View Full Version : Oklahoma Teacher Shortage
MsProudSooner 08-03-2015, 03:07 PM I think the unstated truth s that the lottery has proven to be exactly the pig-in-a-poke many conservatives tried stridently to warn people about when it was being promised amid all the heartfelt, teary-eyed pleadings of it being "For the Children" like a third-world starvation ad. The money promised was mathematically demonstrable as being unachievable, the model promised was unrealistic, and the notion of gambling our way to prosperity was fool's gold, but anyone who opposed the lottery just obviously hated children.
And yet, here we are, so many years later, with decreasing revenues and decreasing expectations, coupled with the realization that the funding mechanism was nothing more than an elaborate shell game.
The legislature is the reason the lottery seems like a 'pig in a poke'. If the lottery brings in $10 million dollars the legislature decreases state funding by $10 million dollars.
jerrywall 08-03-2015, 04:43 PM The legislature is the reason the lottery seems like a 'pig in a poke'. If the lottery brings in $10 million dollars the legislature decreases state funding by $10 million dollars.
Even if true you're talking one percent of the education budget. So no magic fix that everyone acted like it would be.
Midtowner 08-03-2015, 09:54 PM The most obvious answer here--and the most responsible answer here is to undo the gift to the oil and gas companies last year and hike the gross production tax up to 7% or higher. We don't need to incentivize oil and gas companies to drill. They will do so regardless of incentive. We also need to pay a higher income tax. Oklahomans at the top of the income brackets could stand to pay a little more so that we can build an education infrastructure to serve all Oklahomans. This talk of hacking and slashing our way to a "21st century" concept is all fun, but the problem is simple here--money. If you want better teachers, you have to pay better teachers. Our administrators are also very underpaid compared to surrounding states. Our higher ed faculties are also not nearly as well compensated as they would be in other states. If we want a great education system, money talks, BS walks.
SoonerDave 08-04-2015, 07:52 AM The legislature is the reason the lottery seems like a 'pig in a poke'. If the lottery brings in $10 million dollars the legislature decreases state funding by $10 million dollars.
If the lottery brings in $10 million, and 100% of it were preserved for education, it represents only 0.3% of the state education budget. Per an article dated October 2014 Why didn't the lottery solve Oklahoma's education funding problems? (http://okpolicy.org/didnt-lottery-solve-oklahomas-education-funding-problems), lottery proceeds resulted in a $31.4 million earmark to education; 1.7% of the overall education budget, and barely over a tenth of what lottery advocates promised back in the day - the same $300M so many people were trying to plead had *no chance* of being realized. And all it took was a bit of math and study from the lotteries of surrounding states to demonstrate it. But, no, it was "for the children," so facts didn't matter. And here we are.
That's the definition of "pig-in-a-poke."
jerrywall 08-04-2015, 09:54 AM The most obvious answer here--and the most responsible answer here is to undo the gift to the oil and gas companies last year and hike the gross production tax up to 7% or higher. We don't need to incentivize oil and gas companies to drill. They will do so regardless of incentive. We also need to pay a higher income tax. Oklahomans at the top of the income brackets could stand to pay a little more so that we can build an education infrastructure to serve all Oklahomans. This talk of hacking and slashing our way to a "21st century" concept is all fun, but the problem is simple here--money. If you want better teachers, you have to pay better teachers. Our administrators are also very underpaid compared to surrounding states. Our higher ed faculties are also not nearly as well compensated as they would be in other states. If we want a great education system, money talks, BS walks.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but in general, yes. To fix education funding, we have to do one or both of two things. Increase revenues, or decrease costs. Education represents the majority of our state budget as it is. It's only going to be fixed by probably a combination of those two plans. More money is great, but also increase efficiency and cut costs at the same time. How we increase revenue is where politics come in. Some will say by new businesses and economic growth, and other will say by new taxes. Regardless of revenue streams, we do need to make sure the money is being spend efficiently.
Jersey Boss 08-04-2015, 10:30 AM If the lottery brings in $10 million, and 100% of it were preserved for education, it represents only 0.3% of the state education budget. Per an article dated October 2014 Why didn't the lottery solve Oklahoma's education funding problems? (http://okpolicy.org/didnt-lottery-solve-oklahomas-education-funding-problems), lottery proceeds resulted in a $31.4 million earmark to education; 1.7% of the overall education budget, and barely over a tenth of what lottery advocates promised back in the day - the same $300M so many people were trying to plead had *no chance* of being realized. And all it took was a bit of math and study from the lotteries of surrounding states to demonstrate it. But, no, it was "for the children," so facts didn't matter. And here we are.
That's the definition of "pig-in-a-poke."
