The title of this post/column Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives Aren't Working, may have been best titled "Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives Aren't Working for Their Constituents" or "Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives Are Working for Corporate Bosses" - which would be more fully explanatory of the factual contents.
An recent article appeared in US News for The Guardian entitled Oklahoma Isn't Working. Can Anyone Fix This Failing American State? The article was written by Russell Cobb, an associate professor in modern languages and cultural studies at the University of Alberta, in Canada. Dr. Cobb has no connections to Oklahoma nor to any other U.S. state for that matter, so has no reason to single out our state as being the "worst state in the nation" in regards to State Legislator provided public services. Cobb describes and provides examples of why Oklahoma is ranked dead last or nearly so, in public education, corrections, state transportation (roads and bridges), and public health care - all public services for local Oklahoma citizens and constituents, which our lawmakers should be concerned. He laments that Oklahoma public school teacher pay is last in the nation and we incarcerate more women than any state in the nation, while our men incarceration rate is second from the top. Our roads and bridges are among the worst in the nation, while the Cherokee Nation recently donated $5 million to our state's public school fund. Also, for the last four years running, Oklahoma has led the nation in budget cuts to our public schools. It's no small wonder that an international columnist saw Oklahoma as a state in need of intelligent lawmakers who care about Oklahomans first.
When an Oklahoma Senator or Representative is asked the hard questions about what they're planning to solve some of these State Service problems, the answer all to often is standard party line. The first response is usually "Oklahoma is not worse off than any other state in the nation". This is not a true statement, as the evidence says otherwise. Another answer is to sound knowledgeable and important by saying "We are going to have to prioritize our state services, and realize that we're all in this together". The State Legislator might go on to say "My family and I were just discussing these issues tonight at dinner, and decided to pray about them. We know that God will give us the answer to our State problems, because we know that government cannot continue to provide appropriate services for our citizens". What the Legislator means is that "I have no idea how to solve the state's budget crisis, or low teacher pay, or the health care crisis, or the sorry state of our roads and bridges, or the over-incarceration of our female population... but God does, so I'll pray for answers. And if God doesn't know, we're all in trouble, so we've just got to roll up our sleeves and get to work!".
Believe me, God does know how to solve our state's problems, and He will solve them. He will solve them in his own way though, and not because some lawmaker gave that as an answer to a constituent question. All State Legislators saw this state service catastrophe happening years ago, so to say one is "praying about it" as an answer to solving the issues, is pandering at its worst.
State Senator AJ Griffin (R) of Guthrie was recently asked "What are voters... saying they want from you and your legislative colleagues? Has this changed at all since 2012 when you were first elected?" Senator Griffin did not answer "It's not about what my constituents want from me, but about what God wants for my constituents, so I'm gonna pray about it, and see what God wants". She didn't say "We're all in this together, so we've got to roll up our sleeves and get to work". And she didn't say "My constituents want gun rights, low taxes, and family values." Senator Griffin answered the question: My constituents want us to fix the budget... Now, I am hearing loud and clear that education funding, tax reform, and budget transparency are the topics on many people's minds. So, I'll ask the same questions of my local State Representative Tim Downing (R) of Purcell and State Senator Paul Scott (R) of Duncan and hopefully get answers. And hopefully their answer won't be "We're all in this thing together, so we've got to roll up our sleeves and get to work", like Kevin Fogarty of the Cheers sit-com.
I'll be updating this post several more times, but I'm out of time right now... Keep on reading..
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Advanced School Gazintas
House Bill 1587, co-written by Senator Gary "Stan the Man" Stanislawski (R), created a task force (kinda like Delta Force) to "study multiple facets of the State Aid Funding Formula, including formula structure, efficiencies, and cost saving measures of school districts. The bill also created the School Finance Review Commission for ongoing oversight of school finance, including the school funding formula, teacher compensation, benefits, and administration costs (emphasis mine)" (Mary Fallin Press Release, 2017).
In the opinion of many public school experts, this piece of Oklahoma Legislation was written as a covert act to "consolidate small rural schools" and to funnel more local tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charter schools and private schools. The Commission members as well as the task force members are therefore resolved to consolidating small rural schools and overseeing their destruction, and resolved to commandeering state aid to all public schools and re-distributing such state aid to a Legislator's choice of corporate charter or private school. The appointees of the Commission and task force will be corporatists masquerading as conservative politicians. According to "Merriam-Webster", corporatism is: "The organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". Many historians believe that Benito Mussolini, the Fascist dictator of Italy before and during World War II, invented "corporatism" when he said, just before being hanged, that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state (Legislators) and corporate power". Mussolini also said that Coporationism is above socialism and above liberalism", and "Corporative solutions can be applied anywhere", again before being hanged.
Many school finance experts believe the Commission and task force appointees, which will undoubtedly brand their corporate opinion on the public school funding formula, should be required to take a crash course in public school finance - or at the very least a crash course in school gazintas. "School gazintas" is the study of the adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing in the school funding formula, taught by Professor Jeffrey Maiden and Professor Gregg A. Garn of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, at the University of Oklahoma. The political aspect of Public School Gazintas is also taught by Keith Gaddie, Ph.D., the Political Science Department Chair at O.U.
While there is no doubt that most Commission and task force members making recommendations for the "improvement of the state aid formula" know absolutely nothing about the formula, they will nonetheless pretend they are experts. Most have been appointed to the Commission for their expertise in corporate profits and the fact that shareholder gains is their most pressing concern, not the education of our public school students. I'm afraid that any recommendations for "updating" the school funding formula will come at a high cost for our publicly educated students and Oklahoma taxpayers.
In the opinion of many public school experts, this piece of Oklahoma Legislation was written as a covert act to "consolidate small rural schools" and to funnel more local tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charter schools and private schools. The Commission members as well as the task force members are therefore resolved to consolidating small rural schools and overseeing their destruction, and resolved to commandeering state aid to all public schools and re-distributing such state aid to a Legislator's choice of corporate charter or private school. The appointees of the Commission and task force will be corporatists masquerading as conservative politicians. According to "Merriam-Webster", corporatism is: "The organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". Many historians believe that Benito Mussolini, the Fascist dictator of Italy before and during World War II, invented "corporatism" when he said, just before being hanged, that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state (Legislators) and corporate power". Mussolini also said that Coporationism is above socialism and above liberalism", and "Corporative solutions can be applied anywhere", again before being hanged.
Many school finance experts believe the Commission and task force appointees, which will undoubtedly brand their corporate opinion on the public school funding formula, should be required to take a crash course in public school finance - or at the very least a crash course in school gazintas. "School gazintas" is the study of the adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing in the school funding formula, taught by Professor Jeffrey Maiden and Professor Gregg A. Garn of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, at the University of Oklahoma. The political aspect of Public School Gazintas is also taught by Keith Gaddie, Ph.D., the Political Science Department Chair at O.U.
While there is no doubt that most Commission and task force members making recommendations for the "improvement of the state aid formula" know absolutely nothing about the formula, they will nonetheless pretend they are experts. Most have been appointed to the Commission for their expertise in corporate profits and the fact that shareholder gains is their most pressing concern, not the education of our public school students. I'm afraid that any recommendations for "updating" the school funding formula will come at a high cost for our publicly educated students and Oklahoma taxpayers.
Sunday, August 27, 2017
School Cleansing - First They Came
A Mary Fallin press release a few weeks ago read: Governor Mary Fallin Selects Her Four Appointees to Task Force on Improving State Aid Formula. The Oklahoma school State Aid Formula is the method used which determines how much funding each public school will receive from the State Department of Education (each year). The formula is based on dozens of factors which are unique to each public school, so that when entered into the equation - a public school receives a unique appropriation from the State. It usually takes an educated individual several years to learn the State Aid Formula, as even professors of Oklahoma public school finance sometimes don't fully understand it.
A closer look at one of Mary Fallin's appointees (state aid experts) reveals just how much school finance knowledge they have and potential conflicts of interest. A good example of "the fox in the hen house" would be Stanley F. Hupfeld, a businessman who started Hupfeld Academy (named after himself) - a corporate charter school in Oklahoma City. Stan Hupfeld Academy is a member of the charter group now suing the State Board of Education over state aid funding inequities.. between corporate charters and local public schools. Corporate charter schools want more state aid than traditional public schools receive, and Stan Hupfeld is just the man to see that it's done. Stan's Academy and all Oklahoma corporate charters already receive more state aid than traditional public schools, but want more! As an example, Stanley's Academy will receive $1,600,516 in state aid for the 2017-2018 school year, with a weighted average student membership (number of students) of 526.07. Crutcho, a similar traditional public school in OKC, will receive only $1,395,051 in state aid with a higher student count (ADM 617.35). The difference is in the complicated mathematical formula used to calculate state aid. Stan's Academy only receives state funds, while Crutcho receives local and county funds as well. The local and county funds which Crutcho receives are chargeable, which means that these funds are deducted from Crutcho's state funding. The local ad valorem chargeable - $207,197, 75% of the county 4-mil - $82,720, and school land earnings - $55,189 are all deducted from Crutcho's state aid, so the total amount which Stanley and Crutcho receives from all sources is somewhat equalized. So, in the opinion of many state aid experts, Stanley wants more money! and here is how he'll get it:
Many school funding experts believe Hupfeld was appointed to the Task Force for changing the school funding formula in order to acquire more money for his corporate charter school, by draining traditional public school resources. As a businessman, it's what he does - acquires profits for shareholders, and in his case it's corporate charter school profitability. Most traditional public school advocates believe that Stan will attempt to change the formula by making 100% of the county 4-mil chargeable (75% is currently chargeable) and 100% of the ad valorem chargeable (approximately + or - 60% is currently chargeable). If Stan can "get 'er done", then a traditional public school like Crutcho would have $345,328 in valuation chargeable deducted from its state aid, instead of the current $207,197 - and $110,293 in county 4 mil deducted instead of the current $82,720. Stan's Corporate Academy would stand to gain $165,704 in profits, at the expense of traditional public schools. Many Oklahoma taxpayers believe that Stanley F. Hupfeld definitely has a "conflict of interest" in being on the Task Force which will make recommendations to change the state aid formula.
Another Fallin appointee, Jennifer Monies (befitting last name) is a board member of the corporate Seminole Charter School, and has served as the spokeswoman for the State Chamber of Oklahoma. On the state aid knowlege scale, Ms. Monies scores a "0" (the lowest score ever recorded), but bounces back with a 10 in corporate charter finance. I think we're starting to see a trend...
A third appointee, Dave Lopez, serves as Governor Fallin's Oklahoma secretary of state. He previously served as president of Oklahoma City-based American Fidelity Foundation (corporate charter school supporter), and was an interim superintendent for OKC Public Schools. Mr. Lopez scores a 2 in state aid knowledge, but claims to be a fast learner of public school finance. He only scored as high as he did because he once worked for a public school. Dave Lopez also bounces back with a 9 in corporate charter funding, because of the statement - There is a sense of common purpose between the "OKC" district and the "corporate" charters,but I don't think we have fully exploited the best practices that we might be able to learn from (corporate) charters.
The last appointee of Fallin's Quartet is Stacey Butterfield, superintendent of Jenks Public Schools. Ms. Butterfield is a public school advocate, and appears to be "the fly in the ointment" for the corporate acquisition of public tax dollars. A closer inspection of Stacey Butterfield's qualifications indicates she may have ten times the state aid formula knowledge of the first three appointees, but the corporate motivation behind her appointment is much more complicated. Stacey Butterfield is the superintendent of one of Oklahoma's largest metropolitan schools, Jenks, with 11,700 students. Also, Stanislawski, the co-chair of the Force, was once a school board member at Jenks. There are no rural Oklahoma public schools with 11,700 students. There is virtually no chance that Jenks Public Schools would ever suffer consolidation with another school district, and corporate school consolidation Legislators and their corporate bosses know this fun fact. Also, in the State Aid Formula, there exists three small school considerations that provide extra funding for small schools. "The small school district weight applies only to districts whose highest ADM of the preceding two years is less than 529 students. The district sparsity-isolation weight applies only to districts whose total number of square miles exceeds the average number of square miles of all districts and whose "areal density" is less than one fourth of the state's average "areal density". Areal density is determined by dividing ADM by the district's total area in square miles. There is then a rather complicated process in determining how the factor is determined.
