As we enter the 2nd half of the state legislative session, many public school related bills are still alive in both the senate and house - good, bad, and ugly. I actually titled this blog "the good, the bad, and the ugly" before seeing Joe Dorman's article of the same name, so no copyright infringement is assumed. Dorman is Executive Director of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA). While his column describes the good, bad, and ugly legislation for children in general, my blog/column describes the good, bad, and ugly bills for public school students. I'll start with a couple of the good bills, review a bad one, and even describe one of the "fake" public school bills - "the ugly".
House Bill 1114 is one of two remaining teacher pay raise bills. It provides a $1000 pay raise next year, a $2000 raise for the '18-'19 school year, and an additional $3000 for the '19-'20 school year for a total $6000 pay raise spread over 3 years. While everyone knows by now that there are no revenue sources available for such a pay increase, I believe now that the legislature could determine some sources, whether that means raising taxes or using current sources redirected to teacher pay. Many people believe it is very unlikely the legislature would actually vote to raise taxes, as any increase requires a two-thirds majority vote in the senate. Also, many lawmakers signed that Grover Norquist pledge to never vote to increase tax rates. Many lawmakers now say that pledge only requires them to never vote to increase corporate tax rates, so they're free to increase taxes for middle class Oklahomans. Those lawmakers who've received corporate donations, therefore, may increase taxes for ordinary citizens, and still be in compliance with The Pledge. In addition, Governor Fallin is now demanding that the legislature "balance the state budget" by any means necessary, including increasing taxes for the working poor. Those lawmakers who signed The Pledge, now have an excuse for breaking it: "My boss told me I had to raise taxes".
Senate Bill 618 is the senate version of HB 1114 - the teacher pay raise bill. It provides a 4% increase for the '17 - '18 school year and another 4% raise for the '18 - '19 school year. This amounts to an approximate $1264 raise next year and another $1264 for the year after, for a grand total $2528 raise over two years. I will say this, however, about SB 618 - the author was overheard saying that we could raise the tax on gasoline and deisel to pay for the raise, so a revenue source has been identified. Lawmakers will simply put it on the back of consumers once again, instead of expecting corporate executives to pay for it. This tax increase will only affect you and I, sparing billionaires the agony of becoming poorer billionaires - or for goodness sake... only millionaires.
All jesting aside, I believe teachers stand a very good chance of receiving a pay raise (albeit small) next year, as most lawmakers at this point don't have the guts to not provide one. These two bills, HB 1114 and SB 618, are two of the "good" bills, so now let's examine a "bad" bill...
Any and all proposed state budget bills will be bad for our public schools and students, although Dorman describes the present budget fiasco as "ugly". (Legislation can be both bad and ugly, but not good, bad, and ugly simultaneously. The specific budget bill number(s) is still unknown since the budget, in all likelihood, won't be drafted until the last week of the session in May. The public school portion of the budget could suffer as much as a 15% reduction from last year's record low water mark or range upward to an "announced" flat appropriation. Many school finance experts now know that a "flat appropriation", as determined by state lawmakers, actually means a 5% reduction in state aid. A 15% reduction would amount to approximately $900,000 for Blanchard Schools, while a 5% reduction would result in losing $300,000. I know that most people are familiar with basic mathematics, so can figure the above reductions for themselves. There may be a few lawmakers reading this post, however, so I've spelled it out (for them only). The bottom line for public schools is that budget bill (which will be announced toward the end of the session in order to prevent minimal backlash) will be terrible for public schools.
As stated earlier, Joe Dorman also listed good, bad, and ugly bills for kids. One of his "bad" bills (House Bill 1482) is one I have listed as just "ugly", but I'll quote Mr. Dorman as to why he believes HB 1482 is bad for kids, and then provide my opinion as to why it's ugly.
Politicians overrule voters on criminal justice: HB 1482, a bill to roll back criminal justice reforms approved by voters on the 2016 ballot, passed in the House by a razor thin margin. If it becomes law, it will undo many of the "smart on crime" sentencing reform related to personal drug use and reinstate policies that break up families and increase our incarceration rate.
Most Oklahoma voters understand why this bill is bad, even before reading Joe Dorman's column. I believe the bill should also be classified as "ugly" because of the way the authors of HB 1482 have tried to gain support for it. The supporters of the ugly bill have tried to connect it with public schools by relating that it is "for the safety of our students". The bill, in fact, has nothing to do with the safety of our kids - but has everything to do with increasing revenue for district attorneys and defense lawyers. Many consider it a "fake" bill because the motivation for its passage is "more money", instead of the advertised motive - for the kids. I believe all fake bills are also ugly, hence the appropriate classification.
There are several more "good, bad, and ugly" bills still alive in the House and Senate (approximately 70), so we've only touched the tip of the legislative iceberg in describing four. The majority of those remaining are bad and ugly, but we'll try to find a few more good ones next time.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Oklahoma High School Track and Field
Another track and field article:
As many people know who read my Blog/Column, every now and then I write about the great high school athletes who participated in sports at Lindsay High School, my Alma-mater (class of 1975). I've written about Leopard football and basketball in prior columns, but now am collecting data about the great track and field athletes who participated at Lindsay High School... since time began. I need the help of track and field fans who read this blog/column, in identifying names, times, distances, or heights, and year participated, of those individuals who achieved greatness in track and field as a student at Lindsay. As a gauge or measuring stick, I currently have some names, times, and distances which track and field fans may use for giving me a "heads up" (sending me the requested information). The times and distances for boys are: 100 meters - 10.8 or 10.0 for 100 yards, 15.2 - 110 high hurdles, 200 meters - 22.7 or 22.9 for 220 yards, 180 yard low hurdles ?, 300 meter hurdles - 39.8 , 440 yards - 49.7 or 400 meters, 800 meters - 1:58 or 880 yards, 1600 meters - 4:39 or one mile, 3200 meters - 10:03 or 2 mile, Long Jump - 21' 10", Discus - 174' 2", High Jump - 6' 10", Shot - 57' 2", Pole Vault - none.
Girls events: 100 meters - none, 100 Hurdles - 15.03, 200 - 26.46, 300 Hurdles 45.59, 400 - 59.9, 800 - 2:32, 1600 - 5:43, 3200 - 13:31, Long Jump - 17'8", Discus - unknown, High Jump - 5'4", Shot - 41'6", Pole Vault - 9'6".
These times and distances are taken directly from the Track and Field record board which is displayed in the main hallway of Lindsay High School. I know that many more good "times and distances" exist prior to the year 2000, but none are listed or published - so I'd like anyone reading this Post to send the information by replying with a message or texting. We would like to publish the greatest all-time track and field athletes ever to attend Lindsay High School, as a result of your information - so please provide it.
As many people know who read my Blog/Column, every now and then I write about the great high school athletes who participated in sports at Lindsay High School, my Alma-mater (class of 1975). I've written about Leopard football and basketball in prior columns, but now am collecting data about the great track and field athletes who participated at Lindsay High School... since time began. I need the help of track and field fans who read this blog/column, in identifying names, times, distances, or heights, and year participated, of those individuals who achieved greatness in track and field as a student at Lindsay. As a gauge or measuring stick, I currently have some names, times, and distances which track and field fans may use for giving me a "heads up" (sending me the requested information). The times and distances for boys are: 100 meters - 10.8 or 10.0 for 100 yards, 15.2 - 110 high hurdles, 200 meters - 22.7 or 22.9 for 220 yards, 180 yard low hurdles ?, 300 meter hurdles - 39.8 , 440 yards - 49.7 or 400 meters, 800 meters - 1:58 or 880 yards, 1600 meters - 4:39 or one mile, 3200 meters - 10:03 or 2 mile, Long Jump - 21' 10", Discus - 174' 2", High Jump - 6' 10", Shot - 57' 2", Pole Vault - none.
