Monday, February 27, 2017
House Bill 1482 and State Question 780 - Public School Issue
I rarely comment on non-public education related legislation, but a couple of House members have chosen to make House Bill 1482 a school related issue - presumably to assist in getting it passed. State Question 780 was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November, 2016, as part of the incarceration reform package forwarded by Kris Steele, the former republican Speaker of the House. Many Oklahoma legislators, citizens, and mental health experts know that our state incarcerates too many nonviolent, low-level offenders, which costs taxpayers, destroys families and yields little to no positive results in crime reduction, according to Mr. Steele. State Question 780 made non-violent drug possession and low-level property offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies, triggering cost savings from decreased corrections spending. It is similar to laws in both Louisiana and Texas which have saved $ millions for those two states.
House Bill 1482, authored by Representative Scott Biggs and Tim Downing, "would gut the voters' work, claiming it fixes a problem SQ 780 did not create and does not exist" according to Steele. HB 1482 changes what would be a misdemeanor, to a felony - by making anyone possessing drugs for personal use (such as "medical marijuana") a felon if within 1,000 feet (one third of a mile) of a college, university, church, school, fairgrounds, or recreational area. Many streets, roads, and high-ways pass within 1000 feet of all the aforementioned areas, so if anyone is caught with only a small amount of any illicit drug - they could be branded as a felon for life. Lawmakers like Downing and Biggs evidently wish the "prison conveyor belt" to continue, and want no part of corrections reform. These two representatives also want to pull our public schools into the frey, as they've duped school superintendents into saying how angry they are that voters approved SQ 780. The fact of the matter is that dealing drugs within 1000 feet of a school zone is still a felony.Certainly no one wants drug dealers near our schools, but to roll back the voters will assumes that voters were just plain stupid when they approved it. Many people believe that HB 1482 is being authored to simply to make more money for attorneys (Biggs and Downing's profession), since prosecuting and defending citizens on felonies is much more lucrative than misdemeanors. These "attorneys" by trade have stated that "drug-free" school zones will disappear and our schools will allow drug dealers to run rampant if "corrections reform" bills are allowed to stand. Read my lips - it's still a felony for drug dealing or drug dealers to be within 1000 feet of a school. House Bill 1482 must be allowed to die, so our lawmakers can focus on more important issues, such as the state budget and teacher pay raises.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Senate Bill 560 - Voucher Wolves, Hounds, and Vultures
Senate Bill 560, the school voucher bill being promoted by Oklahoma Senators (democrats and republicans) recently passed the Senate Education Committee by a slim 9 yes to 8 no. A school voucher is a "check" representing public funds which may be provided to a corporate or private school, in order to "educate" private school students. The public money that is provided to a private school, comes directly from our rural public schools. Since I've resided in Senate District 43 my entire life, primarily in Duncan, Lindsay, and Blanchard, so I'll only reference the rural public schools in SD 43 which will lose funding if SB 560 becomes law. Through the year 2026-2027, Blanchard will lose $887,040, Newcastle - $952,160, Dibble $282,480, Washington $445,280, Wayne $227,480, Purcell $636,240, Lindsay $547,800, Duncan $1,582,680, Comanche $446,160, Marlow $628,760, Velma-Alma $203,720, Bray-Doyle $154,880, and Rush Springs $240,240. Many rural lawmakers will be quite happy if the public schools in their districts slowly choke for lack of funding.
School voucher supporters have been referred to as Voucher Wolves, Voucher Hounds, or Voucher Vultures by many public school supporters, because voucher supporters have been identified as groups such as the American Federation for Children (AFC), a pro-voucher group out of Washington D.C.. The AFC has donated approximately $200,000 to pro-voucher Oklahoma State legislators, including several senators who voted "yes" on SB 560. Meanwhile, the AFC's state group, the Oklahoma Federation for Children (OFC), has provided another $100,000 in dark money to many of those same state senators and representatives.
I've written about Senate Bill 560 a couple times over the past week, and a response from one senator on the education committee (yes vote) claimed that I misled the public by saying that SB 560 would only benefit the wealthier families, and not the middle class or the poor - as is claimed. He asked me to please read the bill (as if I had not) and please re-write my post/column reflecting his opinion. So, this piece represents my re-write which reflects only my opinion, but which is based on cold, hard facts.
I stand by my original statement that only wealthy parents will be able to tap the public money sent to the private school of their choice. The bill provides that only students whose parents' income is "low" are considered "qualified". It utilizes the public school "free and reduced" lunch schedule as a means to determine qualifications for tapping public funds, which are directed to the private legislator choice. The amount of public school funding acquired by a private school is determined by:
1) If the total household annual income is equal to or less than the amount required to qualify for the free or reduced price lunch program, the amount shall be equal to 90% of the state aid that would be generated by that student for the school year. For example, if a public school 9th grade student in Oklahoma County would like to enroll in Heritage Hall (a private school in OKC), his parents must come up with the $19,380 tuition, if he is a regular public school student or $23,045 for a special needs student. If the household of the qualifying student is 6 members and the parent's income is $60,273, Heritage Hall would qualify for receiving the public school funding. If the state aid generated by the student is $2,500, the parents would still have to come up with $16,880 for the regular tuition or $20,545 for special tuition - for one year. It's only one opinion as to how wealthy a parent must be to afford a $20,000 tuition payment for one student to one private school, but I submit that one must be reasonably wealthy. In addition, if the parents have multiple students which would qualify for vouchers, the additional tuition they would be responsible for could be as high as $70,000 per year. It is only my opinion that only wealthy parents would or could afford a $70,000 tuition bill to Heritage Hall, even after acquiring $10,000 in public funded vouchers from our rural public schools. In my opinion, this "voucher scheme" which would certainly inflict financial damages to the rural public schools named above, plus many more - can be explained by the old adage "follow the money". The motivation for those senators and representatives who support SB 560 can be explained by the money they've acquired from the OFC and the AFC. These two voucher groups are now calling in their purchased tickets from their purchased legislators, and are telling them to "git 'er done". Pass Senate Bill 560.
Several senators, although representing rural constituencies in rural school districts, have supported this bill - even though if passed, it will take public funding from our rural schools and provide the same funding to private schools outside the senator's district! I don't know how these senators explain this phenomenon to their constituents, but I hope at least one will try. On a positive note, several conservative republican senators, representing rural districts, voted no on SB 560 which reflected their constituents' wishes. Several of these same conservative senators have told me that the voucher bill will unlikely be heard on the floor of the senate, because SB 560 just does not have the support. A well-known conservative republican in the House of Representatives also tells me that SB 560 will never see the light of day, if it did make it to the House. At this time, the voucher bill is DOA, but not without a big fight with the corporate legislators. Just remember, it could be resurrected at any time by any number of voucher hounds.
School voucher supporters have been referred to as Voucher Wolves, Voucher Hounds, or Voucher Vultures by many public school supporters, because voucher supporters have been identified as groups such as the American Federation for Children (AFC), a pro-voucher group out of Washington D.C.. The AFC has donated approximately $200,000 to pro-voucher Oklahoma State legislators, including several senators who voted "yes" on SB 560. Meanwhile, the AFC's state group, the Oklahoma Federation for Children (OFC), has provided another $100,000 in dark money to many of those same state senators and representatives.
I've written about Senate Bill 560 a couple times over the past week, and a response from one senator on the education committee (yes vote) claimed that I misled the public by saying that SB 560 would only benefit the wealthier families, and not the middle class or the poor - as is claimed. He asked me to please read the bill (as if I had not) and please re-write my post/column reflecting his opinion. So, this piece represents my re-write which reflects only my opinion, but which is based on cold, hard facts.
