Thursday, November 30, 2017
We're number 1! We're number 1! ...
Monday, November 27, 2017
The Private School Advantage - Selective Enrollment
In 1973, the NCAA divided college level athletics into Division I, Division II, and Division III categories for athletic competition. For football, Division I and II universities could offer scholarships, but Division III schools cannot. The NCAA categorized the schools offering sports such as football, because the "playing field" would always be tilted towards those schools which offer scholarships... as they would always attract the best high school players, and ultimately be more successful. Common sense dictates that the Langston Lions (Division III Football) cannot compete with the Oklahoma Sooners (Division I). The Sooners can attract the best high school football talent from around the nation and offer scholarships to future All-Americans, while the Langston Lions can only offer football as a sport, to those attending school there. The kids that play football at Langston, do it because they love the sport. They get nothing in return, for playing football at Langston. The NCAA has a very good classification system for categorizing college sports, because it levels the playing field!
The Oklahoma Secondary School Athletic Association (OSSAA) has a system for classifying schools to level the playing field. It classifies schools according to enrollment, which is appropriate if all member schools are equal according to their number of students. The number of students any member school has enrolled, has become woefully inadequate for classifying public schools in the OSSAA. The system is now outdated because of the private schools now allowed to participate in the OSSAA. The "playing field" in the OSSAA has been tilted toward the member private schools by forcing its member public schools to compete directly with private schools. The OSSAA "created inequity" would be the same for university competition, if the NCAA forced Division III schools (no scholarships) to compete with Division I schools for "national championships".
The inequity in athletic competition between public schools and private schools was highlighted for all high school football fans this past weekend, as the Noble Bears faced the Bishop McGuinness Fitin' Irish in the class 5A state semi-finals - and the Blanchard Lions played the Heritage Hall Chargers in the class 4A semi-finals. Both public school teams were "slaughtered", not because the private schools "had better coaches" or "their kids just work harder" - but because they are allowed to compete with specific built in advantages. Advantages such as unlimited school district boundaries (nation-wide), ability to provide scholarships for deserving athletes, and the ability to recruit high level athletes from anywhere in the nation. Of course private schools deny the innate advantages listed above, but irrefutable proof exists that the OSSAA permits these "tilted field" advantages.
So, the question now becomes "If the OSSAA believes that private schools in Oklahoma enjoy systemic advantages over public schools - why doesn't it 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? If any OSSAA official has an answer to this question, let us know. If anyone reading this post personally knows an OSSAA official, please ask this question, and let us know what the answer is... I've blamed OSSAA officials for being too cowardly in the past for refusing to re-classify schools, but I really don't know if that's the answer.
Most people have heard the old adage "if you don't have a better plan, don't complain", so this is my better plan for athletic classification in the OSSAA: Classify all schools using the university classification system - Division "I" schools would be those private schools which offer scholarships. Division "II" schools, both public and private, would be those which do not offer scholarships. The "Division II" schools could keep the current "enrollment based" classification system as well. If there is anything amiss in this plan, please let me know what it is - as I don't have intimate knowledge of how the OSSAA works (as several OSSAA officials have told me so).
Update: On Monday, November 27, 2017, I received the following response (paraphrased to protect the identity) from an OSSAA official in response to claims I made concerning "private school re-classification":
... you implied that there is illegal recruiting by some private schools. Being member schools of this organization, if this is taking place, it absolutely violates Rule 9 of our Rules and Policies. If you would provide us with the specific information, schools and names of students recruited, we will certainly investigate as we would with any other violation reported to us.
You also made a statement in your blog of November 27 that private schools have no boundaries. I would like to refer you to Policy XLIII in our OSSAA Policies found on our webpage that outlines the boundaries for all OSSAA private schools.
I'll address the concerns, but I think it's important to note that my two concerns as outlined above were not addressed in the response: 1) why doesn't it (the OSSAA) 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it already provides a 'level' playing field. 2) Is the Divisional classification system feasible and appropriate for high school athletic competitions or not? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it is not feasible and inappropriate, since this issue was also not addressed in the response.
Concerns of OSSAA:
1) Implied illegal recruiting by some private schools - I did not imply, I stated as fact that student recruiting goes on at some private schools, namely Bishop McGuiness and Heritage Hall. I'll not relinquish "names of students", as it violates specific privacy laws. If the parents of referenced students gave me permission to "publicize" names, then I most certainly would. I currently do not have the authority to release public school student names, and will not. I'm also quite certain that no "recruited" private school students would step forward to say "I was recruited". Regardless of recruiting evidence being available, the OSSAA would simply investigate the claim - and if it determined a case of illegal recruiting did take place, it would sanction the guilty school (slap on the wrist). What the OSSAA would not do is change its classification system in order to provide equity between private and public schools - which is the real issue at hand. To provide my statement of illegal recruiting is simply a distraction technique used to change the subject from reclassification to evidence of wrongdoing. (It's an old trick that good attorneys use in court to change the course of 'why we're here'.)
2) My statement that "private schools have no boundaries" - implies that private schools may recruit student-athletes from anywhere in the nation, much the same as Division I colleges do. The OSSAA quotes the district boundaries for all private schools in the state, which was assigned by private schools several years ago. I'm well aware of the privately assigned boundaries for private schools, as a private school is usually located within as well as outside several public school districts. In my opinion, these private school district boundaries would simply be the recruiting zone for each private school. Private schools can only recruit student-athletes from the public and private schools located within the Division I school's boundaries. (Some private schools recruiting boundaries even over-lap other private schools, so one private school may recruit student-athletes from another private school, LOL. Student-athletes from outside the recruiting zone can still play for the Division I private school, but must move to a residence within the recruiting zone, even on-campus.
I hope I've cleared up any misinterpretations of my two statements concerning my beliefs about the private vs. public school systemic "un-level playing field". I still haven't received an answer yet concerning the proposed "Divisional" classification system for Oklahoma high school athletics. Many states utilize a version of the Divisional System. Texas, for example, does not permit private schools to play in its athletic association, except for the top enrollment based class 6-A. So, don't say "It can't be done in Oklahoma". I look forward to comments about this proposal on my blog...
Update: Since we (public schools) now have the attention of OSSAA officials regarding the classification scheme for member schools, and the OSSAA evidently denies the charge that "illegal recruiting of athletes" takes place, both actively and passively.. directly and indirectly - We're asking any OSSAA official: "If no direct or indirect recruiting takes place by private schools, then what is your explanation for the unparalleled success on the playing field for privates?" ("Indirect" recruiting are all those legal activities and offerings which private schools engage in, which motivate student-athletes to choose the particular private school of choice. Activities such as providing scholarships and taxpayer funded vouchers for deserving students, and offerings such as hundred million dollar athletic facilities and magnified media attention. For more examples of indirect recruiting - just follow the money.) Let's now go back to an earlier post for a prime example of the private school advantage:
The Analysis of State Championship Brackets for Volleyball: There are 28 class 3A volleyball teams in Oklahoma comprised of 23 public schools and 5 private schools. All five private schools qualified for the eight team state tournament bracket, while three public schools qualified. If all success indicators were equal between private schools and public schools, roughly an equal percentage of private schools and public schools would qualify for the state tournament. In other words, if no mitigating success factors are not present for private schools - the percentage of private schools qualifying for the state tournament should approximately match the percentage of private schools existing in class 3A volleyball. (100% of private schools qualified for the state tournament, but private schools comprise only 17.8% of the total 28 schools in class 3A.) So, if mitigating success factors are indeed present for private schools, we ask the OSSAA - What are those mitigating success factors? If the answer is: 3A volleyball is an isolated case study, and doesn't apply to all classifications and across all high school sports - It's not true. This discrepancy in the OSSAA classification scheme crosses all classifications and all sports.
I look forward to an explanation from any OSSAA officials (employees or directors) or any private school officials concerning the inordinate success enjoyed by private schools in the OSSAA, if not mitigating success factors. Please provide your explanations in writing (no phone calls), and I'll post. (Note: I know for a fact that many OSSAA officials and private school officials read this blog...)
Selective Enrollment (indirect recruiting) is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools. Private schools select students for enrollment, so can also select the OSSAA numbers based classification to which they belong. Several years ago, believing that the number of students any particular school has enrolled - the OSSAA implemented a rule which it thought would "level the playing field" for public schools when competing against private schools. The "rule", in effect, was to move a private school "up" one "enrollment based" classification level, if the private school had placed in the top eight (of any particular sport) for a number of years. It is now evident, the rule has had no effect on "leveling the playing field" for public schools in the OSSAA. Since the OSSAA classifies all schools according to "number of students", classifying private schools according to enrollment does not eliminate any private school advantages. An example of the "effect" of the OSSAA's watered down rule can be seen in class 4A football: One of the largest class 4A schools is Ada with 677 students, while the smallest public school in class 4A is Vinita (498 students). Heritage Hall, a private school, has 345 students - which would place it toward the bottom of class 3A, according to student numbers. Heritage Hall was ultra-successful competing in class 3A, winning multiple state titles, so moved up to class 4A in 2016 - in compliance with the rule. Heritage Hall, even though having fewer students than all public schools in class 4A, is still dominating the competition and plays Ada this week for the class 4A State Title. It can be asserted at this point, that classifying a private school based on its number of students - does not level the playing field one bit! I'd like to hear from any OSSAA official or private school official, in writing, concerning these assertions: 1) Selective enrollment is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools and 2) The OSSAA's "Rule" for eliminating the private school advantage does not work.
The Oklahoma Secondary School Athletic Association (OSSAA) has a system for classifying schools to level the playing field. It classifies schools according to enrollment, which is appropriate if all member schools are equal according to their number of students. The number of students any member school has enrolled, has become woefully inadequate for classifying public schools in the OSSAA. The system is now outdated because of the private schools now allowed to participate in the OSSAA. The "playing field" in the OSSAA has been tilted toward the member private schools by forcing its member public schools to compete directly with private schools. The OSSAA "created inequity" would be the same for university competition, if the NCAA forced Division III schools (no scholarships) to compete with Division I schools for "national championships".