Girls events: 100 meters - none, 100 Hurdles - 15.03, 200 - 26.46, 300 Hurdles 45.59, 400 - 59.9, 800 - 2:32, 1600 - 5:43, 3200 - 13:31, Long Jump - 17'8", Discus - unknown, High Jump - 5'4", Shot - 41'6", Pole Vault - 9'6".
These times and distances are taken directly from the Track and Field record board which is displayed in the main hallway of Lindsay High School. I know that many more good "times and distances" exist prior to the year 2000, but none are listed or published - so I'd like anyone reading this Post to send the information by replying with a message or texting. We would like to publish the greatest all-time track and field athletes ever to attend Lindsay High School, as a result of your information - so please provide it.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Devastating Blanchard Schools Family News
Last Thursday evening, I received the news that no superintendent wants to hear. I received a call at about 7 PM from Greg Jackson, our high school principal, telling me that one of our own (Blanchard High School student) was missing and presumed drowned at Chickasha Lake. It seems that after school, Nathan Williams, a Blanchard High School football player and wrestler, had gone to Chickasha Lake along with some friends to swim and just have fun. At about 5:30 PM, Nathan had attempted to swim to a stalled jet-ski in the middle of the lake, when he went under and did not re-surface. Mr. Jackson immediately went to the lake to see if he could somehow help in the search. Search and rescue divers proceeded to look for Nathan at that time and continued until well after dark, when they discontinued the search until the next morning, along with Greg Jackson. They discovered Nathan at around 11 AM on Friday morning.
It's always very difficult when a young man or woman loses their life in an accident, as it's always sudden and unexpected. It is particularly devastating for the family of a young person, such as the parents and grandparents of Nathan Williams. The grandmother of Nathan Williams, Debbie Williams, is an employee of Blanchard Schools, and is profoundly affected by her grandsons loss. Debbie as well as Nathan is a member of the Blanchard Public Schools' family. The only solace is knowing that God does have a reason for taking Nathan to Heaven, and he will continue to stand by his family and friends. I know the helpless and devastating feelings that accompany such a loss, as I lost my 12 year old nephew, Austin Beckham, in a 1994 accident. He was part of my world, just like Nathan Williams was part of Debbie William's world. Nathan will continue to live in Heaven, and is looking down on us all as we speak.
It's always very difficult when a young man or woman loses their life in an accident, as it's always sudden and unexpected. It is particularly devastating for the family of a young person, such as the parents and grandparents of Nathan Williams. The grandmother of Nathan Williams, Debbie Williams, is an employee of Blanchard Schools, and is profoundly affected by her grandsons loss. Debbie as well as Nathan is a member of the Blanchard Public Schools' family. The only solace is knowing that God does have a reason for taking Nathan to Heaven, and he will continue to stand by his family and friends. I know the helpless and devastating feelings that accompany such a loss, as I lost my 12 year old nephew, Austin Beckham, in a 1994 accident. He was part of my world, just like Nathan Williams was part of Debbie William's world. Nathan will continue to live in Heaven, and is looking down on us all as we speak.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
State Budget Fiasco Created by Lawmakers? Yes, No, Maybe..
I think many people know by now that the state budget fiasco is the perfect storm for destroying our local public schools, state parks, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, our rural hospitals, and many more public services. The question which now should be answered is who or what governmental agency or group is responsible for our budgeting calamity? While it's easy to pin the blame on our senators and representatives who are responsible for maintaining appropriate public services, the answer is probably more complicated.
A recap of where the state is now as far as funding our public education system can partially answer the question. Over the last several years, Oklahoma public schools have had their funding cut more than public schools in any state in the nation (approximately 27%). Lawmakers whose job it is to provide appropriations to state agencies have blamed these draconian cuts on everything from the downturn in the economy (other states have also experienced downturns but state agency funding remained static) to high administrative costs (approximately 3% of all school expenditures is administrative, while 97% is non-administrative) to the sighting of an owl in the daytime (bad luck). Since January schools have received no less than three reductions in state aid, and will probably receive three more cuts before the end of the fiscal year (June 30). For Blanchard Public Schools, we have endured a $146,000 reduction in budgeted revenue so far, and if the trend continues for April, May, and June - we will in all likelihood be reduced by $317,000 by year's end. All schools will have to use their general fund balance, a non-recurring revenue source, to survive. The general fund carryover is an emergency fund only, but this is an emergency. To place this $317,000 budget reduction in perspective, consider the following: If the salary and fringe benefits of the average teacher is $45,000, then a $317,000 state ordered reduction would result in cutting 7 teachers or 16 support employees at $20,000 each. Fortunately, teachers cannot be cut until the end of the school year because they are contracted for the entire year, but support employees can be cut - because they are considered hourly staff. This scenario (cutting support now) will not happen in Blanchard because we will use our general fund carryover to absorb the government ordered reductions... until June 30, 2017. But what about next year?
As many people have probably heard by now, the Oklahoma legislature has dug itself a $900 million hole to fill in next year's budget. In many budgeting experts' opinion, this monstrous revenue snafu was created by our elected legislature because they do not have any expertise (or the sense God gave a goose) in budgeting - the fine art of "adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing", as Jim Crawford, my high school Algebra I teacher would say. Applying simple mathematics to reducing next year's public school budget by $321 million (the public school portion of the budget hole), could result in a maximum 15% reduction in state aid. For Blanchard Public Schools, a 15% reduction in legislator appropriated funding would mean a $900,000 hit. Again, for Blanchard Schools, this reduction in state aid would translate to 20 teachers losing their jobs (reduction in force). This amounts to almost 17% of our total number of teachers.
The responsibility for this budgeting fiasco lands directly at the feet of our lawmakers, but another entity bears at least some responsibilty - the Oklahoma taxpayers and voters. The voters in Oklahoma bear responsibility for sending lawmakers like Ralph Shortey to the capitol. They also share some of the responsibility for sending the "big-spending and mathematically challenged" senators and representatives to the capitol. Just as Ralph Shortey's victim might have a case for suing the state (Oklahoma voters and taxpayers who sent him to the capitol), public services such as safety, education, and health care, might have a case for suing the state for this legislator created budget hole... think about it.
It can't be said that all lawmakers have been oblivious to the fact that the state budget has been headed towards this cliff for several years. As a matter of fact, many lawmakers have been seeking credit for providing more funding for schools - all the while reducing state aid. One example of lawmakers seeking credit for allocating more money for schools is the Oklahoma lottery revenue. The lottery for schools was voted on by Oklahoma citizens in 2003 as a way to provide schools more operational funding. Once the voters passed it, the legislature confiscated the lottery proceeds during what many believe was a "hostile takeover" of school funding. Instead of the lottery money being sent directly to schools as intended by the Oklahoma voters, the lottery money was spent by the legislature to replace state appropriated dollars. The legislature used school lottery proceeds to supplant legislatively appropriated state aid. In the lottery law that voters passed, a clause made it illegal to supplant state aid with lottery money. Many public school funding experts pointed this fact out to the public in 2005, but our legislature knew at the time that most people would not understand this shell game. Our legislature understood full well what they were doing as they broke the law, but did not care. They wanted two things: to control lottery money, so they could spend it elsewhere - and to receive credit for school lottery proceeds, both of which they accomplished.