I stand by my original statement that only wealthy parents will be able to tap the public money sent to the private school of their choice. The bill provides that only students whose parents' income is "low" are considered "qualified". It utilizes the public school "free and reduced" lunch schedule as a means to determine qualifications for tapping public funds, which are directed to the private legislator choice. The amount of public school funding acquired by a private school is determined by:
1) If the total household annual income is equal to or less than the amount required to qualify for the free or reduced price lunch program, the amount shall be equal to 90% of the state aid that would be generated by that student for the school year. For example, if a public school 9th grade student in Oklahoma County would like to enroll in Heritage Hall (a private school in OKC), his parents must come up with the $19,380 tuition, if he is a regular public school student or $23,045 for a special needs student. If the household of the qualifying student is 6 members and the parent's income is $60,273, Heritage Hall would qualify for receiving the public school funding. If the state aid generated by the student is $2,500, the parents would still have to come up with $16,880 for the regular tuition or $20,545 for special tuition - for one year. It's only one opinion as to how wealthy a parent must be to afford a $20,000 tuition payment for one student to one private school, but I submit that one must be reasonably wealthy. In addition, if the parents have multiple students which would qualify for vouchers, the additional tuition they would be responsible for could be as high as $70,000 per year. It is only my opinion that only wealthy parents would or could afford a $70,000 tuition bill to Heritage Hall, even after acquiring $10,000 in public funded vouchers from our rural public schools. In my opinion, this "voucher scheme" which would certainly inflict financial damages to the rural public schools named above, plus many more - can be explained by the old adage "follow the money". The motivation for those senators and representatives who support SB 560 can be explained by the money they've acquired from the OFC and the AFC. These two voucher groups are now calling in their purchased tickets from their purchased legislators, and are telling them to "git 'er done". Pass Senate Bill 560.
Several senators, although representing rural constituencies in rural school districts, have supported this bill - even though if passed, it will take public funding from our rural schools and provide the same funding to private schools outside the senator's district! I don't know how these senators explain this phenomenon to their constituents, but I hope at least one will try. On a positive note, several conservative republican senators, representing rural districts, voted no on SB 560 which reflected their constituents' wishes. Several of these same conservative senators have told me that the voucher bill will unlikely be heard on the floor of the senate, because SB 560 just does not have the support. A well-known conservative republican in the House of Representatives also tells me that SB 560 will never see the light of day, if it did make it to the House. At this time, the voucher bill is DOA, but not without a big fight with the corporate legislators. Just remember, it could be resurrected at any time by any number of voucher hounds.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
State Revenue Failure
Gary Jones, Vernon Florence, and several other budgeting experts had it pegged long before yesterday - the first revenue failure of the year, and its only February.. It has resulted in another $11.1 million in cuts to common education and a $39.2 million shortfall in the 1017 fund. We (Blanchard Schools) have already incurred two cuts because of the lack of cash on hand at the SDE, including a $30,000 reduction in our January State Aid payment and a $57,000 reduction from our February state aid payment. If the SDE figures are correct, Blanchard Public Schools could lose another $127,625 by the end of the year. The Daily Oklahoman as well as several other media outlets call this latest round of agency cuts "another surprise spending cut". The only surprise, however, is for our do-nothing senators and representatives at the State Capitol, who continue to "fiddle, while Rome burns". They (senators and representatives) may be smarter than we give them credit - as the "choking of our public schools" may be in their master plan. These corporate conservatives or "corporatists" continue to support voucher bills, such as Senate Bill 560, which will drain more student funding from our public schools - and school consolidation bills, such as Senate Bill 514, which consolidates schools with less than 500 students (all the while adding 33 corporate charter schools to burden the state). They might as well call their corporate bills the right to educate, as the supporters of the corporate farm bill (State Question 777) called their's the right to farm. By funneling more public money to corporate (charter schools managed by out-of-state corporations, such as the one in Seminole) and private schools, which SB 560 does - our rural public schools may be choked into extinction.
The rural corporate senators and representatives, whose constituents are the rural citizens and rural public schools, say that they only want to support our urban schools - as an excuse for supporting SB 560. The same rural corporate senators and representatives say they only want to provide a better education for those students who attend small rural schools - as an excuse for supporting consolidation (Senate Bill 514). These corporate lawmakers also say that by consolidating these small rural schools, $ millions will be saved, although state after state has proven that consolidation of administrative services does not save one thin dime (see Arkansas).
Their "master plan" may be succeeding, as more and more public school teachers are leaving Oklahoma, and more public schools will almost certainly "go under" as a result of this last state revenue failure.
(In order to identify rural corporate senators and representatives - it's really very simple: check out any suspected lawmaker's donation list, located on the Oklahoma Ethics Commission website. If several of their donations come from out-of-state corporations or they are supported by out-of-state non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (vouchers) - you can "bet the farm" that a rural senator or representative supports out-of state billionaires,and not his constituents.)
Update: As of February 23, 2017, the announced revenue failure for Oklahoma state agencies will result in a $127,675 reduction for Blanchard Public Schools allocation. This figure represents the approximate salaries of 3.5 teachers. Our school boards must determine how to re-budget for the 2.8% cut in appropriations. To all the state legislators responsible for this debacle - Thanks a lot..
The rural corporate senators and representatives, whose constituents are the rural citizens and rural public schools, say that they only want to support our urban schools - as an excuse for supporting SB 560. The same rural corporate senators and representatives say they only want to provide a better education for those students who attend small rural schools - as an excuse for supporting consolidation (Senate Bill 514). These corporate lawmakers also say that by consolidating these small rural schools, $ millions will be saved, although state after state has proven that consolidation of administrative services does not save one thin dime (see Arkansas).
Their "master plan" may be succeeding, as more and more public school teachers are leaving Oklahoma, and more public schools will almost certainly "go under" as a result of this last state revenue failure.
(In order to identify rural corporate senators and representatives - it's really very simple: check out any suspected lawmaker's donation list, located on the Oklahoma Ethics Commission website. If several of their donations come from out-of-state corporations or they are supported by out-of-state non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (vouchers) - you can "bet the farm" that a rural senator or representative supports out-of state billionaires,and not his constituents.)
Update: As of February 23, 2017, the announced revenue failure for Oklahoma state agencies will result in a $127,675 reduction for Blanchard Public Schools allocation. This figure represents the approximate salaries of 3.5 teachers. Our school boards must determine how to re-budget for the 2.8% cut in appropriations. To all the state legislators responsible for this debacle - Thanks a lot..
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Voucher Hounds
Those senators on the education committee who voted NO vouchers for corporate and private schools were those who want to protect our public schools from the voucher vultures (Betsy DeVos and her American Federation for Children... vouchers). They were mostly rural conservative republicans such as Tom Dugger (R), Dewayne Pemberton (R), Jason Smalley (R), Anthony Sykes (R), Roger Thompson (R), and Ron Sharp (R).
Those senators on the education committee who voted Yes, more public money for corporate and private schools, were Mark Allen (R), Michael Bergstrom (R) Eddie Fields (R), Kyle Loveless (R), Paul Scott (R), Gary Stanislawski (R), Greg Treat (R), and a surprise neo-liberal - Anastasia Pittman (D). It's probably a pretty safe bet that several of these yes voters were recipients of the pro-voucher group AFC. Those that weren't need to be cut in on the action, since they did vote yes. Most of these "yes" senators are also urban, not rural, so they really don't care about funding our rural schools. However, a couple ARE rural, so voted against their constituents.
The vote on SB 560 on the full senate floor could be as early as tomorrow. We'll soon know how many other senators are only self-proclaimed conservative, and really a voucher wolf in sheep's clothing. I'll blog the results after the vote, and if SB 560 passes the senate - we'll soon know which House members are "Voucher Hounds".