The inequity in athletic competition between public schools and private schools was highlighted for all high school football fans this past weekend, as the Noble Bears faced the Bishop McGuinness Fitin' Irish in the class 5A state semi-finals - and the Blanchard Lions played the Heritage Hall Chargers in the class 4A semi-finals. Both public school teams were "slaughtered", not because the private schools "had better coaches" or "their kids just work harder" - but because they are allowed to compete with specific built in advantages. Advantages such as unlimited school district boundaries (nation-wide), ability to provide scholarships for deserving athletes, and the ability to recruit high level athletes from anywhere in the nation. Of course private schools deny the innate advantages listed above, but irrefutable proof exists that the OSSAA permits these "tilted field" advantages.
So, the question now becomes "If the OSSAA believes that private schools in Oklahoma enjoy systemic advantages over public schools - why doesn't it 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? If any OSSAA official has an answer to this question, let us know. If anyone reading this post personally knows an OSSAA official, please ask this question, and let us know what the answer is... I've blamed OSSAA officials for being too cowardly in the past for refusing to re-classify schools, but I really don't know if that's the answer.
Most people have heard the old adage "if you don't have a better plan, don't complain", so this is my better plan for athletic classification in the OSSAA: Classify all schools using the university classification system - Division "I" schools would be those private schools which offer scholarships. Division "II" schools, both public and private, would be those which do not offer scholarships. The "Division II" schools could keep the current "enrollment based" classification system as well. If there is anything amiss in this plan, please let me know what it is - as I don't have intimate knowledge of how the OSSAA works (as several OSSAA officials have told me so).
Update: On Monday, November 27, 2017, I received the following response (paraphrased to protect the identity) from an OSSAA official in response to claims I made concerning "private school re-classification":
... you implied that there is illegal recruiting by some private schools. Being member schools of this organization, if this is taking place, it absolutely violates Rule 9 of our Rules and Policies. If you would provide us with the specific information, schools and names of students recruited, we will certainly investigate as we would with any other violation reported to us.
You also made a statement in your blog of November 27 that private schools have no boundaries. I would like to refer you to Policy XLIII in our OSSAA Policies found on our webpage that outlines the boundaries for all OSSAA private schools.
I'll address the concerns, but I think it's important to note that my two concerns as outlined above were not addressed in the response: 1) why doesn't it (the OSSAA) 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it already provides a 'level' playing field. 2) Is the Divisional classification system feasible and appropriate for high school athletic competitions or not? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it is not feasible and inappropriate, since this issue was also not addressed in the response.
Concerns of OSSAA:
1) Implied illegal recruiting by some private schools - I did not imply, I stated as fact that student recruiting goes on at some private schools, namely Bishop McGuiness and Heritage Hall. I'll not relinquish "names of students", as it violates specific privacy laws. If the parents of referenced students gave me permission to "publicize" names, then I most certainly would. I currently do not have the authority to release public school student names, and will not. I'm also quite certain that no "recruited" private school students would step forward to say "I was recruited". Regardless of recruiting evidence being available, the OSSAA would simply investigate the claim - and if it determined a case of illegal recruiting did take place, it would sanction the guilty school (slap on the wrist). What the OSSAA would not do is change its classification system in order to provide equity between private and public schools - which is the real issue at hand. To provide my statement of illegal recruiting is simply a distraction technique used to change the subject from reclassification to evidence of wrongdoing. (It's an old trick that good attorneys use in court to change the course of 'why we're here'.)
2) My statement that "private schools have no boundaries" - implies that private schools may recruit student-athletes from anywhere in the nation, much the same as Division I colleges do. The OSSAA quotes the district boundaries for all private schools in the state, which was assigned by private schools several years ago. I'm well aware of the privately assigned boundaries for private schools, as a private school is usually located within as well as outside several public school districts. In my opinion, these private school district boundaries would simply be the recruiting zone for each private school. Private schools can only recruit student-athletes from the public and private schools located within the Division I school's boundaries. (Some private schools recruiting boundaries even over-lap other private schools, so one private school may recruit student-athletes from another private school, LOL. Student-athletes from outside the recruiting zone can still play for the Division I private school, but must move to a residence within the recruiting zone, even on-campus.
I hope I've cleared up any misinterpretations of my two statements concerning my beliefs about the private vs. public school systemic "un-level playing field". I still haven't received an answer yet concerning the proposed "Divisional" classification system for Oklahoma high school athletics. Many states utilize a version of the Divisional System. Texas, for example, does not permit private schools to play in its athletic association, except for the top enrollment based class 6-A. So, don't say "It can't be done in Oklahoma". I look forward to comments about this proposal on my blog...
Update: Since we (public schools) now have the attention of OSSAA officials regarding the classification scheme for member schools, and the OSSAA evidently denies the charge that "illegal recruiting of athletes" takes place, both actively and passively.. directly and indirectly - We're asking any OSSAA official: "If no direct or indirect recruiting takes place by private schools, then what is your explanation for the unparalleled success on the playing field for privates?" ("Indirect" recruiting are all those legal activities and offerings which private schools engage in, which motivate student-athletes to choose the particular private school of choice. Activities such as providing scholarships and taxpayer funded vouchers for deserving students, and offerings such as hundred million dollar athletic facilities and magnified media attention. For more examples of indirect recruiting - just follow the money.) Let's now go back to an earlier post for a prime example of the private school advantage:
The Analysis of State Championship Brackets for Volleyball: There are 28 class 3A volleyball teams in Oklahoma comprised of 23 public schools and 5 private schools. All five private schools qualified for the eight team state tournament bracket, while three public schools qualified. If all success indicators were equal between private schools and public schools, roughly an equal percentage of private schools and public schools would qualify for the state tournament. In other words, if no mitigating success factors are not present for private schools - the percentage of private schools qualifying for the state tournament should approximately match the percentage of private schools existing in class 3A volleyball. (100% of private schools qualified for the state tournament, but private schools comprise only 17.8% of the total 28 schools in class 3A.) So, if mitigating success factors are indeed present for private schools, we ask the OSSAA - What are those mitigating success factors? If the answer is: 3A volleyball is an isolated case study, and doesn't apply to all classifications and across all high school sports - It's not true. This discrepancy in the OSSAA classification scheme crosses all classifications and all sports.
I look forward to an explanation from any OSSAA officials (employees or directors) or any private school officials concerning the inordinate success enjoyed by private schools in the OSSAA, if not mitigating success factors. Please provide your explanations in writing (no phone calls), and I'll post. (Note: I know for a fact that many OSSAA officials and private school officials read this blog...)
Selective Enrollment (indirect recruiting) is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools. Private schools select students for enrollment, so can also select the OSSAA numbers based classification to which they belong. Several years ago, believing that the number of students any particular school has enrolled - the OSSAA implemented a rule which it thought would "level the playing field" for public schools when competing against private schools. The "rule", in effect, was to move a private school "up" one "enrollment based" classification level, if the private school had placed in the top eight (of any particular sport) for a number of years. It is now evident, the rule has had no effect on "leveling the playing field" for public schools in the OSSAA. Since the OSSAA classifies all schools according to "number of students", classifying private schools according to enrollment does not eliminate any private school advantages. An example of the "effect" of the OSSAA's watered down rule can be seen in class 4A football: One of the largest class 4A schools is Ada with 677 students, while the smallest public school in class 4A is Vinita (498 students). Heritage Hall, a private school, has 345 students - which would place it toward the bottom of class 3A, according to student numbers. Heritage Hall was ultra-successful competing in class 3A, winning multiple state titles, so moved up to class 4A in 2016 - in compliance with the rule. Heritage Hall, even though having fewer students than all public schools in class 4A, is still dominating the competition and plays Ada this week for the class 4A State Title. It can be asserted at this point, that classifying a private school based on its number of students - does not level the playing field one bit! I'd like to hear from any OSSAA official or private school official, in writing, concerning these assertions: 1) Selective enrollment is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools and 2) The OSSAA's "Rule" for eliminating the private school advantage does not work.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Fallin's Flunk List and Gazinta Math
Governor Fallin (executive in charge of consolidating schools) just ordered the State Department of Education (SDE) to ... compile a naughty list of every public school district that spends less than sixty percent (60%) of their budget on instructional expenditures. The State Board of Education (SBE)... shall consider and make recommendations for administrative consolidation or annexation of school districts described in paragraph one. (The SBE shall force all schools on the naughty list to consolidate with good schools or disappear altogether.)...
In order to strengthen public confidence in the efficient use of state education dollars, ... school districts designated for ... consolidation or annexation (dissolution) shall submit a plan for consolidation or dissolution to the Superintendent and SBE. If a plan is not submitted by the school district, the SBE and State Superintendent... shall determine a plan (force) ...consolidation or annexation.
Those schools spending less than 60% of their budget on instructional expenditures can be identified on the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) website www.ok.gov/oeqa/.
Approximately 350 Oklahoma public schools currently spend less than 60% on "Instruction", which leaves approximately 150 schools which spend more than 60% on "Instruction".
As is usually the case, when the sheer number of schools which fit any particular category, such as naughty or nice, becomes too burdensome to analyze - I only analyze the schools in my home area. In this case, the schools located in Garvin and McClain Counties.. or House District 42 are analyzed. According to the OEQA, the schools in Garvin County which spend less than 60% of all expenditures on "Instruction" are Elmore City-Pernell - 54.7%, Maysville - 40.1%, Paoli - 57.1%, Pauls Valley - 59.1%, Stratford - 54.6%, and Wynnewood - 57.8%. These Garvin County schools have made the naughty list, and are in danger of being annexed or consolidated. The nice list for Garvin County schools is short and only includes Whitebead, with 60.4% spent on instruction and Lindsay , with 60.0% spent on instruction.
(Update: Student Instructional Support expenditures have been added to Instruction expenditures by Dr. Rick Cobb, Superintendent of Mid-Del Schools, which has resulted in several Garvin County schools being added to the "Nice List". Those new "nice" schools are Pauls Valley (60.5%) and Paoli (60.5%).
In applying the "60% model" of school consolidation or annexation to Garvin County schools: Elmore City-Pernell, Wynnewood, and Maysville would be forced to consolidate or annex to Lindsay - and Paoli, Stratford, and Pauls Valley could be forced to consolidate or annex to Whitebead. Of course, for this model to be successful in Garvin County - the House District 42 Representative would have to be on board, and he surely would be since he has stated in the past that he's in favor of forced consolidation.
