Current Events Thread

[WTSooner]

the waste is the number of districts and overhead

This.

And principals aren't working 60 hours a week. I'm tired of this narrative. I have family that are teachers, counselors, etc. The notion that they are working 60 hours of week, with any kind of consistency, is nonsense.

And even if they are, they don't work 12 months a year. So if you circle back and look at what they are making per hour worked, it's still a solid number in most cases. But none of this was my point. Teachers could earn more, without more money being thrown at education, if the districts and those running the districts would get together and cut excess spending and overhead. It's ANOTHER example of why I hate the idea of Government running much of ANYTHING. They can't do it. They've shown that.

 

[sheepdogs1]

It’s not just the equipment. It’s the time to practice, the place & fees to practice, the private instructor, the means make sure you can see this through for as long as you want.

I believe setting a good example triumphs over the money involved. I believe the families you speak of who have children, which do well in the educational system, has more to do with the good example being set than access to wealth.

Tiger Woods has a vast amount of wealth such that he could afford any swing instructor. He chose Sean Foley. Sean is a proponent of right lateral bend and strong rotation through the downswing. Say hello to back injuries!. It about crippled Tiger. Tiger could have paid much less for a much better example. There are no substitutes to good examples.

 

[BCSooners]

This.

And principals aren't working 60 hours a week. I'm tired of this narrative. I have family that are teachers, counselors, etc. The notion that they are working 60 hours of week, with any kind of consistency, is nonsense.

And even if they are, they don't work 12 months a year. So if you circle back and look at what they are making per hour worked, it's still a solid number in most cases. But none of this was my point. Teachers could earn more, without more money being thrown at education, if the districts and those running the districts would get together and cut excess spending and overhead. It's ANOTHER example of why I hate the idea of Government running much of ANYTHING. They can't do it. They've shown that.

Yes they are, 45 hrs in school & 10-20 outside of school that they have to attend. Teachers take papers home to work, most are head of activities as well.

Principals & superintendents work 12 months a yea because they are contracted to do so. Teachers work 9 months because that’s what they are paid to do. We also have to attend so many hours of professional development, keep our classes & curriculum updated throughout the summer.

I’m not just talking about teacher salary(which is $21/hr & 17/hr if you coach). I’m talking about the funding to improve the resources teachers & other faculty can use to improve the child’s education. Also the restrictions on what a teacher can cover & the requirements for better funding is ridiculous.

You keep saying excess spending, where is that specifically?

 

[BCSooners]

I believe setting a good example triumphs over the money involved. I believe the families you speak of who have children, which do well in the educational system, has more to do with the good example being set than access to wealth.

The school can’t dictate the example being set at home. So why punish the schools for that?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I can get on board with the number of districts. But even in those smallest of districts the superintendent is also a principal, teaches 2 classes, & coaches a team or 2.

I see teachers & administrators wearing more hats than they should, it’s hard for me to see the waste y’all are talking about to justify the cuts being made.

I'm not trying to justify the cuts. I don't think cutting education funding should happen

 

[sheepdogs1]

The school can’t dictate the example being set at home. So why punish the schools for that?

And I completely agree, but the school system alone is not going to make up for the void witnessed by children at their respective homes. Responsibility leads to good examples being set. It is too much to ask for the education system to overcome. If you want to witness dramatic changes then people themselves have to change dramatically.

 

[BCSooners]

And I completely agree, but the school system alone is not going to make up for the void witnessed by children at their respective homes. Responsibility leads to good examples being set. It is too much to ask for the education system to overcome. If you want to witness dramatic changes then people themselves have to change dramatically.

The educational system can help the circumstances for some to change the cycle of a family. In order to do that more often better schools, resources, programs, & teachers need to be in place. Getting this accomplished requires better funding.

It starts at home, but if the schools are able to pick up some of that slack then then we should quit hindering that aspect.

 

[thebigabd]

And I completely agree, but the school system alone is not going to make up for the void witnessed by children at their respective homes. Responsibility leads to good examples being set. It is too much to ask for the education system to overcome. If you want to witness dramatic changes then people themselves have to change dramatically.

You are still dodging the main issue.... The school conditions are a symptom of the disease, and the situation at home you are describing is also a symptom of the disease. You have to fix the economic conditions and underlying problems.

You, and most other people, to be fair to you, can't seem to come to the realization that the economic situation IS the problem. It is the disease.

As I said before, all roads lead to poverty, despair, and hopelessness.