Those senators on the education committee who voted Yes, more public money for corporate and private schools, were Mark Allen (R), Michael Bergstrom (R) Eddie Fields (R), Kyle Loveless (R), Paul Scott (R), Gary Stanislawski (R), Greg Treat (R), and a surprise neo-liberal - Anastasia Pittman (D). It's probably a pretty safe bet that several of these yes voters were recipients of the pro-voucher group AFC. Those that weren't need to be cut in on the action, since they did vote yes. Most of these "yes" senators are also urban, not rural, so they really don't care about funding our rural schools. However, a couple ARE rural, so voted against their constituents.
The vote on SB 560 on the full senate floor could be as early as tomorrow. We'll soon know how many other senators are only self-proclaimed conservative, and really a voucher wolf in sheep's clothing. I'll blog the results after the vote, and if SB 560 passes the senate - we'll soon know which House members are "Voucher Hounds".
Monday, February 20, 2017
Senate Bill 560 - Vouchers
Senate Bill 560 (school vouchers) passed the Senate Education Committee today on a vote of 8 yes to 7 no. School vouchers represent a direct funding cut to Oklahoma public schools. Vouchers allow children who have never attended public schools to receive public money and subsidize private school for students - at the expense of our public school students! Similar voucher programs in other states have been costly for public schools and have mostly provided $$$ for higher income families.
The senators who voted no, (do not provide vouchers for qualified parents) included Dossett, Dugger, Pemberton, Smalley, Sykes, Thompson, and Sharp. These senators were made up of six conservative republicans and one conservative democrat who do not want to see public funding transferred to corporate and private schools at the expense of our public school kids. Our public schools thank these senators for supporting Oklahoma's public school students.
The senators who voted yes, (please provide vouchers for qualified parents) included Mark Allen (R), Michael Bergstrom (R), Eddie Fields (R) - this one shocked our public schools, Kyle Loveless (R), Anastasia Pittman (D), Paul Scott (R), Gary Stanislawski (R), and Greg Treat (R). They were made up of seven corporate republicans and one corporate democrat who would like to see more public funding transferred to corporate and private schools. These senators must be considered allies of Betsy DeVos, the voucher promoter in Washington D.C.. Mrs. DeVos, the new U.S. Secretary of Education, has donated $ thousands to the campaign coffers of many of these senators, including Rob Standridge (R), the SB 560 author.
I'd like to shine a light on one senator in particular - Paul Scott (R) of Senate District 43 from Duncan. Mr. Scott was touted as a pro-public school candidate by one public school group this past election season. He voted YES, full-steam ahead for school vouchers today. I, too, believed Mr. Scott was a public school supporter, until today's vote. If I'm wrong, and Paul Scott truly does support our rural public schools, someone please tell me why he voted yes. His "no" vote would have swung the decision the other direction (in favor of public school students), as the Majority Leader, Greg Treat, was the tie breaker for a 7 to 7 stand-off. If Paul Scott would have voted "no", it would not have gone to the tie-breaker. This post has been fast and furious, as more public school votes will soon follow in rapid succession.
The senators who voted no, (do not provide vouchers for qualified parents) included Dossett, Dugger, Pemberton, Smalley, Sykes, Thompson, and Sharp. These senators were made up of six conservative republicans and one conservative democrat who do not want to see public funding transferred to corporate and private schools at the expense of our public school kids. Our public schools thank these senators for supporting Oklahoma's public school students.
The senators who voted yes, (please provide vouchers for qualified parents) included Mark Allen (R), Michael Bergstrom (R), Eddie Fields (R) - this one shocked our public schools, Kyle Loveless (R), Anastasia Pittman (D), Paul Scott (R), Gary Stanislawski (R), and Greg Treat (R). They were made up of seven corporate republicans and one corporate democrat who would like to see more public funding transferred to corporate and private schools. These senators must be considered allies of Betsy DeVos, the voucher promoter in Washington D.C.. Mrs. DeVos, the new U.S. Secretary of Education, has donated $ thousands to the campaign coffers of many of these senators, including Rob Standridge (R), the SB 560 author.
I'd like to shine a light on one senator in particular - Paul Scott (R) of Senate District 43 from Duncan. Mr. Scott was touted as a pro-public school candidate by one public school group this past election season. He voted YES, full-steam ahead for school vouchers today. I, too, believed Mr. Scott was a public school supporter, until today's vote. If I'm wrong, and Paul Scott truly does support our rural public schools, someone please tell me why he voted yes. His "no" vote would have swung the decision the other direction (in favor of public school students), as the Majority Leader, Greg Treat, was the tie breaker for a 7 to 7 stand-off. If Paul Scott would have voted "no", it would not have gone to the tie-breaker. This post has been fast and furious, as more public school votes will soon follow in rapid succession.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Voucher Hounds
Betsy DeVos, the new Secretary of Education at the U.S. Department of Education, a true voucher hound (or voucher wolf, according to A View from the Edge) her State Voucher Hounds working overtime. A voucher is a free ticket which diverts taxpayer money away from public schools to pay for private education or homeschool costs for parents of qualifying students. "Qualifying students" would be students whose parents are wealthy. The typical private school tuition is usually $10,000 to $20,000, while the typical voucher is usually worth only about $5,000. Qualifying students, therefore, would be those students whose parents can afford the $5,000 to $15,000 difference in the amount of the voucher and the actual tuition. Those parents would probably be classified as wealthy.
Senate Bill 560 by Senator Rob Standridge is due to be heard at 9 a.m. Monday at the Senate Education Committee. Under Senate Bill 560, qualifying parents (wealthy) will be eligible to receive a voucher for up to 90 percent of state aid funding that would normally go to a public school student. The voucher recipient (wealthy parent) would then be able to use state tax dollars to pay for private, virtual, homeschool, and other educational costs such as tutoring, curriculum, and field trips. But hey, who can blame wealthy parents for wanting some of that $20,000 tuition bill to be shaved off?
The fact of the matter is that vouchers are a funding cut for public schools that educate 90 percent of Oklahoma children plus providing dozens of other negative consequences for our public schools, which can be found here.
Senator Rob Standridge is a state "voucher hound" for Betsy DeVos. Her American Federation for Children (vouchers) donated several thousand dollars to his re-election campaign this past fall, and now he must return the favor by sponsoring a voucher bill. Many state "voucher hounds" can be found here, but several more are unknown as of now, as the bill hasn't been voted on in committee yet - but will be Monday. The list of senators (16) on the Education Committee can be seen here. Of the sixteen education committee members, twelve might be voucher hounds. Only four may be public school supporters including J.J. Dossett, Eddie Fields, Anastasia Pittman, and Paul Scott, but we will know for sure on Monday, as they all must vote - 'yes' (for vouchers) or 'no' (for public school students). I'm betting that Betsy DeVos has more influence than Oklahoma public schools do, so the bill will pass to a vote of the full senate with flying colors. We certainly have hope it will fail, though.
Senate Bill 560 by Senator Rob Standridge is due to be heard at 9 a.m. Monday at the Senate Education Committee. Under Senate Bill 560, qualifying parents (wealthy) will be eligible to receive a voucher for up to 90 percent of state aid funding that would normally go to a public school student. The voucher recipient (wealthy parent) would then be able to use state tax dollars to pay for private, virtual, homeschool, and other educational costs such as tutoring, curriculum, and field trips. But hey, who can blame wealthy parents for wanting some of that $20,000 tuition bill to be shaved off?
The fact of the matter is that vouchers are a funding cut for public schools that educate 90 percent of Oklahoma children plus providing dozens of other negative consequences for our public schools, which can be found here.
