Oklahoma Teacher Shortage

[SouthsideSooner]

Japan follows a similar program. Not sure about other countries.

That isn't true. the vast majority of students in Japan go to public schools and as of 2010, public high schools are tuition free...

[Bunty]

The funds from the lottery allowed the legislators to slash state funding to pay for tax credits and such.

Also Republicans and casino operators surely don't want ads run to buy lottery tickets to help sales.

[dankrutka]

I know a lot of teachers in Kansas from working in the state and they're just demoralized: Why teachers can?t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough - The Washington Post

[SoonerDave]

I agree with this. The local school superintendents are often the most highly paid, and most powerful people, in many rural areas. Some for districts with only a tiny number of students. But Jersey Boss nailed the problem, when rural legislators run the legislature, nothing will happen.

I know you and I are often on differing sides on many issues, zoo, but this one I'm right there with you. I think that's a symptom of a very fundamental problem in Oklahoma politics in general, and perhaps we could diagnose it as another manifestation of the "Good Ol' Boy" syndrome. That, to be sure, transcends liberal/conservative or even more general political divisions and creates unholy alliances of an entirely different nature.

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...

[SoonerDave]

If people are moving to areas because of the quality schools, then stop building new schools and make the existing ones quality, We then save millions and millions and millions on construction and land acqusition.

But you've got to know it isn't that simple, Kerry. Sometimes you come across an "existing" school that's 40, 50, or more years old and find a facility that's in such poor condition that it isn't financially responsible to rehabilitate it. If it costs you more to rehab an existing structure (and that often includes inane things like plumbing, heating, cooling, electrical, and ADA compliance, and in latter-day Oklahoma, safe rooms) than to plow and rebuild, it's poor stewardship of public money to rehab merely for the sake of rehabbing. If you throw (arbitrary number) $10 million at a 50-year-old building, guess what; you end the day with a 50-year-old building that's had a nice facelift, but it's still a 50-year-old building. If you throw that same $10M into a pot for a brand new building that'll last 50 *more* years, isn't that drastically more prudent fiscally?

Mind you, it's not a one-size-fits-all. Study it. Maybe it's smart to rehab one building, but not another. But we just can't say one way is always the best way.

[SoonerDave]

Go home, JTF. You're drunk.
Yes, this would solve the problem. In that same vein, we could additional attempt to solve sprawl by making it mandatory to have a certain person-per-square-feet law on your property. Any homeowners who don't comply would pay a low-density-luxury-tax. If they don't pay, then garnish tax refunds, paychecks, and social benefits.

The sad thing is, Dubya, that a great many "progressives" would like nothing more than to do exactly that.

[SoonerDave]

Also Republicans and casino operators surely don't want ads run to buy lottery tickets to help sales.

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.

[SoonerDave]

And one more thought...amid all this education discussion, I saw an interview on Ch 9 with our new education superintendent. One of the first questions she was asked was about class size, and whether getting average size down to 20 was an acheivable goal.

Her response? "No, I don't see that as realistic..."

Was a great way to kick off the week for my wife. Hearkened me back to the HB 1017 fiasco from, what, 20+ years ago that was supposed to fix everything and didn't, and one of its targets was class sizes, which have been largely torpedoed out of existence.

* sigh *

[Bellaboo]

Well, when countries like Cuba have higher literacy rates than the U.S. and are lauded for their educational system, while ours is a maze of "throw it against the wall and hopefully some of it will stick," something is, in fact, broken. I think it's a very appropriate word.

Speaking of Cuba, a neighbor of mine once had a four year old with a serious and rare heart defect. He went to Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, and got the same answer: a certain surgeon at a Havana hospital is the best of the best. He contacted the State Department, who allowed a waiver, and they took this four year old to Cuba. He is now 19 years old and healthy as can be. The bill was ZERO dollars even though they were Americans. They were simply amazed at the island nation and its educational system and healthcare system. NO WAY should they be better - in anything - than this huge, wealthy country to the north.

Interested in this statement I thought I'd google this - I came up with just the opposite for the average Cuban -

Cuba Has Better Health Care than the United States? by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Not to start a fuss here but Cuba having better healthcare has a lot of mixed opinions.

[SoonerDave]

Interested in this statement I thought I'd google this - I came up with just the opposite for the average Cuban -

Cuba Has Better Health Care than the United States? by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Not to start a fuss here but Cuba having better healthcare has a lot of mixed opinions.

Given that the Cuban information is entirely self-reported and unsubstantiated, it reminds me of the old Soviet-era elections where it was routinely reported that Kruschev and Brezhnev were "re-elected with 100% of the vote," on top of voting rights organizations reporting that guards at "polling places" instructed "voters" to "vote 'yes' only" (the notion of "elections" was always nothing more than a question in the vein of "Shall X be re-elected?")

[MsProudSooner]

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]

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]

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]

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?, 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]

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]

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?, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...]
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.