If a district qualifies for one of these weights, the formula is calculated by multiplying the district student cost factor by the district's areal factor and then multiplies this figure by ADM. The resulting number is counted as additional students" (Help For The Depressed, The Despondent, The Despised, And Those Suffering From SFLD ("School Finance Learning Disabilities), Larry Lewis, 2005). I'm quite sure the first three Commission appointees have now unraveled the complicated formula.. maybe not...
Corporate Lawmakers and their corporate bosses have determined that if they really want to consolidate small schools through "improving the state aid formula"... they must remove the "small school factors" which in turn will help them choke our small rural schools out of existence. The "domino effect" update will then allow more state funding to flow to corporate charters and large schools. So the corporate reformers of the state aid formula believe that Stacey Butterfield may be an ally.
One may assume that appointed members of a commission to improve the state aid formula would have intricate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of Oklahoma's formula for allocating public state funds. While Governor Fallin's appointees may be intelligent and willing to learn, the job calls for changing the formula, assuming that the formula is flawed. The formula is not flawed for our local public schools, but may be in the minds of the three Robin Hoods. The state aid formula may be flawed to voucher and corporate charter advocates such as Monies, Hupfeld, and Lopez, since they want more tax dollars flowing to their pet schools.
Many school finance experts believe that Governor Fallin's first three appointees to the State Aid Commission have little to no knowledge or understanding of the state aid formula, but have been charged to improve it. Three members of the state aid formula improvement commission may believe they are the "Robin Hoods" of the state aid formula, but instead of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor", they will be robbing from taxpayers and giving to corporate charters. We'll take a hard look at the twelve, as yet to be named, members of the Commission as they roll in.
UPDATE: House Bill 1578, which created the School Finance Review Commission, or School Funding Formula Improvement Task Force - better known by public school supporters as the Private and Corporate Charter Funding Acquisition Task Force (PCCFATF), decrees "... The task force shall conduct an organizational meeting not later than August 31, 2017." Since it is now well past September 1, 2017, the remaining 12 members of the "FAT Force" have been appointed and had their first meeting, according to the Law. We are having difficulty in obtaining the identities of the remaining members, because presumably, they wish to remain FAT anonymous. We will continue to try to determine the identities of all FAT members in order to shine a spotlight on the qualifications and motivations for each...
As of October 27, identifying the remaining 12 members of the FAT Force remains elusive... although they have reportedly already met and confirmed the goal of acquiring local funds for corporate and virtual charter schools. The State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister, has stated that Oklahoma has the most equitable school funding formula in the nation and doesn't need changing or "improvement". So, if the state aid formula doesn't need fixing, why is there an assigned Task Force for changing it? The answer may lie in the fact that a corporate charter school group, the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC), is suing the State Board of Education for local funding. As we've noted, three of the four FAT members already mentioned are corporate charter school supporters and are probably supporting the lawsuit. It is believed that the FAT members of the task force will be allowed to change the formula enough to allow settlement with the state board. The funding acquisition task for the members of the still unknown committee could be complete, so that corporate charter schools will acquire local taxpayer dollars.
A clue as to what may result from the FAT meetings is in the statement concerning "state aid" from the State Department of Education - The state aid office is responsible for the state education funding formula...The office also works in the implementation of "New" funding legislation... to calculate equitable funding for distribution to all public schools and charters. Many public school supporters interpret this SDE statement as meaning that new formula legislation will require local public schools to help fund corporate charter schools - with local, not state, taxpayer dollars. Who really knows at this point. If this scenario really plays out, not only will those public schools with charters (OKC, Tulsa, Seminole, et al...), but all rural public schools could be further choked. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, so I'll continue this post after the remaining FAT members are exposed.. I mean determined.
UPDATE: Three more members of the Corporate Charter Funding Acquisition Task Force (FAT Force) have been revealed as of Monday, October 30: Senator Gary Stanislawski (the FAT co-chair), Mike Anderson (Supt. of Ada Schools), and Monte Guthrie (Supt. of Stigler Schools). "Stan the Man" Stanislawski has authored HB 1578, so it's only natural that he is the co-chair of the group. He has authored several other bills in the past, though, which many believe belies his true motivation for ram-rodding the FAT Force. Senate Bill 514 was Stan's School Consolidation Bill, introduced during the last regular session. It forced the State Department of Education to study school administrative costs and force schools with (500 students or less) to consolidate. The only problem for Stan is convincing specific lawmakers to "not look at" previous consolidation studies which have all indicated that nothing is gained from administrative or school consolidation (see 2010 Capacity for Efficiency consolidation model). SB 514, much like HB 1578's formula FAT Force, is a consolidation FAT Force. SB 514 was signed into Law on May 10, 2017 by the Governor, but its task force members are largely unknown... just like the original HB 1578 members are. Can everyone see the connections between Stan's (not Stan Hupfeld, but "Stan the Man" Stanislawski) school consolidation bill and school formula bill? Its pretty obvious... The "end game" for both bills is small school consolidation! and Stan the Man Stanislawski is the Force behind the Force...
Note: Stan the Man Stanislawski will stop at nothing to consolidate small school districts. A report surfaced a couple months ago that Stanislawski, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, fired Senator Ron Sharp from his Vice-Chair position - in retaliation for Sharp opposing his school consolidation efforts... The report proved to be false, but we may need to change his moniker to "Stan the Avenger"... anyway.
Update... Only those with "Dogs in the Hunt" may apply...
As we've examined those appointees to Stanislawski's FAT Force, some characteristics stand out in their charge to simplify the public school funding formula. The definition of simplifying for a corporatist lawmaker like Stanislawski is to provide more money for private and corporate charter schools (and a few larger public schools), and less $ for small, rural public schools. In all probabilities, no public school appointee in the FAT Force will lose funding as a result of simplifying the formula. For example, one consideration of the FAT Force is removing the Small School Weights from the Formula. According to Help for the Depressed, the Despondent, the Despised, and Those Suffering from SFLD ("School Finance Learning Disabilities"), a self-help guidebook by Larry Lewis, "The small school weight is given to districts which qualify (less than 529 students) because the state recognizes the unique financial needs of small districts" (p. 101). Stanislawski evidently believes that simplifying the Formula means removing this factor since it is very complicated for him. The Small School Weight is calculated by subtracting the ADM from 529 and then dividing by 529, which is then multiplied by several set factors to determine the Small School District Weight. One can see why Stan the Man is confused and wants to completely remove the Small School Weight from the Formula. Since there appears to be no "small school advocates" (that we know of) aboard FAT FORCE ONE, the Formula may be simplified by dropping the Small School Weight, or cutting the FAT in the words of corporate lawmakers...
More FAT to be cut from the Formula (according to corporate lawmakers) may be the sparcity/isolation weight (SIW). Some Corporate lawmakers refer to removing the sparcity/isolation weight from the Formula as the final solution of the small school problem - not to be confused with Hitler's final solution.
Help for the Depressed... describes the SIW : A district qualifies for a sparcity/isolation weight if the districts geographical size in square miles exceeds the state average in square miles. That amount is the "areal density". If the areal density is less than a number set by statute (2.21 at this time), the district's sparcity isolation weight is calculated. Also, the weight recognizes special funding needs of districts with large geographical areas. For example, bus transportation costs per student should be greater in a large district than a small district.
It's no wonder Stan wants to remove this weight from the formula. If one doesn't understand it, then remove it - to simplify... after all, removing it from the Formula is the final solution.
Update - Friday, Nov. 3:
Another corporate suggestion for simplifying the Formula is to use the schools' Average Daily Membership (ADM) in calculating state aid, instead of the presently used Weighted ADM. Since educating students with differing socio-economic and educational backgrounds cost schools more or less, depending on the students circumstances, differing weights are applied to determine the schools state aid funding amount. For example, since it costs more to educate students with special needs, a student is assigned a weight dependent on the category of need. A physically handicapped child is assigned a 1.2 weight for state aid purposes, for instance. A school with an ADM of 1,000 may have an overall weighted ADM of 1,500. Changing the student count from WADM to ADM for simplifying state aid calculations would seriously harm schools with high numbers of special students and students who come from a high poverty situation (many Oklahoma schools, both large and small). Simplifying the Formula by removing all weights may be better for mathematically challenged lawmakers such as Stanislawski, but not for our public school students.
Update - Monday, Nov. 6:
Removal of just one weighted factor, the poverty rate weight, from the formula could do more damage to our public schools than removal of any other weight. The number of students a school has enrolled who fall below what is typically called poverty, as judged by family income - and measured by the number of students who receive free or reduced price lunches, receive an economically disadvantaged weight of .25. For instance, if a school has 1000 students, and 500 fall below the poverty line, then 500 X .25 = 125 extra weights. The school is provided funding for 1125 students, instead of 1000. A school with no students who receive free or reduced price lunches would receive funding for 1000 students. While many rural and inner city schools have high numbers of economically disadvantaged students, very few schools in suburban or affluent neighborhoods have students who come from poor backgrounds. The rural schools in Oklahoma have done a tremendous job in educating students who are economically disadvantaged... because of the weight. For example, Monty Guthrie, Stigler Superintendent, conducted a study which compared (NAEP) test scores from Oklahoma public schools (which has 61.1% of its students considered economically disadvantaged) with the fifteen other states with over 50% economically disadvantaged. Of the sixteen poor states, Oklahoma's 61.1% poverty rate was the fourth highest, but astoundingly had the fourth highest percentage of students who scored at or above the basic level on NAEP tests. A subsequent analysis of the data indicates that Oklahoma schools are providing a large return on the economically disadvantaged investment.. of .25. The bottom line for students is this: if the economically disadvantaged weight is removed from the formula, our students will suffer the consequences. If anyone would like a copy of Monty Guthrie's study, I don't think he would mind if I shared it, so please ask..
Update - Thursday, Nov. 16:
Most public school supporters know that many public schools receive federal monies as well as state and local funds, but it wasn't always the case. Federal funding for our public schools was initiated when the U.S. Department of Education was born in 1979. The USDE has a budget of about $68 billion, most of which is provided to public schools across the nation. Many people believe the USDE was initiated and the subsequent federal monies are utilized to control our public schools, dictating what will be taught and what kids should know. Many more people now believe the USDE is attempting to funnel state tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charters, with the appointment of Betsy DeVos as Sec. of Ed. - which leads us to the next FAT consideration:
Most public school supporters know that approximately 34 schools in Oklahoma receive no state aid through the Formula, only local ad valorem dollars. Mostly small schools (those which Stan wants to consolidate) compose this group, so it presents a problem for those who would seek to control them at the state level. In other words, if a school receives no funding from the "state"... the state cannot control the school. It can't cut-off funding to force the school to comply with higher directives from the state. It becomes very difficult for the State Board of Education to overrule the locally elected board, if the school receives no state support. We all know what happened in Seminole schools, when the local school board ruled that the corporate charter group would not receive standing in the Seminole District... The State Board said "not so fast, Seminole Schools - we will "trump" you, and force you to accommodate the corporate charter school." Seminole Public Schools receive $millions in state aid, so the SBE (state arm of Betsy DeVos) could legally "Trump" the locally elected school board. It doesn't have as much authority over those schools which receive no state aid through the Formula. But Stan the Man has a plan:
I don't know what was actually discussed... or will be discussed by the FAT Force concerning "simplifying" the formula for all schools, by re-distributing local ad-valorem dollars "equally" among all schools - Stan could call it "Public School Cleansing" after another infamous "cleansing." It would involve re-distributing local ad valorem dollars by "taking from the poor, and giving to the poorer". In the minds of corporate lawmakers they could kill two birds with one stone by breaking small schools and getting those that survive under control of the state. If a small school survivor receives money from state aid because their local funding has been taken - it is now officially under control of the state. If I were a patron, employee, parent, or just a small school supporter - I would be fighting this cleansing of small schools. While I am employed at a school which receives a large percentage of funding from the state, I know this cleansing (simplifying) will not help my school at all. I'm dead set against it, because what hurts some of us - hurts us all. We cannot justify not standing up for our brothers, just because "simplification of the Formula" doesn't appear to hurt "my school"...