Senator Rob Standridge is a state "voucher hound" for Betsy DeVos. Her American Federation for Children (vouchers) donated several thousand dollars to his re-election campaign this past fall, and now he must return the favor by sponsoring a voucher bill. Many state "voucher hounds" can be found here, but several more are unknown as of now, as the bill hasn't been voted on in committee yet - but will be Monday. The list of senators (16) on the Education Committee can be seen here. Of the sixteen education committee members, twelve might be voucher hounds. Only four may be public school supporters including J.J. Dossett, Eddie Fields, Anastasia Pittman, and Paul Scott, but we will know for sure on Monday, as they all must vote - 'yes' (for vouchers) or 'no' (for public school students). I'm betting that Betsy DeVos has more influence than Oklahoma public schools do, so the bill will pass to a vote of the full senate with flying colors. We certainly have hope it will fail, though.
Lamb Throws Fallin "Under the Bus"
Remember several years ago when Governor Fallin threw Janet Barresi "under the bus" so to speak? Evidently, Mary Fallin figured out during the short-lived tenure of the Barresi State Superintendency that it was no longer politically correct or in Fallin's best interest to support Janet Barresi. So, as Fallin jumped into the lifeboat off the sinking Titanic, she waved bon voyage to Barresi, who had lashed herself to the mast. So much for loyalty...
Well, what goes around, comes around - when it comes to politics. The bus that Janet Barresi was thrown under has circled the Capitol in OKC, and is approaching the front steps.. again. Todd Lamb, Fallin's "loyal" Leutenant Governor has now thrown Governor Fallin into the path of the approaching bus, and soon we'll hear those familiar "thump thump" noises as the bus continues on. Todd Lamb has now jumped into his own lifeboat, leaving Mary Fallin screaming on the deck. He has resigned from Fallin's cabinet, because he "just can't support her proposed tax increases" in order to provide a teachers pay raise among other budget balancing initiatives. Some political pundits believe that he is only "setting himself up" for a run for the governor's seat, and Mary Fallin has leaped in front of the bus intentionally - in order to help him.
Oh well, with friends like Todd Lamb - our teachers are unlikely to see a pay raise anytime soon, and our public schools are likely to perish under a mountain of school "vouchers", especially if Lamb is our next governor. My blogs will be much shorter now that the legislative session has begun, as committee hearings and floor hearings of education bills are coming fast and furious.
Well, what goes around, comes around - when it comes to politics. The bus that Janet Barresi was thrown under has circled the Capitol in OKC, and is approaching the front steps.. again. Todd Lamb, Fallin's "loyal" Leutenant Governor has now thrown Governor Fallin into the path of the approaching bus, and soon we'll hear those familiar "thump thump" noises as the bus continues on. Todd Lamb has now jumped into his own lifeboat, leaving Mary Fallin screaming on the deck. He has resigned from Fallin's cabinet, because he "just can't support her proposed tax increases" in order to provide a teachers pay raise among other budget balancing initiatives. Some political pundits believe that he is only "setting himself up" for a run for the governor's seat, and Mary Fallin has leaped in front of the bus intentionally - in order to help him.
Oh well, with friends like Todd Lamb - our teachers are unlikely to see a pay raise anytime soon, and our public schools are likely to perish under a mountain of school "vouchers", especially if Lamb is our next governor. My blogs will be much shorter now that the legislative session has begun, as committee hearings and floor hearings of education bills are coming fast and furious.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
State Aid Reductions Continue.. and Even Accelerate!
In January, public schools across Oklahoma received a notice from the State Department of Education which read: "For Financial Support of Schools (State Aid formula funding), we are only able to pay 8.47 percent this month instead of the scheduled 9 percent (a 0.53 percent payment reduction)." So, instead of a cumulative 54 percent of the annual allocation ($3,153,119) received, Blanchard Public Schools received only 53.47 percent of the annual allocation ($3,122,171), a reduction of $30,348. While $30,348 may not seem like a lot of money, it is the approximate annual salary of one support employee. Since our expected annual state allocation ($5,839,109) has already been budgeted through June 30, we must find a way to cover the loss. Our Blanchard Board of Education must make hard decisions on exactly what to cut. Since teacher and support contracts have already been obligated for the year based on expected revenues, salaries cannot be reduced to cover the loss. The only answer to the funding reduction is to start over, and re-budget. Our board of education has done this many times over the past 8 years and worked miracles, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it one more time. But before anyone jumps to the conclusion that our school board will pull the rabbit out of the hat one more time...
Just two days ago, Oklahoma public schools received a second memorandum from the State Department of Education which read: "For the month of February, there continues to be a cash flow issue in the total funding available for the State Aid formula payment...The total revenue collections (from the legislature) for the February State Aid payment are approximately $18.1 million short of the funds needed to make the scheduled payment in full and have the total accumulated allocation distribution at 63 percent. For financial support of schools... we are only able to pay 8.02 percent this month instead of the scheduled 9 percent (a 0.98 percent payment reduction). The February accumulated percentage of the latest allocation, therefore, is 62.02 percent.The reduction from an expected payment of $556,467 to $499,243 means that Blanchard received $57,224 less than budgeted. This total represents the annual salary of two support employees. If this downward spiral continues, Blanchard Public Schools could stand to lose (with 4 payments remaining) approximately $343,344 by June 30, 2017. This total represents the approximate salaries of 10 teachers.
It's certainly a dire situation that our very own Oklahoma Legislators have placed us in. I have complete confidence that our school board will continue to reduce expenditures over the next several months, in order to avert a financial catastrophe. Let's just hope they do.
Just two days ago, Oklahoma public schools received a second memorandum from the State Department of Education which read: "For the month of February, there continues to be a cash flow issue in the total funding available for the State Aid formula payment...The total revenue collections (from the legislature) for the February State Aid payment are approximately $18.1 million short of the funds needed to make the scheduled payment in full and have the total accumulated allocation distribution at 63 percent. For financial support of schools... we are only able to pay 8.02 percent this month instead of the scheduled 9 percent (a 0.98 percent payment reduction). The February accumulated percentage of the latest allocation, therefore, is 62.02 percent.The reduction from an expected payment of $556,467 to $499,243 means that Blanchard received $57,224 less than budgeted. This total represents the annual salary of two support employees. If this downward spiral continues, Blanchard Public Schools could stand to lose (with 4 payments remaining) approximately $343,344 by June 30, 2017. This total represents the approximate salaries of 10 teachers.
It's certainly a dire situation that our very own Oklahoma Legislators have placed us in. I have complete confidence that our school board will continue to reduce expenditures over the next several months, in order to avert a financial catastrophe. Let's just hope they do.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Lindsay Leopard All-Time Basketball All-Stars
I've published several columns/posts detailing the dominance of high school sports by the Lindsay Leopards and Leopardettes of Lindsay, Oklahoma. Columns and Posts dedicated to the young athletes who've played football and girl's basketball have been published in your Lindsay News over the past couple years, so this column is dedicated to the boy's basketball players who dominated Lindsay Leopard basketball from the 1950's through the early 2000's. I've scoured the trophy case which is located in the hallway at Lindsay High School and have asked high school sports experts/legends their opinion of the stand-out players who once roamed the halls of Lindsay Schools - and this is the consensus list of Lindsay Leopard Basketball All-Stars:
Gene "Hunk" Estes was a 6'5" power forward on the 1955-1957 Leopard basketball teams. He made the South All-State team in 1957, and was one member of the Estes family, who were all great athletes in Lindsay Schools.
Bob Milhauser, a center, was Lindsay's leading scorer during the 1954-1955 Leopard basketball season. He scored 18 points in a big come-from-behind win (40 to 36), over arch-rival Pauls Valley on November 30, 1954.
