The Interim Study (Competitive Equity in the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association) for the Senate Education Committee is shaping up to be very competitive. On one side will be traditional public school advocates who believe in competitive equity for all OSSAA member schools, and the other side will feature an OSSAA representative who believes in the status quo for member schools. The "status quo" is a failed Rule 14 for providing competitive equity in the OSSAA. Groups are already aligning with one side or the other, as the Daily Oklahoman and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) has come down squarely on the side of the OSSAA - and most coaches, parents, and public school officials are siding with the traditional public school advocates.
What is also interesting is that the two main presenters representing each side are from the same town, Blanchard. As a matter of fact, both know each other very well, and will probably offer opposing viewpoints. There should be many facts presented that the Senators may ask questions, but to know for sure - one must attend, as it's an open meeting. Those who believe competitive equity should be provided by the OSSAA will present first, followed by the OSSAA rebuttal. No rebuttal will be allowed by the traditional public school supporters. Anyone wishing to attend the interim study - It will be held on Tuesday, September 11 at 2:30 PM in room 535 at the state capitol. By the way, presenting for the OSSAA will be Mike Whaley, Assistant Executive Director, and resident of Blanchard.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
The swamp is draining
The headlines in the Daily Oklahoman say it best: "Challengers rout six incumbent lawmakers from office". The swamp of corporate lawmakers is starting to drain, but the final drop will not be dried up until the general elections in November. The teacher coalition of state candidates has gashed the titanic coalition of corporate candidates as six were removed from office during the primary last spring, and six more incumbents lost on Tuesday night. Among the losers were swamp dwellers Jeff Coody, who implied that teachers walking out for adequate pay were extortionists; Bobby Cleveland, who said teachers protesting at the capitol should return to class, rather than fill the capitol for more education funding, and that the state should do away with Pre-K; and Tess Teague who also detests traditional public schools and teachers.
While this is a very good start for teachers and traditional public school supporters, the job is not finished. Several traditional public school candidates such as John Cox for state superintendent, and Liz George for House District 42, will face foes in the November general elections. Those supporters of the six candidates who ousted the corporate swamp incumbents should now look to November - and complete the draining...
While this is a very good start for teachers and traditional public school supporters, the job is not finished. Several traditional public school candidates such as John Cox for state superintendent, and Liz George for House District 42, will face foes in the November general elections. Those supporters of the six candidates who ousted the corporate swamp incumbents should now look to November - and complete the draining...
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Interim Study - High school sports divisions
The Senate interim study on the competitive inequity generated by advantages that some public and private high school sports teams have over others, has been set. It has been scheduled by the chair of the Senate Education Committee for September 11, 2:30 PM, at the state capitol. We will discuss the need for re-classification of OSSAA member schools based on competitive inequities present among school sports teams. We are inviting all interested stakeholders (coaches, teachers, administrators, parents, students) to attend, as it will be an open meeting. Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee is the traditional public school advocate who has sponsored this study.
Competitive equalization (a level playing field) for all OSSAA member schools is a priority for many of our Oklahoma public schools, especially our rural and suburban schools. We will be be providing evidence that the "bump-up" clause of Rule 14 has not been effective for "competitive balance" in the OSSAA. We further believe it is in the public interest for the Oklahoma State Legislature to protect the public interest by enacting legislation which will effectively balance the playing field for all OSSAA member schools.
In addition to the evidence that some member schools utilize unfair advantages to succeed (at the expense of other member schools), we will provide a re-classification plan which will be effective for "leveling the playing field". All stakeholders are welcome and encouraged to attend the Senate Education Committee meeting on Tuesday, September 11, at 2:30 PM.
Update: The interim study will probably be held in room 535 at the state capitol. It can seat approximately 150, but has "standing room" also. If "traditional public school advocates" would like a seat, they need to arrive early to observe the proceedings.
Update: August 22, 2018 - Those in attendance will not be able to question or critique the presentation or data. If one has a question for any speaker, please contact your local Senator (if he or she is on the Senate Education Committee) ahead of September 11, and have her (or him) ask the question...
Update: August 23, 2018 - I continue to stand amazed that several traditional public school advocates (and I truly believe they are advocates) continue to believe that "privatizing" public schools threatens education, but cannot or will not see the similarities between vouchers and scholarships. Vouchers to private schools and privately managed charter schools means turning public money (tax dollars) over to corporations and entrepreneurs or religious schools. Vouchers to private schools and "selective" charter schools in the form of student financial assistance and scholarships is the same thing.