In analyzing expenditures for McClain County schools, we determine those that currently spend (2016 data) less than 60% on instruction are Dibble - 56%, Newcastle - 54%, Purcell - 57.9%, Washington - 52.8%, and Wayne - 46.4%. The list of McClain County schools which spend more than 60% is also short, as only Blanchard (60.7%) made the nice list. (Disclaimer: The author of this post is superintendent of Blanchard, so knows very well it's just a crap shoot, and Blanchard could fall below that 60% threshold in an instant.)
(Update: Purcell has been added to the "nice" list with 63.7% spent on Instruction.)
I think one can see how truly absurd this consolidation model is, especially for the supporters of all the rural schools, large and small, in Oklahoma. I really don't think Governor Fallin is serious about this executive order, for a multitude of reasons. And I don't believe it will ever be implemented, and neither does Governor Fallin. We'll examine and analyze those reasons this order will fail and the political reasons it was even mentioned - in an update of this post...
Literally hundreds of public school consolidation or annexation studies (research) have been conducted in most U.S. states over the past 20 years. Almost all research has been conducted after a state financial crisis, as a way to prove that schools are not efficient in their use of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately (for corporate politicians), if the research is thoroughly examined and analyzed, no evidence exists which indicates that more tax dollars can be directed back to "instruction" after consolidation or annexation (see "Capacity for Efficiency" study, 2010, by the Office of Educational QualityandAccountability;okhouse.gov/Documents/InterimStudies/2012/12-024%20presentation%20h.pdf; nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts).
In the interest of brevity, I'll only post anecdotal evidence which indicates that no tax dollars can be directed back to the "classroom" or "instruction" after consolidation or annexation of school districts, and... I'll only post data and analyses from Garvin and McClain County school districts, since these are my local school districts.
From an earlier post: In 2010, the Office of Accountability conducted a "Capacity for Efficiency" study, at the request of Governor Fallin, which analyzed a "county consolidation model" for school efficiency when all public schools were consolidated or annexed to only one county school district... The methodology for the study compared the total administrative expenditures for all school districts in any particular county - to only one school district outside the county with a similar number of students. For example, the total administrative expenditures for all six (6) schools in McClain County (including superintendent salaries) was compared to the administrative expenditures in two separate school districts, Mustang and Yukon. The total number of students for all six McClain County schools combined was approximately 8,000, and both Mustang and Yukon had approximately 8,000 students. The Office of Educational Quality and Accountability determined that the McClain County schools had No Capacity for Efficiency if consolidated or annexed when compared to the Yukon or Mustang school districts. In other words, the total administrative expenditures for all schools in McClain County < (is less than) the administrative expenditures in either Mustang or Yukon schools. This fact must come as a shock to corporate legislators such as Tim Downing (McClain County) who believe that consolidating all schools to only one county school will save $millions in tax dollars, and send $millions in administrative expenses back to the classroom (instruction).
Anecdotal data does exist that consolidation or annexation does not save taxpayer dollars or send more money to instruction. In McClain County, at the conclusion of the 2014-2015 school year, Byars annexed to Wayne Public Schools. At the start of the 2015-2016 school year, Byars public schools no longer existed, so an analysis may be provided which compares administrative expenditures both before and after annexation. The administrative expenditures for Byars and Wayne combined for the 14-15 school year was 5.99% of total expenditures. After annexation of Byars to Wayne in '15-'16, administrative expenditures were 6.21% of total expenditures, an increase of .22%. This particular anecdotal example of annexation did not result in lower administrative costs, nor did it result in more money to the classroom.
Update: In examining the Wayne/Byars annexation in light of Governor Fallin's new "60% consolidation or annexation model" we determine that Byars was on the naughty list in 2015, spending only 48.5% of its total expenditures on "instruction". Also in 2015, Wayne spent 52.9% for "instruction" so landed on the naughty list as well. After annexation in 2016, the new consolidated Wayne/Byars spent only 46.4% for "instruction", landing it on the really naughty list. As this example is anecdotal, it is unclear whether or not all annexations would result in a reduced percentage of expenditures going to student "instruction"... but this lone example certainly indicates that fact. Instead of a long naughty list of almost 500 schools, we could have a long really naughty list of schools.
If the "60% model of annexation" proves out that administrative consolidation or annexation does not save taxpayer dollars or send more money to classroom instruction, then it cannot be "the right thing" as Governor Fallin so eloquently stated. I urge everyone who truly cares about our public school students to please review the research concerning "school consolidation" that proves it just doesn't save tax dollars, nor provide better instruction. The facts should be important to Governor Fallin and her corporate cronies in the State Legislature...
Update: Technical Aspects of Fallin's Naughty list - Although asking me to describe the "Mr. Science" technical aspects of Governor Fallin's naughty list or Flunk List (The "Flunk List" was how athlete eligibility was determined for Lindsay High School Football, back in the day.) without using "colorful rhetoric", I'll give it a try. Fallin's Flunk List (FFL) of public schools is composed of all Oklahoma public schools spending less than 60% of all expenditures for "Instruction" (the Function 1000 Series in the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System manual). According to OCAS - Instruction includes the activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students. Teaching may be provided for students in a school classroom, in another location such as a home or hospital, and in other learning situations such as those involving co-curricular activities. It may also be provided through some other approved medium such as television, radio, telephone, correspondence, and other educational or assistive technology devices. Included here are the activities of teacher assistants of any type (clerks, graders, teaching machines, etc.) which assist in the instructional process. The activities of tutors, translators, and interpreters would be recorded here. Also, include department chairpersons who teach for any portion of time. Tuition/transfer fees paid to other LEAs would be included here. At this point I have several questions that I hope Professor Fallin can answer: What is a teaching machine? I assume it is a "teacher". Secondly - If counselors, librarians, school nurses, principals, resource officers, etc. teach students for a portion of the school day, can that portion of student support be coded to the 1000 series? For instance, Governor Fallin, if a school couselor teaches one class period during the school day, may one sixth of the counselor's salary be coded to Instruction?
My last question for Professor Fallin (ok, I can't help but be a little colorful in describing this issue) provided a hint of what is not included for Instruction: Counselors, Librarians, School Nurses, School Resource Officers, Principals, Student Attendance Services, Student Social Work Services (such as activities designed to improve pupil attendance and to assess and improve the well-being of pupils), activities such as investigating and diagnosing pupil problems arising out of the home school or community, and all expenditures coded 2000. I hope Professor Fallin is not becoming too bogged down at this point (more colorful rhetoric), but we really do need some questions answered.
I know I'm beginning to bog down in describing the asinine and complicated executive order that all schools spending less than 60% on Instruction may be consolidated or annexed, so I'll speed it up a little. In examining Professor Fallin's school spending data, it appears her executive order has come directly from the federal government, as the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has determined the formula used to calculate local public school expenditure percentages. Now, I have a last question for Professor Fallin - Is this executive order from a conservative perspective... or a corporate perspective? Public Schools are waiting for your answer...
And while we're waiting, a look at a hypothetical example of a school district's expenditure percentages may offer a clue as to what Professor Fallin (the federal government) expects:
Expenditures for (Instruction - 55%, Student and Staff Support - 15.1%, District administration - 2.9%, and Operations/Child nutrition - 27%). The percentages indicated represent the level of expenditures for a real school in each of four categories. This particular school will be on the FFL (Fallin's flunk list), because it spends less than 60% on Instruction (55<60, for those knowing your "gazintas"). The mathematical problem facing school districts is "moving expenditure percentages" from other areas to "instruction". Instruction should gain 5 percentage points just to reach the 'D' level (60%).
Another school district spends 67% in "instruction, 7% for student and staff support, 8.4% for administration, and 17.6% for operations/child nutrition. This school spends a higher percentage of expenditures for "instruction" and "administration" than the first example, and is considered an 'A' school by Professor Fallin (in no danger of being listed on the FFL).
Mathematical principles dictate that the first example school above must fire some of the school and student support employees (those in the 15.1% and 27% categories), and replace them with teachers... to get off the FFL. This would be yet another question for "the professor" - How many local counselors, librarians, bus drivers, nurses, principals,custodians, and others should the school fire to be an 'A' school? I know what many corporate legislators are thinking, since their minds aren't tuned for math - Why can't you just fire the school superintendent and reach that magical 60% level? For two reasons - 1) Each school district must have a superintendent, by order of law and 2) Since superintendent salaries typically cost each school district less than 1% of total expenditures, eliminating the superintendent could only possibly add 1% to "instruction", providing 56% instead of 55%. The school would remain on Fallin's Flunk List. As a matter of fact, even if the entire 2.9% for administrative costs was shifted to "instruction" - the school would still spend only 57.9% for instruction. I believe this 60% school consolidation executive order is built on corporate fuzzy math.
Update: Fallin's Flunk List - Ben Felder, blogger for NEWSOK, writes that "Oklahoma City mayor and gubernatorial candidate Mick Cornett said school consolidation is an idea he supports for some of the 24 schools that are located inside the city limits of Oklahoma City." The 24 schools are mostly large schools, of which all are on Professor Fallin's Flunk List. All 24 schools will be expected to provide a consolidation or annexation plan to the state board for approval, according to the FFL (60%) executive order. All 24 schools must provide a plan which will result in raising their "F" in "instructional spending" (less than 60%) to at least a "D" (60% to 69%). The most logical way to do this: Consolidate or annex to a school with a "passing grade", such as ... ... ... ... ... . Wait a minute! there are no schools in OKC which are not on the FFL, which probably means that all 24 schools will combine with the nearest passing school. The OKC FFL schools would probably have to ask the nearest "passing school" for permission to annex, and it is doubtful any near "D" schools would agree to take them on. (All Oklahoma schools have graded out "F" or "D".) By the way, Cornett never said anything about consolidating small, rural schools, so I think "he's our man" for governor. LOL! This is just one more example of the absurdity in the FFL consolidation model, and the "gazinta" math used to justify it...
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Thanksgiving: Executive Order - Consolidate Public Schools
Our Oklahoma public schools should be thankful to God for many blessings this Thanksgiving: We should thank God for giving Governor Fallin the courage to draw a line in the sand and stand up for our public service agencies (ODOT, state health agencies, state safety agencies such as the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, the Oklahoma State Department of Education, Department of Corrections, etc...) - against corporate interests and its cronies, the corporate legislators. We should thank God for the conservative and liberal legislators who stood up to corporate legislators in the waning days of the first special session and said "Governor Fallin, veto these state agency cuts!" Of course Governor Fallin and the conservative/liberal lawmakers with the "guts" to confront corporate interests, should not expect any early Christmas gifts in the form of campaign donations any time soon.
