PDA

View Full Version : Public School supporters



Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 07:08 AM
here's a question for discussion:

While returning from OKC yesterday, I was ruminating over the potential initiative mentioned here the other day wherein Devin may "adopt" some public school in downtown OKC in order to help attract workers.

Here's what occurred to me. Here in Oklahoma, we essentially have a two-tiered system. To wit, we have "rich" suburban school districts like Union and Jenks in Tulsa (I'm sure there are OKC equivalents, I just don't know that terrain as well as I do Tulsa's) and their are "poor" districts. The poor districts suffer because the property tax base in their rural or urban areas won't support the programs and facilities the rich areas can.

That said, if its really about raising all OUr kids educational opportunities, why not put all the property tax money that goes to public education into a big pot, and distribute it equally to each public school district in OUr state? Apparently, that's the way they do it in a few states with pretty decent results.

:pop:

olevetonahill
11/7/2008, 07:12 AM
If the Parents want better fer thier Kids work Harder and Move up .
Aint that the American Way ?

Fraggle145
11/7/2008, 07:13 AM
here's a question for discussion:

Here in Oklahoma, we essentially have a two-tiered system. To wit, we have "rich" suburban school districts like Union and Jenks in Tulsa (I'm sure there are OKC equivalents, I just don't know that terrain as well as I do Tulsa's) and their are "poor" districts. The poor districts suffer because the property tax base in their rural or urban areas won't support the programs and facilities the rich areas can.

That said, if its really about raising all OUr kids educational opportunities, why not put all the property tax money that goes to public education into a big pot, and distribute it equally to each public school district in OUr state? Apparently, that's the way they do it in a few states with pretty decent results.

:pop:

SOCIALIST![hairGel]

;)

olevetonahill
11/7/2008, 07:15 AM
SOCIALIST![hairGel]

;)

Silent Obama dood
:eek:

85Sooner
11/7/2008, 09:00 AM
here's a question for discussion:

While returning from OKC yesterday, I was ruminating over the potential initiative mentioned here the other day wherein Devin may "adopt" some public school in downtown OKC in order to help attract workers.

Here's what occurred to me. Here in Oklahoma, we essentially have a two-tiered system. To wit, we have "rich" suburban school districts like Union and Jenks in Tulsa (I'm sure there are OKC equivalents, I just don't know that terrain as well as I do Tulsa's) and their are "poor" districts. The poor districts suffer because the property tax base in their rural or urban areas won't support the programs and facilities the rich areas can.

That said, if its really about raising all OUr kids educational opportunities, why not put all the property tax money that goes to public education into a big pot, and distribute it equally to each public school district in OUr state? Apparently, that's the way they do it in a few states with pretty decent results.

:pop:

We have robin hood in texas and I don't like it personally. The poorer schools don't do any better and the richer schools just get poorer. Oh ....and then your taxes really start going up.

yermom
11/7/2008, 09:02 AM
i think they spent too much time worrying about buses and racial integration over actually making good schools, other than Booker T, i guess

the difference between Rogers and Owasso was just crazy

of course, i think the students had more to do with it than money

Ike
11/7/2008, 09:10 AM
In principle, I like the idea of doing something like that, with the idea being to build quality school districts everywhere in the state. However, I don't think it will achieve the desired results. The richer school districts/towns will find ways to supplement their schools that the poorer areas simply won't be able to do. They'll do this because being known as a good school district attracts parents to move to the area, and then we again have a 2 tier system, but with the bottom slightly higher, and people living in the richer areas paying into everyones district. As 85 says, it probably just leads to higher taxes for almost everyone.

So maybe it works a bit, maybe not.

Viking Kitten
11/7/2008, 09:40 AM
I'd have to see some pretty solid evidence that it leads to improvement before I'd support it, although I like it in theory.

I'm also intrigued by the New Hope Scholarship program idea that was floated in the Legislature last spring. It was a joint effort by two senators, rock solid conservative Jim Williamson and ultra liberal Judy Eason McIntyre, both of Tulsa.

That program would have given a tax break of up to $5,000 to anyone who pays private school tuition for students who would otherwise attend OKC or Tulsa's lowest performing schools. Not surprisingly, that one broke down not along party lines but along urban vs. rural lines.