You can't fix these other things, including the family you are talking about, without addressing it.... The GDP, the DOW, etc aren't saving people. The basic fundamentals are problematic.. 42% of the country makes less than $15 an hour... 70% of the country has basically no net worth... Nearly 80% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck... 50,000 people per year kill themselves... 1 in 5 are on antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications to keep from snapping... 13% of the population meets criteria as being an alcoholic... 1 in 3 black men will spend time in jail.... We have the most people in jail.... the most people on drugs...

There are FUNDAMENTAL problems here... You can't fix the rest of this stuff without fixing the foundation.

Trying to tell impoverished families that they need to be better parents isn't the answer... I wish it was, but it's not. You have to fix the poverty, the stress, the pressure, etc.

 

[Eielson]

It’s not just the equipment. It’s the time to practice, the place & fees to practice, the private instructor, the means make sure you can see this through for as long as you want.

I'll admit that I haven't read much of this conversation, but I wanted to comment that I don't think equipment is anywhere near as important as most people make it out to be. Most classes would not be affected much by the compete removal of textbooks. Only a handful of courses (math, physics, etc) use textbooks extensively, and for the most part, textbooks that are outdated by 10-15 years are perfectly fine. Sure, certain areas in the field of medicine can be completely flipped on their head over the course of 10-15 years, but the same can't be said about basic sciences (and certainly not algebra). There are a few topics that may need to be introduced, but a good teacher can easily make a lesson plan for a few days without a textbook. Furthermore, a chalkboard or one of those cheap overhead projectors is just fine for lecturing -- state of the art technology is not.

Which brings us to a more important topic -- good teachers. Teacher pay is huge. As far as I know, though, there are financial incentives to going to poorer school districts. I have several teachers in my family, and I know some of them have gone to lower income school districts for the loan forgiveness. Further increases in teacher funding to keep teachers from having to teach more than 2-3 different curriculum would be reasonable as well.

I think the school district you grow up in makes a huge difference in the outlook of your life, but I think a lot of the issues start in the home. There's no substitute for a stable home with two parents who take a personal interest in your education. That obviously doesn't negate the need to optimize the school system, but I think school system money is only part of the issue, and probably not the majority of the issue.

The learning environment can't be fixed by just money. Even if you had the nicest building with state of the art technology and the newest textbooks, that only goes so far in changing the environment. I had a friend that went to a school designed for those that excel in math/science, and he said that the most important thing that did was place him in an environment where it was perfectly acceptable to be taking calculus as a freshman and spend all day studying. At other schools those kids may have been made fun of or felt out a place for that. No matter what happens in the school, I don't think you can create that environment until you fixes issues in the home.

I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I think it's reasonable to wonder if any amount of money can fix those districts. Perhaps the best solution is to make it easy for those with the motivation to get out of those districts rather than sink boatloads of cash into a sinking ship. Perhaps they could find a few great teachers and give them a 10-20K bump in pay to set up AP tracks for students in low-income districts (to make a good environment for learning within a larger environment that is not).

I'm going to stop now, because I'm probably starting to ramble. It's a topic that interests me, and is undoubtedly one of the more important topics in this country currently. Poor school districts certainly could benefit greatly from a little bit of money. I just think that the issuses start in the home, which isn't something the government can regulate very effectively. Certainly a very complex issue.

 

[WTSooner]

You have to fix the economic conditions and underlying problems.

Who's responsibility is that? Why can some in those conditions fix the problem themselves, while other's can't? Aren't there a BUNCH of social programs and things out there with the very intent of helping these people fix their situation?

I got bad mouthed on here a few weeks ago for suggesting some of these folks have no desire to put out much of any effort to better themselves and their lives. You say the family life at home is a symptom, I say it's the root cause.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Who's responsibility is that? Why can some in those conditions fix the problem themselves, while other's can't? Aren't there a BUNCH of social programs and things out there with the very intent of helping these people fix their situation?

I got bad mouthed on here a few weeks ago for suggesting some of these folks have no desire to put out much of any effort to better themselves and their lives. You say the family life at home is a symptom, I say it's the root cause.

And two income families is more likely a way of reducing poverty than parents being strangers to each other and creating two distinct households in poverty in the process.

 

[BCSooners]

I'll admit that I haven't read much of this conversation, but I wanted to comment that I don't think equipment is anywhere near as important as most people make it out to be. Most classes would not be affected much by the compete removal of textbooks. Only a handful of courses (math, physics, etc) use textbooks extensively, and for the most part, textbooks that are outdated by 10-15 years are perfectly fine. Sure, certain areas in the field of medicine can be completely flipped on their head over the course of 10-15 years, but the same can't be said about basic sciences (and certainly not algebra). There are a few topics that may need to be introduced, but a good teacher can easily make a lesson plan for a few days without a textbook. Furthermore, a chalkboard or one of those cheap overhead projectors is just fine for lecturing -- state of the art technology is not.