After 12 years of the legislature receiving credit for sending lottery money to schools, but spending it anywhere but schools, the legislature has finally been caught with their hand in the public school cookie jar. Just last week in March of 2017, they were found guilty of supplanting state aid with lottery money. The legislature has been ordered to pay schools more than $10 million, which they confiscated this year. Just think about how much schools would receive if the legislature were forced to pay back lottery money over the last 12 years - more than $120 million..
Now the money-minded legislature is trying to confiscate another school revenue source with House Bill 1846, which allows lawmakers to confiscate gross production revenue (oil and gas taxes). They will not be satisfied until they have control of all school revenue sources, so they will get credit for providing every penny which schools receive. They will use the gross production revenue the same way they used the lottery money - to supplant state aid, in order to get credit for providing funding, while at the same time spending the supplanted state aid elsewhere...
A recap of where the state is now as far as funding our public education system can partially answer the question. Over the last several years, Oklahoma public schools have had their funding cut more than public schools in any state in the nation (approximately 27%). Lawmakers whose job it is to provide appropriations to state agencies have blamed these draconian cuts on everything from the downturn in the economy (other states have also experienced downturns but state agency funding remained static) to high administrative costs (approximately 3% of all school expenditures is administrative, while 97% is non-administrative) to the sighting of an owl in the daytime (bad luck). Since January schools have received no less than three reductions in state aid, and will probably receive three more cuts before the end of the fiscal year (June 30). For Blanchard Public Schools, we have endured a $146,000 reduction in budgeted revenue so far, and if the trend continues for April, May, and June - we will in all likelihood be reduced by $317,000 by year's end. All schools will have to use their general fund balance, a non-recurring revenue source, to survive. The general fund carryover is an emergency fund only, but this is an emergency. To place this $317,000 budget reduction in perspective, consider the following: If the salary and fringe benefits of the average teacher is $45,000, then a $317,000 state ordered reduction would result in cutting 7 teachers or 16 support employees at $20,000 each. Fortunately, teachers cannot be cut until the end of the school year because they are contracted for the entire year, but support employees can be cut - because they are considered hourly staff. This scenario (cutting support now) will not happen in Blanchard because we will use our general fund carryover to absorb the government ordered reductions... until June 30, 2017. But what about next year?
As many people have probably heard by now, the Oklahoma legislature has dug itself a $900 million hole to fill in next year's budget. In many budgeting experts' opinion, this monstrous revenue snafu was created by our elected legislature because they do not have any expertise (or the sense God gave a goose) in budgeting - the fine art of "adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing", as Jim Crawford, my high school Algebra I teacher would say. Applying simple mathematics to reducing next year's public school budget by $321 million (the public school portion of the budget hole), could result in a maximum 15% reduction in state aid. For Blanchard Public Schools, a 15% reduction in legislator appropriated funding would mean a $900,000 hit. Again, for Blanchard Schools, this reduction in state aid would translate to 20 teachers losing their jobs (reduction in force). This amounts to almost 17% of our total number of teachers.
The responsibility for this budgeting fiasco lands directly at the feet of our lawmakers, but another entity bears at least some responsibilty - the Oklahoma taxpayers and voters. The voters in Oklahoma bear responsibility for sending lawmakers like Ralph Shortey to the capitol. They also share some of the responsibility for sending the "big-spending and mathematically challenged" senators and representatives to the capitol. Just as Ralph Shortey's victim might have a case for suing the state (Oklahoma voters and taxpayers who sent him to the capitol), public services such as safety, education, and health care, might have a case for suing the state for this legislator created budget hole... think about it.
It can't be said that all lawmakers have been oblivious to the fact that the state budget has been headed towards this cliff for several years. As a matter of fact, many lawmakers have been seeking credit for providing more funding for schools - all the while reducing state aid. One example of lawmakers seeking credit for allocating more money for schools is the Oklahoma lottery revenue. The lottery for schools was voted on by Oklahoma citizens in 2003 as a way to provide schools more operational funding. Once the voters passed it, the legislature confiscated the lottery proceeds during what many believe was a "hostile takeover" of school funding. Instead of the lottery money being sent directly to schools as intended by the Oklahoma voters, the lottery money was spent by the legislature to replace state appropriated dollars. The legislature used school lottery proceeds to supplant legislatively appropriated state aid. In the lottery law that voters passed, a clause made it illegal to supplant state aid with lottery money. Many public school funding experts pointed this fact out to the public in 2005, but our legislature knew at the time that most people would not understand this shell game. Our legislature understood full well what they were doing as they broke the law, but did not care. They wanted two things: to control lottery money, so they could spend it elsewhere - and to receive credit for school lottery proceeds, both of which they accomplished.
After 12 years of the legislature receiving credit for sending lottery money to schools, but spending it anywhere but schools, the legislature has finally been caught with their hand in the public school cookie jar. Just last week in March of 2017, they were found guilty of supplanting state aid with lottery money. The legislature has been ordered to pay schools more than $10 million, which they confiscated this year. Just think about how much schools would receive if the legislature were forced to pay back lottery money over the last 12 years - more than $120 million..
Now the money-minded legislature is trying to confiscate another school revenue source with House Bill 1846, which allows lawmakers to confiscate gross production revenue (oil and gas taxes). They will not be satisfied until they have control of all school revenue sources, so they will get credit for providing every penny which schools receive. They will use the gross production revenue the same way they used the lottery money - to supplant state aid, in order to get credit for providing funding, while at the same time spending the supplanted state aid elsewhere...
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Lindsay HS Athletics - Track and Field
While the Lindsay Leopards and Leopardettes of Lindsay, Oklahoma are best known for their football and girls basketball teams across history, they have also had great athletes in several other sports. Even though the stand-out athletes in sports such as Track and Field are few and far between, they still exist. As an alumnus of Lindsay High School and a Leopard (once a Leopard, always a Leopard) I've written several columns about Lindsay High School athletics, naming the top performers in football (the 1970's), girls basketball, and boys basketball. I, as a Leopard alumnus, participated in football, basketball, and Track during my days at LHS, although by Leopard standards I was only average. I became a high school coach in both football and track and field for Duncan High School after graduating college. While I was only average as a participant in those sports, I may have been slightly above average as the head track and field coach at DHS. Our boys track teams at DHS won three state titles, was state runner-up one time, and was in the top 8 five times during the nine years I coached. Several Leopard alumni suggested we now publish a column naming the stand-out track and field Leopard alumni, for both boys and girls. If all the track coaches at LHS over the years, and all Leopard alumni with knowledge of former track athletes at LHS will send me their suggestions for the best girl and boy track stars in each event (100 yd/mtr, 110 m./120 yd hurdles, 200m/220yd, 180 yd hurdles, 300 IM hurdles, 400m/440yd, 800m/880yd, 1600m/mile, 3200m/2 mile, 400/440 relay, 800/880 relay, 1600m/mile relay, shot, discus, high jump, long jump, pole vault) we'll publish the results in your Lindsay News and on KBLP Radio. This listing of the all-time greatest track and field athletes at LHS will bring back a lot of memories for us old-timers, so please send me your suggestions.