(First They Came).
A closer look at one of Mary Fallin's appointees (state aid experts) reveals just how much school finance knowledge they have and potential conflicts of interest. A good example of "the fox in the hen house" would be Stanley F. Hupfeld, a businessman who started Hupfeld Academy (named after himself) - a corporate charter school in Oklahoma City. Stan Hupfeld Academy is a member of the charter group now suing the State Board of Education over state aid funding inequities.. between corporate charters and local public schools. Corporate charter schools want more state aid than traditional public schools receive, and Stan Hupfeld is just the man to see that it's done. Stan's Academy and all Oklahoma corporate charters already receive more state aid than traditional public schools, but want more! As an example, Stanley's Academy will receive $1,600,516 in state aid for the 2017-2018 school year, with a weighted average student membership (number of students) of 526.07. Crutcho, a similar traditional public school in OKC, will receive only $1,395,051 in state aid with a higher student count (ADM 617.35). The difference is in the complicated mathematical formula used to calculate state aid. Stan's Academy only receives state funds, while Crutcho receives local and county funds as well. The local and county funds which Crutcho receives are chargeable, which means that these funds are deducted from Crutcho's state funding. The local ad valorem chargeable - $207,197, 75% of the county 4-mil - $82,720, and school land earnings - $55,189 are all deducted from Crutcho's state aid, so the total amount which Stanley and Crutcho receives from all sources is somewhat equalized. So, in the opinion of many state aid experts, Stanley wants more money! and here is how he'll get it:
Many school funding experts believe Hupfeld was appointed to the Task Force for changing the school funding formula in order to acquire more money for his corporate charter school, by draining traditional public school resources. As a businessman, it's what he does - acquires profits for shareholders, and in his case it's corporate charter school profitability. Most traditional public school advocates believe that Stan will attempt to change the formula by making 100% of the county 4-mil chargeable (75% is currently chargeable) and 100% of the ad valorem chargeable (approximately + or - 60% is currently chargeable). If Stan can "get 'er done", then a traditional public school like Crutcho would have $345,328 in valuation chargeable deducted from its state aid, instead of the current $207,197 - and $110,293 in county 4 mil deducted instead of the current $82,720. Stan's Corporate Academy would stand to gain $165,704 in profits, at the expense of traditional public schools. Many Oklahoma taxpayers believe that Stanley F. Hupfeld definitely has a "conflict of interest" in being on the Task Force which will make recommendations to change the state aid formula.
Another Fallin appointee, Jennifer Monies (befitting last name) is a board member of the corporate Seminole Charter School, and has served as the spokeswoman for the State Chamber of Oklahoma. On the state aid knowlege scale, Ms. Monies scores a "0" (the lowest score ever recorded), but bounces back with a 10 in corporate charter finance. I think we're starting to see a trend...
A third appointee, Dave Lopez, serves as Governor Fallin's Oklahoma secretary of state. He previously served as president of Oklahoma City-based American Fidelity Foundation (corporate charter school supporter), and was an interim superintendent for OKC Public Schools. Mr. Lopez scores a 2 in state aid knowledge, but claims to be a fast learner of public school finance. He only scored as high as he did because he once worked for a public school. Dave Lopez also bounces back with a 9 in corporate charter funding, because of the statement - There is a sense of common purpose between the "OKC" district and the "corporate" charters,but I don't think we have fully exploited the best practices that we might be able to learn from (corporate) charters.
The last appointee of Fallin's Quartet is Stacey Butterfield, superintendent of Jenks Public Schools. Ms. Butterfield is a public school advocate, and appears to be "the fly in the ointment" for the corporate acquisition of public tax dollars. A closer inspection of Stacey Butterfield's qualifications indicates she may have ten times the state aid formula knowledge of the first three appointees, but the corporate motivation behind her appointment is much more complicated. Stacey Butterfield is the superintendent of one of Oklahoma's largest metropolitan schools, Jenks, with 11,700 students. Also, Stanislawski, the co-chair of the Force, was once a school board member at Jenks. There are no rural Oklahoma public schools with 11,700 students. There is virtually no chance that Jenks Public Schools would ever suffer consolidation with another school district, and corporate school consolidation Legislators and their corporate bosses know this fun fact. Also, in the State Aid Formula, there exists three small school considerations that provide extra funding for small schools. "The small school district weight applies only to districts whose highest ADM of the preceding two years is less than 529 students. The district sparsity-isolation weight applies only to districts whose total number of square miles exceeds the average number of square miles of all districts and whose "areal density" is less than one fourth of the state's average "areal density". Areal density is determined by dividing ADM by the district's total area in square miles. There is then a rather complicated process in determining how the factor is determined.
If a district qualifies for one of these weights, the formula is calculated by multiplying the district student cost factor by the district's areal factor and then multiplies this figure by ADM. The resulting number is counted as additional students" (Help For The Depressed, The Despondent, The Despised, And Those Suffering From SFLD ("School Finance Learning Disabilities), Larry Lewis, 2005). I'm quite sure the first three Commission appointees have now unraveled the complicated formula.. maybe not...
Corporate Lawmakers and their corporate bosses have determined that if they really want to consolidate small schools through "improving the state aid formula"... they must remove the "small school factors" which in turn will help them choke our small rural schools out of existence. The "domino effect" update will then allow more state funding to flow to corporate charters and large schools. So the corporate reformers of the state aid formula believe that Stacey Butterfield may be an ally.
One may assume that appointed members of a commission to improve the state aid formula would have intricate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of Oklahoma's formula for allocating public state funds. While Governor Fallin's appointees may be intelligent and willing to learn, the job calls for changing the formula, assuming that the formula is flawed. The formula is not flawed for our local public schools, but may be in the minds of the three Robin Hoods. The state aid formula may be flawed to voucher and corporate charter advocates such as Monies, Hupfeld, and Lopez, since they want more tax dollars flowing to their pet schools.
Many school finance experts believe that Governor Fallin's first three appointees to the State Aid Commission have little to no knowledge or understanding of the state aid formula, but have been charged to improve it. Three members of the state aid formula improvement commission may believe they are the "Robin Hoods" of the state aid formula, but instead of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor", they will be robbing from taxpayers and giving to corporate charters. We'll take a hard look at the twelve, as yet to be named, members of the Commission as they roll in.
UPDATE: House Bill 1578, which created the School Finance Review Commission, or School Funding Formula Improvement Task Force - better known by public school supporters as the Private and Corporate Charter Funding Acquisition Task Force (PCCFATF), decrees "... The task force shall conduct an organizational meeting not later than August 31, 2017." Since it is now well past September 1, 2017, the remaining 12 members of the "FAT Force" have been appointed and had their first meeting, according to the Law. We are having difficulty in obtaining the identities of the remaining members, because presumably, they wish to remain FAT anonymous. We will continue to try to determine the identities of all FAT members in order to shine a spotlight on the qualifications and motivations for each...
As of October 27, identifying the remaining 12 members of the FAT Force remains elusive... although they have reportedly already met and confirmed the goal of acquiring local funds for corporate and virtual charter schools. The State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister, has stated that Oklahoma has the most equitable school funding formula in the nation and doesn't need changing or "improvement". So, if the state aid formula doesn't need fixing, why is there an assigned Task Force for changing it? The answer may lie in the fact that a corporate charter school group, the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC), is suing the State Board of Education for local funding. As we've noted, three of the four FAT members already mentioned are corporate charter school supporters and are probably supporting the lawsuit. It is believed that the FAT members of the task force will be allowed to change the formula enough to allow settlement with the state board. The funding acquisition task for the members of the still unknown committee could be complete, so that corporate charter schools will acquire local taxpayer dollars.
A clue as to what may result from the FAT meetings is in the statement concerning "state aid" from the State Department of Education - The state aid office is responsible for the state education funding formula...The office also works in the implementation of "New" funding legislation... to calculate equitable funding for distribution to all public schools and charters. Many public school supporters interpret this SDE statement as meaning that new formula legislation will require local public schools to help fund corporate charter schools - with local, not state, taxpayer dollars. Who really knows at this point. If this scenario really plays out, not only will those public schools with charters (OKC, Tulsa, Seminole, et al...), but all rural public schools could be further choked. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, so I'll continue this post after the remaining FAT members are exposed.. I mean determined.
UPDATE: Three more members of the Corporate Charter Funding Acquisition Task Force (FAT Force) have been revealed as of Monday, October 30: Senator Gary Stanislawski (the FAT co-chair), Mike Anderson (Supt. of Ada Schools), and Monte Guthrie (Supt. of Stigler Schools). "Stan the Man" Stanislawski has authored HB 1578, so it's only natural that he is the co-chair of the group. He has authored several other bills in the past, though, which many believe belies his true motivation for ram-rodding the FAT Force. Senate Bill 514 was Stan's School Consolidation Bill, introduced during the last regular session. It forced the State Department of Education to study school administrative costs and force schools with (500 students or less) to consolidate. The only problem for Stan is convincing specific lawmakers to "not look at" previous consolidation studies which have all indicated that nothing is gained from administrative or school consolidation (see 2010 Capacity for Efficiency consolidation model). SB 514, much like HB 1578's formula FAT Force, is a consolidation FAT Force. SB 514 was signed into Law on May 10, 2017 by the Governor, but its task force members are largely unknown... just like the original HB 1578 members are. Can everyone see the connections between Stan's (not Stan Hupfeld, but "Stan the Man" Stanislawski) school consolidation bill and school formula bill? Its pretty obvious... The "end game" for both bills is small school consolidation! and Stan the Man Stanislawski is the Force behind the Force...
Note: Stan the Man Stanislawski will stop at nothing to consolidate small school districts. A report surfaced a couple months ago that Stanislawski, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, fired Senator Ron Sharp from his Vice-Chair position - in retaliation for Sharp opposing his school consolidation efforts... The report proved to be false, but we may need to change his moniker to "Stan the Avenger"... anyway.
Update... Only those with "Dogs in the Hunt" may apply...
As we've examined those appointees to Stanislawski's FAT Force, some characteristics stand out in their charge to simplify the public school funding formula. The definition of simplifying for a corporatist lawmaker like Stanislawski is to provide more money for private and corporate charter schools (and a few larger public schools), and less $ for small, rural public schools. In all probabilities, no public school appointee in the FAT Force will lose funding as a result of simplifying the formula. For example, one consideration of the FAT Force is removing the Small School Weights from the Formula. According to Help for the Depressed, the Despondent, the Despised, and Those Suffering from SFLD ("School Finance Learning Disabilities"), a self-help guidebook by Larry Lewis, "The small school weight is given to districts which qualify (less than 529 students) because the state recognizes the unique financial needs of small districts" (p. 101). Stanislawski evidently believes that simplifying the Formula means removing this factor since it is very complicated for him. The Small School Weight is calculated by subtracting the ADM from 529 and then dividing by 529, which is then multiplied by several set factors to determine the Small School District Weight. One can see why Stan the Man is confused and wants to completely remove the Small School Weight from the Formula. Since there appears to be no "small school advocates" (that we know of) aboard FAT FORCE ONE, the Formula may be simplified by dropping the Small School Weight, or cutting the FAT in the words of corporate lawmakers...