But ya know Dave, it is still revenue coming in that otherwise would not. I prefer to define the "pig" as a scheme that promises an increase in revenue based on the dream that if we give tax credits, we will see brighter days ahead. As an example, the money lavished on the company that was going to turn Burns Flat into a "space port". That sir is not only a pig but a whole brood. There are countless other examples as well, including what Mid addressed in the production tax scheme that benefits the Devons and Chesapeakes. They do not need incentives to drill here.
SoonerDave 08-04-2015, 10:57 AM But ya know Dave, it is still revenue coming in that otherwise would not. I prefer to define the "pig" as a scheme that promises an increase in revenue based on the dream that if we give tax credits, we will see brighter days ahead. As an example, the money lavished on the company that was going to turn Burns Flat into a "space port". That sir is not only a pig but a whole brood. There are countless other examples as well, including what Mid addressed in the production tax scheme that benefits the Devons and Chesapeakes. They do not need incentives to drill here.
Let's compare apples to apples. The lottery propaganda sold a projected $300 million revenue boost to get its agenda established, all with the help of then-gov Brad Henry. The problem is those same people *had* to know their revenue projections were bogus. It was a deceitful illusion from the word "go."
On the other hand, tax incentives for businesses are established as a legitimate means for economic growth. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The example of the Burns Flat failure is hardly a counterexample to the general notion of such incentives. Lotteries, however, remain funded substantially by the people least able to afford it. One has to do better than "it's revenue" to justify it as sound social or fiscal policy.
I think its fairly evident you and I are on opposite sides of the coin on financing - I think the government needs to stay out and minimize revenue, and I think its apparent you encourage greater government financing. That's a point on which we'll likely just have to agree to disagree.
Midtowner 08-04-2015, 11:28 AM To address some of the solutions proposed here...
Re: the lottery: If you're trying to obtain more funds for education, it is dumb policy to shut off any funding source. The lottery provides net dollars to education. I suspect this objection is more a religious objection to gambling in a thinly cloaked veil of a policy argument. The lottery amendment came with a provision which is really unenforceable that the legislature would not decrease overall funding to compensate for lottery income... which the legislature has since done. The fact that we're expecting the education system to function with a lot less money than they had 10 years ago with a lot more students is not a realistic approach. The problem is money, period. No approach cutting a penny of funding should be considered.
Re consolidation, it's a red herring and probably a politically impossible problem to solve. Sometimes the problem is not enough money and the answer is to throw money at the problem.
jerrywall 08-04-2015, 02:51 PM To address some of the solutions proposed here...
Re: the lottery: If you're trying to obtain more funds for education, it is dumb policy to shut off any funding source. The lottery provides net dollars to education. I suspect this objection is more a religious objection to gambling in a thinly cloaked veil of a policy argument. The lottery amendment came with a provision which is really unenforceable that the legislature would not decrease overall funding to compensate for lottery income... which the legislature has since done. The fact that we're expecting the education system to function with a lot less money than they had 10 years ago with a lot more students is not a realistic approach. The problem is money, period. No approach cutting a penny of funding should be considered.
Re consolidation, it's a red herring and probably a politically impossible problem to solve. Sometimes the problem is not enough money and the answer is to throw money at the problem.
Meh. I agree broadly. Revenue is revenue, and let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The lottery, is, even if it didn't live up to the promise, and a net revenue positive. My question is, is it taking money form those that can least afford it? Because, like I mentioned, it generates about 1% of our education budget. How much do families personal assets and income affect education. How well their kids eat, if they have internet at home, etc. Is the lottery pulling away from those areas? I've heard it referred to as a tax on the poor and or the stupid. Is this the case?
That being said, it's worth pointing out that education funding has been increasing. The biggest drop was in 2008-2009 when the economy crashed. We've grown since then (albeit not enough). If we see another crash we'll see another drop, so we should be doing two things. Building in additional revenues where possible, and being more efficient and cutting costs if we can. Because I expect a crash is coming, if for no other reason than oil prices.
dankrutka 08-04-2015, 03:48 PM One way to decrease costs is textbooks. In this day and age physical textbooks aren't needed and they're super expensive. There are tons of solutions that would hopefully lead to more creative teaching anyway. Also, all classes really can be primarily paperless too.
However, good luck with that. Like most of America, the textbook companies have bought and paid for all the people they need to ensure their continued financial success.
jerrywall 08-04-2015, 04:24 PM One way to decrease costs is textbooks. In this day and age physical textbooks aren't needed and they're super expensive. There are tons of solutions that would hopefully lead to more creative teaching anyway. Also, all classes really can be primarily paperless too.
However, good luck with that. Like most of America, the textbook companies have bought and paid for all the people they need to ensure their continued financial success.
I'm also a fan of moving kids to digital text books and home work but from what I've seen it doesn't save the money it could, since even the digital cost per text book is the same. The only savings is that the teacher isn't buying printer paper (or making the parents provide it), and so the school budget doesn't approve.`\
FYI - Here was my son's school supply list last year... notice the "general" section. I personally don't mind providing, but considering that Edmond residents have approved every single school bond that's been held, I've got to wonder why we have to subsidies the school supplies.