We cannot draw the line between vouchers and "athletic" scholarships when advocating for our traditional public schools, or we cannot win this battle for public schools in general.
Update: August 27, 2018 - I think it bears repeating at this point that the Senate Interim Study will be held on Tuesday, September 11, from 2:30 to 4:30 at the state capitol. This is an open meeting for the discussion of competitive equity for OSSAA member schools, although not everyone in attendance will be allowed to comment. The list of speakers has been sent to the Senate Education Committee, but all those advocates for competitive equity in the OSSAA are urged to attend. Even those who believe this issue is a "canard" are welcome to hear the facts as presented.
Update: August 28, 2018 - We will be doing a Mitchell Talks (the new media) commentary sometime next week concerning competitive equity in the OSSAA. We'll keep everyone informed through this blog as to the time of broadcast...
Update: August 31, 2018 - Mike Whaley, Associate Executive Director of the OSSAA, has been assigned the task of responding to the data and analysis when considering competitive equity for all members. Whaley will take the place of David Jackson, Executive Director, who will be out of town on September 11. Mr. Whaley will probably defend the status quo, Rule 14, for providing competitive equity.
Update: Sept. 4, 2018 - The reasons provided by the OSSAA for not providing competitive equity for all members are: 1) Those schools which provide student financial assistance and/or limit enrollment cannot be provided competition, unless traditional public schools are forced to play them. This reasoning for opposing all competitive equity plans is a "canard", as all submitted plans allow SFA schools to continue scheduling traditional public schools.
2) Allowing SFA and SA schools to play-off for state titles separate from TP schools will "water-down" the classifications. Many other state athletic organizations already separate TP schools from SFA/SA schools for state play-off competion. The OSSAA has already watered down class-6A by dividing it into two 16 team divisions, so is not adverse to the watering-down issue. Also, each traditional school classification may still have as many as 50 teams competing for state titles under all competitive equity plans considered, so the "water-down" concern by the OSSAA is also a "canard".
3) The OSSAA will be sued if it allows the membership to vote on a competitive equity plan. This is the "elephant in the room" and probably the one and only reason the OSSAA has thwarted all attempts to provide competitive equity for all members.
Update: Monday, September 10 - Tomorrow is the day the Senate Education Committee will hear evidence of competitive inequity for members of the OSSAA. OSSAA officials have already acknowledged this perceived imbalance for all members, but continue to stonewall and delay any effective plan for leveling the playing field. Since this blocking has continued for over three decades - the Oklahoma State Senate now gets to weigh in on the matter. The Interim Study is an open meeting, so all interested parties are welcome.
Jim Beckham, Ph.D.
Blanchard Public Schools
Competitive equalization (a level playing field) for all OSSAA member schools is a priority for many of our Oklahoma public schools, especially our rural and suburban schools. We will be be providing evidence that the "bump-up" clause of Rule 14 has not been effective for "competitive balance" in the OSSAA. We further believe it is in the public interest for the Oklahoma State Legislature to protect the public interest by enacting legislation which will effectively balance the playing field for all OSSAA member schools.
In addition to the evidence that some member schools utilize unfair advantages to succeed (at the expense of other member schools), we will provide a re-classification plan which will be effective for "leveling the playing field". All stakeholders are welcome and encouraged to attend the Senate Education Committee meeting on Tuesday, September 11, at 2:30 PM.
Update: The interim study will probably be held in room 535 at the state capitol. It can seat approximately 150, but has "standing room" also. If "traditional public school advocates" would like a seat, they need to arrive early to observe the proceedings.
Update: August 22, 2018 - Those in attendance will not be able to question or critique the presentation or data. If one has a question for any speaker, please contact your local Senator (if he or she is on the Senate Education Committee) ahead of September 11, and have her (or him) ask the question...
Update: August 23, 2018 - I continue to stand amazed that several traditional public school advocates (and I truly believe they are advocates) continue to believe that "privatizing" public schools threatens education, but cannot or will not see the similarities between vouchers and scholarships. Vouchers to private schools and privately managed charter schools means turning public money (tax dollars) over to corporations and entrepreneurs or religious schools. Vouchers to private schools and "selective" charter schools in the form of student financial assistance and scholarships is the same thing.