More FAT to be cut from the Formula (according to corporate lawmakers) may be the sparcity/isolation weight (SIW). Some Corporate lawmakers refer to removing the sparcity/isolation weight from the Formula as the final solution of the small school problem - not to be confused with Hitler's final solution.
Help for the Depressed... describes the SIW : A district qualifies for a sparcity/isolation weight if the districts geographical size in square miles exceeds the state average in square miles. That amount is the "areal density". If the areal density is less than a number set by statute (2.21 at this time), the district's sparcity isolation weight is calculated. Also, the weight recognizes special funding needs of districts with large geographical areas. For example, bus transportation costs per student should be greater in a large district than a small district.
It's no wonder Stan wants to remove this weight from the formula. If one doesn't understand it, then remove it - to simplify... after all, removing it from the Formula is the final solution.
Update - Friday, Nov. 3:
Another corporate suggestion for simplifying the Formula is to use the schools' Average Daily Membership (ADM) in calculating state aid, instead of the presently used Weighted ADM. Since educating students with differing socio-economic and educational backgrounds cost schools more or less, depending on the students circumstances, differing weights are applied to determine the schools state aid funding amount. For example, since it costs more to educate students with special needs, a student is assigned a weight dependent on the category of need. A physically handicapped child is assigned a 1.2 weight for state aid purposes, for instance. A school with an ADM of 1,000 may have an overall weighted ADM of 1,500. Changing the student count from WADM to ADM for simplifying state aid calculations would seriously harm schools with high numbers of special students and students who come from a high poverty situation (many Oklahoma schools, both large and small). Simplifying the Formula by removing all weights may be better for mathematically challenged lawmakers such as Stanislawski, but not for our public school students.
Update - Monday, Nov. 6:
Removal of just one weighted factor, the poverty rate weight, from the formula could do more damage to our public schools than removal of any other weight. The number of students a school has enrolled who fall below what is typically called poverty, as judged by family income - and measured by the number of students who receive free or reduced price lunches, receive an economically disadvantaged weight of .25. For instance, if a school has 1000 students, and 500 fall below the poverty line, then 500 X .25 = 125 extra weights. The school is provided funding for 1125 students, instead of 1000. A school with no students who receive free or reduced price lunches would receive funding for 1000 students. While many rural and inner city schools have high numbers of economically disadvantaged students, very few schools in suburban or affluent neighborhoods have students who come from poor backgrounds. The rural schools in Oklahoma have done a tremendous job in educating students who are economically disadvantaged... because of the weight. For example, Monty Guthrie, Stigler Superintendent, conducted a study which compared (NAEP) test scores from Oklahoma public schools (which has 61.1% of its students considered economically disadvantaged) with the fifteen other states with over 50% economically disadvantaged. Of the sixteen poor states, Oklahoma's 61.1% poverty rate was the fourth highest, but astoundingly had the fourth highest percentage of students who scored at or above the basic level on NAEP tests. A subsequent analysis of the data indicates that Oklahoma schools are providing a large return on the economically disadvantaged investment.. of .25. The bottom line for students is this: if the economically disadvantaged weight is removed from the formula, our students will suffer the consequences. If anyone would like a copy of Monty Guthrie's study, I don't think he would mind if I shared it, so please ask..
Update - Thursday, Nov. 16:
Most public school supporters know that many public schools receive federal monies as well as state and local funds, but it wasn't always the case. Federal funding for our public schools was initiated when the U.S. Department of Education was born in 1979. The USDE has a budget of about $68 billion, most of which is provided to public schools across the nation. Many people believe the USDE was initiated and the subsequent federal monies are utilized to control our public schools, dictating what will be taught and what kids should know. Many more people now believe the USDE is attempting to funnel state tax dollars to out-of-state corporate charters, with the appointment of Betsy DeVos as Sec. of Ed. - which leads us to the next FAT consideration:
Most public school supporters know that approximately 34 schools in Oklahoma receive no state aid through the Formula, only local ad valorem dollars. Mostly small schools (those which Stan wants to consolidate) compose this group, so it presents a problem for those who would seek to control them at the state level. In other words, if a school receives no funding from the "state"... the state cannot control the school. It can't cut-off funding to force the school to comply with higher directives from the state. It becomes very difficult for the State Board of Education to overrule the locally elected board, if the school receives no state support. We all know what happened in Seminole schools, when the local school board ruled that the corporate charter group would not receive standing in the Seminole District... The State Board said "not so fast, Seminole Schools - we will "trump" you, and force you to accommodate the corporate charter school." Seminole Public Schools receive $millions in state aid, so the SBE (state arm of Betsy DeVos) could legally "Trump" the locally elected school board. It doesn't have as much authority over those schools which receive no state aid through the Formula. But Stan the Man has a plan:
I don't know what was actually discussed... or will be discussed by the FAT Force concerning "simplifying" the formula for all schools, by re-distributing local ad-valorem dollars "equally" among all schools - Stan could call it "Public School Cleansing" after another infamous "cleansing." It would involve re-distributing local ad valorem dollars by "taking from the poor, and giving to the poorer". In the minds of corporate lawmakers they could kill two birds with one stone by breaking small schools and getting those that survive under control of the state. If a small school survivor receives money from state aid because their local funding has been taken - it is now officially under control of the state. If I were a patron, employee, parent, or just a small school supporter - I would be fighting this cleansing of small schools. While I am employed at a school which receives a large percentage of funding from the state, I know this cleansing (simplifying) will not help my school at all. I'm dead set against it, because what hurts some of us - hurts us all. We cannot justify not standing up for our brothers, just because "simplification of the Formula" doesn't appear to hurt "my school"...
(First They Came).
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Education Savings Accounts.. or Legislator's Choice for Public Funds?
A survey of Oklahoma voters, commissioned and paid for by a self-described "conservative" think tank, finds that "nearly two in three Oklahoma voters support using tax dollars to choose the private or public school which best meets their child's needs" (Brandon Dutcher, OCPA Senior Vice-President). One survey question related to Education Savings Accounts (ESA) - A proposal has been made to give parents the chance to customize their child's education through Education Savings Accounts, or ESAs. With an ESA, the state puts the funds it would have spent on a child's behalf into a bank account the parent controls. The parent can then use these funds to purchase the education that best meets their child's needs from a wide variety of sources, including private schools, virtual schools, and institutions of higher education. Any funds not used in a school year could be carried over for future education, including college. Would you say that you support or oppose Oklahoma having a program like this one?
The proposal referred to (in the question) was undoubtedly House Bill 2003 - which was trotted out by voucher and privatization lawmakers during the 2015 general session. HB 2003 died in the House Common Education Committee on a 9 yes, 9 no, tie vote. Corporate Republicans voted "Yes" while conservative Republicans and Democrats voted "No". State Representative Ann Coody R-Lawton, the chair of the panel, voted "No". Pat McGuigan of CapitolBeatOK stated that "the outcome is a direct blow to Republican Party campaign promises to advance school choice options" and asked Representative Coody (among several other questions) "Why did you oppose this bill?" - to which Representative Coody replied "I believe that tax dollars should fund public schools. Tax dollars do not belong to legislators but to the citizens of Oklahoma. We are charged with representing our constituents to the best of our ability and according to the principles in which we believe." Many public school supporters believe that HB 2003, the ESA bill of 2015, will re-surface during the 2018 regular session of the legislature. Specific groups such as the OCPA are preparing the groundwork for lawmakers to pass the bill by providing questionable survey results (which indicate that ESAs are indeed popular). In voting for the measure, a lawmaker will be able to say "My constituents are for it", even if it's not true.
Many conservatives like Ann Coody and Dennis Casey know that public education is a public service, and not a commodity to be purchased. Another public service or state agency is the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) which provides new public highways, bridges, and state road and bridge repairs for the public benefit of all Oklahomans. State road and bridge maintenance and new roads and bridges are not commodities to be purchased by private individuals, but for the publics well-being. If we substitute road and bridge terminology as a public service for "public education" in the survey question above, one may see how truly ridiculous the OCPA assumption really is: A proposal has been made to give Oklahoma auto drivers the chance to customize the roads and bridges they use through Road and Bridge Savings Accounts, or RBSAs. With an RBSA, a State Legislator puts the funds that would have gone to ODOT into a bank account the individual driver controls. The driver can then use these (public) funds to purchase the state road or bridge that best meets his or her needs for a wide variety of selections, including private driveways, corporate parking lots, and only the roads and bridges that are used by the individual driver. Any transportation funds not used in a year could be carried over for future private road and bridge repairs. Would you say that you support or oppose Oklahoma having a program like this one, which no other state has?
I think many Oklahomans can see just how truly absurd that RBSA and ESA proposals really are - but we must continue to shine a bright light on corporate lawmakers' motives...
The proposal referred to (in the question) was undoubtedly House Bill 2003 - which was trotted out by voucher and privatization lawmakers during the 2015 general session. HB 2003 died in the House Common Education Committee on a 9 yes, 9 no, tie vote. Corporate Republicans voted "Yes" while conservative Republicans and Democrats voted "No". State Representative Ann Coody R-Lawton, the chair of the panel, voted "No". Pat McGuigan of CapitolBeatOK stated that "the outcome is a direct blow to Republican Party campaign promises to advance school choice options" and asked Representative Coody (among several other questions) "Why did you oppose this bill?" - to which Representative Coody replied "I believe that tax dollars should fund public schools. Tax dollars do not belong to legislators but to the citizens of Oklahoma. We are charged with representing our constituents to the best of our ability and according to the principles in which we believe." Many public school supporters believe that HB 2003, the ESA bill of 2015, will re-surface during the 2018 regular session of the legislature. Specific groups such as the OCPA are preparing the groundwork for lawmakers to pass the bill by providing questionable survey results (which indicate that ESAs are indeed popular). In voting for the measure, a lawmaker will be able to say "My constituents are for it", even if it's not true.
Many conservatives like Ann Coody and Dennis Casey know that public education is a public service, and not a commodity to be purchased. Another public service or state agency is the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) which provides new public highways, bridges, and state road and bridge repairs for the public benefit of all Oklahomans. State road and bridge maintenance and new roads and bridges are not commodities to be purchased by private individuals, but for the publics well-being. If we substitute road and bridge terminology as a public service for "public education" in the survey question above, one may see how truly ridiculous the OCPA assumption really is: A proposal has been made to give Oklahoma auto drivers the chance to customize the roads and bridges they use through Road and Bridge Savings Accounts, or RBSAs. With an RBSA, a State Legislator puts the funds that would have gone to ODOT into a bank account the individual driver controls. The driver can then use these (public) funds to purchase the state road or bridge that best meets his or her needs for a wide variety of selections, including private driveways, corporate parking lots, and only the roads and bridges that are used by the individual driver. Any transportation funds not used in a year could be carried over for future private road and bridge repairs. Would you say that you support or oppose Oklahoma having a program like this one, which no other state has?
I think many Oklahomans can see just how truly absurd that RBSA and ESA proposals really are - but we must continue to shine a bright light on corporate lawmakers' motives...
Monday, August 21, 2017
Possible State Question for Funding Our Public Schools
Public School supporters as well as detractors are acutely aware of the dismal failure of the "one-cent sales tax increase" for our public schools and teacher pay raises, in November, 2016. A visionary look back reveals several reasons the State Question failed, including 1) Many corporate (not conservative) legislators and public school detractors such as Representative Tim Downing (R), said they did not support the one-cent sales tax increase to pay teachers; 2) Many public school supporters were opposed to placing the entire burden (sales tax) on businesses (not broad-based); 3) Many voters are opposed to a tax increase of any kind, as they don't trust our big-spending lawmakers to spend the money wisely.