Naming Names: Anyone reading my blog posts (friends, near friends, acquaintances, those who don't know me, those who can tolerate me, those who don't like me, and those who can't stand me) know that I'm often not politically correct and often name names in my posts. Most of the time, I identify the named parties accurately, since I always do my research and analyze appropriately. And so it is with this post...
We've thanked God for Governor Fallin "standing up" for public service agencies, but several other lawmakers have displayed courage in standing against the corporate acquisition and destruction of our state agencies. We should thank God for Senator A.J. Griffin (R), Senator Jason Smalley (R), Senator Ron Sharp (R), Senator J.J. Dossett (D), Senator John Sparks (D), Senator Randy Bass (D), and many more senators - for standing up to the corporate (welfare) cronies: Senator Julie Daniels (R), Senator Mike Schulz (R), Senator Gary Stanislawski (R), and a few more. We should thank God for Representative Dennis Casey (R), Representative Leslie Osborn (R), Representative Marcus McEntire (R), Representative Donnie Condit (D), Representative Mickey Dollens (D), Representative Jason Dunnington (D), Representative David Perryman (D), Representative Cory Williams (D), and many more, for standing up to the corporate welfare cronies: Representative John (the terrorist) Bennett (R), Representative Bobby Cleveland (R), Representative Charles (the Atoka Strangler) McCall (R), Representative Tim Downing (R), and several more.
Like Governor Fallin, those legislators who've stood up for our public service agencies should not expect any early Christmas gifts from corporate agents. Those corporate welfare cronies, however, stand to have a very, merry Christmas - courtesy of corporate donations to their campaign war chests. These Christmas gifts to the corporate minions in the state legislature may also be used for personal purposes, for those willing to risk felony charges...remember Senator Kyle Loveless (R).
(Note: Those Legislators classified as conservative, liberal, or corporate have been appropriately identified by "quotes", "votes", "felony charges", and "followthemoney.org"...)
Update! - On a related note, Governor Fallin has issued an executive order (which may be unconstitutional) which consolidates public school districts! I'll be analyzing this executive order in a future blog post... and naming names...
Naming Names: Anyone reading my blog posts (friends, near friends, acquaintances, those who don't know me, those who can tolerate me, those who don't like me, and those who can't stand me) know that I'm often not politically correct and often name names in my posts. Most of the time, I identify the named parties accurately, since I always do my research and analyze appropriately. And so it is with this post...
We've thanked God for Governor Fallin "standing up" for public service agencies, but several other lawmakers have displayed courage in standing against the corporate acquisition and destruction of our state agencies. We should thank God for Senator A.J. Griffin (R), Senator Jason Smalley (R), Senator Ron Sharp (R), Senator J.J. Dossett (D), Senator John Sparks (D), Senator Randy Bass (D), and many more senators - for standing up to the corporate (welfare) cronies: Senator Julie Daniels (R), Senator Mike Schulz (R), Senator Gary Stanislawski (R), and a few more. We should thank God for Representative Dennis Casey (R), Representative Leslie Osborn (R), Representative Marcus McEntire (R), Representative Donnie Condit (D), Representative Mickey Dollens (D), Representative Jason Dunnington (D), Representative David Perryman (D), Representative Cory Williams (D), and many more, for standing up to the corporate welfare cronies: Representative John (the terrorist) Bennett (R), Representative Bobby Cleveland (R), Representative Charles (the Atoka Strangler) McCall (R), Representative Tim Downing (R), and several more.
Like Governor Fallin, those legislators who've stood up for our public service agencies should not expect any early Christmas gifts from corporate agents. Those corporate welfare cronies, however, stand to have a very, merry Christmas - courtesy of corporate donations to their campaign war chests. These Christmas gifts to the corporate minions in the state legislature may also be used for personal purposes, for those willing to risk felony charges...remember Senator Kyle Loveless (R).
(Note: Those Legislators classified as conservative, liberal, or corporate have been appropriately identified by "quotes", "votes", "felony charges", and "followthemoney.org"...)
Update! - On a related note, Governor Fallin has issued an executive order (which may be unconstitutional) which consolidates public school districts! I'll be analyzing this executive order in a future blog post... and naming names...
Monday, November 20, 2017
Public School vs. Private School = Public Services vs. Corporate Politicians
The giant-killer Blanchard Lions high school football team, after ending the longest high school football winning streak in Oklahoma's history (48 straight by the Wagoner Bulldogs) - now face an even bigger and badder giant, the Heritage Hall Chargers. Heritage Hall is a familiar foe for Blanchard, as the Daily Oklahoman reports that the Chargers have eliminated the Blanchard Lions in the opening round of the playoffs for the last three years. Heritage Hall has won literally dozens of state titles in all high school sports over only the past five years, and several in class-3A football. The Chargers were advanced to class-4A last year - not because their enrollment increased but because they are a private school and allowed to recruit only the best players... which has resulted in an advantage over public schools and numerous state titles. The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association (OSSAA), the governing body for high school sports, recognized it could not stop the recruiting of players and other unfair private school advantages - so required private schools to advance one classification upwards from where their enrollment dictates (when winning an excessive number of state titles). Heritage Hall fits the criteria for moving from class 3A to class 4A: It has won an excessive number of state titles, based on its ability to recruit and accept only the best players around the state by offering scholarships (foundation grants) to these players. It has a systemic unfair edge when competing against public schools. It dominated high school athletic competitions in class 3A, and is continuing to dominate the public school competition in class 4A. By moving private schools up 'one classification' the OSSAA believed it would 'level the playing field" somewhat between private schools and public schools. As many public school supporters predicted, though, moving privates up only one class didn't level the playing field even one scintilla. Those dominant private schools such as Bishop McGuinness and Heritage Hall continue to dominate high school sports, because they can still recruit players from across the nation and have retained other unfair advantages too numerous to list.
Update: Heritage Hall, now with 53 wins and only 2 losses over the past four years, defeated the Blanchard Lions 35-7 on Saturday afternoon. The Chargers will probably win the state title next week as it faces Ada, a very good public school football team, but no match for the Heritage Hall Chargers. Many OSSAA officials believe the dominance that private schools have over public schools in high school athletic competitions is because private school students just work harder and have better coaches than their public school counterparts. Many high school athletics supporters know that simplistic answer is far from the truth.
Update: Heritage Hall, now with 53 wins and only 2 losses over the past four years, defeated the Blanchard Lions 35-7 on Saturday afternoon. The Chargers will probably win the state title next week as it faces Ada, a very good public school football team, but no match for the Heritage Hall Chargers. Many OSSAA officials believe the dominance that private schools have over public schools in high school athletic competitions is because private school students just work harder and have better coaches than their public school counterparts. Many high school athletics supporters know that simplistic answer is far from the truth.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
10,000 Educators Need a Cost of Living Adjustment
While Oklahoma teachers certainly need a pay increase, as they are the lowest paid among all states in the nation - another group of educators have also been neglected and disparaged by our Legislature - and that would be a portion of the 175,000 retired educators. Those teachers and other educators who retired before 2006 (approximately 10,000?), have received nothing in cost of living allowances (COLA) since 2008 - even though unavoidable basic life expenses have increased dramatically. In 2006, the Teachers Retirement System changed for the better in providing more benefits for members who continued to work beyond their normal retirement age (62). Before 2007, teacher retirement benefits were peanuts, just as their salary was before retiring. Before 2008, retired teachers received a cost-of-living adjustment every now and then to keep up with inflation and living expense increases. Then, "starting in 2011, lawmakers... made the decision to require that cost-of-living adjustments be fully funded. Most retired educators knew this made good sense, but didn't count on what corporate lawmakers would do for retired teachers, the same thing it does for active teachers - never provide a dedicated revenue stream to fully fund a COLA. The moral to the corporate lawmakers non-action story is this: Corporate legislators will always look out for themselves first.
Now, I know many corporate legislators have been guests of retired teacher groups around the state, so their must be some conversation centered on the peanut benefits afforded to retired teachers. I'd like to know what has been promised to the retired groups, so if you're a teacher who retired prior to 2006 and have heard the remarks of any corporate legislator - I'd like you to contact me. I have not been privy to any of the meetings, but I can guess as to what many heard from his or her local lawmaker: I really feel your pain, so I'll see what I can do or I really feel your pain, but my hands are tied... a law was passed in 2011 outlawing COLAs without a dedicated revenue source, and the state just doesn't have any money right now. HOW ABOUT PROVIDING A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE, MR. CORPORATE LAWMAKER!
It makes me sick to my stomach listening to the excuses lawmakers have for not providing teacher pay raises... but it makes me even sicker to hear their excuses for not providing cost-of-living allowances to our "most vulnerable".
Now, I know many corporate legislators have been guests of retired teacher groups around the state, so their must be some conversation centered on the peanut benefits afforded to retired teachers. I'd like to know what has been promised to the retired groups, so if you're a teacher who retired prior to 2006 and have heard the remarks of any corporate legislator - I'd like you to contact me. I have not been privy to any of the meetings, but I can guess as to what many heard from his or her local lawmaker: I really feel your pain, so I'll see what I can do or I really feel your pain, but my hands are tied... a law was passed in 2011 outlawing COLAs without a dedicated revenue source, and the state just doesn't have any money right now. HOW ABOUT PROVIDING A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE, MR. CORPORATE LAWMAKER!
It makes me sick to my stomach listening to the excuses lawmakers have for not providing teacher pay raises... but it makes me even sicker to hear their excuses for not providing cost-of-living allowances to our "most vulnerable".
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Conservative vs. Corporate = Public vs. Private
Our "do-nothing" Legislators have taken the first pay cut in Oklahoma statehood history, suffering an 8.8% salary cut because of ineptitude in job performance. Governor Fallin promised it would happen, if corporate lawmakers continued to look out for themselves instead of constituents. You have to respect and admire her for "sticking to her guns". Hats off to Governor Fallin!
Unfortunately, many good lawmakers were hurt too, not just the corporate members of the legislature. All Senate members were also penalized, even though they passed a balanced budget to the House for consideration. All Democrats in the House were also penalized, even though they made a valliant effort to overcome the ineptitude of the Corporate House members. The good must suffer as well as the bad, when one group screws up, so its not true "merit pay".