IB4OU2
11/7/2008, 10:07 AM
Union/Jenks would hate that Homey because football recruiting would suffer greatly. I really think it would be great though.

Soonrboy
11/7/2008, 10:15 AM
You mean, like spread the wealth?

Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 10:21 AM
I'd have to see some pretty solid evidence that it leads to improvement before I'd support it, although I like it in theory.



Are you saying then that it is unknown if an infusion of cash equals improved public school performance/quality?

It just seems to me that equality of educational opportunities for all OUr children has long been the aim. Wouldn't this centralized distribution of local property tax revenues help do that?

sooner_born_1960
11/7/2008, 10:26 AM
I'd be all over a plan like Homey's in about four years.

Fraggle145
11/7/2008, 10:39 AM
i think they spent too much time worrying about buses and racial integration over actually making good schools, other than Booker T, i guess

the difference between Rogers and Owasso was just crazy

of course, i think the students had more to do with it than money

What is really weird is some of those schools, like Hale for example actually were larger and had some better facilities if they were just fixed up a bit.

Viking Kitten
11/7/2008, 10:51 AM
Are you saying then that it is unknown if an infusion of cash equals improved public school performance/quality?

It just seems to me that equality of educational opportunities for all OUr children has long been the aim. Wouldn't this centralized distribution of local property tax revenues help do that?

What I am saying is that I don't know if the funding formula you are proposing is any better or worse than the one in place right now. I'd like to see more evidence.

I will also say that yes, more funding does lead to better schools. Now, of course it's not only funding. Time, energy, parental commitment, those are all HUGE factors. However, just as an example, when new textbooks cost $125, and the state only pays for $50 of that, the district has to make up the difference if the form of bond issues. What happens when a community can't or won't pass those? Outdated textbooks. You also have good teachers leaving Oklahoma to go where they can make more money. All leading to less than quality education. It DOES come back to funding.

I am also saying we need to put the political BS aside and find creative, innovative ways to fix the problem. For one thing, education in THE socio-economic equalizer and the single biggest predictor of life long success. For another thing, American students are lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in science, technology, engineering and math fields. If America goes into decline, I believe you can put it squarely on the shoulders of those who aren't addressing that growing gap. It's not gay marriage that will bring us down. It's not abortion. It's the fact that we are raising an increasing population of dipsh*ts who know all about Paris Hilton and nothing about quantum mechanics.

Give 'em more money and then hold 'em accountible for it.

sooner_born_1960
11/7/2008, 10:58 AM
Since when is equality a goal? I moved to my zip code because the schools were better than the city schools. Equality would just lower the quality of the better schools.

frankensooner
11/7/2008, 11:30 AM
A good example is the Muskogee-Ft. Gibson disparity. Just look what Ft. Gibson produces compared to Muskogee. (ie. SicEm v. frankensooner). Money isn't always everything. ;)

OklahomaTuba
11/7/2008, 12:21 PM
Throwing money at a problem isn't the answer. More socialism isn't the answer. Punishing success isn't the answer and enabling failure isn't the answer.

Schools should compete against each other, that is the only way these types of government run programs will ever be forced to make positive reforms to compete, or they die. We shouldn’t be afraid of failure, schools included.

If the schools are under performing in your area, move.

People vote with their feet all the time, and it’s about the only thing that can reign-in the out of control government we have and breed success and accept failure.

Its nonsense like this that is killing this nations educational system and putting at grave risk our future competitiveness and prosperity.

badger
11/7/2008, 12:25 PM
That said, if its really about raising all OUr kids educational opportunities, why not put all the property tax money that goes to public education into a big pot, and distribute it equally to each public school district in OUr state? Apparently, that's the way they do it in a few states with pretty decent results.

:pop:

My husband would have something to say about that. Texas once had a "Robin Hood rule" and the district where his mom taught suffered greatly, because they were a larger district with a larger student body that had to share with smaller districts with small student bodies... but they still had to teach the same number of kids. They weren't sharing the number of students and the amount of school funds, just the amount of school funds.

"Robin Hood" rules have good intentions but cause larger districts to suffer. Jenks and Union are the largest schools in the state. That's why they have the most money, because they need it the most, to educate the most students.