Curtis Hayes was a starter on the south all-state squad in 1954. He averaged 18.8 points per game for the Leopards during his senior year, the same year the Leopardettes won their first state title and also had multiple all-stars.
Bill Stone was a stand-out in basketball as well as football.
Tom Owens was an all-stater in 1959 who averaged 19.5 points per game and was an all-tournament selection.
Mark Loman, a 6'6'' football all-stater, was also a basketball all-stater. He signed a letter of intent to play football at O.S.U.
Johnny Branch was another multi-sport athlete who also excelled at basketball.
Curtis Sanford, a 6'7" post player who averaged 25 points per game his senior year, went on to star for Abe Lemons and the Oklahoma City University Chiefs.
Chris Hoyle, a small school west all-stater, averaged 20.8 points per game in 1996.
Jonathon White, a small school west all-stater, who was a sharp shooting forward.
Brooks Robbins, another small school west all-stater, was perhaps the top 3-point shooter in the mix.
Other players voted into the all-time Lindsay boys basketball team included David Stone (1973), Lynden Branch (1973), Mark Terrell (1978), Stoney Robbins (1977) whose son Brooks was among the top ten ever to play at Lindsay, James Gharst (1976), Bruce Jones (1977), and Robert Carlton, 1979.
Many of these LHS basketball all-stars also excelled in football or baseball because they were good all around athletes. Mark Loman was an all-stater in both basketball and football, while Johnny Branch, Mark Terrell, Stoney Robbins, and Bruce Jones were stand-outs in multiple sports. While the list of players is not all inclusive, it represents the basketball greats which were nominated. We can run this list again in a year and determine any additions.
Gene "Hunk" Estes was a 6'5" power forward on the 1955-1957 Leopard basketball teams. He made the South All-State team in 1957, and was one member of the Estes family, who were all great athletes in Lindsay Schools.
Bob Milhauser, a center, was Lindsay's leading scorer during the 1954-1955 Leopard basketball season. He scored 18 points in a big come-from-behind win (40 to 36), over arch-rival Pauls Valley on November 30, 1954.
Curtis Hayes was a starter on the south all-state squad in 1954. He averaged 18.8 points per game for the Leopards during his senior year, the same year the Leopardettes won their first state title and also had multiple all-stars.
Bill Stone was a stand-out in basketball as well as football.
Tom Owens was an all-stater in 1959 who averaged 19.5 points per game and was an all-tournament selection.
Mark Loman, a 6'6'' football all-stater, was also a basketball all-stater. He signed a letter of intent to play football at O.S.U.
Johnny Branch was another multi-sport athlete who also excelled at basketball.
Curtis Sanford, a 6'7" post player who averaged 25 points per game his senior year, went on to star for Abe Lemons and the Oklahoma City University Chiefs.
Chris Hoyle, a small school west all-stater, averaged 20.8 points per game in 1996.
Jonathon White, a small school west all-stater, who was a sharp shooting forward.
Brooks Robbins, another small school west all-stater, was perhaps the top 3-point shooter in the mix.
Other players voted into the all-time Lindsay boys basketball team included David Stone (1973), Lynden Branch (1973), Mark Terrell (1978), Stoney Robbins (1977) whose son Brooks was among the top ten ever to play at Lindsay, James Gharst (1976), Bruce Jones (1977), and Robert Carlton, 1979.
Many of these LHS basketball all-stars also excelled in football or baseball because they were good all around athletes. Mark Loman was an all-stater in both basketball and football, while Johnny Branch, Mark Terrell, Stoney Robbins, and Bruce Jones were stand-outs in multiple sports. While the list of players is not all inclusive, it represents the basketball greats which were nominated. We can run this list again in a year and determine any additions.
Friday, February 10, 2017
The Politician Shuffle - Now You See It, Now You Don't...
We've all seen and heard it before - the old game of the Red Herring, when a politician does a little Texas Sidestep to avoid answering questions about such things as "rocket surgery" or "brain science". The questions lately that politicians have been asked, which have triggered their Texas Sidestep reflex, have been questions about how to fund a teacher pay raise. Many politicians have broken down immediately into their routine of avoiding the question. Their motto is "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****". The best example of this phenomenon is the "Cheers" routine, where a politician enters the bar and is campaigning for re-election.
The question posed most often concerning public schools is "How do we get more money to the classroom and fund teacher pay raises?" Most politicians have practiced their answer over and over again, in front of a mirror, so they will have their answer down pat - and regurgitate it reflexively when asked. Some legislator politicians have even authored bills, which do not answer the question - but sounds really swell to those voters who elected them (refer back to the "Cheers" routine).
Some bills, such as Senate Bill 133 illustrate the red herring phenomenon very well, when the question "How do we fund a teacher pay raise?" is asked. We determined last week how capping superintendent salaries could potentially save about $1,000,000 which could go to teacher pay raises in only approximately 25% of the school districts. While $1 million sounds like a lot of money, it represents only about 2% of superintendent salaries and only about .0002% of total expenditures. Senate Bill 133 will do virtually nothing for teacher pay raises nor will it do anything toward more money to the classroom.
Some more facts about public school administrative costs for FY 2016, according to the Oklahoma State Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics include:
* Administrative costs accounted for only 3.67% of expenditures
* Superintendent compensation accounted for only 1% of all public school expenditures
* Oklahoma's student to administrator ratio (238 students to every one administrator) is 42nd in the nation. (Administrators include superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and assistant principals)
* Oklahoma could hire 300 more administrators and still not reach the national average
* When you include only superintendents and assistant superintendents, Oklahoma's student to
administrator ratio ranks 43rd in the nation at 1,238 to 1
* Oklahoma ranks 43rd nationally in per-pupil administration spending
Many public school statistics experts believe that Senate Bill 133 is a red herring bill because it does nothing to solve the school funding crisis (as evidenced above), although several lawmakers claim it does so.
Senate Bill 514 is recognized as a forced school consolidation bill which could also be construed as another "red herring" bill. The bill requires the State Department of Education to publish a list of all... school districts that had an ADM (number of students) of less than 500... average for 3 years, and located less than 65 miles from another school district. A school district included in the list... shall agree to consolidate with or be annexed to another school district or districts... A school district included in the list... that does not submit a petition to consolidate or annex by June 30, 2018, shall be consolidated or annexed by the State Board of Education... A school district consolidated or annexed... shall have no more than one superintendent.
Much like Senate Bill 133, SB 514 is designed to fool the public into thinking that by implementing it, schools will save $millions and be able to provide teachers with pay raises. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Anecdotal data and research indicate that very little money if any at all will be saved through forced consolidations. As a matter of fact, the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA) in conjunction with the State Department of Education (SDE) states that:
* Consolidations and annexations happen every year in Oklahoma on their own through locally controlled decisions. (Since 2007 there have been 27 public school consolidations or annexations in Oklahoma.)
* While traditional public schools have been consolidating and annexing, Oklahoma's total school district numbers have still increased with the addition of 33 charter and virtual charter schools since 2000.
* Consolidation of schools will not increase per pupil expenditures. Consolidation experiences from other states have shown little to no noticeable cost savings. As a matter of fact, Arkansas's rural consolidation plan in 2004 (much like Oklahoma's SB 514) found no reduction in administration spending or in the size of administration.
* Oklahoma is 48th in per pupil expenditures in the nation. If Oklahoma schools were consolidated into one district with only one superintendent, Oklahoma would still be 48th in the nation in expenditures per student.