Coincidentally, the amount of salary cut ($3,300) for each lawmaker matches up pretty well with the money wasted on these do-nothing lawmakers for the last month. In the final analysis: Corporate lawmakers who fought so hard to protect oil and gas tycoons, have succeeded in preventing gross production taxes off the budget fiasco table - but have suffered a pay cut in the process. If you have a corporate Representative in "your" local district, like I do, don't worry too much about his or her pay cut, as the corporate oil and gas industry will see to it that "their" pay cut is more than made up for.
In addition, Governor Fallin has vetoed "the end of the special session" to balance the state budget, so corporate lawmakers will receive even more "overtime pay" to take the sting out of the legislative pay cut. So, the road goes on forever and the party never ends... for "Corporate Representatives". To find out if your local State Representative is corporate or conservative (they all claim to be conservative) just followthemoney.org.
The corporate vs. conservative battle is also playing out in two state semifinal football games this weekend in the Oklahoma City metro area. First, McGuinness (private school) will play Noble (public school) at 7PM Friday night at Western Heights - and then on Saturday night, undefeated Heritage Hall meets Blanchard (11 - 1). Let these games serve as a call to action for public school supporters statewide... Public schools need our support..
Unfortunately, many good lawmakers were hurt too, not just the corporate members of the legislature. All Senate members were also penalized, even though they passed a balanced budget to the House for consideration. All Democrats in the House were also penalized, even though they made a valliant effort to overcome the ineptitude of the Corporate House members. The good must suffer as well as the bad, when one group screws up, so its not true "merit pay".
Coincidentally, the amount of salary cut ($3,300) for each lawmaker matches up pretty well with the money wasted on these do-nothing lawmakers for the last month. In the final analysis: Corporate lawmakers who fought so hard to protect oil and gas tycoons, have succeeded in preventing gross production taxes off the budget fiasco table - but have suffered a pay cut in the process. If you have a corporate Representative in "your" local district, like I do, don't worry too much about his or her pay cut, as the corporate oil and gas industry will see to it that "their" pay cut is more than made up for.
In addition, Governor Fallin has vetoed "the end of the special session" to balance the state budget, so corporate lawmakers will receive even more "overtime pay" to take the sting out of the legislative pay cut. So, the road goes on forever and the party never ends... for "Corporate Representatives". To find out if your local State Representative is corporate or conservative (they all claim to be conservative) just followthemoney.org.
The corporate vs. conservative battle is also playing out in two state semifinal football games this weekend in the Oklahoma City metro area. First, McGuinness (private school) will play Noble (public school) at 7PM Friday night at Western Heights - and then on Saturday night, undefeated Heritage Hall meets Blanchard (11 - 1). Let these games serve as a call to action for public school supporters statewide... Public schools need our support..
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Corporate Lawmakers - There's more than one way to skin a cat (Care Center)
Channel 9 news says it all - "Wynnewood Care Center Closes Amid State Budget Crisis". Christy Lewis of News 9, goes on to say "Amid the state budget crisis, two dozen elderly residents were uprooted from their homes." According to one state representative, John Bennett, public service agencies and their employees are nothing but terrorists, because they say that lack of funding will force them to close their doors, forcing our most vulnerable citizens out on the street. Bennett claims this is terrorism because it's not true, but it makes our citizens afraid it is true. The citizens of Wynnewood and many Garvin County citizens can attest that the state budget crisis, created by John Bennett and his fellow corporate lawmakers, has profoundly affected our most vulnerable citizens. These corporate lawmakers, evidently, do not have any friends or relatives which have been affected by their shenanigans (voting "no" on the balanced state budget bill, just because it called for an increase on the corporate gross production tax). There are county and state health agencies all over the state closing or not admitting new clients as a result of actions taken by corporate representatives - not conservative or liberal. Conservative and liberal lawmakers do not victimize our most vulnerable citizens by "uprooting them from their homes." John Bennett is not the only corporate lawmaker who believes our public service agencies are guilty of terrorism and voted "no" on public service funding. If one is interested in discovering the identities of others, check their voting record, or better yet - check followthemoney.org to see who your lawmaker answers to... I'll give everyone a hint - it's not the Wynnewood Care Center or its former residents.
In addition to followthemoney.org, additional insight can be gained from research by Oklahoma Watch - as to why local district Representatives do not protect our most vulnerable local citizens - like those in the Wynnewood Care Center and former residents of the Southern Oklahoma Resource Center (SORC) in Pauls Valley. The SORC was a state institution located in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, which served citizens with severe mental and physical disabilities (139 citizens in 2010). Many of these residents were non-voters, which certainly has an affect on the actions of some corporate lawmakers. During the 2010 legislative session, House Bill 2456 was introduced on the House floor which gave authority to the Department of Human Services to shut down the SORC. HB 2456 passed the House with flying colors, but when it landed in the Senate - Senator Susan Paddack urged members of a Senate budget panel to reconsider legislation that allows closing of a Pauls Valley facility... and the bill died. Some insight as to the real motivation behind support of the bill was provided by a lone senator, when he said "Closing the facility would save DHS (the state) about $2.5 million a year". The corporate senator and other corporate cronies were only concerned about money, not the well-being of our most vulnerable Oklahoma citizens. Corporate lawmakers, unable to close the facility with HB 2456 in 2010, nonetheless were determined to close it, so began the task of cutting funds to DHS.
In 2015, the SORC was finally closed due to lack of funding. The state had finally cut it way to prosperity (sarcasm) much like corporate lawmakers are doing today. Unfortunately, 18 former residents died within one year of moving to a corporate managed facility or own home. This was considered "collateral damage" by some corporate lawmakers, as the state is saving $2.5 million a year. While most of the corporate actors from the 2010 thru 2015 budget debacles are now gone, a new crop has taken their place. If anyone believes that the corporate legislators are solely responsible for closing facilities and gutting our state service agencies - they are not. All Oklahomans are responsible for the nation's greatest state budget mess, because we knew who they were, but elected them anyway. As one corporate lawmaker insightfully said: "If my constituents don't like the way I vote, they don't have to vote for me (in 2018)".
In addition to followthemoney.org, additional insight can be gained from research by Oklahoma Watch - as to why local district Representatives do not protect our most vulnerable local citizens - like those in the Wynnewood Care Center and former residents of the Southern Oklahoma Resource Center (SORC) in Pauls Valley. The SORC was a state institution located in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, which served citizens with severe mental and physical disabilities (139 citizens in 2010). Many of these residents were non-voters, which certainly has an affect on the actions of some corporate lawmakers. During the 2010 legislative session, House Bill 2456 was introduced on the House floor which gave authority to the Department of Human Services to shut down the SORC. HB 2456 passed the House with flying colors, but when it landed in the Senate - Senator Susan Paddack urged members of a Senate budget panel to reconsider legislation that allows closing of a Pauls Valley facility... and the bill died. Some insight as to the real motivation behind support of the bill was provided by a lone senator, when he said "Closing the facility would save DHS (the state) about $2.5 million a year". The corporate senator and other corporate cronies were only concerned about money, not the well-being of our most vulnerable Oklahoma citizens. Corporate lawmakers, unable to close the facility with HB 2456 in 2010, nonetheless were determined to close it, so began the task of cutting funds to DHS.
In 2015, the SORC was finally closed due to lack of funding. The state had finally cut it way to prosperity (sarcasm) much like corporate lawmakers are doing today. Unfortunately, 18 former residents died within one year of moving to a corporate managed facility or own home. This was considered "collateral damage" by some corporate lawmakers, as the state is saving $2.5 million a year. While most of the corporate actors from the 2010 thru 2015 budget debacles are now gone, a new crop has taken their place. If anyone believes that the corporate legislators are solely responsible for closing facilities and gutting our state service agencies - they are not. All Oklahomans are responsible for the nation's greatest state budget mess, because we knew who they were, but elected them anyway. As one corporate lawmaker insightfully said: "If my constituents don't like the way I vote, they don't have to vote for me (in 2018)".
Monday, November 13, 2017
"Tradition" - It Wins Games
Many people wrote off the Lindsay Leopards high school football team, when they lost their opening game of the season at their new football stadium. They were beaten by team with supposed lesser talent, and embarrassed themselves to many former Leopards who were in attendance that played for Lindsay state championship teams of 1955, 1958, 1962, and 1963. Many who saw the game, including me, thought the Leopards didn't play very well and did not look like many Leopard teams of the past. The question then becomes how did the Leopards turn their season around, beating a very good Washington team, winning the district title, and winning the first playoff game?
I believe it's because of an intangible factor called tradition. While Lindsay H.S. football teams have lost many games now and in the past, they have always had that traditional winning attitude which is always in the back of their minds. The thought processes which the coaching staff and many players always have is the fact that "we are Leopards" and Leopards will win. It's a winning tradition that sometimes wins football games, not necessarily the best players or best coaches. When two teams are closely matched in talent - the victory often goes to the team with the winning tradition... it's an attitude that often wins games. It's the intangible factor that "if we don't quit, we'll eventually be victorious".
"Never, never, never give in" was in a speech that Winston Churchill made to Harrow College students in 1941, as the Nazi's swept across Europe. Many feared that Great Britain would fall just as other countries had earlier. Now, London was being bombed, and the end was certainly near for England. Many familiar with world history know what happened next - the Nazi tide was turned by the Allies, because the British never gave up... and the U.S. entered the war.
This 2017 Leopard team reminds me of another high school football team - the Duncan Demons of 1987. I was lucky enough to help coach that team, so I was privy to what it accomplished that season: The Demons of 1987 finished the regular season with 5 wins and 5 losses, entering the playoffs in 4th place among district teams. They were to play the number one ranked and undefeated Carl Albert Titans in their first playoff game - at Carl Albert. The Demons had adopted part of the Churchill speech, "Never, Never, Never Give Up" as a slogan, and had it printed on their T-shirts, as they prepared to play the Titans. They went on to defeat the mighty Carl Albert Titans on a last minute drive - 9 to 7, because they never quit, even during the bleakest part of the regular season. The 1987 Demons went on to win two more playoff games, finally facing the Tulsa McClain Scots in the state championship game at Stillwater in December. The Demons lost that game,7 to 6, in missing a field goal attempt as time expired. They had ended their season by being as successful as they could be... by never giving in. I believe our Leopards can be successful in their march through the playoffs, no matter what... but only if they never, never, never give up. Remember the Leopards...