OklahomaTuba
11/7/2008, 12:28 PM
Its the critical flaw of marxism. Which is why socialism/communism/etc are not sustainable concepts in reality.

badger
11/7/2008, 12:37 PM
More info on Texas' Robin Hood thingy(PDF press release) (http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2005/nov/112305pr-TXruling.pdf)

I know it's as easy for adults as it is for public school children to yell "It's not fair!" when one school has all the athletic teams, extra curriculars and after school programs when your school only has 20 teams and not as many extra programs, but really, does a school with less students need just as many programs?

Half a Hundred
11/7/2008, 12:51 PM
A rising tide lifts all boats...

Better school systems state wide = increase in the general education of Oklahoma's population = more interest from companies to work where there's an educated work force = more people making more money = higher tax revenue = better school systems state wide

Let's face it, the suburbs can't just ignore the central city and expect companies to come calling. OKC was exactly right when it realized that the revitalization of its center was the key to raising its stature as a city overall, and that has paid off dividends. Meanwhile, Tulsa still seems to be stuck in the 1980s in its perspective on the relationship of the suburbs to the central city (screw them, I got mine).

Sure, the richer districts may not be able to get the newest, top-of-the-line projectors and multi-million-dollar football stadium improvements right now without proper planning and budgeting, but if that means that Oklahoma residents are in high demand because of the overall quality of their education, that's a tradeoff I make every time.

Frozen Sooner
11/7/2008, 01:06 PM
here's a question for discussion:

While returning from OKC yesterday, I was ruminating over the potential initiative mentioned here the other day wherein Devin may "adopt" some public school in downtown OKC in order to help attract workers.

Here's what occurred to me. Here in Oklahoma, we essentially have a two-tiered system. To wit, we have "rich" suburban school districts like Union and Jenks in Tulsa (I'm sure there are OKC equivalents, I just don't know that terrain as well as I do Tulsa's) and their are "poor" districts. The poor districts suffer because the property tax base in their rural or urban areas won't support the programs and facilities the rich areas can.

That said, if its really about raising all OUr kids educational opportunities, why not put all the property tax money that goes to public education into a big pot, and distribute it equally to each public school district in OUr state? Apparently, that's the way they do it in a few states with pretty decent results.

:pop:

No disagreement here, though the money should be allocated on a per capita basis formula not on a flat dollar per district model.

John Kochtoston
11/7/2008, 03:36 PM
No disagreement here, though the money should be allocated on a per capita basis formula not on a flat dollar per district model.


Beat me to it. I've always wondered why we can't just say that there are X amount of dollars collected for education, and Y number of students. Therefore, each school district gets X/Y dollars times the number of students it has. There would have to be some method of predetermining the number of students each district would have every year, since year-to-year bubbles do happen, especially in smaller districts, but it shouldn't be that hard.

SicEmBaylor
11/7/2008, 03:39 PM
I haven't read a single post in this thread, so I have no clue what the discussion is about. I would just like to say, however, that I do not support public schools in any shape, form, or fashion. I would like to see public education eliminated, privatized, and remove the Federal government entirely from the process. That is all.

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 03:49 PM
Also, SicEm would like to see a return to fuedalism. TIA.

SicEmBaylor
11/7/2008, 03:51 PM
Also, SicEm would like to see a return to fuedalism. TIA.

Well, maybe not feudalism, but certainly turn of the 18th-century southern agrarianism.

Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 03:51 PM
No disagreement here, though the money should be allocated on a per capita basis formula not on a flat dollar per district model.

Fine, but opposition to said apportionment scheme would force opponents to admit; It's not all about the children, it's all about my children.;)

I for one, think the state dept of ed to lobby for it. If nothing else, it would force folks to fly their true colors and would peel away much of the hyperbole surrounding the issue of school funding.

85Sooner
11/7/2008, 03:55 PM
I haven't read a single post in this thread, so I have no clue what the discussion is about. I would just like to say, however, that I do not support public schools in any shape, form, or fashion. I would like to see public education eliminated, privatized, and remove the Federal government entirely from the process. That is all.

BRAVO SO BRAVO

Frozen Sooner
11/7/2008, 03:57 PM
Fine, but opposition to said apportionment scheme would force opponents to admit; It's not all about the children, it's all about my children.;)

Again, no disagreement here.

The disparity between high-income area schools and low-income area schools makes Brown v. Board of Education somewhat of a joke.

Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 04:04 PM
Beat me to it. I've always wondered why we can't just say that there are X amount of dollars collected for education, and Y number of students. Therefore, each school district gets X/Y dollars times the number of students it has. There would have to be some method of predetermining the number of students each district would have every year, since year-to-year bubbles do happen, especially in smaller districts, but it shouldn't be that hard.


They could use a method districts use that get federal impact funds based on the number of military brats that attend their schools. Uncle Sam writes a big check to the Lawton, Enid and Midwest City schools each year based on the fact many of those kids live in housing on base which isn't taxed.

They generally report their numbers to the DoD about midway through the first semester, having given enrollment time to settle after the start of school. I do recall, there is always a big hullaballoo about drop-outs who also happen to be military brats because that's money those school districts don't get from Uncle Sugar.

Similarly, under the Homey Progressive Educational Improvement and Leveling Act of 2009 (HPEILA), districts would report their enrollment at the same time each year, which would get all toted up in OKC. Then OKC does the math and sends out checks from an account that includes all property tax dollars earmarked for public education raised in the state to each school based on the number of tykes enrolled therein. simple division. easy peazy japaneezy.

Ike
11/7/2008, 04:09 PM
They could use a method districts use that get federal impact funds based on the number of military brats that attend their schools. Uncle Sam writes a big check to the Lawton, Enid and Midwest City schools each year based on the fact many of those kids live in housing on base which isn't taxed.

They generally report their numbers to the DoD about midway through the first semester, having given enrollment time to settle after the start of school. I do recall, there is always a big hullaballoo about drop-outs who also happen to be military brats because that's money those school districts don't get from Uncle Sugar.

Similarly, under the Homey Progressive Educational Improvement and Leveling Act of 2009 (HPEILA), districts would report their enrollment at the same time each year, which would get all toted up in OKC. Then OKC does the math and sends out checks from an account that includes all property tax dollars earmarked for public education raised in the state to each school based on the number of tykes enrolled therein. simple division. easy peazy japaneezy.

Thats kinda how I'd do it too....however there might be one *small* adjustment I'd make to the formula, and that would be to apportion a certain dollar amount per student based on grade level. The spending on a kindergartner is probably vastly different than the spending on a HS junior...

Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 04:12 PM
Again, no disagreement here.

The disparity between high-income area schools and low-income area schools makes Brown v. Board of Education somewhat of a joke.

You make an interesting point. I maintain Brown actually may have done more harm than good in the following sense. Before, when we had segregated schools, folks generally supported public school benefiting initiatives because it affected their children. The "colored" schools benefitted because Bubba and Linda Sue (who were the majority) would support tax increases for schools and the "rising tide raised all boats." Nowadays, because of white flight and the rise of "seg academies" in much of the deep South, in some areas I've lived (like Montgomery, Alabama) the white kids go to private schools and the black kids go to public schools. Waddya think happens when they try to raise taxes to support the public schools in places like that? Sad dealio no doubt.

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 04:41 PM
Throwing money at a problem isn't the answer. More socialism isn't the answer. Punishing success isn't the answer and enabling failure isn't the answer.

Schools should compete against each other, that is the only way these types of government run programs will ever be forced to make positive reforms to compete, or they die. We shouldn’t be afraid of failure, schools included.

If the schools are under performing in your area, move.

People vote with their feet all the time, and it’s about the only thing that can reign-in the out of control government we have and breed success and accept failure.

Its nonsense like this that is killing this nations educational system and putting at grave risk our future competitiveness and prosperity.
I actually agree with Tuba here. Punishing successful school districts by taking away their money isn't the answer.

The historic problems of the OKC school district actually are more complex that just underperforming, though. Many, many people have "voted with their feet" since the 1960s, but originally it wasn't due to poor performance of the district, but instead a reaction to forced bussing. Some people will tell you that OKC was the hardest-hit school district in America over the bussing issue. I am not well-informed enough on that issue to have an opinion, but I do know the result. White flight, and lots of it.

The OKC school district was largely abandoned by people who could afford to take their kids elswhere, and that created explosive growth in Edmond, Putnam City, and even today in cities like Piedmont, where the school districts were largely white and affluent. The ripple effect was that the people who were left in OKC proper were often either poor or elderly, neither of whom typically pass school bond elections. That created a self-perpetuating problem where OKC went 30 YEARS without passing a bond election (which typically only would have kept the taxes at the same level).