We cannot draw the line between vouchers and "athletic" scholarships when advocating for our traditional public schools, or we cannot win this battle for public schools in general.
Update: August 27, 2018 - I think it bears repeating at this point that the Senate Interim Study will be held on Tuesday, September 11, from 2:30 to 4:30 at the state capitol. This is an open meeting for the discussion of competitive equity for OSSAA member schools, although not everyone in attendance will be allowed to comment. The list of speakers has been sent to the Senate Education Committee, but all those advocates for competitive equity in the OSSAA are urged to attend. Even those who believe this issue is a "canard" are welcome to hear the facts as presented.
Update: August 28, 2018 - We will be doing a Mitchell Talks (the new media) commentary sometime next week concerning competitive equity in the OSSAA. We'll keep everyone informed through this blog as to the time of broadcast...
Update: August 31, 2018 - Mike Whaley, Associate Executive Director of the OSSAA, has been assigned the task of responding to the data and analysis when considering competitive equity for all members. Whaley will take the place of David Jackson, Executive Director, who will be out of town on September 11. Mr. Whaley will probably defend the status quo, Rule 14, for providing competitive equity.
Update: Sept. 4, 2018 - The reasons provided by the OSSAA for not providing competitive equity for all members are: 1) Those schools which provide student financial assistance and/or limit enrollment cannot be provided competition, unless traditional public schools are forced to play them. This reasoning for opposing all competitive equity plans is a "canard", as all submitted plans allow SFA schools to continue scheduling traditional public schools.
2) Allowing SFA and SA schools to play-off for state titles separate from TP schools will "water-down" the classifications. Many other state athletic organizations already separate TP schools from SFA/SA schools for state play-off competion. The OSSAA has already watered down class-6A by dividing it into two 16 team divisions, so is not adverse to the watering-down issue. Also, each traditional school classification may still have as many as 50 teams competing for state titles under all competitive equity plans considered, so the "water-down" concern by the OSSAA is also a "canard".
3) The OSSAA will be sued if it allows the membership to vote on a competitive equity plan. This is the "elephant in the room" and probably the one and only reason the OSSAA has thwarted all attempts to provide competitive equity for all members.
Update: Monday, September 10 - Tomorrow is the day the Senate Education Committee will hear evidence of competitive inequity for members of the OSSAA. OSSAA officials have already acknowledged this perceived imbalance for all members, but continue to stonewall and delay any effective plan for leveling the playing field. Since this blocking has continued for over three decades - the Oklahoma State Senate now gets to weigh in on the matter. The Interim Study is an open meeting, so all interested parties are welcome.
Jim Beckham, Ph.D.
Blanchard Public Schools
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Where is the real waste of taxpayer dollars? Traditional Public schools... or virtual charters?
We should re-examine some expenditure data in a previous article to really determine which type of school wastes more taxpayer dollars. The "Sideshow Bob" charter school advocates often say that traditional public schools waste taxpayer dollars by spending an extraordinary amount of money for administrative functions... but fail to provide the evidence.
When the 2015-2016 expenditure data for a typical virtual charter school was examined and compared to expenditure data for a typical traditional public school - the results were startling: The traditional public school with 2,000 students spent a total $18,530,236 during the 2015-2016 school year. Of this total expenditure, $522,296 was spent for administrative functions (OCAS 2300 and 2500) or 2.8%. The typical virtual charter with 1,100 students spent a total of $6,498,538 during the 2015-2016 school year, with $1,120,867 coded to administrative functions - or 17.2%.
A more detailed examination of the two schools' administrative spending reveals some stark differences as well. The administrative costs for the traditional school was broken down into 93 categories. The 93 separate expenditures included such state or federal requirements as Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, and County Revaluation Services. All 93 administrative expenditure categories totaled $522,296!
The virtual charter's administrative spending was codified in only 11 categories totaling $1,120,867, in stark contrast to the traditional school's microscopically detailed coding. What was very interesting is that more than half ($672,414) was coded to Administrative Services! It's anyone's guess as to what Administrative Services the taxpayer dollars was spent?
Traditional public school advocates should be outraged by the deception and outright lies provided to Oklahomans, as the facts speak for themselves. The question about which type of public school wastes taxpayer dollars can now be answered, so the questions now become "Just who are these virtual school advocates who call for traditional public school consolidation and advocate for more tax dollars going to charter schools? And who are the "enabling public officials?"...