In order to truly entertain the notion that by consolidating schools with less than 500 students into the nearest school, money can be saved: Anecdotal evidence was examined when only one school with less than 500 students is consolidated with a larger school, only 5 miles away. If administrative consolidation was forced between the school districts, no money is saved. As a matter of fact, administrative costs increased.
The rule of thumb should be, as far as school consolidation and annexation, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and in the case of Senate Bill 514, it fits the bill...
The question posed most often concerning public schools is "How do we get more money to the classroom and fund teacher pay raises?" Most politicians have practiced their answer over and over again, in front of a mirror, so they will have their answer down pat - and regurgitate it reflexively when asked. Some legislator politicians have even authored bills, which do not answer the question - but sounds really swell to those voters who elected them (refer back to the "Cheers" routine).
Some bills, such as Senate Bill 133 illustrate the red herring phenomenon very well, when the question "How do we fund a teacher pay raise?" is asked. We determined last week how capping superintendent salaries could potentially save about $1,000,000 which could go to teacher pay raises in only approximately 25% of the school districts. While $1 million sounds like a lot of money, it represents only about 2% of superintendent salaries and only about .0002% of total expenditures. Senate Bill 133 will do virtually nothing for teacher pay raises nor will it do anything toward more money to the classroom.
Some more facts about public school administrative costs for FY 2016, according to the Oklahoma State Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics include:
* Administrative costs accounted for only 3.67% of expenditures
* Superintendent compensation accounted for only 1% of all public school expenditures
* Oklahoma's student to administrator ratio (238 students to every one administrator) is 42nd in the nation. (Administrators include superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and assistant principals)
* Oklahoma could hire 300 more administrators and still not reach the national average
* When you include only superintendents and assistant superintendents, Oklahoma's student to
administrator ratio ranks 43rd in the nation at 1,238 to 1
* Oklahoma ranks 43rd nationally in per-pupil administration spending
Many public school statistics experts believe that Senate Bill 133 is a red herring bill because it does nothing to solve the school funding crisis (as evidenced above), although several lawmakers claim it does so.
Senate Bill 514 is recognized as a forced school consolidation bill which could also be construed as another "red herring" bill. The bill requires the State Department of Education to publish a list of all... school districts that had an ADM (number of students) of less than 500... average for 3 years, and located less than 65 miles from another school district. A school district included in the list... shall agree to consolidate with or be annexed to another school district or districts... A school district included in the list... that does not submit a petition to consolidate or annex by June 30, 2018, shall be consolidated or annexed by the State Board of Education... A school district consolidated or annexed... shall have no more than one superintendent.
Much like Senate Bill 133, SB 514 is designed to fool the public into thinking that by implementing it, schools will save $millions and be able to provide teachers with pay raises. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Anecdotal data and research indicate that very little money if any at all will be saved through forced consolidations. As a matter of fact, the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA) in conjunction with the State Department of Education (SDE) states that:
* Consolidations and annexations happen every year in Oklahoma on their own through locally controlled decisions. (Since 2007 there have been 27 public school consolidations or annexations in Oklahoma.)
* While traditional public schools have been consolidating and annexing, Oklahoma's total school district numbers have still increased with the addition of 33 charter and virtual charter schools since 2000.
* Consolidation of schools will not increase per pupil expenditures. Consolidation experiences from other states have shown little to no noticeable cost savings. As a matter of fact, Arkansas's rural consolidation plan in 2004 (much like Oklahoma's SB 514) found no reduction in administration spending or in the size of administration.
* Oklahoma is 48th in per pupil expenditures in the nation. If Oklahoma schools were consolidated into one district with only one superintendent, Oklahoma would still be 48th in the nation in expenditures per student.
In order to truly entertain the notion that by consolidating schools with less than 500 students into the nearest school, money can be saved: Anecdotal evidence was examined when only one school with less than 500 students is consolidated with a larger school, only 5 miles away. If administrative consolidation was forced between the school districts, no money is saved. As a matter of fact, administrative costs increased.
The rule of thumb should be, as far as school consolidation and annexation, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and in the case of Senate Bill 514, it fits the bill...
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
The Perfect Teacher Pay Raise Plan
Many country music fans have heard David Allan Coe's You Never Even Called Me by My Name - the perfect country and western song, but few have heard of the perfect teacher pay raise plan... until now. I believe it is perfect for many reasons, as all pay raise plans introduced so far are imperfect in one way or another. I'll give you the details of the plan, but first, the Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA), the Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, the Oklahoma State School Board Association (OSSBA), as well as many teachers statewide believe this plan is perfect for the following reasons:
1) The Step Up Plan is short and to the point...
It is only one page in length, unlike many pay raise plans which are lengthy, ambiguous, and have many hidden costs such as administrative increases.
2) The appropriate funding and revenue streams are spelled out in the plan...
* Expand sales tax to services and eliminate outdated deductions - $200 million
* Capture new Internet sales tax - ($)
* Cigarette tax increase, $1.03 a pack - $181.6 million
* Curb subsidies for wind energy - $123 million
* Tax wind energy production at the same rate as oil and gas production - $74 million
* 3 Cent gas and diesel tax increase - $86 million
* Updated Assessment system - ($)
* Gross Production Rate Increase from 2% to 4% (just a little bit) - ($)
* Proposal and revenue figures obtained from Governor Fallin's FY 2016 Budget proposal
3) The Step Up Plan requires that NO revenue be taken from other state agencies, such as Transportation, Health Care, Public Safety, or Corrections.
4) The Step Up Plan's funding comes from recurring revenue sources, unlike most plans which rely on one-time monies.
5) Every penny is accounted for as to how it will be spent.
The goal of $200 Million for the first year -
* 90% ($180 million) for teacher pay raise ($3000 across the board)
* 10% ($20 million) for Step-Up initiatives:
a) Support staff pay raises
b) Lower class sizes to meet HB 1017 requirements
c) Teacher merit compensation system (stipends)
d) District curriculum resources
This 10% will be up to local boards as which and how much $ each of the 4 Step Up initiatives receive.
At the conclusion of the first year of funding the Step Up Plan, a transparent adequacy and efficiency study will be conducted to include local revenue flexibility, finances, school structures, and instructional hours/days recommendations. The second year will see a continuation of the $200 million plus $100 million, of which 70% ($70 million) will go to additional teacher raises ($1,160) and 30% ($30 million) to Step Up initiatives. Years three and four will continue the $100 million 70/30 split, until the 4-year Step Up Plan is complete and teachers will be receiving a $6,500 pay raise.
Just as Steve Goodman wrote the perfect country and western song when he included mama, trains, trucks, prison, and the rain - I believe Derald Glover in conjunction with the CCOSA and OASA has written the perfect teacher pay raise plan by including recurring revenue streams, expenditure details, and the fact that the Step Up Plan takes no money from other agencies.
The OASA believes there is hope for Oklahoma's teachers and students. With a new year and a new legislative session comes a renewed focus on "doing the right thing" by our kids. State officials, school leaders, educators, parents, the business community, and other education stake holders have an opportunity to work together to implement a log-term plan to increase teacher pay and funding. An oft-quoted maxim states: Where there is no vision, the people perish. Fortunately for our states children, we have a vision for bettering Oklahoma schools and look forward to collaboratively pursuing that vision in 2017.
1) The Step Up Plan is short and to the point...
It is only one page in length, unlike many pay raise plans which are lengthy, ambiguous, and have many hidden costs such as administrative increases.
2) The appropriate funding and revenue streams are spelled out in the plan...