Monday, March 20, 2017
The Tilted Basketball Court
A few months ago I wrote a column which detailed the unlevel playing field created when private high schools are allowed to compete with our public high schools in all sports. The piece was written after the conclusion of football season, so only football was researched as to the inordinate percentage of private school teams which were successful - as compared to public school teams. Data analysis revealed that 47% of public schools made the playoffs, while 82% of the private schools did. If competition between private schools and public schools is fair (level), the percentage of success for each should be roughly equal. Many public school advocates say that the success ratio difference can be attributed to unfair advantages enjoyed by private schools, such as the ability to recruit only the best athletes, offer scholarships (sponsorships), allow only the best athletes to enroll, and afford the best athletic facilities. Private school advocates often attribute the success differential to harder working athletes (more heart) and better coaches.
A more revealing statistic is perhaps the football academic state champions for each classification in 2015-2016. Of the five football classifications (A thru 5A) which have private schools competing, three were won by private schools, while two were won by public schools. This fact alone illustrates that private schools enjoy advantages which public schools do not have. Some public school advocates say that private schools only allow the top students to enroll, and reject others.
With the conclusion of Oklahoma high school basketball season, more data can now be analyzed to either discount the private school advantages, or to reaffirm the systemic tilted basketball court. In classes A through 4A, approximately 300 public schools participated in both girls and boys high school basketball, while 18 private schools participated. Of the 18 private schools, 10 made the state basketball tournament (55%). Of the 300 participating public schools, 54 made the state tournament (18%). Many public school experts believe the discrepancy in winning percentages between publics and privates cannot be explained by chance alone. There must be contributing factors besides better teachers and harder working athletes which explain the extraordinary level of success enjoyed by private schools.
In addition to the athletic championships awarded to both public and private schools, the Oklahoma Association of Secondary School Athletics (OASSA) awards academic state titles to schools participating in sports. The high school teams with the highest grade point averages are recognized as "academic state champions" or receive "academic achievement awards" for each sport and classification. Of the 318 schools starting the basketball playoffs in 2015-2016, 189 public school basketball teams received academic recognition (59%) while 20 private schools received accolades for academic achievement (near 100%).
All of these startling facts indicate that a "tilted playing field" or "basketball court" exists when public schools compete against private schools. Unfair advantages for private schools also exist when academics are compared between publics and privates. Of course, public schools do win state titles, and I will brag a little at this time. The Blanchard Boys Basketball team just won the class 4A State Academic Championship last week at the Big House! They had the highest average grade point average of all 4A teams which entered the playoffs. Congratulations to all the public school athletic teams receiving academic recognition, as they've overcome the private school advantage in doing so.
A more revealing statistic is perhaps the football academic state champions for each classification in 2015-2016. Of the five football classifications (A thru 5A) which have private schools competing, three were won by private schools, while two were won by public schools. This fact alone illustrates that private schools enjoy advantages which public schools do not have. Some public school advocates say that private schools only allow the top students to enroll, and reject others.
With the conclusion of Oklahoma high school basketball season, more data can now be analyzed to either discount the private school advantages, or to reaffirm the systemic tilted basketball court. In classes A through 4A, approximately 300 public schools participated in both girls and boys high school basketball, while 18 private schools participated. Of the 18 private schools, 10 made the state basketball tournament (55%). Of the 300 participating public schools, 54 made the state tournament (18%). Many public school experts believe the discrepancy in winning percentages between publics and privates cannot be explained by chance alone. There must be contributing factors besides better teachers and harder working athletes which explain the extraordinary level of success enjoyed by private schools.
In addition to the athletic championships awarded to both public and private schools, the Oklahoma Association of Secondary School Athletics (OASSA) awards academic state titles to schools participating in sports. The high school teams with the highest grade point averages are recognized as "academic state champions" or receive "academic achievement awards" for each sport and classification. Of the 318 schools starting the basketball playoffs in 2015-2016, 189 public school basketball teams received academic recognition (59%) while 20 private schools received accolades for academic achievement (near 100%).
All of these startling facts indicate that a "tilted playing field" or "basketball court" exists when public schools compete against private schools. Unfair advantages for private schools also exist when academics are compared between publics and privates. Of course, public schools do win state titles, and I will brag a little at this time. The Blanchard Boys Basketball team just won the class 4A State Academic Championship last week at the Big House! They had the highest average grade point average of all 4A teams which entered the playoffs. Congratulations to all the public school athletic teams receiving academic recognition, as they've overcome the private school advantage in doing so.
Friday, March 17, 2017
"For the Kids" - REALLY, Mr. Shortey?
Senator Ralph Shortey has been suspended by the Oklahoma Senate for "disorderly behavior" and charged with three felonies, including "child prostitution". Before being suspended and charged, however, he authored and supported several bills, which he said were for "child welfare and child safety" (for our school children). Senate Bill 512, authored by Mr. Shortey, would have drastically changed Oklahomans' will (by making illicit drug possession and usage within 1000 feet of certain public property a felony instead of possible misdemeanor). It is now dead and Shortey has been removed as its principal author. House Bill 1482, identical to SB 512 and supported by Shortey, passed the House and now awaits a vote in the senate. HB 1482, authored by Biggs and Downing of the House and Stanislawski of the Senate, has also been claimed to represent "child safety and welfare". Many Oklahoma voters and citizens are now questioning whether Mr. Shortey is really concerned about child welfare, or really only concerned about Ralph Shortey's welfare. He will not be allowed to vote for HB 1482, and its principal authors may not now support it, so it may not pass the senate.
Senate Bill 560, authored by Rob Standridge and formerly co-authored by Ralph Shortey, is a school voucher bill which was also said to be "for the kids". Mr. Standridge pulled the bill from consideration two weeks ago, for lack of senate support. SB 560 is now unlikely to be re-considered or revived in another bill, because of Senator Shortey's former support. Again, like Senate Bill 512 and House Bill 1482, Senate Bill 560 may be all about Senator Ralph Shortey's well-being instead of our kids' safety and benefits.
Senate Bill 560, authored by Rob Standridge and formerly co-authored by Ralph Shortey, is a school voucher bill which was also said to be "for the kids". Mr. Standridge pulled the bill from consideration two weeks ago, for lack of senate support. SB 560 is now unlikely to be re-considered or revived in another bill, because of Senator Shortey's former support. Again, like Senate Bill 512 and House Bill 1482, Senate Bill 560 may be all about Senator Ralph Shortey's well-being instead of our kids' safety and benefits.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
State Revenue Drought Continues
The state revenue drought continues on, and there is no end in sight. State agencies were asked last week to envision what a 14.5% reduction in budgets would look like - and report back to the legislature the results of these cuts. Needless to say, the resulting scenarios are not pretty. Our public schools have suffered cut, after cut, after cut, over the past several years - and the education cuts in 2017 have accelerated beyond belief. We first suffered state budget reductions in January - $30,000, then in February - $57,000, and as of March 15 - $59,398, for a grand total of $146,398 in Blanchard Public Schools. We must go back and re-balance our budget, once again... and again... and again. We must continue to reduce expected revenue and reduce expenditures. There is no end in sight for cutting teaching and support staff, reducing administrative costs, reducing operational expenditures, and cutting student resources for our public schools. The only problem for schools is that we are already cut to the bone - there is no fat left to cut! Corporate legislators are fond of saying that schools can reduce administrative costs (overhead) to balance school budgets by consolidating administrative services - but the facts belie those assertions. Administrative costs make up only about 3% of school expenditures, while teacher salaries make up about 80%. The other 17% goes to operational costs such as support salaries, utility costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and building repairs, and student services. Legislators are also fond of saying that schools receive revenue other than state appropriated funds, so "have more money than they can spend".