I believe it's because of an intangible factor called tradition. While Lindsay H.S. football teams have lost many games now and in the past, they have always had that traditional winning attitude which is always in the back of their minds. The thought processes which the coaching staff and many players always have is the fact that "we are Leopards" and Leopards will win. It's a winning tradition that sometimes wins football games, not necessarily the best players or best coaches. When two teams are closely matched in talent - the victory often goes to the team with the winning tradition... it's an attitude that often wins games. It's the intangible factor that "if we don't quit, we'll eventually be victorious".
"Never, never, never give in" was in a speech that Winston Churchill made to Harrow College students in 1941, as the Nazi's swept across Europe. Many feared that Great Britain would fall just as other countries had earlier. Now, London was being bombed, and the end was certainly near for England. Many familiar with world history know what happened next - the Nazi tide was turned by the Allies, because the British never gave up... and the U.S. entered the war.
This 2017 Leopard team reminds me of another high school football team - the Duncan Demons of 1987. I was lucky enough to help coach that team, so I was privy to what it accomplished that season: The Demons of 1987 finished the regular season with 5 wins and 5 losses, entering the playoffs in 4th place among district teams. They were to play the number one ranked and undefeated Carl Albert Titans in their first playoff game - at Carl Albert. The Demons had adopted part of the Churchill speech, "Never, Never, Never Give Up" as a slogan, and had it printed on their T-shirts, as they prepared to play the Titans. They went on to defeat the mighty Carl Albert Titans on a last minute drive - 9 to 7, because they never quit, even during the bleakest part of the regular season. The 1987 Demons went on to win two more playoff games, finally facing the Tulsa McClain Scots in the state championship game at Stillwater in December. The Demons lost that game,7 to 6, in missing a field goal attempt as time expired. They had ended their season by being as successful as they could be... by never giving in. I believe our Leopards can be successful in their march through the playoffs, no matter what... but only if they never, never, never give up. Remember the Leopards...
Friday, November 10, 2017
Why Representatives Voted "NO Budget!"
I've read several news articles detailing how our state representatives voted (yes or no), but no opinions as to the reasoning behind the "no" votes. Of course with any rejected budget deal, there are winners and losers. Oklahoma Watch reports the losers in the latest House rejected budget are the Education Community, Health-Care Community, and Republicans. The winners in this latest rejection are Oil and Gas, Big Tobacco, and Anti-Tax Republicans. One may ask how Republicans in general may be losers, but Anti-Tax Republicans are winners. In my opinion, the answer lies in the comment of one Anti-Tax Republican when asked why he voted No - He said: "If my constituents don't like the way I voted, they can vote me out" , presumably at the next scheduled state elections. He knows that, sadly, only about 30% of public school employees who are registered voters - actually vote, and of that 30% - about half are registered Republicans who will vote for him anyway. His opinion, and he's probably correct - is that he won't lose any votes in his next election. Anti-Tax voters elected him, and Anti-Tax voters will re-elect him - you can count on it.
My State Representative, Tim Downing of District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) voted No on the budget deal which would have provided teachers a $3,000 pay raise. He also stated that he would be voting No on the one-cent sales tax question for a $5,000 teacher pay raise, back in 2016. Mr. Downing, like the Anti-Tax Republican described above, knows that he will win re-election to office, no matter what his position is concerning public schools, state services, and teacher issues. This is both a disturbing and depressing fact for most teachers and other state service providers, but it is a fact.
Everyone remember the two teachers in the "vote no" on SQ 779, TV ad? Like many other teachers, they believed there was a better way to fund teacher pay raises than raising the sales tax for working folks, and the legislature would soon find it. Mr. Downing, like most Anti-Tax Republicans, knows that only about 30% of teachers vote (BadVoter.org) and some of those who actually do vote, supported him (followthemoney.org). By the way, following the money trail can lead to some other very interesting conclusions as to who and which entities Mr. Downing answers to. The facts speak for themselves, whether one believes it's a good thing... or bad. A high ranking public school official even went so far as to say that Mr. Downing will bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric (like me, I guess). Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools... I'm honored to support Tim Downing for state House. The same official may now have a change of mind, since she thanked those House members voting yes on the budget for a teacher pay raise. Then again, maybe not, since the same high ranking public school official has endorsed other anti-public school and anti-teacher candidates in the past, all while insulting public school candidates for office. Public school supporters remember the stand that public service supporter, Representative Corey Williams made last week, as he chided the Corporate House Speaker for trying to force a bad budget bill through the House. At one point, Mr. Williams turned to the House Speaker's Chief of Staff (who pulls in a $156,000 salary as the real "boss") and asked "How's oil and gas?", apparently emphasizing what many people already know.
Nonetheless, the same high ranking public school official who endorsed Tim Downing - endorsed Corey Williams' opponent, another public service hater.
So, the answer to the original question of why many legislators voted "no" on the budget plan which provided a $3,000 pay raise for teachers is simple - They know it probably won't hurt their re-election chances..
Update: Seven House members who voted "yes" on a previous budget bill which included sales tax increases on cigs, fuel, and beer (all regressive taxes), voted "no" on the recent budget bill. The only difference in the two budget bills, was that the 2nd one, voted last week, included a "gross production" tax increase, which taxes the wealthy and corporate at a rate equal to the poor and middle-income earners. Representative Bobby Cleveland of House District 20 is closest to my home, so I'll ask him - "Representative Cleveland - You voted 'yes' on the bill that increased regressive taxes, but 'no' on the bill that increased the gross production tax on oil and gas corporations - Why the switch?"... Many of your constituents are waiting for your answer...
Update: Bobby Cleveland has gone on the record as to his reasons for helping to exacerbate the state budget catastrophe - in the Norman Transcript. His reason for voting "no" is "corruption in a lot of state agencies". He then goes on to say that mental health, corrections, and ODOT are agencies exempt from his "corruption" claim, which leaves the State Department of Education as the only public service agency which may be corrupted, along with the Department of Tourism (headed by Lieutenant Governor Lamb) and one more. So, there's our answer as to why Cleveland voted "no", but he still hasn't answered as to why he voted "yes" on the first budget bill (same tax increases).
Update: Another reason that Corporate House members voted "No balanced budget" was that the "fix" was in. Conservative Republican Representative Leslie Osborn claimed that her fellow Republican House members (corporate only) had secretly met (sounds like the we hate girls club of the Little Rascals, only it's the we hate state service agencies club), to discuss which members would vote "yes" and which members would vote "no", while still ensuring the bill would fail. This conspiracy could explain why Dapper Dan, the House Speaker voted "yes", but several of his co-conspirators voted "no". Dapper Dan could then say "See, I'm not a minion of the oil overlords, because I said 'Eat this YES vote, overlords!" His fellow corporate cronies would then get the heat for choking our public service agencies...
My State Representative, Tim Downing of District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) voted No on the budget deal which would have provided teachers a $3,000 pay raise. He also stated that he would be voting No on the one-cent sales tax question for a $5,000 teacher pay raise, back in 2016. Mr. Downing, like the Anti-Tax Republican described above, knows that he will win re-election to office, no matter what his position is concerning public schools, state services, and teacher issues. This is both a disturbing and depressing fact for most teachers and other state service providers, but it is a fact.
Everyone remember the two teachers in the "vote no" on SQ 779, TV ad? Like many other teachers, they believed there was a better way to fund teacher pay raises than raising the sales tax for working folks, and the legislature would soon find it. Mr. Downing, like most Anti-Tax Republicans, knows that only about 30% of teachers vote (BadVoter.org) and some of those who actually do vote, supported him (followthemoney.org). By the way, following the money trail can lead to some other very interesting conclusions as to who and which entities Mr. Downing answers to. The facts speak for themselves, whether one believes it's a good thing... or bad. A high ranking public school official even went so far as to say that Mr. Downing will bring meaningful solutions to the challenges we face in education, and not just colorful rhetoric (like me, I guess). Tim will support our teachers and stand with parents to fight for what really matters in our schools... I'm honored to support Tim Downing for state House. The same official may now have a change of mind, since she thanked those House members voting yes on the budget for a teacher pay raise. Then again, maybe not, since the same high ranking public school official has endorsed other anti-public school and anti-teacher candidates in the past, all while insulting public school candidates for office. Public school supporters remember the stand that public service supporter, Representative Corey Williams made last week, as he chided the Corporate House Speaker for trying to force a bad budget bill through the House. At one point, Mr. Williams turned to the House Speaker's Chief of Staff (who pulls in a $156,000 salary as the real "boss") and asked "How's oil and gas?", apparently emphasizing what many people already know.
Nonetheless, the same high ranking public school official who endorsed Tim Downing - endorsed Corey Williams' opponent, another public service hater.
So, the answer to the original question of why many legislators voted "no" on the budget plan which provided a $3,000 pay raise for teachers is simple - They know it probably won't hurt their re-election chances..
Update: Seven House members who voted "yes" on a previous budget bill which included sales tax increases on cigs, fuel, and beer (all regressive taxes), voted "no" on the recent budget bill. The only difference in the two budget bills, was that the 2nd one, voted last week, included a "gross production" tax increase, which taxes the wealthy and corporate at a rate equal to the poor and middle-income earners. Representative Bobby Cleveland of House District 20 is closest to my home, so I'll ask him - "Representative Cleveland - You voted 'yes' on the bill that increased regressive taxes, but 'no' on the bill that increased the gross production tax on oil and gas corporations - Why the switch?"... Many of your constituents are waiting for your answer...
Update: Bobby Cleveland has gone on the record as to his reasons for helping to exacerbate the state budget catastrophe - in the Norman Transcript. His reason for voting "no" is "corruption in a lot of state agencies". He then goes on to say that mental health, corrections, and ODOT are agencies exempt from his "corruption" claim, which leaves the State Department of Education as the only public service agency which may be corrupted, along with the Department of Tourism (headed by Lieutenant Governor Lamb) and one more. So, there's our answer as to why Cleveland voted "no", but he still hasn't answered as to why he voted "yes" on the first budget bill (same tax increases).
Update: Another reason that Corporate House members voted "No balanced budget" was that the "fix" was in. Conservative Republican Representative Leslie Osborn claimed that her fellow Republican House members (corporate only) had secretly met (sounds like the we hate girls club of the Little Rascals, only it's the we hate state service agencies club), to discuss which members would vote "yes" and which members would vote "no", while still ensuring the bill would fail. This conspiracy could explain why Dapper Dan, the House Speaker voted "yes", but several of his co-conspirators voted "no". Dapper Dan could then say "See, I'm not a minion of the oil overlords, because I said 'Eat this YES vote, overlords!" His fellow corporate cronies would then get the heat for choking our public service agencies...