Which brings us to a more important topic -- good teachers. Teacher pay is huge. As far as I know, though, there are financial incentives to going to poorer school districts. I have several teachers in my family, and I know some of them have gone to lower income school districts for the loan forgiveness. Further increases in teacher funding to keep teachers from having to teach more than 2-3 different curriculum would be reasonable as well.

I think the school district you grow up in makes a huge difference in the outlook of your life, but I think a lot of the issues start in the home. There's no substitute for a stable home with two parents who take a personal interest in your education. That obviously doesn't negate the need to optimize the school system, but I think school system money is only part of the issue, and probably not the majority of the issue.

The learning environment can't be fixed by just money. Even if you had the nicest building with state of the art technology and the newest textbooks, that only goes so far in changing the environment. I had a friend that went to a school designed for those that excel in math/science, and he said that the most important thing that did was place him in an environment where it was perfectly acceptable to be taking calculus as a freshman and spend all day studying. At other schools those kids may have been made fun of or felt out a place for that. No matter what happens in the school, I don't think you can create that environment until you fixes issues in the home.

I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I think it's reasonable to wonder if any amount of money can fix those districts. Perhaps the best solution is to make it easy for those with the motivation to get out of those districts rather than sink boatloads of cash into a sinking ship. Perhaps they could find a few great teachers and give them a 10-20K bump in pay to set up AP tracks for students in low-income districts (to make a good environment for learning within a larger environment that is not).

I'm going to stop now, because I'm probably starting to ramble. It's a topic that interests me, and is undoubtedly one of the more important topics in this country currently. Poor school districts certainly could benefit greatly from a little bit of money. I just think that the issuses start in the home, which isn't something the government can regulate very effectively. Certainly a very complex issue.

Good post. I’m going to address some of the comments, so I’ll probably be all over the place.

I agree a lot of classes can be taught without or limited use of textbooks, but I see 2 issues: 1) funding to provide proper resources to be able to use active learning throughout the year. 2) our state uses standardized testing performance to help determine how much funding a school gets, this is why most core subjects “teach to the test”.

Also those that do use textbooks, I teach high school math. I have textbooks from the 1980s. Even though math rarely changes, my textbook doesn’t have a blend of ACT questions, additional hands on activities that are lesson appropriate (which I can rarely do because of “teaching to the test”). I used all online sources this year, but all had to be the free versions. So I had to make my own reviews, tests, test retakes, and additional sources for those that needed extra practice.

Increased funding doesn’t mean state of the art equipment. I was using that to combat Sheep’s golf analogy. Extra funding would be better shop classes, technology classes, library additions, & hiring more teachers to allow a broader range of electives.

Without even touching the massive economical disparities & family values, improving education across the board will get more kids to a higher level than they previously would’ve been in. This would periodically turn the tide to having better schools naturally by improving individuals education and standard of living.

 

[BCSooners]

And two income families is more likely a way of reducing poverty than parents being strangers to each other and creating two distinct households in poverty in the process.

Or harsher penalties for parents not contributing monetarily to their estranged child’s lives.

 

[thebigabd]

Hey guys.... great stuff here. These are great conversations. Regardless of your position, glad we are here talking about things.

I bet we actually learn a little bit from one another... Always good to see multiple perspectives.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

something else to think about...how much does educating one pupil cost the state? I am guessing it is way more than any voucher.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Hey guys.... great stuff here. These are great conversations. Regardless of your position, glad we are here talking about things.

I bet we actually learn a little bit from one another... Always good to see multiple perspectives.

You could call it a "Cybil" discussion (I know I'm a funny guy).

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Pretty good article here as well

https://oklahomawatch.org/2019/02/11/when-it-comes-to-education-funding-whos-right/

 

[WTSooner]

One of the cops that was shot in Tulsa a day or so ago passed away. Sad deal. Hope the guy that did the shooting gets what he deserves.

 

[BCSooners]

One of the cops that was shot in Tulsa a day or so ago passed away. Sad deal. Hope the guy that did the shooting gets what he deserves.

Yes I hope so, just like I hope the cops who killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, etc. get what they deserve.

 

[BCSooners]

something else to think about...how much does educating one pupil cost the state? I am guessing it is way more than any voucher.

It’s not the same money being used. It’s allowing more tax credits to donors of scholarships for private schools. The donor then gets to have an input on who gets the scholarship. The fear is that enough vouchers would just essentially lower the cost to go to private schools for the kids already attending them.