The post-election questions for public school supporters then became "Will our public schools in Oklahoma ever be adequately funded?" and "Will our State teachers ever receive a pay increase?". The post-election questions for public school detractors such as the corporate lawmakers in our State Legislature are "How do we prevent teachers from ever receiving a pay increase?" and "How do we eliminate and reduce the number of public schools, while we are increasing the number of public charter schools and private schools?". While I believe that most voters in Oklahoma support our public schools and teachers, I believe an Oklahoma State Question could be proposed and written which could pass in the General Election of November, 2018. Public school supporters could answer all three questions above and Oklahoma voters would pass it, in a land-slide. If we "broad-based" the tax increase for public education, instead of placing the burden on only business owners, then it may pass. A possible ideal scenario for a State Question tax increase might look like this: A 6 cent fuel tax increase, a one-percent increase in income tax (from 5% to 6%), and a half-cent increase in general sales tax. Of course public school supporters should also begin educating the public about detractors (corporate lawmakers who only care about corporate charter schools and the privatization of our public schools, and not concerned about their constituents or public education.) I also believe if voters would begin eliminating big-spending lawmakers in elections, we could begin to trust them again with the public's money.
I'd like to hear from anyone reading this post, as to whether the proposed tax increase question is a good idea or just one more bad idea. Please give me your opinion..
The post-election questions for public school supporters then became "Will our public schools in Oklahoma ever be adequately funded?" and "Will our State teachers ever receive a pay increase?". The post-election questions for public school detractors such as the corporate lawmakers in our State Legislature are "How do we prevent teachers from ever receiving a pay increase?" and "How do we eliminate and reduce the number of public schools, while we are increasing the number of public charter schools and private schools?". While I believe that most voters in Oklahoma support our public schools and teachers, I believe an Oklahoma State Question could be proposed and written which could pass in the General Election of November, 2018. Public school supporters could answer all three questions above and Oklahoma voters would pass it, in a land-slide. If we "broad-based" the tax increase for public education, instead of placing the burden on only business owners, then it may pass. A possible ideal scenario for a State Question tax increase might look like this: A 6 cent fuel tax increase, a one-percent increase in income tax (from 5% to 6%), and a half-cent increase in general sales tax. Of course public school supporters should also begin educating the public about detractors (corporate lawmakers who only care about corporate charter schools and the privatization of our public schools, and not concerned about their constituents or public education.) I also believe if voters would begin eliminating big-spending lawmakers in elections, we could begin to trust them again with the public's money.
I'd like to hear from anyone reading this post, as to whether the proposed tax increase question is a good idea or just one more bad idea. Please give me your opinion..
Friday, August 18, 2017
Corporate and Private Schools or Local Public Schools... You Decide?
Our enrollment in Blanchard Public Schools now stands at 2050 students! This number is up by 45 students since the end of last school year, and is a new record for our school, which has been broken annually for the last ten years. Blanchard continues to be the school of choice for parents, and will be far into the future.
Another State Question for Oklahoma voters may soon be decided as early as the November, 2018 elections. This still unknown SQ # will be about "school choice", or (school vouchers) to a State Legislator's choice of private or corporate school for public tax dollars. It will mirror State Question 790 which appeared on the ballot in November, 2016, and sought private, corporate control of public tax dollars. Supporters of SQ 790 said that if approved by voters, the State would be able to once again have the Ten Commandments back on Capitol grounds. House Speaker Jeff Hickman (R-58) stated "Oklahomans overwhelmingly supported the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol, and they now will be given the opportunity to address the issue in our constitution which the Supreme Court cited in ordering the removal of the Ten Commandments monument." Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb also supported sending public tax dollars to private and corporate schools by supporting SQ 790, which would have removed Article II Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which prohibits the use of public tax dollars for private or religious purposes). Seeing through the political charade, Oklahomans voted an overwhelming rejection of allowing public money to be spent for religious purposes (NO-57.12% YES-42.88%).
Another parallel to the future State Voucher Question # was SQ 777 which was also voted on in November, 2016. State Question 777 was billed as "the Right to Farm" by supporters, just as State Question 790 was billed as "allowing the Ten Commandments monument to be placed at the State Capitol". SQ 777 was really about corporate and private acquisition of public tax dollars just as SQ 790 was really about corporate and religious acquisition of Oklahoma public tax dollars. What was very interesting about SQ 777, The Right to Farm, was that a likely voter survey on October 5, 2016, indicated that 49% favored Right to Farm while only 36% opposed it. In a survey completed on October 18, only 37% favored it, while 49% opposed it. Bill Shapard, CEO of SoonerPoll, said "Based on the polling, you will find that Republicans are beginning to abandon SQ 777... The polls show us conservatives and Republicans becoming more against 777 because it establishes group rights and typically Republicans are for individual rights." Bill Shapard went on to write "The change represents the most dramatic shift in attitudes on state questions on the 2016 Oklahoma ballot..." and resulted in one of the biggest "comebacks" in Oklahoma voting history, as it was eventually rejected with NO-60.3% to YES-39.7%. The eventual drumming of "The Right to Farm" was because Oklahoma voters were willing to be "educated" about the true harm corporate farming would do to our state.
The future unknown voucher State Question may be taking the path similar to SQ 777 and SQ 790. Brandon Dutcher, Senior Vice President of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) has quoted a Victory Geek poll which asked the question "Educational choice gives parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with their child's education to send their child to a public or private school which best serves their needs. Generally speaking, would you say you support or oppose the concept of educational choice?" Dutcher then says "Fully 65% of respondents support using tax dollars to send their child to a school of choice..." A similar poll conducted by Oklahoma Statewide asked the question "... would you favor or oppose the Oklahoma state government giving parents money to pay for their children to attend a private or religious school? Fully 65% of respondents oppose the government (State Legislature) giving tax dollars to private or religious schools, while only 35% of respondents favor it. So, which poll is accurate and which poll is wrong? It all depends on the subtle wording in the two questions. The OCPA poll question suggests that public tax dollars be given to individuals (parents) to choose the corporate, private, or public school of their choice. The goal of providing public tax dollars to individuals, in order to select their private choice for public service may be great for State Legislators, since the Legislature is the entity choosing public tax dollars be spent on private choice (by passing a law which directs public service tax dollars to corporate and religious schools). The Oklahoma Statewide poll question is the same as the OCPA question, except it indicates that government (the Legislature) is giving public tax dollars away to private and corporate schools (which it is), and those polled oppose this action. The only government agency which may influence "Voucher State Questions" and Voucher Bills is the Oklahoma Legislature. Our local Representative Tim Downing has expressed his support many times for bills which favor corporate charter and private schools, even though our State House District 42 in Garvin and McClain Counties contain no charter or accredited private schools, only public schools. Our local State Senator Paul Scott has expressed similar support for charter schools in Oklahoma City, even though no charter schools are present in Stephens, Garvin, or McClain Counties (Senate District 43), and no local sudents attend the OKC charter school he supports. By the way, corporate charter schools take state funding from our local public schools and the students which attend our schools.
In summary, when Oklahoma voters become educated on any particular state question, their attitude changes, sometimes drastically... as in SQ 777, the right to farm. Oklahomans realized after studying SQ 790, the right of the Legislature to give public money to private enterprise, the failure of the initiative became a "slam-dunk". No matter what the polling says about the future Voucher State Question - 65% for or 65% against, many voting experts believe that Oklahomans will have the right answer...
Another State Question for Oklahoma voters may soon be decided as early as the November, 2018 elections. This still unknown SQ # will be about "school choice", or (school vouchers) to a State Legislator's choice of private or corporate school for public tax dollars. It will mirror State Question 790 which appeared on the ballot in November, 2016, and sought private, corporate control of public tax dollars. Supporters of SQ 790 said that if approved by voters, the State would be able to once again have the Ten Commandments back on Capitol grounds. House Speaker Jeff Hickman (R-58) stated "Oklahomans overwhelmingly supported the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol, and they now will be given the opportunity to address the issue in our constitution which the Supreme Court cited in ordering the removal of the Ten Commandments monument." Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb also supported sending public tax dollars to private and corporate schools by supporting SQ 790, which would have removed Article II Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which prohibits the use of public tax dollars for private or religious purposes). Seeing through the political charade, Oklahomans voted an overwhelming rejection of allowing public money to be spent for religious purposes (NO-57.12% YES-42.88%).
Another parallel to the future State Voucher Question # was SQ 777 which was also voted on in November, 2016. State Question 777 was billed as "the Right to Farm" by supporters, just as State Question 790 was billed as "allowing the Ten Commandments monument to be placed at the State Capitol". SQ 777 was really about corporate and private acquisition of public tax dollars just as SQ 790 was really about corporate and religious acquisition of Oklahoma public tax dollars. What was very interesting about SQ 777, The Right to Farm, was that a likely voter survey on October 5, 2016, indicated that 49% favored Right to Farm while only 36% opposed it. In a survey completed on October 18, only 37% favored it, while 49% opposed it. Bill Shapard, CEO of SoonerPoll, said "Based on the polling, you will find that Republicans are beginning to abandon SQ 777... The polls show us conservatives and Republicans becoming more against 777 because it establishes group rights and typically Republicans are for individual rights." Bill Shapard went on to write "The change represents the most dramatic shift in attitudes on state questions on the 2016 Oklahoma ballot..." and resulted in one of the biggest "comebacks" in Oklahoma voting history, as it was eventually rejected with NO-60.3% to YES-39.7%. The eventual drumming of "The Right to Farm" was because Oklahoma voters were willing to be "educated" about the true harm corporate farming would do to our state.
The future unknown voucher State Question may be taking the path similar to SQ 777 and SQ 790. Brandon Dutcher, Senior Vice President of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) has quoted a Victory Geek poll which asked the question "Educational choice gives parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with their child's education to send their child to a public or private school which best serves their needs. Generally speaking, would you say you support or oppose the concept of educational choice?" Dutcher then says "Fully 65% of respondents support using tax dollars to send their child to a school of choice..." A similar poll conducted by Oklahoma Statewide asked the question "... would you favor or oppose the Oklahoma state government giving parents money to pay for their children to attend a private or religious school? Fully 65% of respondents oppose the government (State Legislature) giving tax dollars to private or religious schools, while only 35% of respondents favor it. So, which poll is accurate and which poll is wrong? It all depends on the subtle wording in the two questions. The OCPA poll question suggests that public tax dollars be given to individuals (parents) to choose the corporate, private, or public school of their choice. The goal of providing public tax dollars to individuals, in order to select their private choice for public service may be great for State Legislators, since the Legislature is the entity choosing public tax dollars be spent on private choice (by passing a law which directs public service tax dollars to corporate and religious schools). The Oklahoma Statewide poll question is the same as the OCPA question, except it indicates that government (the Legislature) is giving public tax dollars away to private and corporate schools (which it is), and those polled oppose this action. The only government agency which may influence "Voucher State Questions" and Voucher Bills is the Oklahoma Legislature. Our local Representative Tim Downing has expressed his support many times for bills which favor corporate charter and private schools, even though our State House District 42 in Garvin and McClain Counties contain no charter or accredited private schools, only public schools. Our local State Senator Paul Scott has expressed similar support for charter schools in Oklahoma City, even though no charter schools are present in Stephens, Garvin, or McClain Counties (Senate District 43), and no local sudents attend the OKC charter school he supports. By the way, corporate charter schools take state funding from our local public schools and the students which attend our schools.
In summary, when Oklahoma voters become educated on any particular state question, their attitude changes, sometimes drastically... as in SQ 777, the right to farm. Oklahomans realized after studying SQ 790, the right of the Legislature to give public money to private enterprise, the failure of the initiative became a "slam-dunk". No matter what the polling says about the future Voucher State Question - 65% for or 65% against, many voting experts believe that Oklahomans will have the right answer...