The facts concerning "other revenue" also belie legislator statements. The fact of the matter is that most of the "other revenue" is chargeable against state appropriations. In other words, all school funding is a "zero-sum" game in which most local and county revenue is reduced from state aid as it works its way through the formula. Dedicated revenue from the County 4-mil, gross production tax, rural electric co-op, school land leases, and motor vehicle collections is subtracted from state appropriated collections, so there is no over-all revenue difference in how much schools ultimately receive. Whether a school receives one million dollars in dedicated revenue or one dollar, the final state aid is always the same, barring no state appropriation reductions. We have in fact received multiple appropriation reductions this year alone. In addition, the dedicated revenue schools receive is also drastically down this year, as gross production is down 8% from one year ago, motor vehicle collections - down 6.86%, school land leases - down 7.19%, and the REC - down 2.07%. For Blanchard Public Schools the reductions amount to $34,980 in gross production, $1607 in REC, $29,716 in motor vehicle collections, and $14,793 in school land, a grand total of $81,096 in dedicated revenue losses... so far. Not only have schools been cut in state aid, but they've also lost dedicated revenue - the perfect storm for choking our public schools. Many public school supporters believe this funding catastrophe did not happen by bad luck alone - but has been orchestrated by those who would like nothing more than to see our public schools destroyed. Many also say this budget fiasco could have been averted, had our legislators known simple mathematics. The simple arithmetic is that legislators cannot spend more than they receive - in other words, "the budgeting end game must always be expenditures equal revenues.
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), a conservative think tank, has published a list of recommendations for state legislators in order to help balance the state budget and provide teacher pay increases. In the past, I've often disagreed with OCPA recommendations concerning our public schools, such as "legislative choice for recipients of public school funding". I wholeheartedly agree, however, with the OCPA recommendations for balancing our state budget. The list includes common sense reductions in frivolous legislative spending such as repealing sales tax exemptions for tickets to NBA and NHL games and repealing sales tax exemptions on wind turbine sales. The total list of recommendations would save approximately $413 million and could provide a $5000 pay increase to every teacher in the state. The only cost saving measure I would add to the OCPA list would be "consolidation and reduction of state agencies" which would also help fill the state budget hole of almost $900 million. As many Oklahoma voters know by now, state lawmakers are big spenders but not big savers, so none of these cost saving measures are likely to be adopted. The bottom line for teacher pay raises and balancing the state budget for state legislators is probably more state spending with no more revenue. Fuzzy math is no longer in vogue for state legislators, but NO MATH is the new math for our government.
The facts concerning "other revenue" also belie legislator statements. The fact of the matter is that most of the "other revenue" is chargeable against state appropriations. In other words, all school funding is a "zero-sum" game in which most local and county revenue is reduced from state aid as it works its way through the formula. Dedicated revenue from the County 4-mil, gross production tax, rural electric co-op, school land leases, and motor vehicle collections is subtracted from state appropriated collections, so there is no over-all revenue difference in how much schools ultimately receive. Whether a school receives one million dollars in dedicated revenue or one dollar, the final state aid is always the same, barring no state appropriation reductions. We have in fact received multiple appropriation reductions this year alone. In addition, the dedicated revenue schools receive is also drastically down this year, as gross production is down 8% from one year ago, motor vehicle collections - down 6.86%, school land leases - down 7.19%, and the REC - down 2.07%. For Blanchard Public Schools the reductions amount to $34,980 in gross production, $1607 in REC, $29,716 in motor vehicle collections, and $14,793 in school land, a grand total of $81,096 in dedicated revenue losses... so far. Not only have schools been cut in state aid, but they've also lost dedicated revenue - the perfect storm for choking our public schools. Many public school supporters believe this funding catastrophe did not happen by bad luck alone - but has been orchestrated by those who would like nothing more than to see our public schools destroyed. Many also say this budget fiasco could have been averted, had our legislators known simple mathematics. The simple arithmetic is that legislators cannot spend more than they receive - in other words, "the budgeting end game must always be expenditures equal revenues.
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), a conservative think tank, has published a list of recommendations for state legislators in order to help balance the state budget and provide teacher pay increases. In the past, I've often disagreed with OCPA recommendations concerning our public schools, such as "legislative choice for recipients of public school funding". I wholeheartedly agree, however, with the OCPA recommendations for balancing our state budget. The list includes common sense reductions in frivolous legislative spending such as repealing sales tax exemptions for tickets to NBA and NHL games and repealing sales tax exemptions on wind turbine sales. The total list of recommendations would save approximately $413 million and could provide a $5000 pay increase to every teacher in the state. The only cost saving measure I would add to the OCPA list would be "consolidation and reduction of state agencies" which would also help fill the state budget hole of almost $900 million. As many Oklahoma voters know by now, state lawmakers are big spenders but not big savers, so none of these cost saving measures are likely to be adopted. The bottom line for teacher pay raises and balancing the state budget for state legislators is probably more state spending with no more revenue. Fuzzy math is no longer in vogue for state legislators, but NO MATH is the new math for our government.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Correcting the Will of Oklahoma Voters
House Bill 1482, sponsored by Scott Biggs (R) of District 51 and Tim Downing (R) of District 42, seeks to nullify the voters choice for corrections reform when they approved State Question 780, which changed some drug possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. HB 1482 has now passed the House, and awaits a vote in the Senate. SQ 780 was part of an effort to reform drug laws which are responsible for incarcerating far too many Oklahomans. It was a "win-win" for Oklahoma, as it saved taxpayers' money as well as providing rehabilitation services for drug addicts.
Senator Ralph Shortey, in the news as of late for being suspended by the Oklahoma Senate for "disorderly behavior" (among other things), sponsored Senate Bill 512 (the companion bill to HB 1482). Senator Shortey stated that SB 512 was "for the kids" since it would change some misdemeanor drug possession charges in school zones - to felonies. Luckily, it did not pass the senate. The authors of HB 1482, Biggs and Downing, also say that SQ 780 targeted children and Oklahoma voters were fooled into approving it. This defense attorney and prosecuting attorney (by profession) know that attorneys will lose customers (those charged with felonies) and money from fees and fines, as a result of SQ 780 - but HB 1482 will correct that mistake. Not only did voters overwhelmingly approve SQ 780, but organizations such as the Family Policy Institute of Oklahoma, the George Kaiser Family Foundation, the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, the Oklahoma Conference of Churches, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, and many others supported SQ 780.
Public schools have "Drug Free School Zones" surrounding them, and this will not change due to the approval of SQ 780. Drug dealing within 1000 feet of a school building is still a felony. Biggs and Downing say that SQ 780 targeted our school kids (a political winner) and that HB 1482 is about protecting our school kids (another political winner). In reality, the gutting of the voters' will by supporting HB 1482, is about attorney profits only.