* Expand sales tax to services and eliminate outdated deductions - $200 million
* Capture new Internet sales tax - ($)
* Cigarette tax increase, $1.03 a pack - $181.6 million
* Curb subsidies for wind energy - $123 million
* Tax wind energy production at the same rate as oil and gas production - $74 million
* 3 Cent gas and diesel tax increase - $86 million
* Updated Assessment system - ($)
* Gross Production Rate Increase from 2% to 4% (just a little bit) - ($)
* Proposal and revenue figures obtained from Governor Fallin's FY 2016 Budget proposal
3) The Step Up Plan requires that NO revenue be taken from other state agencies, such as Transportation, Health Care, Public Safety, or Corrections.
4) The Step Up Plan's funding comes from recurring revenue sources, unlike most plans which rely on one-time monies.
5) Every penny is accounted for as to how it will be spent.
The goal of $200 Million for the first year -
* 90% ($180 million) for teacher pay raise ($3000 across the board)
* 10% ($20 million) for Step-Up initiatives:
a) Support staff pay raises
b) Lower class sizes to meet HB 1017 requirements
c) Teacher merit compensation system (stipends)
d) District curriculum resources
This 10% will be up to local boards as which and how much $ each of the 4 Step Up initiatives receive.
At the conclusion of the first year of funding the Step Up Plan, a transparent adequacy and efficiency study will be conducted to include local revenue flexibility, finances, school structures, and instructional hours/days recommendations. The second year will see a continuation of the $200 million plus $100 million, of which 70% ($70 million) will go to additional teacher raises ($1,160) and 30% ($30 million) to Step Up initiatives. Years three and four will continue the $100 million 70/30 split, until the 4-year Step Up Plan is complete and teachers will be receiving a $6,500 pay raise.
Just as Steve Goodman wrote the perfect country and western song when he included mama, trains, trucks, prison, and the rain - I believe Derald Glover in conjunction with the CCOSA and OASA has written the perfect teacher pay raise plan by including recurring revenue streams, expenditure details, and the fact that the Step Up Plan takes no money from other agencies.
The OASA believes there is hope for Oklahoma's teachers and students. With a new year and a new legislative session comes a renewed focus on "doing the right thing" by our kids. State officials, school leaders, educators, parents, the business community, and other education stake holders have an opportunity to work together to implement a log-term plan to increase teacher pay and funding. An oft-quoted maxim states: Where there is no vision, the people perish. Fortunately for our states children, we have a vision for bettering Oklahoma schools and look forward to collaboratively pursuing that vision in 2017.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Senate Bill 133: Paying for Teacher Pay Raise
Legislators have introduced (trotted out, marched out, or "Are you ready to rumble?") as many as two dozen teacher pay raise bills for the new legislative session, which has just begun. Many of the bills involve raising taxes and fees for the appropriate revenue, while a few also list school consolidation or dinosaur ( the governor's label for K-8 schools) consolidation as a way to raise teacher salaries. However, research indicates that consolidating schools or administrative services raises very little, if any money at all. Another enrolled bill places a cap on dirtbag (slang for superintendent) salaries as a way to increase teacher pay.
Senate Bill 133 establishes a maximum salary schedule for superintendents. Beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, a school district board of education shall not enter into a new contract or renew a contract with a superintendent after the effective day of this act that exceeds the maximum compensation amounts provided for in the following schedule:
1) One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the superintendent of a district... with an ADM (number of students) of... 250 or less;
2) ...$110,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 750 or less but more than 250;
3) ...$120,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 1,500 or less but more than 750;
4) ...$130,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 3,000 or less but more than 1,500;
5) ...$140,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 6,500 or less but more than 3,000;
6) ...$150,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of more than 6,500.
A school district... may enter into a new contract... with a superintendent that exceeds the maximum compensation amounts... provided no state appropriated funds are used for any amount above the maximum amount allowed.
The State Board of Education... may approve a waiver of the maximum compensation amounts for any district... with an ADM of 10,000 or more.
This is the abbreviated version of the bill, but you can understand the gist of it. So, the elephant (dinosaur) in the room is the $64,000 question: How much money can be saved by capping superintendent (dirtbag) salaries? One might tend to believe that $millions will be available for teacher pay raises, since all dirtbags are millionaires, but a quick look at the salaries and facts indicate something else.
A mini-study was conducted in order to ascertain specifically how much money could be put into teacher salaries if superintendent salaries were capped according to Senate Bill 133. A random sample of salaries in districts statewide was examined and run through the proposed formula. There are approximately 530 superintendents in Oklahoma schools, so a 10% random sample (53 superintendents) of salaries and the (ADM) corresponding to each salary was "run through the formula". The amount in salaries over the maximum allowable was then multiplied by 10 in order to arrive at an approximate value (money for teacher pay raises). Although it's been sometime since I've conducted a statistically reliable and valid study, I believe my results are at least in the ballpark.
Of the 53 school districts composing the random sample, only 13 had superintendent salaries which exceeded the maximum allowable limit (approximately 25%). The total amount exceeding the maximum was $100,665, which if multiplied by 10 would amount to $1,006,665. So if the bill were passed into law, approximately $1 Million could be saved and used for teacher pay raises. This would equate to each public school teacher receiving an approximate $25 pay raise.
But wait, there's more...the clause "a school district... can exceed the maximum compensation amount... provided no state appropriated funds are used for any amount above..." basically renders the bill worthless. Many school districts receive funds which are not state appropriated, such as the local and county ad valorem monies. Some school districts receive no state appropriated dollars, only local and county, so those schools could exceed the limit at will. Also, of the 53 schools surveyed, 40 (75%) did not exceed the maximum allowable, so most teachers would receive NO pay increase. Senate Bill 133 is as big a waste of time (for the teacher pay raise bills it would purport to provide revenue) as well as all the consolidation bills.
Another reason it is a waste of time is the fact that school administrative costs already are capped. The maximum amount of school administrative costs for a school with less than 500 students is 8%. The maximum amount for a school with more than 500 but less than 1500 is 7% and for schools with more than 1500 students the cap is 5%. So, by law, administrative costs for superintendent salaries are already capped. So, SB 133 is not only redundant but it won't be effective in reducing the already basement bottom administrative costs.
The myth still lives, however, that schools have administrative costs that are too high, as Governor Fallin's "State of the State" speech testifies. All the facts and figures in the world will not convince some people that school administrative costs are at rock bottom, but we must still try to get the facts out. At least this year Governor Fallin didn't refer to our small rural schools as dinosaurs or our superintendents as dirtbags, but we're still waiting..
Senate Bill 133 establishes a maximum salary schedule for superintendents. Beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, a school district board of education shall not enter into a new contract or renew a contract with a superintendent after the effective day of this act that exceeds the maximum compensation amounts provided for in the following schedule:
1) One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the superintendent of a district... with an ADM (number of students) of... 250 or less;
2) ...$110,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 750 or less but more than 250;
3) ...$120,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 1,500 or less but more than 750;
4) ...$130,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 3,000 or less but more than 1,500;
5) ...$140,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of 6,500 or less but more than 3,000;
6) ...$150,000 for the superintendent... with an ADM of more than 6,500.
A school district... may enter into a new contract... with a superintendent that exceeds the maximum compensation amounts... provided no state appropriated funds are used for any amount above the maximum amount allowed.
The State Board of Education... may approve a waiver of the maximum compensation amounts for any district... with an ADM of 10,000 or more.
This is the abbreviated version of the bill, but you can understand the gist of it. So, the elephant (dinosaur) in the room is the $64,000 question: How much money can be saved by capping superintendent (dirtbag) salaries? One might tend to believe that $millions will be available for teacher pay raises, since all dirtbags are millionaires, but a quick look at the salaries and facts indicate something else.
