious correlations he made regarding the results of those two small, sparsely populated, high per capita income states. Well, maybe not so strange....

Bottom line. There is no evidence he produced that would show how spending less money on education would correlate with increased performance on a ceteris paribus basis. With few exceptions when you spend 30% less on a product you cannot expect it to outperform it competitors.

[JCnOwasso]

While there is a problem with TPS, I think the overall problem is statewide.  OK has way too many school districts which absorb money for administration.  Now for some data that will probably just confuse the situation.

OK has 603 school districts for a total of 626,160 Students.  Approx 1038 per district.  27258 "other than teacher" staff, which is 45 staff per district.
KS has 308 districts for a total of 470,500 students/1527 per district.  25115 staff/81 per district.
ARK has 341 and 454,523/1332 per. 27791 staff/81 per district
Utah has 60 and 491,206/ 8186 per.  13,459 staff/ 224 per district
Kent has 196 and 663,886/3387 per.  41553 staff/ 212 per district
LA has 86 and 727,709/8461 per.  42865 staff/ 498 per district
TX has 1265 and 4,331,751/3424 per.  256,815 staff/ 203 per district
OH has 895 and 1,845,428/2061 per.  105,706 staff/ 118 per district

Now I am not going to sit and say that there is any connection between these items, but OK has the least amount of students and staff per district and it is consistantly ranked in the bottom 5 in the nation.  I am almost willin to say that if you pull the data for the other consistent low ranked states you would find some ties to either being too high or too low from the average.


I did just check an article from the Tulsaworld that stated in 2010 the average pay for a superintendent is $97,000 for an annual outlay of $58,491,000... I don't even want to know the cost for benefits.

[Townsend]

This popped up on my feed.

http://49thisnotok.org/write/

The site makes it easy to contact your rep about flat funding for education.

There's a link included to look up your district.

[Gaspar]

With few exceptions when you spend 30% less on a product you cannot expect it to outperform it competitors.

If you are spending that "on the product" rather than in the institution that produces the product. How many more levels shall we create?  

I suppose you see no fault in the population of 200K administrators and mid-managers to oversee teaching Johnny how to read?

Liberals want progressive solutions to problems, right?  Why not with education?   Why do they work so hard to protect the increased funding of the status quo?

Why do they attack when people propose change over just spending?  

Why are they so quick to blame the kids?

Read back through this thread and see who is defending the education of the children vs who is defending the institution.

[AquaMan]

While there is a problem with TPS, I think the overall problem is statewide.  OK has way too many school districts which absorb money for administration.  Now for some data that will probably just confuse the situation.

OK has 603 school districts for a total of 626,160 Students.  Approx 1038 per district.  27258 "other than teacher" staff, which is 45 staff per district.
KS has 308 districts for a total of 470,500 students/1527 per district.  25115 staff/81 per district.
ARK has 341 and 454,523/1332 per. 27791 staff/81 per district
Utah has 60 and 491,206/ 8186 per.  13,459 staff/ 224 per district
Kent has 196 and 663,886/3387 per.  41553 staff/ 212 per district
LA has 86 and 727,709/8461 per.  42865 staff/ 498 per district
TX has 1265 and 4,331,751/3424 per.  256,815 staff/ 203 per district
OH has 895 and 1,845,428/2061 per.  105,706 staff/ 118 per distric

Now I am not going to sit and say that there is any connection between these items, but OK has the least amount of students and staff per district and it is consistantly ranked in the bottom 5 in the nation.  I am almost willin to say that if you pull the data for the other consistent low ranked states you would find some ties to either being too high or too low from the average.


I did just check an article from the Tulsaworld that stated in 2010 the average pay for a superintendent is $97,000 for an annual outlay of $58,491,000... I don't even want to know the cost for benefits.

The rural districts imo are where our poorest returns exist. We spend more by not consolidating them and don't show any remarkable performance in exchange. Sometimes the rural administrators/board members are the highest paid residents of the county. Then those excessive administrative costs get averaged into the total to skew the statewide results.