Tulsa Public Schools Spending

[rebound]

I am torn.

Am I supposed to support the teacher walkout?   We voted on teacher pay not that long ago and the general public didn't support it then.   If any other public servant (they get paid with my tax dollars, so really that is what they are) decided to randomly not show up to work, I would be irate.

I think that is the point.  You (and everyone) is supposed to be irate.   Force the issue, and let's see which side breaks.  I fully support the teachers.

[TeeDub]

Somebody must or they wouldn't be talking about a strike.   Can we get the oil companies to hire strike breakers?   

If they would, I would oppose ever raising taxes on them again.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I am torn.

Am I supposed to support the teacher walkout?   We voted on teacher pay not that long ago and the general public didn't support it then.   If any other public servant (they get paid with my tax dollars, so really that is what they are) decided to randomly not show up to work, I would be irate.

Not exactly random - the Oklahoma state legislature has been a festering septic cauldron since Failin' took over - that hasn't done the right thing for this state since the git-go.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Today Governor Mary Failin' is announcing that Oklahoma will change its official state song from "Oklahoma" by Rogers & Hammerstein, to "We Don't Need No Education" by Pink Floyd.


Stay tuned for more failures by the Oklahoma State Legislature and Failin'.

[TeeDub]

Today Governor Mary Failin' is announcing that Oklahoma will change its official state song from "Oklahoma" by Rogers & Hammerstein, to "We Don't Need No Education" by Pink Floyd.

That's fake news...   It was actually the teachers union got it changed.    Remember, they are the ones abandoning the children and walking out.

[swake]

That's fake news...   It was actually the teachers union got it changed.    Remember, they are the ones abandoning the children and walking out.

No, the teachers are fighting for the kids, it's the state that's abandoned the schools.

[Red Arrow]

No, the teachers are fighting for the kids, it's the state that's abandoned the schools.

They are also fighting for a needed pay raise.

[TeeDub]

No, the teachers are fighting for the kids, it's the state that's abandoned the schools.

I guess that makes sense...  In a walk out on them and demand a raise rather than things that might actually benefit the children.

[swake]

I guess that makes sense...  In a walk out on them and demand a raise rather than things that might actually benefit the children.

Pay is so bad now that we no longer can hire qualified teachers. This school year Oklahoma had to resort to hiring 1,500 new people to teach that lacked the required training and certification. On top of the 1,300 hired last year. 

Pay itself a problem, and is not all they are asking for.

[rebound]

I guess that makes sense...  In a walk out on them and demand a raise rather than things that might actually benefit the children.

I assume you are just trolling at this point.

If you don't see how bad the current state of our education systems are in, and how it is going to take some drastic action to change it, then you have had your head in the sand for years.  Or, you simply don't care about the long-term outcomes of bad education on the children of this state.

[TeeDub]

So.  If we have decided that teachers suck...   Where does the money come from to hire better ones?   Or do we just give raises to the ones we have?   

[cannon_fodder]

I assume you are just trolling at this point.

If you don't see how bad the current state of our education systems are in, and how it is going to take some drastic action to change it, then you have had your head in the sand for years.  Or, you simply don't care about the long-term outcomes of bad education on the children of this state.

I don't think he is trolling. He's just dancing around his point, which I think is  either "better education isn't worth increasing taxes," or "I don't think better funding for education will produce better results."   It would be simpler if he would just come out and say it, it would result in a better discussion.

IF - he thinks better education isn't worth increasing taxes, I'd point out that an educated workforce strongly correlates to a number of positive factors (higher wealth, lower crime rate, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy, fewer abortions, lower unemployment, less dependency on government aid) which ultimately results in more tax revenue and lower expenditures for government. We cut taxes for 10+ years with the promise of revenue that never materializes, but the data suggests had we spent that money on education we actually would have increased our revenue and then been able to reduce taxes.  Ergo, it is short sighted to say "no taxes for education" - you cost yourself money in the long run.

IF - he thinks better funding doesn't men better results, I'd point out that there is a strong correlation between funding level and results.  It isn't THE factor, but it is the easiest factor we can control.  It's true that funding overall has increased nationally over the decades.  It is true that the US spends more per pupil (even adjuster for GDP %) than many countries with better results. I'd love to be able to point to a better system that would achieve the same goals as universal public education for half the money... but no one has found one yet.  And a solution (home school, religious, online, private schools) that leaves most kids behind isn't acceptable if the USA wants to remain competitive with advanced economies.  Funding level is what we can control now that is likely to improve results.

Heck, we aren't so much "throwing money at the problem" as we are struggling to get per pupil funding levels back to where they were. Between 2008 and 2017 we cut per pupil funding 28% (adjuster for inflation) - that's twice as much as the next worst state, and we weren't high to begin with. And we are still trying to force more cuts, while most states have begun increasing funding again.  Remember, the economy is booming in Oklahoma and around the nation.  Oil and gas prices are up, drilling and pipeline building are going strong, unemployment is low enough that finding workers is hard, corporate profits are near records.

Yet we are always broke.  If you are broke when times are good, there's some seriously bad planning.  While some are sure that extra revenue from the tax cuts will kick in any day now... I don't think it is unreasonable for teachers to demand their "trickle down" now.  They've stuck it out for ten years without a raise, that's a decrease of 15-25% in purchasing power. They've waited a long time with politicians telling them education is a priority, or saying "when the budget improves" as steps are taken to ensure the budget never improves.

At a certain point, you need to shut up and stop whining, or stand up for what you believe.  Whining for a decade didn't help.  Time to stand up.


https://okpolicy.org/however-count-oklahomas-per-pupil-education-funding-way/
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

[rebound]

So.  If we have decided that teachers suck...   Where does the money come from to hire better ones?   Or do we just give raises to the ones we have?   