Thursday, November 9, 2017
"Road Choice" - We want "our" roads fixed!
All my friends and some who don't really like me, know that I travel Highway 76 between Blanchard and Lindsay frequently. The stretch of roadway between Dibble and Lindsay was once one of the worst road surfaces in Oklahoma, but the Oklahoma Department of Transportation repaired or widened several miles of it over the last two years. The first two miles north out of Lindsay was repaired and widened, and the first three or four miles south out of Dibble was resurfaced.. but not widened. Unfortunately, the most dangerous section of roadway starting about three miles north of Lindsay and running about four or five miles, hasn't been touched in over forty years. It's the stretch where most fatal accidents have occurred over the years, because of its winding curves and narrow lanes. In addition, the shoulders of both lanes drop off abruptly, as much as one foot in some places - which has been the cause of many accidents.
Since I drive that stretch of HW 76 quite often, I felt obligated to be present at a meeting between the users of that road, an ODOT official, and the local state Representative at that time (2015). Since several Lindsay High School students and former students had been the victims of the sorry excuse for a road, a retired Lindsay school superintendent had arranged the "hearing". Each speaker had been negatively affected by the neglected stretch of road, some more than others, but all inquired about planned repairs and improvements. Many attendees wondered why "their tax dollars" weren't being used by ODOT to repair the highway they use most often. I wondered the same thing. Since the state Rep. present was sympathetic to her constituents plight, she answered many questions regarding this issue. The ODOT official stated that many repairs and improvements were planned for this highway, and laid out the timeline for completing the projects. In answer to one question about appropriate funding for completion of the projects, he said that "funding cuts" to ODOT would certainly limit completion of the projects. How right he was. Someone asked the District Rep if assistance to ODOT could be provided by the legislature. Obvious to everyone is the fact that our legislature provides financial support to all state service agencies, including ODOT, to provide essential services for Oklahomans. Our state Rep was asked if funding could be directed to these HW 76 projects - to which she replied "Certainly not, it is illegal for a legislator to direct funding toward specific projects." She is correct, and it is also illegal to "direct ODOT" to direct repairs and improvements to any specific road. The appropriate question for the Rep. should have been - Can you sponsor a bill which legalizes your office to direct "road improvement" funds to roads in our district (Garvin and McClain County)? We could call it "Road Choice" for Oklahoma tax payers, and you could direct public ODOT funds to Highway 76 between Lindsay and Dibble. After all, our tax dollars should go to improvements on roads that we use. You could model the "road choice" bill on all the "school choice" bills you've supported, because we know you believe in "directing public tax dollars" to corporate and private schools.
The district 42 Rep is no longer the same one that appeared in 2015, but we could always ask the new Rep., Tim Downing, if he could sponsor such a bill - to legalize the direction of public funding to his choice of roads, both public and private... After all,we pay taxes to have our roads repaired, so we should be able to use "our" tax dollars to repair "our" roads. Downing is a self-avowed fan of legalizing the "directing of public school funds to the corporate and private schools of his choice" and he supports the directing of county improvement for roads and bridges (CIRB) funding to help fill the state budget gap (which he helped create). I think it may be worth asking if he supports "road choice" just as he does "school choice".
Since I drive that stretch of HW 76 quite often, I felt obligated to be present at a meeting between the users of that road, an ODOT official, and the local state Representative at that time (2015). Since several Lindsay High School students and former students had been the victims of the sorry excuse for a road, a retired Lindsay school superintendent had arranged the "hearing". Each speaker had been negatively affected by the neglected stretch of road, some more than others, but all inquired about planned repairs and improvements. Many attendees wondered why "their tax dollars" weren't being used by ODOT to repair the highway they use most often. I wondered the same thing. Since the state Rep. present was sympathetic to her constituents plight, she answered many questions regarding this issue. The ODOT official stated that many repairs and improvements were planned for this highway, and laid out the timeline for completing the projects. In answer to one question about appropriate funding for completion of the projects, he said that "funding cuts" to ODOT would certainly limit completion of the projects. How right he was. Someone asked the District Rep if assistance to ODOT could be provided by the legislature. Obvious to everyone is the fact that our legislature provides financial support to all state service agencies, including ODOT, to provide essential services for Oklahomans. Our state Rep was asked if funding could be directed to these HW 76 projects - to which she replied "Certainly not, it is illegal for a legislator to direct funding toward specific projects." She is correct, and it is also illegal to "direct ODOT" to direct repairs and improvements to any specific road. The appropriate question for the Rep. should have been - Can you sponsor a bill which legalizes your office to direct "road improvement" funds to roads in our district (Garvin and McClain County)? We could call it "Road Choice" for Oklahoma tax payers, and you could direct public ODOT funds to Highway 76 between Lindsay and Dibble. After all, our tax dollars should go to improvements on roads that we use. You could model the "road choice" bill on all the "school choice" bills you've supported, because we know you believe in "directing public tax dollars" to corporate and private schools.
The district 42 Rep is no longer the same one that appeared in 2015, but we could always ask the new Rep., Tim Downing, if he could sponsor such a bill - to legalize the direction of public funding to his choice of roads, both public and private... After all,we pay taxes to have our roads repaired, so we should be able to use "our" tax dollars to repair "our" roads. Downing is a self-avowed fan of legalizing the "directing of public school funds to the corporate and private schools of his choice" and he supports the directing of county improvement for roads and bridges (CIRB) funding to help fill the state budget gap (which he helped create). I think it may be worth asking if he supports "road choice" just as he does "school choice".
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Corporate Charter Schools Hijacking Public Funds
While I realize I will ruffle the feathers of a few public school supporters by posting my analysis of "who's on first" or "just who is on which team", I think I'll post it anyway. Please bear in mind that it is just my opinion... based on solid evidence.
In a Tulsa World article by Andrea Eger on November 5, she uncovers possible evidence of collusion between the State Board of Education and State Department of Education, with the Oklahoma Public Charter School Association (OPCSA). She writes "A draft of a possible settlement in the statewide charter school associations lawsuit shows that the state Board of Education could have agreed to certain charter schools having new access to public dollars that currently only go to traditional public schools. Eger goes on to state "Charter schools say they are due an equal share of revenues from Oklahoma's gross production, motor vehicle, REA tax, state school land earnings, and county tax collections, which currently flow only to traditional public schools."
OK, so the charter school association, whose members are mostly out-of-state corporate charter schools, sued the state Board of Education (SBE) for more money, made up mostly of local and county tax collections. The collusion or conspiracy to acquire more local tax dollars for corporate charter schools is evident, as both parties (the SBE and the OPCSA) tried to keep the settlement secret, by denying its existence (lying). One hint of collusion or conspiracy (not the illegal kind) is to deny a relationship exists. When asked about the settlement, state education officials denied the existence of any such settlement agreement. Brad Clark, the SBE's attorney, said "What agreement?" when The Tulsa World asked him about the document. Steffie Corcoran, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, said "I did not know there was one". Then Clark interjected: "Not that I'm aware of. We're very perplexed." And then, after being shown the document, state education officials would not take questions...
My analysis of the facts of the charter school settlement:
The state Board of Education and State Department of Education officials believe it is always better to lie when asked about incriminating evidence of SBE collusion with corporate charter schools. If the deal is on the up and up, why not just speak the truth? There has been hints of SBE favoritism towards corporate charters all along though, as it overruled the Seminole local board in starting a corporate charter in Seminole last year. Even the State Department of Education supported the charter school takeover in Seminole, by voting against the local Seminole Board of Education. I don't care how you slice it, if the deal smells like a rat, it probably is a rat. And there probably is "a fox in the henhouse".
I'm now expecting to hear from all those public school supporters who truly believe the SBE and SDE support our traditional public schools. Please rationalize your objection to my opinion, though, as it will be easier for me to see the error in my thinking...
In a Tulsa World article by Andrea Eger on November 5, she uncovers possible evidence of collusion between the State Board of Education and State Department of Education, with the Oklahoma Public Charter School Association (OPCSA). She writes "A draft of a possible settlement in the statewide charter school associations lawsuit shows that the state Board of Education could have agreed to certain charter schools having new access to public dollars that currently only go to traditional public schools. Eger goes on to state "Charter schools say they are due an equal share of revenues from Oklahoma's gross production, motor vehicle, REA tax, state school land earnings, and county tax collections, which currently flow only to traditional public schools."
OK, so the charter school association, whose members are mostly out-of-state corporate charter schools, sued the state Board of Education (SBE) for more money, made up mostly of local and county tax collections. The collusion or conspiracy to acquire more local tax dollars for corporate charter schools is evident, as both parties (the SBE and the OPCSA) tried to keep the settlement secret, by denying its existence (lying). One hint of collusion or conspiracy (not the illegal kind) is to deny a relationship exists. When asked about the settlement, state education officials denied the existence of any such settlement agreement. Brad Clark, the SBE's attorney, said "What agreement?" when The Tulsa World asked him about the document. Steffie Corcoran, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, said "I did not know there was one". Then Clark interjected: "Not that I'm aware of. We're very perplexed." And then, after being shown the document, state education officials would not take questions...
My analysis of the facts of the charter school settlement:
The state Board of Education and State Department of Education officials believe it is always better to lie when asked about incriminating evidence of SBE collusion with corporate charter schools. If the deal is on the up and up, why not just speak the truth? There has been hints of SBE favoritism towards corporate charters all along though, as it overruled the Seminole local board in starting a corporate charter in Seminole last year. Even the State Department of Education supported the charter school takeover in Seminole, by voting against the local Seminole Board of Education. I don't care how you slice it, if the deal smells like a rat, it probably is a rat. And there probably is "a fox in the henhouse".
I'm now expecting to hear from all those public school supporters who truly believe the SBE and SDE support our traditional public schools. Please rationalize your objection to my opinion, though, as it will be easier for me to see the error in my thinking...
Thursday, November 2, 2017
The high school volleyball debacle
For years now, I've written about the "un-level" playing field that exists in the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) between Public and Private schools. Private schools enjoy unfair advantages provided by the OSSAA, when competing against public schools in all sports. These advantages afforded to private schools on the athletic field parallel those advantages provided by corporate lawmakers to private and corporate charter schools...which public schools don't have.