When the 2015-2016 expenditure data for a typical virtual charter school was examined and compared to expenditure data for a typical traditional public school - the results were startling: The traditional public school with 2,000 students spent a total $18,530,236 during the 2015-2016 school year. Of this total expenditure, $522,296 was spent for administrative functions (OCAS 2300 and 2500) or 2.8%. The typical virtual charter with 1,100 students spent a total of $6,498,538 during the 2015-2016 school year, with $1,120,867 coded to administrative functions - or 17.2%.
A more detailed examination of the two schools' administrative spending reveals some stark differences as well. The administrative costs for the traditional school was broken down into 93 categories. The 93 separate expenditures included such state or federal requirements as Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, and County Revaluation Services. All 93 administrative expenditure categories totaled $522,296!
The virtual charter's administrative spending was codified in only 11 categories totaling $1,120,867, in stark contrast to the traditional school's microscopically detailed coding. What was very interesting is that more than half ($672,414) was coded to Administrative Services! It's anyone's guess as to what Administrative Services the taxpayer dollars was spent?
Traditional public school advocates should be outraged by the deception and outright lies provided to Oklahomans, as the facts speak for themselves. The question about which type of public school wastes taxpayer dollars can now be answered, so the questions now become "Just who are these virtual school advocates who call for traditional public school consolidation and advocate for more tax dollars going to charter schools? And who are the "enabling public officials?"...
The End Game for Pyramid Schemers
We've taken a look in a previous article at how State Question 801 - the state question, if affirmed by voters, would allow traditional public schools to use Building Fund monies to pay teacher salaries and other operational costs - may be a starter bill for allowing charter schools to acquire local ad valorem revenue. As the Gold Dust Twins, Petrilli and Northern (two out-of-state charter school advocates), lament in "... charter school deserts" - Oklahoma can enact legislation that makes charter funding more equitable. An understanding of the GD Twin's statement doesn't imply that that SQ 801 or SJR 70 (Bice's bill), if enacted, would allow charter schools to access local building fund monies. Presently, no charter schools, virtual or otherwise, has access to local ad valorem (property tax) revenue. Charter schools only receive state funds, in the form of state aid, which primarily originate from sales and income taxation. Local Building Fund monies is the revenue referred to by the GD (gold digger) Twins when "virtually" saying that "charter school funding is not fair".
Many charter schools have no buildings or classrooms because their teachers and students work virtually, from home or other private/public facility. As a consequence of having no buildings, they are provided no Building Fund revenue for upkeep and maintenance. They have no use for Building Funds - unless Building Fund monies are made operational!
The 'end-game' for virtual charter school advocates is for legislation that provides more local money to charter schools - by allowing them access to ad valorem revenue. Virtual charter schools and others must have state lawmakers and elected officials on board for fronting such legislation, and know that "money talks" when convincing targeted lawmakers that "everyone wins" in such a scenario.
State Question 801 is not the bill which will provide Building Fund revenue to charter schools, but if Building funds are made operational, look for poor traditional schools and charter schools to clamor for a piece of the pie. The follow-up bill to SJR 70 and SQ 801 will be to merge the local Building Fund with the state General Fund, so that charter schools may access local ad valorem dollars. Once Building Fund monies are made a part of state aid, virtual charters and others will reap a bonanza. It's the end-game...
Many charter schools have no buildings or classrooms because their teachers and students work virtually, from home or other private/public facility. As a consequence of having no buildings, they are provided no Building Fund revenue for upkeep and maintenance. They have no use for Building Funds - unless Building Fund monies are made operational!
The 'end-game' for virtual charter school advocates is for legislation that provides more local money to charter schools - by allowing them access to ad valorem revenue. Virtual charter schools and others must have state lawmakers and elected officials on board for fronting such legislation, and know that "money talks" when convincing targeted lawmakers that "everyone wins" in such a scenario.
State Question 801 is not the bill which will provide Building Fund revenue to charter schools, but if Building funds are made operational, look for poor traditional schools and charter schools to clamor for a piece of the pie. The follow-up bill to SJR 70 and SQ 801 will be to merge the local Building Fund with the state General Fund, so that charter schools may access local ad valorem dollars. Once Building Fund monies are made a part of state aid, virtual charters and others will reap a bonanza. It's the end-game...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)