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Public Schools and My Political Schoolin'
I've been running a post about what I learned about politics last year as I ran for the District 42 House seat on June 28, 2016. Since I was starting with a "blank slate" so to speak, I was thoroughly "schooled" in the fine art of politicking by Representative Tim Downing, my teacher and primary opponent. I discussed several lessons I learned in a previous post, but dedicate a single lesson to a new post:
In preparation for the 2016 State House primary election, I purchased and read the book How To Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' At All, by Martin Hauan. The author, Mr. Haunan, was press secretary for two Oklahoma governors, Johnston Murray and Raymond Gary, from 1951 through 1959, and operated his own publicity advertising firm, handling more than 25 successful statewide political campaigns during the 1950's, '60's, and '70's. In today's world, he would be called a political consultant. Mr. Hauan reviews the tricks of the trade in chapters titled Politricks University, Sex in the U.S. Senate Race, and Justice for Sale. If Martin Hauan were alive today (he died in 2001), and wrote his "how-to" book, he would probably title it How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', And Stealin'... And Gettin' Away With It. He would also add one chapter to his book today entitled Dark Money Talks, which is my lesson learned in this post.
Many public school followers now know that it is illegal for a political candidate to collude, conspire, coordinate, or even communicate with a dark money group in order to receive campaign support for the candidates campaign. This issue came to the forefront when State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister was charged with conspiracy (solicitation and coordination of campaign funds). Also charged was her campaign consultant, Fount Holland. The charges were subsequently dropped, but conspiracy is still a crime, and unethical in the minds of many.
An example of potential conspiracy to run negative campaign ads is the following: In January of 2016, I (as a candidate for the House District 42 seat) received an invitation from an OKC group to interview for campaign support. The group was made up of in-state, out-of-state, and international corporate entities. I knew from the invitation origin that I stood little chance of receiving its financial support, because I've always supported our local small business owners and local public schools. I accepted the invitation to interview anyway, because I wanted to see the inside of corporate and dark money support. I set an interview appointment and arrived at the destination on the designated time and date. When I entered the room to answer questions, I noticed that my monetary donations were projected on a screen alongside the monetary donations to Tim Downing, my primary opponent. My donations up to that point were very meager, while Downing had $30,000 in campaign support. The message I received from the monetary display was "We can't support a 'loser' who has only several hundred dollars in campaign support, when we can support a 'winner' with $30,000". OK, game over. I knew it would be before arriving. The group then told me they were there to determine if I could support business owners if I were elected to office. In my introduction, I told the group that I had been a school superintendent for ten years, and had kept public schools "in the black" (not red ink) as their Chief Financial Officer, so was financially conservative. I had also recommended that $millions be spent for student services and teacher salaries as the CFO of schools over the past ten years. One of the questions the group asked was "Do you support the one-cent state sales tax 'for teacher pay raises' which will be voted on in November?" I knew this was the "trap" question, to get me to admit that I was supportive of tax increases, even if it was for a teacher pay increase. I avoided answering the question directly, by saying "I believe it is the only way teachers will see a pay increase". One of the group then said "You didn't answer the question, does this mean you support a one-cent tax increase for a teacher pay raise"? I then said "Yes" and knew the jig was up. Needless to say I received no campaign support from the corporate group, but Mr. Downing received $Thousands according to the Ethics Commission website.
Members of the corporate group which interviewed me, are also financial donors to the American Legislative Exchange Commission, better known as ALEC. Contributing members of ALEC also include non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (AFC) and its State Legislator donor group, the American Federation for Children Action Fund. In addition to the invitation to interview, I received a questionaire from the Oklahoma branch of the AFC which had questions concerning a Legislator's choice of private and corporate schools (the AFC refers to a Legislator's choice as "school choice for children"). Just as in the corporate entity interview, if I answered their questions correctly, I would be the recipient of $thousands in campaign support. I immediately trashed the questionaire since I recognized the AFC Action Fund as dark money. I also knew that soliciting support from this group, could be construed by a State or District Attorney as conspiracy. I, therefore, did not want any doubt to be cast on me, for conspiracy with a dark money group. It's coincidental that several weeks after I received and trashed the AFC questionaire, voters began receiving phone calls from an entity which identified itself as Catalyst Oklahoma or Oklahoma United and basically lied and trashed my campaign for the District 42 House seat. (Several supporters of my campaign called to tell me about the negative phone calls.) After the "push poll" calls which indirectly encouraged voters to "vote for Tim", voters began receiving mailers which were very negative (mud-slinging) toward my campaign. Several of my supporters brought me the cards (3) which indicated they were paid for by the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund. Many voters believe that if Mr. Downing completed the questionaire and solicited support from the OFC Action Fund, then he may be guilty of conspiring with it to send out the negative ads. It is still unknown if Superintendent Hofmeister is guilty of conspiracy, since charges were dropped, but if Hofmeister is guilty, then a good investigative journalist could probably uncover conspiracy by Tim Downing with a dark money group. UNETHICAL! in my opinion...
Also illegal is the use of one's elected office to campaign for a (candidate) for elected office. There are hints (not evidence) that Joy Hofmeister may have used her elected office seat to support and campaign for candidate(s) for other elected offices. For example, there is a rumor that Ms. Hofmeister used her office to support a republican candidate in the Stillwater House or Senate race. Maybe it's not true, but several voters also believe she used her elected office to support Tim Downing (R) in the 2016 House District 42 race. Again, maybe it's a complete fabrication, but I think a good investigative journalist could ask some questions of those who say they have evidence, and either prove or disprove the allegations.
In preparation for the 2016 State House primary election, I purchased and read the book How To Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' At All, by Martin Hauan. The author, Mr. Haunan, was press secretary for two Oklahoma governors, Johnston Murray and Raymond Gary, from 1951 through 1959, and operated his own publicity advertising firm, handling more than 25 successful statewide political campaigns during the 1950's, '60's, and '70's. In today's world, he would be called a political consultant. Mr. Hauan reviews the tricks of the trade in chapters titled Politricks University, Sex in the U.S. Senate Race, and Justice for Sale. If Martin Hauan were alive today (he died in 2001), and wrote his "how-to" book, he would probably title it How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', And Stealin'... And Gettin' Away With It. He would also add one chapter to his book today entitled Dark Money Talks, which is my lesson learned in this post.
Many public school followers now know that it is illegal for a political candidate to collude, conspire, coordinate, or even communicate with a dark money group in order to receive campaign support for the candidates campaign. This issue came to the forefront when State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister was charged with conspiracy (solicitation and coordination of campaign funds). Also charged was her campaign consultant, Fount Holland. The charges were subsequently dropped, but conspiracy is still a crime, and unethical in the minds of many.
An example of potential conspiracy to run negative campaign ads is the following: In January of 2016, I (as a candidate for the House District 42 seat) received an invitation from an OKC group to interview for campaign support. The group was made up of in-state, out-of-state, and international corporate entities. I knew from the invitation origin that I stood little chance of receiving its financial support, because I've always supported our local small business owners and local public schools. I accepted the invitation to interview anyway, because I wanted to see the inside of corporate and dark money support. I set an interview appointment and arrived at the destination on the designated time and date. When I entered the room to answer questions, I noticed that my monetary donations were projected on a screen alongside the monetary donations to Tim Downing, my primary opponent. My donations up to that point were very meager, while Downing had $30,000 in campaign support. The message I received from the monetary display was "We can't support a 'loser' who has only several hundred dollars in campaign support, when we can support a 'winner' with $30,000". OK, game over. I knew it would be before arriving. The group then told me they were there to determine if I could support business owners if I were elected to office. In my introduction, I told the group that I had been a school superintendent for ten years, and had kept public schools "in the black" (not red ink) as their Chief Financial Officer, so was financially conservative. I had also recommended that $millions be spent for student services and teacher salaries as the CFO of schools over the past ten years. One of the questions the group asked was "Do you support the one-cent state sales tax 'for teacher pay raises' which will be voted on in November?" I knew this was the "trap" question, to get me to admit that I was supportive of tax increases, even if it was for a teacher pay increase. I avoided answering the question directly, by saying "I believe it is the only way teachers will see a pay increase". One of the group then said "You didn't answer the question, does this mean you support a one-cent tax increase for a teacher pay raise"? I then said "Yes" and knew the jig was up. Needless to say I received no campaign support from the corporate group, but Mr. Downing received $Thousands according to the Ethics Commission website.
Members of the corporate group which interviewed me, are also financial donors to the American Legislative Exchange Commission, better known as ALEC. Contributing members of ALEC also include non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (AFC) and its State Legislator donor group, the American Federation for Children Action Fund. In addition to the invitation to interview, I received a questionaire from the Oklahoma branch of the AFC which had questions concerning a Legislator's choice of private and corporate schools (the AFC refers to a Legislator's choice as "school choice for children"). Just as in the corporate entity interview, if I answered their questions correctly, I would be the recipient of $thousands in campaign support. I immediately trashed the questionaire since I recognized the AFC Action Fund as dark money. I also knew that soliciting support from this group, could be construed by a State or District Attorney as conspiracy. I, therefore, did not want any doubt to be cast on me, for conspiracy with a dark money group. It's coincidental that several weeks after I received and trashed the AFC questionaire, voters began receiving phone calls from an entity which identified itself as Catalyst Oklahoma or Oklahoma United and basically lied and trashed my campaign for the District 42 House seat. (Several supporters of my campaign called to tell me about the negative phone calls.) After the "push poll" calls which indirectly encouraged voters to "vote for Tim", voters began receiving mailers which were very negative (mud-slinging) toward my campaign. Several of my supporters brought me the cards (3) which indicated they were paid for by the Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund. Many voters believe that if Mr. Downing completed the questionaire and solicited support from the OFC Action Fund, then he may be guilty of conspiring with it to send out the negative ads. It is still unknown if Superintendent Hofmeister is guilty of conspiracy, since charges were dropped, but if Hofmeister is guilty, then a good investigative journalist could probably uncover conspiracy by Tim Downing with a dark money group. UNETHICAL! in my opinion...
Also illegal is the use of one's elected office to campaign for a (candidate) for elected office. There are hints (not evidence) that Joy Hofmeister may have used her elected office seat to support and campaign for candidate(s) for other elected offices. For example, there is a rumor that Ms. Hofmeister used her office to support a republican candidate in the Stillwater House or Senate race. Maybe it's not true, but several voters also believe she used her elected office to support Tim Downing (R) in the 2016 House District 42 race. Again, maybe it's a complete fabrication, but I think a good investigative journalist could ask some questions of those who say they have evidence, and either prove or disprove the allegations.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Political Schoolin' (Naught from Naught Is Naught..)
This blog is primarily about politics and education, so I sometimes post about my own education in political science - which I write about in this post...
Many friends know that I ran for the District 42 State House seat in the primary held on June 28, 2016. Since I consider myself a fiscal conservative (believe in saving taxpayer dollars instead of spending), a social conservative (belief in retaining traditional social institutions such as our public schools), and a Constitutional conservative (belief in complying with Constitutional Law, instead of violating it or changing it) - I ran as a republican. As all District 42 House voters know, I was taken to school and educated by my republican opponent Tim Downing, 1800 votes to 1000 votes in the primary. Even though my stint into politics was brief, I learned a lot, since my teacher (Mr. Downing) was starting with a blank slate as far as my ignorance of the political process. I learned several indisputable lessons that most politicians know quite well, but which I assumed were all wrong. I also wrongly assumed that what is ethical behavior in the real world is ethical everywhere, but what I learned is generally unethical behavior can be considered ethical by schooled politicians (I was not an educated politician). The lessons I've learned about ethical behavior before politics, has been turned upside down in some cases. The choice about ethical behavior is a personal decision and I admit that what is ethical for one individual may not be ethical for another. What I believe to be true, may not be true for another (politician). In other words, what most people believe to be unethical behavior, may be quite ethical for a politician. What I believe to be unethical is followed by what many politicians consider to be quite ethical (according to my teacher):
1) Unethical - Lies
2) Ethical - It's OK to lead people to believe a lie, if you simply make a true statement, but don't tell the whole truth. An example would be Tim Downing's statement "I believe in educational choice". What he wants his constituents to believe is that.. he believes parents should be able to access public school funding for "their choice" of private or corporate schools. What he really means is that he believes in "legislator's choice of sending public tax dollars to his choice of private or corporate schools. He wants the public to believe he is "conservative" concerning individual choice of schools, when he is really liberal for more government spending for corporations and private enterprise. It's called corporate welfare by most conservatives or corporatism.