The advantages that private schools are allowed (by the OSSAA) are too numerous to mention all, but include the fact that private schools can recruit players, but public schools cannot; privates can offer scholarships (see LNH scholarship and work/study scholarships), but public schools cannot; private schools can control enrollment, public schools can't; private schools have superior athletic facilities, often paid for by corporate and wealthy supporters - while public school facilities are paid for by local taxpayers (not wealthy) or on the backs of hardworking sports boosters. All these advantages and more add up to create an un-level playing field in sports competition.
It's not sufficient to point at the success of individual private schools as a method for illustrating the imbalance or unfairness in private/public competition. For instance, while the number of state titles that Heritage Hall has won in all sports is astronomical (dozens), that in itself is not enough to indicate that since Heritage Hall is a private school, an un-level playing field exists, so it wins more games. As a matter of fact, private schools say they "win" more games than public schools do because they have superior coaches and their kids work harder than public school kids do.
We must analyze statistical data before any factual statements of indication are issued to be valid and reliable. Just saying "Heritage Hall wins, so it must cheat" is not valid and probably not true. Since the OSSAA will begin its high school football playoffs next Friday night, we can analyze some data and statistics, in order to issue an indication that the "playing field for private and public schools is un-level" or the "playing field is level". We won't be able to indicate what entity is responsible for any OSSAA discrepancies, whether it is the OSSAA or the private schools.
An examination of playoff teams, both private and public, may give us a clue to answer the question "Do private schools enjoy unfair advantages when competing with public schools?"
There are currently 18 private schools (approximately 5%) playing in the OSSAA and 320 public schools (approx. 95%). An estimated 14 private schools will make the playoffs (77% of total privates) while an estimated 108 public schools (34% of total publics) will. If there were no systemic factors present which affords private schools undue advantages in competition, the percentages should be roughly equal. The percentage datum is consistent with past years of play-off appearances also, which lends a high degree of reliability. In addition, for classes 4A and 5A - 100% of the private schools present will make the playoffs with McGuinness and Kelley in class 5A and Metro Christian, Heritage Hall, and Cascia Hall in 4A.
In perusing the OSSAA website for playoff competition, I've focused on football, since it is the H.S. sport closest to my heart. In taking a second look at another high school sport, volleyball - it seems private schools are even more dominant over the "more numerous" public schools. The discrepancies in competition between privates and public schools can not be ignored. Team volleyball season just concluded in Oklahoma, so the facts can now be analyzed:
1) There are 32 class 5A teams, 24 public school teams and 8 private school teams. Six private schools qualified for the 8 team state bracket, while 2 public schools qualified. Two private schools met in the finals, and a "private school" was crowned state champion.
2) There are 32 class 4A teams - 6 private and 26 public. Five of the eight state tournament qualifiers were private, with 2 privates meeting in the finals, again.
3) There are 28 class 3A teams in the state, 5 private and 23 public. All five private schools qualified for the state tournament, with once again... two privates meeting in the finals.
I guess the lesson learned for public schools is don't play volleyball.
In defense of the OSSAA - In attempting to level the playing field several years ago, it forced some private schools to move up one classification level if certain criteria were met. A few privates are now playing up a level, from 4A to 5A or from 3A to 4A. Metro, Heritage Hall, and Cascia Hall are playing in class 4A, but their enrollment dictates they play in 3A. Other private schools such as Bishop McGuinness, which was formerly playing in 4A, was going to 5A because the criteria was met for moving it up. It then increased its enrollment, so it now fits in 5A, regardless of any criteria. What happened as a result of the OSSAA's weak attempt to level the playing field, was what many public school supporters predicted: Those private schools which fit the OSSAA's criteria for leveling the playing field, simply "doubled down" on recruiting and scholarhips (work-studies) - so continue to dominate the public competition.
Update: Most everyone who keeps up with Oklahoma high school athletics is aware of the volleyball state tournament debacle which occurred last weekend. Evidently, the OSSAA assigned a private school, Victory Christian, to play in class 5A - when it should have been playing in class 4A. Victory Christian won the class 5A state title over Mount Saint Mary (another private school). I won't go into detail about why the debacle happened, because you can read it from a Daily Oklahoman sports writer in Tuesday's paper. This debacle just emphasizes the point of private school domination being allowed in the OSSAA... because of unfair advantages. The news article emphasized that Victory Christian school officials are just as culpable as the OSSAA as to which entity is guilty of the mistake. Many people believe that VC officials knew they were playing in the wrong class (5A), but did not care to correct the error, because they would win a class 5A title just as easily as a 4A title. It is more prestigious for a private school to win a title in a higher classification than a lower one. Claiming stupidity may be a valid excuse for the OSSAA to overlook the private school volleyball debacle, but VC officials can make no such claim. By the way, the state volleyball champions and runners-up were private schools in all classifications - Dominance created by your friendly neighborhood OSSAA.
Those public school advocates who continue to hope for a better OSSAA system for school sports classification - my opinion is that it will never happen in Oklahoma, as the OSSAA is afraid of being sued and many state lawmakers tend to favor private schools over public schools (even our rural lawmakers). The sad part is that many states have already adopted fair HS playoff systems, but OK never will.
The advantages that private schools are allowed (by the OSSAA) are too numerous to mention all, but include the fact that private schools can recruit players, but public schools cannot; privates can offer scholarships (see LNH scholarship and work/study scholarships), but public schools cannot; private schools can control enrollment, public schools can't; private schools have superior athletic facilities, often paid for by corporate and wealthy supporters - while public school facilities are paid for by local taxpayers (not wealthy) or on the backs of hardworking sports boosters. All these advantages and more add up to create an un-level playing field in sports competition.
It's not sufficient to point at the success of individual private schools as a method for illustrating the imbalance or unfairness in private/public competition. For instance, while the number of state titles that Heritage Hall has won in all sports is astronomical (dozens), that in itself is not enough to indicate that since Heritage Hall is a private school, an un-level playing field exists, so it wins more games. As a matter of fact, private schools say they "win" more games than public schools do because they have superior coaches and their kids work harder than public school kids do.
We must analyze statistical data before any factual statements of indication are issued to be valid and reliable. Just saying "Heritage Hall wins, so it must cheat" is not valid and probably not true. Since the OSSAA will begin its high school football playoffs next Friday night, we can analyze some data and statistics, in order to issue an indication that the "playing field for private and public schools is un-level" or the "playing field is level". We won't be able to indicate what entity is responsible for any OSSAA discrepancies, whether it is the OSSAA or the private schools.
An examination of playoff teams, both private and public, may give us a clue to answer the question "Do private schools enjoy unfair advantages when competing with public schools?"
There are currently 18 private schools (approximately 5%) playing in the OSSAA and 320 public schools (approx. 95%). An estimated 14 private schools will make the playoffs (77% of total privates) while an estimated 108 public schools (34% of total publics) will. If there were no systemic factors present which affords private schools undue advantages in competition, the percentages should be roughly equal. The percentage datum is consistent with past years of play-off appearances also, which lends a high degree of reliability. In addition, for classes 4A and 5A - 100% of the private schools present will make the playoffs with McGuinness and Kelley in class 5A and Metro Christian, Heritage Hall, and Cascia Hall in 4A.
In perusing the OSSAA website for playoff competition, I've focused on football, since it is the H.S. sport closest to my heart. In taking a second look at another high school sport, volleyball - it seems private schools are even more dominant over the "more numerous" public schools. The discrepancies in competition between privates and public schools can not be ignored. Team volleyball season just concluded in Oklahoma, so the facts can now be analyzed:
1) There are 32 class 5A teams, 24 public school teams and 8 private school teams. Six private schools qualified for the 8 team state bracket, while 2 public schools qualified. Two private schools met in the finals, and a "private school" was crowned state champion.
2) There are 32 class 4A teams - 6 private and 26 public. Five of the eight state tournament qualifiers were private, with 2 privates meeting in the finals, again.
3) There are 28 class 3A teams in the state, 5 private and 23 public. All five private schools qualified for the state tournament, with once again... two privates meeting in the finals.
I guess the lesson learned for public schools is don't play volleyball.
In defense of the OSSAA - In attempting to level the playing field several years ago, it forced some private schools to move up one classification level if certain criteria were met. A few privates are now playing up a level, from 4A to 5A or from 3A to 4A. Metro, Heritage Hall, and Cascia Hall are playing in class 4A, but their enrollment dictates they play in 3A. Other private schools such as Bishop McGuinness, which was formerly playing in 4A, was going to 5A because the criteria was met for moving it up. It then increased its enrollment, so it now fits in 5A, regardless of any criteria. What happened as a result of the OSSAA's weak attempt to level the playing field, was what many public school supporters predicted: Those private schools which fit the OSSAA's criteria for leveling the playing field, simply "doubled down" on recruiting and scholarhips (work-studies) - so continue to dominate the public competition.
Update: Most everyone who keeps up with Oklahoma high school athletics is aware of the volleyball state tournament debacle which occurred last weekend. Evidently, the OSSAA assigned a private school, Victory Christian, to play in class 5A - when it should have been playing in class 4A. Victory Christian won the class 5A state title over Mount Saint Mary (another private school). I won't go into detail about why the debacle happened, because you can read it from a Daily Oklahoman sports writer in Tuesday's paper. This debacle just emphasizes the point of private school domination being allowed in the OSSAA... because of unfair advantages. The news article emphasized that Victory Christian school officials are just as culpable as the OSSAA as to which entity is guilty of the mistake. Many people believe that VC officials knew they were playing in the wrong class (5A), but did not care to correct the error, because they would win a class 5A title just as easily as a 4A title. It is more prestigious for a private school to win a title in a higher classification than a lower one. Claiming stupidity may be a valid excuse for the OSSAA to overlook the private school volleyball debacle, but VC officials can make no such claim. By the way, the state volleyball champions and runners-up were private schools in all classifications - Dominance created by your friendly neighborhood OSSAA.
Those public school advocates who continue to hope for a better OSSAA system for school sports classification - my opinion is that it will never happen in Oklahoma, as the OSSAA is afraid of being sued and many state lawmakers tend to favor private schools over public schools (even our rural lawmakers). The sad part is that many states have already adopted fair HS playoff systems, but OK never will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)