Friday, March 10, 2017
The Right to Farm School Vouchers
This column is partly tongue-in-cheek but mostly factual. The resemblance of any real characters to "cartoon" or historical characters is simply to make a point. For instance, any comparison of real-life voucher wolves to Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, or corporate legislators does an injustice to voucher wolves.
As many public school advocates know by now, a school voucher is a public funded (tax) check under-written by Oklahoma legislators, which goes to the private or corporate school of the legislators' choosing. Senator and representative voucher wolves often refer to these checks (monetary rewards for campaign support) as "school choice", implying the checks are "for the kids". Voucher wolves have been taught since they were only pups, that doing anything "for the kids", is a "sure win" as far as getting legislative bills passed into law. The only real school choice for vouchers or corporate charter schools (see Seminole) is legislator choice as to which private school our public tax dollars should go to. For example, if a state senator has received a $5000 donation from Betsy DeVos (the former executive director for the American Federation for Children... Vouchers), he may elect to send the voucher check to a corporate charter school in Turkey (see the Fethullah Gulen charter chain, AKA Dove Academies) or to the ISIS School of Terrorism (its athletic mascot-moniker is the "fightin' terrorist").
Betsy DeVos and her clan of flying monkeys (Wizard of Oz) is not the only corporate-driven voucher schemer out there which provides $millions to state legislators. The title of this column, The Right to Farm School Vouchers, belies a subtle hint as to what additional entity is concerned with destroying our rural public schools. The "right to farm vouchers" means the right of legislators to provide public funding to any private or corporate charter school of their choosing.
Farm Bureau (the lobbying group) has provided its opinion of our rural public schools in the brief entitled Failing Oklahoma Public Schools which it gave to Oklahoma legislators a couple months ago. Many people believe it was a lobbying attempt to convince legislators that our Oklahoma public schools are failures, and have no business receiving public funds to help educate our public school kids. Farm Bureau, like the American Federation for Vouchers, would like to see public funds acquired by private schools. In the brief, Farm Bureau illustrates the failure of Oklahoma public schools by a county map which lists the percentage of D or F grades in each county. In Garvin County, for example, 23% of all schools are failures in Farm Bureau's opinion. In Stephens County, 27% of all schools are failures, while Murray County has 29% failing and Grady County has 16% failing schools. The biggest question which comes to mind is not whether this data is accurate (which I'm sure it is accurate to report that counties had specific percentages of D and F schools) but how and why did a corporation such as Farm Bureau become such a public school expert.. The motivation behind this lobbying brief is exactly the same as it is for Betsy DeVos and her AFV - it's the money! It's all about the effort to convince legislators that our Oklahoma rural schools are failures - so teachers don't deserve raises and tax dollars should flow to private and corporate schools (because our public schools are certainly not spending our tax dollars wisely). But still, why is an insurance company interested in our rural public schools, failing or successful? I think a partial answer may be found in the link between public school voucher bills and the Right to Farm bill (SQ 777) in November of 2016.
Since I have only advocated for our public schools, students, teachers, and education related legislation being considered each year, many close friends questioned the fact that I had an opinion concerning the Right to Farm bill, State Question 777. The Right to Farm, after all, was not related to our public schools, teachers, or students - so how did I explain that it was indeed related to voucher bills, consolidation bills, or other public school bills. The "missing link" is the Farm Bureau Lobby (FBL).
The FBL was solidly linked to The Right to Farm, State Question 777, for years before the bill was actually presented to Oklahoma voters in November of 2016. The Right to Farm bill was a Constitution change which would have given corporate farms protection from Oklahomans passing laws which would hinder their livestock production methods. The bill would have also provided advantages for corporate farms which family farmers and ranchers would not have. Tomi Lahren, conservative host for The Blaze, says that American farmers and ranchers have been "thrown under the bus" by politicians catering to foreign corporate farms. Many public school supporters believe that the FBL, as a corporation, provided SQ 777 to state legislators across the nation at an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) conference prior to 2016. According to ALEC Exposed, the American Legislative Exchange Council is a corporate bill mill - where corporations hand state legislators bills which will increase corporate profits, but rarely benefit citizens back in their home states.The FBL and AFV are members in good standing with ALEC, and have both provided state legislation to Oklahoma lawmakers (along with campaign checks) for passage. State Question 777, the right to farm, and Senate Bill 560, school vouchers - were two such legislative bills. While corporate farm groups such as the Matador Cattle Company (Koch), Tyson Foods, Seaboard Hog Farms, and Shuanghui Foods (China) contributed heavily to the FBL in order to support the Right to Farm, corporate school groups such as Pearson Testing, charter schools, private schools, and virtual schools contributed to the AFV in order to support voucher and consolidation bills. Voucher bills such as SB 560 and others were first handed to state legislators in 2015 with a note which probably read "say it's for the children and it will pass". The right to farm bill (SQ 777) was also handed to state legislators a couple years ago with a note which probably read "say it's for your family farmers and ranchers and it will pass". All state legislative bills written by ALEC members benefit the bottom line (profits) for corporations only, and are often to the detriment of legislator constituents such as our Oklahoma public schools and our family farmers.
Question: "What political philosophy espouses to the shared governance of any nation between corporations and legislative leaders as equal partners?"..
Answer: "Fascism".. Benito Mussolini, Italy's dictator prior to and during World War II, shared his authority with corporations and actually said that fascism would be better served by calling it "a corporatocracy". By the way, Benito Mussolini was hung upside down in the town square (by his constituents) as he tried to "get the h*** out of Dodge in 1943". ALEC resembles a corporatocracy in its purest Mussolini form - shared governance between corporations and state legislators. Once again, the publication ALEC Exposed lists not only corporate members of the secret organization, but state legislator members as well.
In summary, corporate farm bills and corporate school bills are designed to increase funding for corporations and may always be traced back to ALEC as the common denominator. Public school and family farm supporters desperately need Oklahomans to understand the motivation behind these very bad bills.
As many public school advocates know by now, a school voucher is a public funded (tax) check under-written by Oklahoma legislators, which goes to the private or corporate school of the legislators' choosing. Senator and representative voucher wolves often refer to these checks (monetary rewards for campaign support) as "school choice", implying the checks are "for the kids". Voucher wolves have been taught since they were only pups, that doing anything "for the kids", is a "sure win" as far as getting legislative bills passed into law. The only real school choice for vouchers or corporate charter schools (see Seminole) is legislator choice as to which private school our public tax dollars should go to. For example, if a state senator has received a $5000 donation from Betsy DeVos (the former executive director for the American Federation for Children... Vouchers), he may elect to send the voucher check to a corporate charter school in Turkey (see the Fethullah Gulen charter chain, AKA Dove Academies) or to the ISIS School of Terrorism (its athletic mascot-moniker is the "fightin' terrorist").
Betsy DeVos and her clan of flying monkeys (Wizard of Oz) is not the only corporate-driven voucher schemer out there which provides $millions to state legislators. The title of this column, The Right to Farm School Vouchers, belies a subtle hint as to what additional entity is concerned with destroying our rural public schools. The "right to farm vouchers" means the right of legislators to provide public funding to any private or corporate charter school of their choosing.