The problem then became schools with holes in the roof (literal holes, that you could see sky through), desperate equipment problems, lack of items such as computers (which have obviously become necessary to provide a competitive education), no air conditioning when suburban schools had it, etc. Which in turn even more created a situation where any caring parent with even a modicum of resourses would take their kids elsewhere. Also, when the affluent move to the suburbs, so do their tax dollars (both in sales tax and through the depreciation of property in town), further burdening the old city.

I think the important thing is that, in the case of OKC, they recognized the trend and did something groundbreaking to reverse it. MAPS for Kids (the penny sales tax portion passed in 2001 and expires this December) took a different approach that typical bond elections or asking someone else (the state, the feds) for more money. The city recognized that good schools will attract families back, which attracts tax dollars. All the work that has been done downtown isn't by itself going to make families choose OKC over Edmond, for instance. And even if you have young singles who do, eventually they get married and have kids... ...and move to Edmond for the schools. Self-perpetuating.

So the city led the charge to get MFK done, and even struck partnerships with suburban districts (those who serve kids who live in the OKC city limits but go to suburban districts due to weird boundaries). The local investment in the school system will total close to 3/4 of a billion dollars, and when it is complete EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT will have either been replaced with a new one or completely remodeled. Plus, it bought new busses, computers and the like. Which has resulted in passage of bond elections since. You can read more about MAPS for Kids by going here (http://www.okc.gov/OCMAPS/index.html) (be sure to click on the annual report PDF links.

I guess my only point is that somewhere along the line, individual communities need to understand that their school district is an amenity for their customers (residents), and that if yours sucks, you will lose business (taxpayers). It really should be up to the city to nut up, or lose the race. I don't think it should be the responsibility of other districts or the state or whoever else to make a bad district into a good one.

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 04:48 PM
Heh. Homey while I was typing up a book on what happened to OKC schools, Homey mostly summed it up. Except for the MAPS for Kids part of course.

Okla-homey
11/7/2008, 05:38 PM
Heh. Homey while I was typing up a book on what happened to OKC schools, Homey mostly summed it up. Except for the MAPS for Kids part of course.

The law of unintended consequences often kicks our collectibe bootay if we don't think things through. OTOH, analysis paraylsis isn't good either. So waddya do? Try to make the best decisions you can with the information available and in the end you did good, or you get your bootay kicked. Sometimes you might as well have flipped a coin.

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 05:55 PM
"...Homey while I was typing up a book on what happened to OKC schools, Homey mostly summed it up...
WTF? You'd think that I have a public education.

Oh, wait. I do.

Curly Bill
11/7/2008, 05:56 PM
We have robin hood in texas and I don't like it personally. The poorer schools don't do any better and the richer schools just get poorer. Oh ....and then your taxes really start going up.

Yup, totally agree, Robin Hood sucks.

SoonerTerry
11/7/2008, 06:33 PM
I haven't read a single post in this thread, so I have no clue what the discussion is about. I would just like to say, however, that I do not support public schools in any shape, form, or fashion. I would like to see public education eliminated, privatized, and remove the Federal government entirely from the process. That is all.

I second that

OUHOMER
11/7/2008, 07:44 PM
Why couldn't each district keep say 65 / 70% of property taxes collected, put the rest into a ear marked fund. Then deal it out to the to all districts based on head count.

The richers schools would still have an advantage, smaller districts would get more funds.

damn I am starting to sound like a democrat :mad:

screw it, dont like it,get a better job, or work 2 jobs and move... that's better:D

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 07:47 PM
Or roll up your sleeves and get involved directly with your child's school and education. Nah, too much work.

TUSooner
11/7/2008, 07:58 PM
Well, maybe not feudalism, but certainly turn of the 18th-century southern agrarianism.

Luddite!

It's not often you get to call someone that these days. :)

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 07:59 PM
Mostly only Dean.

Frozen Sooner
11/7/2008, 08:00 PM
Nah. Dean's all about powered farm equipment. By definition he can't be a Luddite.

BigRedJed
11/7/2008, 08:01 PM
Yeah, but he doesn't know how to work computer thingamajigs. So he's kindof like one.