Two 1" 3-ring binders
• Notebook paper (filler paper)
• Two sets of 6-subject dividers
• TI Scientific Multiview 30XS
Calculator (preferred model)
• Geometry Students: 1
Compass
Science and English:
• Four spiral notebooks (2 for
each subject), 70-pages or
more
• Pencils
• Red pens
• Blue or black pens
• Graph paper
• 1 copy of Chasing Lincoln's
Killer, a novel by James L.
Swanson
General:
• One 4-pack of highlighters
• Colored pencils (12 count or
above)
• Glue sticks (1 large or 3 small)
• 3 Boxes of Kleenex (given to
third-hour teacher)
• 1 Ream of copy paper
• 1 Tube of Clorox Wipes
FighttheGoodFight 08-04-2015, 04:25 PM One way to decrease costs is textbooks. In this day and age physical textbooks aren't needed and they're super expensive. There are tons of solutions that would hopefully lead to more creative teaching anyway. Also, all classes really can be primarily paperless too.
However, good luck with that. Like most of America, the textbook companies have bought and paid for all the people they need to ensure their continued financial success.
I don't know what others had at their high school but we "rented" ours for the semester from a book room. The books were pretty old. I want to say about 7 or 8 years old when in use.
bradh 08-04-2015, 04:49 PM One way to decrease costs is textbooks. In this day and age physical textbooks aren't needed and they're super expensive. There are tons of solutions that would hopefully lead to more creative teaching anyway. Also, all classes really can be primarily paperless too.
However, good luck with that. Like most of America, the textbook companies have bought and paid for all the people they need to ensure their continued financial success.
I'm fine with paperless, but not okay with doing away with teaching handwriting in schools.
dankrutka 08-04-2015, 05:26 PM A lot of classes don't even need any form of textbooks - hard copy or digital. My students all had them and we barely used them in my classes. Textbooks are generally dull, sanitized, and out of date. I could find better resources online for free. With well written standards and crowdsourced resources, getting rid of textbooks shouldn't be that hard.
baralheia 08-04-2015, 05:53 PM [...]
I think the government needs to stay out and minimize revenue, and I think its apparent you encourage greater government financing. That's a point on which we'll likely just have to agree to disagree.
Okay, I'll bite. If the funding for a governmental service (i.e. primary and secondary education) doesn't come from the government (via taxes paid by citizens), then where do you realistically expect that funding to come from? Bake sales and passing the plate around? The random kindness of strangers and/or corporations? Or only those parents that can afford to cough up money to pay for their kid's education? That would be catastrophic to our school systems. Education benefits everyone, and indeed, society as a whole - it is only logical that all citizens should do their part to pay for it, IMHO.
I hope I didn't misunderstand your point; apologies if I did.
People are really bad with numbers I've noticed. Sure $95 million is nice but it would be a 3% boost to our education budget. This thread wouldn't exist if all that was needed was a 3% boost in funding.
And that's not a sustainable # for colorado. As more states legalize their pot tourism industry will drop and drop and drop. It's not going to fall off a cliff but this would be the high water mark.
Ba-dum bump.
Maybe part of the "scorched earth" reorganization is to entirely reassess the notion of what constitutes the appropriate minimum level of education the state is expected to provide. I remember many, many years ago as a rabble-rousing editor of an HS newspaper who saw this "one size fits all" notion of education as being fundamentally flawed; not all kids are headed for a college degree, so lets provide them and those who are an education that's appropriate and heavily influenced by their own values and choices. The result - a "college-bound" or "college-prep" curriculum and scheduling on the one hand, and a general HS diploma on the other. We definitely do some of that now, I think...
I think there's a problem with that, though. Kids who go to Edmond North are going to be seen as "college-bound" while kids who go to Douglas are going to be seen as "not college-bound". So Edmond North will get more funding than they do already and it will be a self-reinforcing cycle. As long as we've got massive differences in the quality of our schools, this will be a problem.
Let's compare apples to apples. The lottery propaganda sold a projected $300 million revenue boost to get its agenda established, all with the help of then-gov Brad Henry. The problem is those same people *had* to know their revenue projections were bogus. It was a deceitful illusion from the word "go."
On the other hand, tax incentives for businesses are established as a legitimate means for economic growth. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The example of the Burns Flat failure is hardly a counterexample to the general notion of such incentives. Lotteries, however, remain funded substantially by the people least able to afford it. One has to do better than "it's revenue" to justify it as sound social or fiscal policy.
I think its fairly evident you and I are on opposite sides of the coin on financing - I think the government needs to stay out and minimize revenue, and I think its apparent you encourage greater government financing. That's a point on which we'll likely just have to agree to disagree.
A lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math.
Jersey Boss 08-05-2015, 11:10 AM Let's compare apples to apples. The lottery propaganda sold a projected $300 million revenue boost to get its agenda established, all with the help of then-gov Brad Henry. The problem is those same people *had* to know their revenue projections were bogus. It was a deceitful illusion from the word "go."
On the other hand, tax incentives for businesses are established as a legitimate means for economic growth. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The example of the Burns Flat failure is hardly a counterexample to the general notion of such incentives. Lotteries, however, remain funded substantially by the people least able to afford it. One has to do better than "it's revenue" to justify it as sound social or fiscal policy.
I think its fairly evident you and I are on opposite sides of the coin on financing - I think the government needs to stay out and minimize revenue, and I think its apparent you encourage greater government financing. That's a point on which we'll likely just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, I'll agree with that, but sales taxes also fall into this category. At least with the lottery you have a choice as to purchasing. The regressive nature of sales taxes impact those who can least afford them as well. While your earlier point about tax incentives are legitimate economic growers, that is true if there are requirements that show the incentives are doing what they claim. Giving away tax credits that are transferable and sold to other industries has not been shown to be a stimulator of the economy.
bradh 08-05-2015, 11:46 AM A lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math.
freaking hilarious
Midtowner 08-05-2015, 10:06 PM Let's compare apples to apples. The lottery propaganda sold a projected $300 million revenue boost to get its agenda established, all with the help of then-gov Brad Henry. The problem is those same people *had* to know their revenue projections were bogus. It was a deceitful illusion from the word "go."
lol, a conservative telling poor people he knows how to better spend their money than they do and wants to have the governmetn force that choice. I'll bet you don't even realize how ideologically inconsistent this position is.
jerrywall 08-05-2015, 10:21 PM lol, a conservative telling poor people he knows how to better spend their money than they do and wants to have the governmetn force that choice. I'll bet you don't even realize how ideologically inconsistent this position is.
Seriously? You support preying on the poor and uneducated who need their money the most?
Midtowner 08-06-2015, 12:23 PM Seriously? You support preying on the poor and uneducated who need their money the most?
Preying on them? It's their money, they get to choose how to spend it.
jerrywall 08-06-2015, 01:03 PM Preying on them? It's their money, they get to choose how to spend it.
Because it takes advantage of the folks most likely to be too poorly educated to know better, and who can least afford it. And it does so while not providing the benefit the proponents claimed it would.
Jersey Boss 08-06-2015, 02:14 PM Because it takes advantage of the folks most likely to be too poorly educated to know better, and who can least afford it. And it does so while not providing the benefit the proponents claimed it would.
It appears that you could be referencing Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson or other TV preachers.
jerrywall 08-06-2015, 02:28 PM It appears that you could be referencing Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson or other TV preachers.
Maybe, but I see a difference with the state being one of the actors.
I don't have a problem with casinos, for example, but I don't think the state belongs in that business. And to push it as some great boon for eduction was and is flat out dishonest.
Jchaser405 08-07-2015, 03:42 PM As an African American who chose to move his family back to "the hood" to suffer and dream with those not privileged to escape to more thriving (white) communities. It sucks for your own kids to have to experience a teacher shortage first hand. There were multiple occasions in which my 2nd grader's class was combined with a 5th grade class because the primary teacher quit and no sub could be found. It sucks to try and enroll your 4th grader in the only "high performing" school in the district (graded a C) and be told your zip code bars access.
My wife told told me about this episode of This American Life and it was helpful on this topic. I am not a fan of bussing programs at all and I hope someone finds another solution for our education dilemma.
Take a listen and let me know your thoughts.
562: The Problem We All Live With (http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with)
dankrutka 08-07-2015, 04:00 PM As an African American who chose to move his family back to "the hood" to suffer and dream with those not privileged to escape to more thriving (white) communities. It sucks for your own kids to have to experience a teacher shortage first hand. There were multiple occasions in which my 2nd grader's class was combined with a 5th grade class because the primary teacher quit and no sub could be found. It sucks to try and enroll your 4th grader in the only "high performing" school in the district (graded a C) and be told your zip code bars access.
My wife told told me about this episode of This American Life and it was helpful on this topic. I am not a fan of bussing programs at all and I hope someone finds another solution for our education dilemma.
Take a listen and let me know your thoughts.
562: The Problem We All Live With (http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with)
Jonathan Kozol's books really show how teacher fluctuation really hurts communities with people of color and/or poverty. That's why firing bad teachers is such a smaller issue than hiring and retaining good teachers, but the former is a constant talking point and the latter is all but ignored. OKC is included in Kozol's Shame of the Nation. I just don't think most middle/upper class Americans realize that the students who often need the most stability in schools have the least. Public schools are supposed to provide all students equal opportunity, but they serve to reinforce gaps that already exist.
|
|