Farm Bureau (the lobbying group) has provided its opinion of our rural public schools in the brief entitled Failing Oklahoma Public Schools which it gave to Oklahoma legislators a couple months ago. Many people believe it was a lobbying attempt to convince legislators that our Oklahoma public schools are failures, and have no business receiving public funds to help educate our public school kids. Farm Bureau, like the American Federation for Vouchers, would like to see public funds acquired by private schools. In the brief, Farm Bureau illustrates the failure of Oklahoma public schools by a county map which lists the percentage of D or F grades in each county. In Garvin County, for example, 23% of all schools are failures in Farm Bureau's opinion. In Stephens County, 27% of all schools are failures, while Murray County has 29% failing and Grady County has 16% failing schools. The biggest question which comes to mind is not whether this data is accurate (which I'm sure it is accurate to report that counties had specific percentages of D and F schools) but how and why did a corporation such as Farm Bureau become such a public school expert.. The motivation behind this lobbying brief is exactly the same as it is for Betsy DeVos and her AFV - it's the money! It's all about the effort to convince legislators that our Oklahoma rural schools are failures - so teachers don't deserve raises and tax dollars should flow to private and corporate schools (because our public schools are certainly not spending our tax dollars wisely). But still, why is an insurance company interested in our rural public schools, failing or successful? I think a partial answer may be found in the link between public school voucher bills and the Right to Farm bill (SQ 777) in November of 2016.
Since I have only advocated for our public schools, students, teachers, and education related legislation being considered each year, many close friends questioned the fact that I had an opinion concerning the Right to Farm bill, State Question 777. The Right to Farm, after all, was not related to our public schools, teachers, or students - so how did I explain that it was indeed related to voucher bills, consolidation bills, or other public school bills. The "missing link" is the Farm Bureau Lobby (FBL).
The FBL was solidly linked to The Right to Farm, State Question 777, for years before the bill was actually presented to Oklahoma voters in November of 2016. The Right to Farm bill was a Constitution change which would have given corporate farms protection from Oklahomans passing laws which would hinder their livestock production methods. The bill would have also provided advantages for corporate farms which family farmers and ranchers would not have. Tomi Lahren, conservative host for The Blaze, says that American farmers and ranchers have been "thrown under the bus" by politicians catering to foreign corporate farms. Many public school supporters believe that the FBL, as a corporation, provided SQ 777 to state legislators across the nation at an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) conference prior to 2016. According to ALEC Exposed, the American Legislative Exchange Council is a corporate bill mill - where corporations hand state legislators bills which will increase corporate profits, but rarely benefit citizens back in their home states.The FBL and AFV are members in good standing with ALEC, and have both provided state legislation to Oklahoma lawmakers (along with campaign checks) for passage. State Question 777, the right to farm, and Senate Bill 560, school vouchers - were two such legislative bills. While corporate farm groups such as the Matador Cattle Company (Koch), Tyson Foods, Seaboard Hog Farms, and Shuanghui Foods (China) contributed heavily to the FBL in order to support the Right to Farm, corporate school groups such as Pearson Testing, charter schools, private schools, and virtual schools contributed to the AFV in order to support voucher and consolidation bills. Voucher bills such as SB 560 and others were first handed to state legislators in 2015 with a note which probably read "say it's for the children and it will pass". The right to farm bill (SQ 777) was also handed to state legislators a couple years ago with a note which probably read "say it's for your family farmers and ranchers and it will pass". All state legislative bills written by ALEC members benefit the bottom line (profits) for corporations only, and are often to the detriment of legislator constituents such as our Oklahoma public schools and our family farmers.
Question: "What political philosophy espouses to the shared governance of any nation between corporations and legislative leaders as equal partners?"..
Answer: "Fascism".. Benito Mussolini, Italy's dictator prior to and during World War II, shared his authority with corporations and actually said that fascism would be better served by calling it "a corporatocracy". By the way, Benito Mussolini was hung upside down in the town square (by his constituents) as he tried to "get the h*** out of Dodge in 1943". ALEC resembles a corporatocracy in its purest Mussolini form - shared governance between corporations and state legislators. Once again, the publication ALEC Exposed lists not only corporate members of the secret organization, but state legislator members as well.
In summary, corporate farm bills and corporate school bills are designed to increase funding for corporations and may always be traced back to ALEC as the common denominator. Public school and family farm supporters desperately need Oklahomans to understand the motivation behind these very bad bills.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Superintendent Salary Cap - Senate Bill 133
Senate Bill 133 is an Act relating to school superintendents which establishes... a maximum salary schedule for superintendents and prohibits local school district boards of education from entering into or renewing contracts above certain caps. The teacher salary issue (Oklahoma teacher salaries ranked dead last in the nation when compared to other state teacher salaries) can be solved if we only cap the salaries of fat-cat overpaid superintendents - and give teachers the money saved. According to the sponsors of Senate Bill 133, if we could just eliminate/consolidate "school administration", classrooms would be rolling in money - to be used for teacher pay raises and operational costs and our school budget crisis would be over.
The Bill caps superintendent salaries in differing amounts based on the number of enrolled students for each school district: A superintendent's salary is capped at $65,000 if the school enrollment is 100 students or less; capped at $85,000 for enrollment between 100 and 150; capped at $95,000 for enrollment between 150 and 200; capped at $100,000 for enrollment between 200 and 250; capped at $110,000 for enrollment between 250 and 750; capped at $120,000 for enrollment between 750 and 1500; capped at $130,000 for enrollment between 1500 and 3000; capped at $140,000 for enrollment between 3000 and 6500; capped at $150,000 for enrollment of more than 6500. The authors of the Bill believe that schools will save $millions once this plan is implemented, as school superintendents earn $millions.
In actuality, once SB 133 became law, very little money would be saved, and it could actually increase administrative costs for most schools. For example, there are 40 superintendents with enrollments of between 200 and 250 students. The salary cap for each of these 40 superintendents is a maximum $100,000, so the maximum allowable combined salaries is $4,000,000. Superintendent contracts in 2015-2016 for the 40 school districts revealed that the combined salaries only totaled $2,924,935 - which is far less than the allowable cap. As a matter of fact, 37 of the 40 superintendents earned much less than the $100,000 cap, while only 3 earned slightly more. The three superintendents exceeded the salary cap by a whopping $9,649, which theoretically could provide 1000 teachers with a $9.70 pay raise each year. Woo Hoo! Eighty cents more in teacher pay checks each month to spend any way they like.
Local communities and local school boards are just as opposed to state government running our public schools as they are opposed to the federal government running our schools. Our Oklahoma citizens believe that local control of our schools is always best, and resent state legislators passing laws which take away that local governance. If Senate Bill 133 eventually becomes law, look for many local boards of education to elevate their superintendent salaries to the maximum allowable. This phenomenon (SB 133) could serve to increase the present $2,924,935 in administrative costs (for 40 schools) to almost $4,000,000.
Because of the inability of many legislators to do simple math, we will not solve the teacher pay problem with worthless bills (good for nothing, except starting a fire). Oklahomans sincerely hope that our "challenged" math geniuses at the capitol (I couldn't resist one last insult, albeit true) finds a way to give teachers a much-needed pay increase. We'll soon know for sure.
The Bill caps superintendent salaries in differing amounts based on the number of enrolled students for each school district: A superintendent's salary is capped at $65,000 if the school enrollment is 100 students or less; capped at $85,000 for enrollment between 100 and 150; capped at $95,000 for enrollment between 150 and 200; capped at $100,000 for enrollment between 200 and 250; capped at $110,000 for enrollment between 250 and 750; capped at $120,000 for enrollment between 750 and 1500; capped at $130,000 for enrollment between 1500 and 3000; capped at $140,000 for enrollment between 3000 and 6500; capped at $150,000 for enrollment of more than 6500. The authors of the Bill believe that schools will save $millions once this plan is implemented, as school superintendents earn $millions.