1) Unethical - Half-lies and Innuendos
2) Ethical - It's OK to tell half-lies and make innuendos, as long as one doesn't tell whole lies. As an example, Mr.Downing responded to the question "Do you believe our public schools are top-heavy?", with "Yes, as an example, the (school) superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year". While the statement is true, what he wants his listeners to believe is that school superintendents are "over-paid bureaucratic fat cats" and therefore, we should consolidate schools or administration. In his mind, he doesn't actually say what he wants the public to believe, so it's not a lie. In his mind, he only insinuates that "over-paid superintendents are fat-cats" so magically, the innuendo becomes ethical. A "truer" more ethical answer would be "I don't know - while the superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year, it represents less than 1% of school expenditures, while Oklahoma State Legislators' pay ranks us 12th among all 50 states. So you must decide for yourself if Oklahoma public schools are top-heavy... or if the Oklahoma Legislature is top-heavy..."
1) Unethical - Embezzlement of campaign funds is both unethical and illegal
2) Ethical - As long as one doesn't get caught, there is NO victim in the crime, and can justify the misspent campaign funds, it's OK. For example, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) was accused of spending campaign funds (donations) for personal use (embezzlement) this year. He resigned from the Senate, plead guilty, paid back $112,000 to the State, and is on 3 years probation. He used the campaign funds for toys, flowers, clothing, auto tires, fast food, lingerie, OU-Texas football game, attorney fees, a speeding ticket, and a divorce.It is all perfectly legal to use donations to pay for "officeholder expenses", so Mr. Loveless could have assumed it was ethical to pay the speeding ticket with campaign funds, since he was probably traveling to a Senate function in some city. He also may have assumed it was ethical and legal to pay expenses related to the OU-Texas football game in Dallas, since he was probably campaigning for his seat - no doubt. It may be difficult to argue the legality and morality, however, of paying for lingerie and a massage with donations. Also, remember he was convicted of embezzling $112,000 in donations, so whose to say the "contributors" in question are upset with Mr. Loveless, so the crime may indeed be "victimless". So, is it really a crime? And if so, is it really unethical? What I'm referring to is that probably the bulk of the $112,000 was donated by out-of-state corporate contributors, and they would want Mr. Loveless to use their funding for personal living expenses. At least they probably knew he was, but didn't care. It's a safe bet that Mr. Loveless's constituents weren't wealthy enough to contribute $112,000.
Tomorrow we will discuss what I learned about "How to Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' at All", a how-to book written by Martin Hauan. Mr. Haunan handled publicity and Advertising for many political campaigns beginning in 1954. I have a suggestion for a how-to-book written by the campaign adviser of Senator Loveless, Representative Downing, and Superintendent Hofmeister... It's called "How to Win Elections by Cheatin' and Gettin' Away With It".
Many friends know that I ran for the District 42 State House seat in the primary held on June 28, 2016. Since I consider myself a fiscal conservative (believe in saving taxpayer dollars instead of spending), a social conservative (belief in retaining traditional social institutions such as our public schools), and a Constitutional conservative (belief in complying with Constitutional Law, instead of violating it or changing it) - I ran as a republican. As all District 42 House voters know, I was taken to school and educated by my republican opponent Tim Downing, 1800 votes to 1000 votes in the primary. Even though my stint into politics was brief, I learned a lot, since my teacher (Mr. Downing) was starting with a blank slate as far as my ignorance of the political process. I learned several indisputable lessons that most politicians know quite well, but which I assumed were all wrong. I also wrongly assumed that what is ethical behavior in the real world is ethical everywhere, but what I learned is generally unethical behavior can be considered ethical by schooled politicians (I was not an educated politician). The lessons I've learned about ethical behavior before politics, has been turned upside down in some cases. The choice about ethical behavior is a personal decision and I admit that what is ethical for one individual may not be ethical for another. What I believe to be true, may not be true for another (politician). In other words, what most people believe to be unethical behavior, may be quite ethical for a politician. What I believe to be unethical is followed by what many politicians consider to be quite ethical (according to my teacher):
1) Unethical - Lies
2) Ethical - It's OK to lead people to believe a lie, if you simply make a true statement, but don't tell the whole truth. An example would be Tim Downing's statement "I believe in educational choice". What he wants his constituents to believe is that.. he believes parents should be able to access public school funding for "their choice" of private or corporate schools. What he really means is that he believes in "legislator's choice of sending public tax dollars to his choice of private or corporate schools. He wants the public to believe he is "conservative" concerning individual choice of schools, when he is really liberal for more government spending for corporations and private enterprise. It's called corporate welfare by most conservatives or corporatism.
1) Unethical - Half-lies and Innuendos
2) Ethical - It's OK to tell half-lies and make innuendos, as long as one doesn't tell whole lies. As an example, Mr.Downing responded to the question "Do you believe our public schools are top-heavy?", with "Yes, as an example, the (school) superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year". While the statement is true, what he wants his listeners to believe is that school superintendents are "over-paid bureaucratic fat cats" and therefore, we should consolidate schools or administration. In his mind, he doesn't actually say what he wants the public to believe, so it's not a lie. In his mind, he only insinuates that "over-paid superintendents are fat-cats" so magically, the innuendo becomes ethical. A "truer" more ethical answer would be "I don't know - while the superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year, it represents less than 1% of school expenditures, while Oklahoma State Legislators' pay ranks us 12th among all 50 states. So you must decide for yourself if Oklahoma public schools are top-heavy... or if the Oklahoma Legislature is top-heavy..."
1) Unethical - Embezzlement of campaign funds is both unethical and illegal
2) Ethical - As long as one doesn't get caught, there is NO victim in the crime, and can justify the misspent campaign funds, it's OK. For example, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) was accused of spending campaign funds (donations) for personal use (embezzlement) this year. He resigned from the Senate, plead guilty, paid back $112,000 to the State, and is on 3 years probation. He used the campaign funds for toys, flowers, clothing, auto tires, fast food, lingerie, OU-Texas football game, attorney fees, a speeding ticket, and a divorce.It is all perfectly legal to use donations to pay for "officeholder expenses", so Mr. Loveless could have assumed it was ethical to pay the speeding ticket with campaign funds, since he was probably traveling to a Senate function in some city. He also may have assumed it was ethical and legal to pay expenses related to the OU-Texas football game in Dallas, since he was probably campaigning for his seat - no doubt. It may be difficult to argue the legality and morality, however, of paying for lingerie and a massage with donations. Also, remember he was convicted of embezzling $112,000 in donations, so whose to say the "contributors" in question are upset with Mr. Loveless, so the crime may indeed be "victimless". So, is it really a crime? And if so, is it really unethical? What I'm referring to is that probably the bulk of the $112,000 was donated by out-of-state corporate contributors, and they would want Mr. Loveless to use their funding for personal living expenses. At least they probably knew he was, but didn't care. It's a safe bet that Mr. Loveless's constituents weren't wealthy enough to contribute $112,000.
Tomorrow we will discuss what I learned about "How to Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' at All", a how-to book written by Martin Hauan. Mr. Haunan handled publicity and Advertising for many political campaigns beginning in 1954. I have a suggestion for a how-to-book written by the campaign adviser of Senator Loveless, Representative Downing, and Superintendent Hofmeister... It's called "How to Win Elections by Cheatin' and Gettin' Away With It".
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Corporate Legislators Continue Slaughter of Agencies..
With the predicted decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the "cigarette fee" is indeed a revenue raising measure enacted by corporate lawmakers, and unconstitutional - corporate lawyers everywhere are celebrating. This court decision ensures that several Oklahoma Health Agencies will fall $215 million short, and must cut public services. The corporate lawmakers, most of whom are attorneys, passed this cigarette tax knowing full well it was unconstitutional... from the beginning. So, if most lawmakers were aware the "cigarette fee" was illegal and unconstitutional, then the question becomes "Why did they rely on it to help balance the state budget?" or "Why did they pass it in the first place?" There are two theories as to "why?, and they both have to do with "stupidity". Either the corporate lawmakers are stupid... or they believe their constituents are stupid. As an example of pleading stupidity, State Representative Josh Cockroft said that "he doesn't agree with the court's ruling but he respects it". Cockroft seems to be blaming the court for being stupid, not himself nor his constituents, so there is a third theory... Corporate lawmakers who voted for the unconstitutional cigarette tax, told their constituents it was one of the only ways to help balance the state budget and fund core services (an out-and-out lie) and it is all perfectly legal - another lie. The third theory is that the lawmakers have claimed self-stupidity. These corporate lawmakers are not really stupid, but claim they were just not aware that their "cigarette fee" would be a "revenue raising measure", Duh.. It's difficult to believe that corporate attorneys are stupid, so there must be a double top-secret motivation behind all the stupidity claims.
A theory concerning the double top-secret motivation corporate lawmakers might have to pass such unconstitutional bills is the fact that Oklahoma legislators only earn about $50,000 annual salary. This $50,000 ranks Oklahoma in 12th place among states' legislative pay... which is not enough for most corporate attorneys. When Governor Fallin calls the inevitable special session to pass a Constitutional budget bill, lawmakers will earn an average of around $10,000 in overtime pay - which greatly fattens their take-home pay.
A theory concerning the double top-secret motivation corporate lawmakers might have to pass such unconstitutional bills is the fact that Oklahoma legislators only earn about $50,000 annual salary. This $50,000 ranks Oklahoma in 12th place among states' legislative pay... which is not enough for most corporate attorneys. When Governor Fallin calls the inevitable special session to pass a Constitutional budget bill, lawmakers will earn an average of around $10,000 in overtime pay - which greatly fattens their take-home pay.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Abused Public School Students
As Blanchard teachers and support personnel arrived at the Blanchard High School Cafeteria on Monday, August 7, at 8 AM - they were greeted by 30 cheering and applauding high school students. The students had gathered at approximately 7:30 and lined the sidewalk outside the cafeteria entrance, to salute, cheer, and encourage our disparaged teachers. Our Oklahoma teachers have been disparaged, disrespected, and lied to by state senators and representatives over the past year in an effort to convince teachers "they really do care about our public schools". Oklahoma public school teachers are now the lowest paid among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They have not had a pay increase in over 10 years, but some lawmakers have said and continue to say "Oklahoma teachers have received three pay raises since 2008". As a matter of fact, one State Representative posted this fabrication on Facebook two years ago - in trying to convince the public that "teachers are overpaid". I'll just let you guess which lawmaker made the remark...
Just as abused as our Oklahoma teachers and probably more so, are our public school students. Many public school supporters believe our students are abused by lawmakers because student funding has actually been reduced from $3291 per student 10 years ago to $3004 per student at the end of the 2016-2017 school year - a $287 difference. For a school such as Blanchard with over 2000 students, this amounts to $574,000 less state student aid for 2017 (as received from State Legislators) as it received 10 years earlier. Many Oklahomans believe the evidence which emphatically indicates that several lawmakers have abused our public school students. Many of these same abusive lawmakers continue to say "I truly support teachers and students" as evidenced in campaign ads.
Many public school supporters believe the "draining of the swamp" has begun with the ouster of Senator Ralph Shorty, Senator Kyle Loveless, Representative Dan Kirby, et al, but needs to continue in order to save our Oklahoma public school students. An old ranch saying is "It's enough to make a cow quit her calf", but in the case of these lawmaker lawbreakers "It's enough to make a conservative Oklahoman quit the republican party".
Just as abused as our Oklahoma teachers and probably more so, are our public school students. Many public school supporters believe our students are abused by lawmakers because student funding has actually been reduced from $3291 per student 10 years ago to $3004 per student at the end of the 2016-2017 school year - a $287 difference. For a school such as Blanchard with over 2000 students, this amounts to $574,000 less state student aid for 2017 (as received from State Legislators) as it received 10 years earlier. Many Oklahomans believe the evidence which emphatically indicates that several lawmakers have abused our public school students. Many of these same abusive lawmakers continue to say "I truly support teachers and students" as evidenced in campaign ads.