A mini-study was conducted in order to ascertain specifically how much money could be put into teacher salaries if superintendent salaries were capped according to Senate Bill 133. A random sample of salaries in districts statewide was examined and run through the proposed formula. There are approximately 530 superintendents in Oklahoma schools, so a 10% random sample (53 superintendents) of salaries and the (ADM) corresponding to each salary was "run through the formula". The amount in salaries over the maximum allowable was then multiplied by 10 in order to arrive at an approximate value (money for teacher pay raises). Although it's been sometime since I've conducted a statistically reliable and valid study, I believe my results are at least in the ballpark.
Of the 53 school districts composing the random sample, only 13 had superintendent salaries which exceeded the maximum allowable limit (approximately 25%). The total amount exceeding the maximum was $100,665, which if multiplied by 10 would amount to $1,006,665. So if the bill were passed into law, approximately $1 Million could be saved and used for teacher pay raises. This would equate to each public school teacher receiving an approximate $25 pay raise.
But wait, there's more...the clause "a school district... can exceed the maximum compensation amount... provided no state appropriated funds are used for any amount above..." basically renders the bill worthless. Many school districts receive funds which are not state appropriated, such as the local and county ad valorem monies. Some school districts receive no state appropriated dollars, only local and county, so those schools could exceed the limit at will. Also, of the 53 schools surveyed, 40 (75%) did not exceed the maximum allowable, so most teachers would receive NO pay increase. Senate Bill 133 is as big a waste of time (for the teacher pay raise bills it would purport to provide revenue) as well as all the consolidation bills.
Another reason it is a waste of time is the fact that school administrative costs already are capped. The maximum amount of school administrative costs for a school with less than 500 students is 8%. The maximum amount for a school with more than 500 but less than 1500 is 7% and for schools with more than 1500 students the cap is 5%. So, by law, administrative costs for superintendent salaries are already capped. So, SB 133 is not only redundant but it won't be effective in reducing the already basement bottom administrative costs.
The myth still lives, however, that schools have administrative costs that are too high, as Governor Fallin's "State of the State" speech testifies. All the facts and figures in the world will not convince some people that school administrative costs are at rock bottom, but we must still try to get the facts out. At least this year Governor Fallin didn't refer to our small rural schools as dinosaurs or our superintendents as dirtbags, but we're still waiting..
Saturday, February 4, 2017
House Bill 1415 - Teacher Pay Raise???
There has been a very long line of teacher pay raise bills trotted out by lawmakers to impress the voting public. As many as 24 legislators have taken advantage of the fact that Oklahoma is near dead last in the nation for public school teacher pay, and slipping lower (actually accelerating) in the teacher pay "race to the bottom". Authoring teacher pay raise bills has certainly been a "gold mine" for legislators wanting teacher favor. If it weren't so sad, it would be almost comical watching state legislators stumble over themselves in trying to be the "one" who authors the biggest teacher pay raise plan. After reading most of the two dozen bills which could increase teacher pay, it becomes readily apparent that they all sound very good, but lack any established revenue stream to actually fund them - which is why most, if not all of the bills will "go up in smoke".
House Bill 1415 is no exception to the rule, as far as being able to actually pay for it. Briefly, HB 1415 is an Act relating to schools which requires a school district to pay certain increased compensation to teachers under certain circumstances. According to the bill, the "circumstances" would be: ... if a school district incurs penalties for exceeding class size limitations..., such district shall be required to pay an increase in compensation to any teacher whose classroom has exceeded the class size limitations. The bill goes on to read ... provided that a teacher shall receive a minimum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each student that exceeds the class size limitations set forth... and with total increased compensation not to exceed a maximum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
First of all, the author of the bill should understand that all class size penalties have been waived for the past several years because of insufficient funding to schools. While it is not known if class size penalties will be waived for the 2017-2018 school year, it is an established fact that insufficient funding will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. Many public school funding experts predict that class size penalties will be re-instated next year, as many more elected legislators are now in favor of vouchers (sending public school funding to private and corporate charter schools) - and choking public schools is number one on the list for pro-voucher proponents.
Secondly, public schools have been exceeding class size limits for the past several years hoping to "stay afloat" in the face of massive legislative budget cuts. As a matter of fact Oklahoma has cut public school funding by 27% over the past several years, which undeniably leads the nation - although many legislators continue to deny it. The class size limit is presently 20 students for elementary classes (grades pre-k through 6) in Oklahoma, and 140 students for sectioned classes in secondary schools (grades 7 through 12) with a few exceptions. Elementary schools in Oklahoma are frequently exceeding the 20 student limit right now. If, for example, an elementary school (grades Pre-K through 6) exceeded the 20 student limit in each grade (8) by 12 students (approximately 2 students per teacher), the teacher pay increase would amount to $2000 per teacher (96 extra students divided by 48 teachers). My gazintas are a little rusty, so someone check my math.. If the same schools secondary classes (6 grades) with an equal number of teachers (48) also received a $2000 increase, the school would pay a total of $192,000 in additional teacher pay. Statewide, the required funding could be as high as $200 Million. Many citizens wonder what the source of this additional school funding will be... tax increases?, or some other legislative "shell game"? The kicker is that cash strapped schools will likely receive no additional funding for the teacher pay raise. More schools are likely to "go under" as a result of this corporate lawmaker's bill, as they can't afford the extra payroll, but they also can't afford the 20 student limit set by the same legislature. If this bill passes into law, legislators will be able to direct more and more of your tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charter schools and private schools.
House Bill 1415 is no exception to the rule, as far as being able to actually pay for it. Briefly, HB 1415 is an Act relating to schools which requires a school district to pay certain increased compensation to teachers under certain circumstances. According to the bill, the "circumstances" would be: ... if a school district incurs penalties for exceeding class size limitations..., such district shall be required to pay an increase in compensation to any teacher whose classroom has exceeded the class size limitations. The bill goes on to read ... provided that a teacher shall receive a minimum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each student that exceeds the class size limitations set forth... and with total increased compensation not to exceed a maximum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
First of all, the author of the bill should understand that all class size penalties have been waived for the past several years because of insufficient funding to schools. While it is not known if class size penalties will be waived for the 2017-2018 school year, it is an established fact that insufficient funding will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. Many public school funding experts predict that class size penalties will be re-instated next year, as many more elected legislators are now in favor of vouchers (sending public school funding to private and corporate charter schools) - and choking public schools is number one on the list for pro-voucher proponents.
Secondly, public schools have been exceeding class size limits for the past several years hoping to "stay afloat" in the face of massive legislative budget cuts. As a matter of fact Oklahoma has cut public school funding by 27% over the past several years, which undeniably leads the nation - although many legislators continue to deny it. The class size limit is presently 20 students for elementary classes (grades pre-k through 6) in Oklahoma, and 140 students for sectioned classes in secondary schools (grades 7 through 12) with a few exceptions. Elementary schools in Oklahoma are frequently exceeding the 20 student limit right now. If, for example, an elementary school (grades Pre-K through 6) exceeded the 20 student limit in each grade (8) by 12 students (approximately 2 students per teacher), the teacher pay increase would amount to $2000 per teacher (96 extra students divided by 48 teachers). My gazintas are a little rusty, so someone check my math.. If the same schools secondary classes (6 grades) with an equal number of teachers (48) also received a $2000 increase, the school would pay a total of $192,000 in additional teacher pay. Statewide, the required funding could be as high as $200 Million. Many citizens wonder what the source of this additional school funding will be... tax increases?, or some other legislative "shell game"? The kicker is that cash strapped schools will likely receive no additional funding for the teacher pay raise. More schools are likely to "go under" as a result of this corporate lawmaker's bill, as they can't afford the extra payroll, but they also can't afford the 20 student limit set by the same legislature. If this bill passes into law, legislators will be able to direct more and more of your tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charter schools and private schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)