In actuality, once SB 133 became law, very little money would be saved, and it could actually increase administrative costs for most schools. For example, there are 40 superintendents with enrollments of between 200 and 250 students. The salary cap for each of these 40 superintendents is a maximum $100,000, so the maximum allowable combined salaries is $4,000,000. Superintendent contracts in 2015-2016 for the 40 school districts revealed that the combined salaries only totaled $2,924,935 - which is far less than the allowable cap. As a matter of fact, 37 of the 40 superintendents earned much less than the $100,000 cap, while only 3 earned slightly more. The three superintendents exceeded the salary cap by a whopping $9,649, which theoretically could provide 1000 teachers with a $9.70 pay raise each year. Woo Hoo! Eighty cents more in teacher pay checks each month to spend any way they like.
Local communities and local school boards are just as opposed to state government running our public schools as they are opposed to the federal government running our schools. Our Oklahoma citizens believe that local control of our schools is always best, and resent state legislators passing laws which take away that local governance. If Senate Bill 133 eventually becomes law, look for many local boards of education to elevate their superintendent salaries to the maximum allowable. This phenomenon (SB 133) could serve to increase the present $2,924,935 in administrative costs (for 40 schools) to almost $4,000,000.
Because of the inability of many legislators to do simple math, we will not solve the teacher pay problem with worthless bills (good for nothing, except starting a fire). Oklahomans sincerely hope that our "challenged" math geniuses at the capitol (I couldn't resist one last insult, albeit true) finds a way to give teachers a much-needed pay increase. We'll soon know for sure.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Public School "Terminator": Vouchers
The 1984 movie The Terminator, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as a hard-to-kill cyborg assassin, is analogous to several legislative school voucher bills that have appeared and disappeared over the years. A school voucher bill is a proposed law that would allow private schools (non-public) access to public tax dollars and public school funding. Since public school student funding is already at an all-time low in Oklahoma, this additional private school funding for would most certainly take more funding away from our public schools, and elevate the tax burden on Oklahoma citizens.
In 2015, House Bill 2003 appeared at the end of February on the House Education Committee agenda for the education committee to vote on. After a hotly contested debate among Committee members, the vote ended in a 9 yes to 9 no, tie. A tie vote in any committee effectively kills the bill. Nine voucher wolves (all corporate republicans) voted to send your tax dollars to private schools, while nine conservative public school supporters (6 republicans, 3 democrats) voted to kill HB 2003. The author of the bill, Jason Nelson, of Edmond, was heard to say as he exited the building - "I'll be back".
In February of 2016, House Bill 2949, a cyborg of House Bill 2003, appeared before the same House Education Committee for debate and vote. Remember HB 2003 was a cyborg, and cyborgs are hard to kill even though they may appear dead. HB 2949 is a simple re-appearance of HB 2003, after some minor machine lubrication. The "minor lubrication" in this instance was a "termination" of only one conservative committee member from the HB 2003 vote (Dennis Casey R, a rural Representative from Morrison). Dennis had voted "NO" on the bill. Since Dennis Casey was fired from the committee, the vote ended in a 9 to 8 victory for the voucher wolves in 2016. HB 2949 was then forwarded to a full vote of the House, where the author eventually decided it would not be heard, for lack of support.He was afraid it would not pass and did not want to embarrass his fellow voucher wolves by exposing their cover (Remember voucher wolves are sometimes disguised as sheep - or in this case, public school supporters).
March 2017: Senate Bill 560, the current cyborg (voucher bill), passed the Senate Education Committee on a 9 yes to 7 no vote a couple weeks ago. Nine voucher wolves (8 republicans, 1 democrat) were seen high five-ing after the vote, as $$$dollars from the American Federation for Vouchers were dancing in their heads. Seven public school supporters (5 republicans, 2 democrats) at least tried to kill the cyborg. The bill then advanced to a vote of the Appropriations Committee (made up of all 100 senators), where the author (Rob Standridge, an alpha male voucher wolf) once again, pulled the bill from consideration. His excuse was that "misinformation" was being disseminated by public school supporters (such as I), and he just could not overcome it. I guess some of the misinformation is the fact that Lindsay Public Schools could lose over $500,000 in state aid over the next ten years if SB 560 were passed into law.
Like its predecessor cyborgs. HB 2003 and HB 2949, Senate Bill 560 is also "hard to kill" as the author has already uttered those infamous words "I'll be back". Standridge said the bill may re-appear in another bill, such as the budget bill at the end of the session, to get it passed. Or he may wait until next year and bring it back as The Terminator IV, as all voucher bills are "public school terminators".
In 2015, House Bill 2003 appeared at the end of February on the House Education Committee agenda for the education committee to vote on. After a hotly contested debate among Committee members, the vote ended in a 9 yes to 9 no, tie. A tie vote in any committee effectively kills the bill. Nine voucher wolves (all corporate republicans) voted to send your tax dollars to private schools, while nine conservative public school supporters (6 republicans, 3 democrats) voted to kill HB 2003. The author of the bill, Jason Nelson, of Edmond, was heard to say as he exited the building - "I'll be back".
In February of 2016, House Bill 2949, a cyborg of House Bill 2003, appeared before the same House Education Committee for debate and vote. Remember HB 2003 was a cyborg, and cyborgs are hard to kill even though they may appear dead. HB 2949 is a simple re-appearance of HB 2003, after some minor machine lubrication. The "minor lubrication" in this instance was a "termination" of only one conservative committee member from the HB 2003 vote (Dennis Casey R, a rural Representative from Morrison). Dennis had voted "NO" on the bill. Since Dennis Casey was fired from the committee, the vote ended in a 9 to 8 victory for the voucher wolves in 2016. HB 2949 was then forwarded to a full vote of the House, where the author eventually decided it would not be heard, for lack of support.He was afraid it would not pass and did not want to embarrass his fellow voucher wolves by exposing their cover (Remember voucher wolves are sometimes disguised as sheep - or in this case, public school supporters).
March 2017: Senate Bill 560, the current cyborg (voucher bill), passed the Senate Education Committee on a 9 yes to 7 no vote a couple weeks ago. Nine voucher wolves (8 republicans, 1 democrat) were seen high five-ing after the vote, as $$$dollars from the American Federation for Vouchers were dancing in their heads. Seven public school supporters (5 republicans, 2 democrats) at least tried to kill the cyborg. The bill then advanced to a vote of the Appropriations Committee (made up of all 100 senators), where the author (Rob Standridge, an alpha male voucher wolf) once again, pulled the bill from consideration. His excuse was that "misinformation" was being disseminated by public school supporters (such as I), and he just could not overcome it. I guess some of the misinformation is the fact that Lindsay Public Schools could lose over $500,000 in state aid over the next ten years if SB 560 were passed into law.
Like its predecessor cyborgs. HB 2003 and HB 2949, Senate Bill 560 is also "hard to kill" as the author has already uttered those infamous words "I'll be back". Standridge said the bill may re-appear in another bill, such as the budget bill at the end of the session, to get it passed. Or he may wait until next year and bring it back as The Terminator IV, as all voucher bills are "public school terminators".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)