First, read Cannon's post.  I may have assumed incorrectly that you are/were just being a troll and poking the bear.  If not, well, "bless your heart".

We have a situation where due to low pay and related issues we have been forced over the last decade to hire teachers that "normally" we would not hire.  We need better quality teachers to enter the workforce.   The money to do this could easily be had by reinstating the 7% production tax.  After that, once the funnel starts to fill up again, we can begin weeding out the teachers that don't measure up.  But we can't do that until the mechanics change, and that starts will higher pay for the job.   We didn't get here overnight, and we won't fix it all overnight, but the baseline long-term issue is teacher pay and school funding.  Fix that, and we can begin to work getting this back on track.

 

[TeeDub]

I guess being semi-anonymous on the internet raises my level of snark.   Although if you knew me, I can't say I have that much tact in real life either.



I guess I have several questions that I think are relevant before I want to pay anyone more.   And yes, I have never found that just throwing money at a problem produces any better results.  (I also have issue with "haven't gotten a raise in 10 years"  which is a blatant lie.   They get raises every year based on experience, we have all seen the sheet.)


1.  How do I reward good employees (in this case teachers) and get rid of bad ones.   At this point you can't.  Through my children I have seen good, bad, and some that were adequate but just going through the motions.

2.  Why do all teachers get the same pay?   30k a year might be fine if someone teaches 2nd grade.   It takes a much higher skill set to teach high school algebra/chemistry/etc.  
While I also understand that some teachers claim to work long hours grading and creating lesson plans, I can't imagine that in 3rd grade it takes long to work out if they correctly circled the subject or added the numbers correctly.

3.  Somewhere in the last 10 years we have introduced all day kindergarten and pre-K.   How much of the budget was diverted to this subsidized childcare versus existing teacher salaries?

4.  Does every kid really need a chromebook/ipad?   Could this money be better spent?


On another note, maybe we should also take some time to reevaluate what schools should do.

Schools do little to teach children about the real world.   I couldn't balance a checkbook or tell you how a car loan worked when I left high school.   Now they have done away with shop/etc.   I use those necessary life skills way more than I use what philum an animal is in or drawing a electron diagram.

Seventy [percent] of incoming college freshman told us that they have never been taught basic financial literacy skills. Yet, they are signing up for student loans, opening credit cards and making decisions that will have a serious impact on the rest of their lives.

[erfalf]

I don't think he is trolling. He's just dancing around his point, which I think is  either "better education isn't worth increasing taxes," or "I don't think better funding for education will produce better results."   It would be simpler if he would just come out and say it, it would result in a better discussion.

IF - he thinks better education isn't worth increasing taxes, I'd point out that an educated workforce strongly correlates to a number of positive factors (higher wealth, lower crime rate, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy, fewer abortions, lower unemployment, less dependency on government aid) which ultimately results in more tax revenue and lower expenditures for government. We cut taxes for 10+ years with the promise of revenue that never materializes, but the data suggests had we spent that money on education we actually would have increased our revenue and then been able to reduce taxes.  Ergo, it is short sighted to say "no taxes for education" - you cost yourself money in the long run.

IF - he thinks better funding doesn't men better results, I'd point out that there is a strong correlation between funding level and results.  It isn't THE factor, but it is the easiest factor we can control.  It's true that funding overall has increased nationally over the decades.  It is true that the US spends more per pupil (even adjuster for GDP %) than many countries with better results. I'd love to be able to point to a better system that would achieve the same goals as universal public education for half the money... but no one has found one yet.  And a solution (home school, religious, online, private schools) that leaves most kids behind isn't acceptable if the USA wants to remain competitive with advanced economies.  Funding level is what we can control now that is likely to improve results.

Heck, we aren't so much "throwing money at the problem" as we are struggling to get per pupil funding levels back to where they were. Between 2008 and 2017 we cut per pupil funding 28% (adjuster for inflation) - that's twice as much as the next worst state, and we weren't high to begin with. And we are still trying to force more cuts, while most states have begun increasing funding again.  Remember, the economy is booming in Oklahoma and around the nation.  Oil and gas prices are up, drilling and pipeline building are going strong, unemployment is low enough that finding workers is hard, corporate profits are near records.

Yet we are always broke.  If you are broke when times are good, there's some seriously bad planning.  While some are sure that extra revenue from the tax cuts will kick in any day now... I don't think it is unreasonable for teachers to demand their "trickle down" now.  They've stuck it out for ten years without a raise, that's a decrease of 15-25% in purchasing power. They've waited a long time with politicians telling them education is a priority, or saying "when the budget improves" as steps are taken to ensure the budget never improves.

At a certain point, you need to shut up and stop whining, or stand up for what you believe.  Whining for a decade didn't help.  Time to stand up.


https://okpolicy.org/however-count-oklahomas-per-pupil-education-funding-way/
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

Be careful using the Oklahoma Policy numbers. They have this incredibly predictable habit of using 2008 as a baseline. Does no one else recall what was going on in 2008? Well, oil was $130/barrel. The housing market still hadn't quite exploded. The stock market was hitting it's peak. A lot of things were working in the right direction at that point in time. Just moving the baseline back a few years completely erases that 26% cut. Now, in fairness over the ten year period from '06-'16 per pupil spending has remained flat adjusting for inflation. So that's probably not good either. But it's not quite as dire as the OPI would like you to believe. I think the thing that troubles me the most is that only 45% of all spending is actually dedicated to the classroom. I would think human costs would be the biggest expense in schools, how this category doesn't come out around 60% seems to be a problem in my book. Especially since we as communities help pay for substantial capital projects (what I would expect to be the second largest cost).