Many public school supporters believe the "draining of the swamp" has begun with the ouster of Senator Ralph Shorty, Senator Kyle Loveless, Representative Dan Kirby, et al, but needs to continue in order to save our Oklahoma public school students. An old ranch saying is "It's enough to make a cow quit her calf", but in the case of these lawmaker lawbreakers "It's enough to make a conservative Oklahoman quit the republican party".
Monday, August 7, 2017
State Superintendent.. Joy for Oklahoma Schools?
Regular readers of this blog/column know that I've taken grief as of late because of questionable news postings concerning our State Superintendent of Instruction, Joy Hofmeister. The posts have been primarily "questionable" to Joy Hofmeister supporters only, but what they (Joy supporters) don't acknowledge is that I have also been a Hofmeister supporter - but primarily a "public school" supporter.
The first news item which lends credence to the assertion that Hofmeister may not be what her supporters believe she is, from NonDoc: DA Prater on Joy Hofmeister Case: 'We're Not Done'. Prater indicates that although all charges have been dismissed, he may be gathering more evidence for additional felony charges. The second real news piece which alludes to Joy Hofmeister's real position on school consolidation is from the Norman Transcript in which she states "We have more than 530 (school) districts - I think that's too many districts." The fourth article which many public school experts believe illustrate Hofmeister's true feelings concerning our public schools is Oklahoma Watch, in which she states that Seminole Public School patrons do not have confidence in their local school board - as a justification for the state board seizing control. Many Hofmeister supporters and observers believe she wants corporate public schools to control our local public schools, while others believe the Seminole debacle is an isolated case. The fifth and final news item is a "campaign article" in which Hofmeister champions a school voucher supporter (Tim Downing), in stating "I trust Tim Downing to bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric. Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools, and that's the kids." Hofmeister believes the "colorful rhetoric" support of our teachers and students eminated from Downing's opponents in the 2016 House District 42 election - democratic candidate Lysbeth George, a Blanchard Public School's board member and republican Jim Beckham, Blanchard's school superintendent and Downing's primary opponent in 2016. What is interesting to note, is that the campaign ad only appeared in three publications - The McCarville Report, The Flame, and the Blanchard News. Many political insiders believe it was a direct slam by Hofmeister at both George and Beckham, since their hometown newspaper is the Blanchard News and their public school is also Blanchard.
While I believe Joy Hofmeister is a good person, I don't agree with her political position concerning our public schools. She has stated her political position concerning vouchers, school consolidation, and even the funding of corporate and private schools. I truly hope that our public school supporters can look at the facts, and don't criticize me for not supporting our state superintendent.
The first news item which lends credence to the assertion that Hofmeister may not be what her supporters believe she is, from NonDoc: DA Prater on Joy Hofmeister Case: 'We're Not Done'. Prater indicates that although all charges have been dismissed, he may be gathering more evidence for additional felony charges. The second real news piece which alludes to Joy Hofmeister's real position on school consolidation is from the Norman Transcript in which she states "We have more than 530 (school) districts - I think that's too many districts." The fourth article which many public school experts believe illustrate Hofmeister's true feelings concerning our public schools is Oklahoma Watch, in which she states that Seminole Public School patrons do not have confidence in their local school board - as a justification for the state board seizing control. Many Hofmeister supporters and observers believe she wants corporate public schools to control our local public schools, while others believe the Seminole debacle is an isolated case. The fifth and final news item is a "campaign article" in which Hofmeister champions a school voucher supporter (Tim Downing), in stating "I trust Tim Downing to bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric. Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools, and that's the kids." Hofmeister believes the "colorful rhetoric" support of our teachers and students eminated from Downing's opponents in the 2016 House District 42 election - democratic candidate Lysbeth George, a Blanchard Public School's board member and republican Jim Beckham, Blanchard's school superintendent and Downing's primary opponent in 2016. What is interesting to note, is that the campaign ad only appeared in three publications - The McCarville Report, The Flame, and the Blanchard News. Many political insiders believe it was a direct slam by Hofmeister at both George and Beckham, since their hometown newspaper is the Blanchard News and their public school is also Blanchard.
While I believe Joy Hofmeister is a good person, I don't agree with her political position concerning our public schools. She has stated her political position concerning vouchers, school consolidation, and even the funding of corporate and private schools. I truly hope that our public school supporters can look at the facts, and don't criticize me for not supporting our state superintendent.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
FAKE NEWS or Real News: You Decide..
A news item appeared a couple weeks ago which indicated that "fat cat superintendents" are the reason schools don't have enough money to operate or teachers salaries are low. The news began - "Millions of dollars were spent on public schools in Oklahoma, and now there are fears (emphasis mine) that school superintendents are getting too big a slice of that pie". The "fears" are assumed to be Senator Jason Smalley's, who said: "We should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and we should be able to hold them accountable to some degree in order to make the best decisions moving forward". The "fears" are also assumed to be from Representative Tim Downing and his corporate cronies - who want nothing more than their fair share of Oklahoma tax dollars (see "OPCSA sues state board"), by funneling public dollars away from public schools and toward private and corporate schools. Also, in answer to the question "Do you think our education system in Oklahoma is top-heavy?" Tim Downing replied "yes, as an example we spend $1.5 million in Garvin and McClain Counties just for superintendents". Downing's position on our public schools and teachers can be further ascertained when he answered a question about the sales tax for teacher pay raises: "I'll be voting NO..." teacher pay raise. While these politicians' statements may be true, they would be be what the hill folk living on Rush Creek might call "selling a load of bull..." Our educated cousins from the city would call these statements political rhetoric, half-lies, and innuendos. Many Oklahomans believe "selling a load bull" is just as unethical as an out-and-out lie, because it is are spewed by politicians to convince those who they believe are uneducated - to believe a lie. For example, when Downing answered the question about top-heavy administration, he said that in Garvin and McClain Counties "we spend $1.5 million just for superintendents". He was trying to convince voters and the general public that superintendents are overpaid. What he failed to mention is that superintendent salaries make up less than 1% (.98%) of total public school expenditures in McClain and Garvin Counties and total school administrative costs amount to about 3% of school expenditures. This leaves 97% which is spent on non-administrative functions. Rush Creek hill folk would simply not buy Downing's load of bull, which would be akin to buying "ocean-front property in Arizona"... and invite him to a "squarin' off" place. More polite hill folk would simply invite him to a debate. He and his out-of-state corporate cronies, however, would be just as unlikely to debate the issue as they would in accepting an invitation to a "squarin off place"... LOL! But I digress...
In the aforementioned real news, Senator John Sparks said "The plan is simple -- find out how much superintendents make across Oklahoma and find out if it's burning a hole in the state's pocket." All I can say is, it's about time. But maybe I can speed up the legislative process by offering a quantitative analysis of what Representative Downing insinuates are "fat-cat superintendents".
A quantitative analysis of state legislator salaries may be what drives lawmakers like Downing and Smalley to spew their political rhetoric about superintendent salaries. A 2016 analysis revealed that Oklahoma legislator salaries at $50,880 for 64 days work, ranked 12th among the 50 states. The $50,000 salary seems to be a little high for passing unconstitutional laws, inability to balance the state budget, keeping teacher salaries at the bottom of the barrel, reducing per pupil appropriations, and increasing taxes on Oklahomans but not corporate cronies. I may be wrong, however, because it probably is hard work in trying to keep up with all the lies and trying to keep their constituents fooled with rhetoric, innuendos, and half-lies.
In 2015-2016, Oklahoma public schools spent a total $5,606,044,118 in educating our students. Of that total, $51,811,764 was spent on superintendent salaries, or less than one percent (1%). Oklahoma public schools had 692,670 students in 2015-2016, so spent $8093.38 per student. Superintendent pay per student averaged $74.80. Those who discredit and degrade our public schools may use "high superintendent pay" to distract the public from the real issue - low teacher pay, but a quantitative analysis of data reveals otherwise. Those who continually denigrate our teachers and public schools must be exposed with real data and statistics.
"Draining the swamp" of lawmakers who denigrate and insult our teachers, students, and public schools in general goes further than Smalley and Downing - and requires an in-depth examination of political characteristics they share with others. For example, most employ the same clandestine and "dark money" advisers Fount Holland and his sidekick Chad Alexander. An examination of campaign contributions and support documents also indicates they all have solicited and received $ hundreds of thousands from groups such as the pro-voucher "American Federation for Children Action Fund" (a multi-million dollar private and corporate school group out of Washington D.C.). Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives who have accepted a pay check from their out-of-state corporate cronies work for them, and not their constituents.
In my opinion, lawmakers like Senator Smalley and Representative Downing are the "bearers of fake news" to the public, and must be called out - but you decide...
In the aforementioned real news, Senator John Sparks said "The plan is simple -- find out how much superintendents make across Oklahoma and find out if it's burning a hole in the state's pocket." All I can say is, it's about time. But maybe I can speed up the legislative process by offering a quantitative analysis of what Representative Downing insinuates are "fat-cat superintendents".
A quantitative analysis of state legislator salaries may be what drives lawmakers like Downing and Smalley to spew their political rhetoric about superintendent salaries. A 2016 analysis revealed that Oklahoma legislator salaries at $50,880 for 64 days work, ranked 12th among the 50 states. The $50,000 salary seems to be a little high for passing unconstitutional laws, inability to balance the state budget, keeping teacher salaries at the bottom of the barrel, reducing per pupil appropriations, and increasing taxes on Oklahomans but not corporate cronies. I may be wrong, however, because it probably is hard work in trying to keep up with all the lies and trying to keep their constituents fooled with rhetoric, innuendos, and half-lies.
In 2015-2016, Oklahoma public schools spent a total $5,606,044,118 in educating our students. Of that total, $51,811,764 was spent on superintendent salaries, or less than one percent (1%). Oklahoma public schools had 692,670 students in 2015-2016, so spent $8093.38 per student. Superintendent pay per student averaged $74.80. Those who discredit and degrade our public schools may use "high superintendent pay" to distract the public from the real issue - low teacher pay, but a quantitative analysis of data reveals otherwise. Those who continually denigrate our teachers and public schools must be exposed with real data and statistics.
"Draining the swamp" of lawmakers who denigrate and insult our teachers, students, and public schools in general goes further than Smalley and Downing - and requires an in-depth examination of political characteristics they share with others. For example, most employ the same clandestine and "dark money" advisers Fount Holland and his sidekick Chad Alexander. An examination of campaign contributions and support documents also indicates they all have solicited and received $ hundreds of thousands from groups such as the pro-voucher "American Federation for Children Action Fund" (a multi-million dollar private and corporate school group out of Washington D.C.). Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives who have accepted a pay check from their out-of-state corporate cronies work for them, and not their constituents.
In my opinion, lawmakers like Senator Smalley and Representative Downing are the "bearers of fake news" to the public, and must be called out - but you decide...
Doc Foster
Doc Foster, a long-time Blanchard Public School supporter and Blanchard citizens supporter, passed away this past weekend. Doc and Patsy Foster were two of the first people I met when we moved to town in 2007. Although I only knew him a short time compared to many Blanchard citizens, I found Doc as traditional as anyone I ever met. He would "give the shirt off his back" if anyone needed it. As a matter of fact, if anyone asked "why do you care so much about Blanchard Public Schools and Blanchard people?" Doc would likely answer "because I'm still kinda' old-fashioned, I guess". In my opinion, he truly was old-fashioned as he still cared about his fellow man and is part of what made America great. Doc Foster has passed the "traditional" family baton on to his three sons, David, Dwain, and Darin Foster, the fourth (maybe fifth) generation of Blanchard Lions to support Blanchard Schools. We know the "tradition" will continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)