Oklahoma Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
?
?
Re: SQ 744
In Favor.
Requiring government to spend as much money on our school children as they do in neighboring states. Fine idea. Won't raise taxes (highly doubt) but fine idea. I do have to question where the $42/child is going to come from. And are they cutting the pre-K program?? Or is that just propaganda gossip?
I've been in favor of it, but there are some problems with 744 that it doesn't address, such as, where is the money going to come from, who's going to be in charge of determining how the money is spent (possible corruption), and a couple other things I can't think of off-hand.
I sure would like to be able to buy some textbooks for my journalism class...sure could use a raise, too, since we're paid under the minimum.
I am not in favor of making it a constitutional amendment to require the Legislative to spend the average of surrounding states. This could cycle our state budget into a huge deficits or large tax increases. So what 'special interest' is going to get cut? Roads, bridges, National Guard units, mental health, veterans facilities, state hospitals, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, law enforcement, court systems, colleges? Who is going to get furloughed or laid off? The state budget is already looking pretty grim for next year.
And to top it off, who knows what the money will be spent on? More raises for the administrators? Don't just throw more money at the problem and expect it to fix itself.
-----
The measure also adds a new Article to the Constitution. It sets a minimum average amount the State must annually spend on common schools. It requires the State to spend annually, no less than the average amount spent on each student by the surrounding states. Those surrounding states are Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico. When the average amount spent by surrounding states declines, Oklahoma must spend the amount it spent the year before.
The measure deals with money spent on day-to-day operations of the schools and school districts. This includes spending on instructions, support services and non-instruction services. The measure does not deal with money spent to pay debt, on buildings or on other capital needs.
The measure requires that increased spending begin in the first fiscal year after its passage. It requires that the surrounding state average be met in the third fiscal year after passage.
The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements.
So, initially I related this amendment to "raising to minimum wage" and thought, who is going to vote against this? Because I would like to think that everyone would want to invest in the education of our state's youth. But then I read the verbiage on the actual ballot and it's just SO vague.
"The measure deals with money spent on day-to-day operations of the schools and school districts. This includes spending on instructions, support services and non-instruction services. The measure does not deal with money spent to pay debt, on buildings or on other capital needs.
The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements."
What is implied by "day-to-day" operations? And how WIDE OPEN does "support services" seem...?
I would like to amend my initial post... I support adding more money to the state's education budget, but would actually like to know where the money is coming from and exactly where the money is going.
I was going to type out a response, but this is all it would have been. :-)
Oppose.
I agree with PP that more information and research is needed to determine specifically how the money will be appropriated.
I know it won't pass, but I'll always vote to spend more on education to show my support for the cause. If that means I pay higher taxes, so be it. I agree that I wish the plan was better defined, however. I'm not sure that should be determined at the state level, though. Local school boards likely have a better idea of the specifics for what their students need. For example, here in Edmond, very little would have to go to building maintenance or supplies. BUT with a growing population, more money might go toward creating a new jr. high to reduce overall student to teacher ratios. Others schools may need more teachers or books or asbestos removal.
That said, all of the money in the world won't help some children succeed, nor will no money make some fail. Our kids spend 17% of their time in the schools and the other 83% at home. To think that any amount of money can overcome residential segregation, homes with parents who can barely read themselves or who are working 2 jobs to survive and therefore have no time to help little Johnny learn to read, kids who are hungry in the classroom due to food insecurity, the cultural idea that some families hold that "high school was good enough for me, Susie---remember that and don't get above your raisin'!" or the crushing anxiety that comes with living in an unsafe neighborhood is naive.
The root cause of why Oklahoma's school children are so far behind most other states is that our poverty rates (particularly rural poverty rates) are so much higher than other states and until that changes, if that changes, we'll always have an achievement gap. STILL, things like smaller pupil to teacher ratios, more classroom resources, and more highly qualified teachers can help.
Yeah, I was thinking the opposite. Who would support it? I think most people would support education and students, but the real big issue is making it a constitutional amendment without any way to fund it or even any plan to see a return on our investment. This would require OK to spend that money, regardless of what is happening with the budget. I am surprised this has as much support as it does considering how many state budgets are struggling right now with the economy. It is like signing up for a bigger mortgage when you can barely make ends meet as it is and you just took a pay cut...and then assuming there is all this fat in the current budget that you can cut...just go eat ramen noodles...
I think it's because there is actually a provision in the state constitution that states how much should be spent on education per student. I believe the amount currently in the constitution is no less than $42 per student per year.
This post furthers my girl crush on Critti.
Oppose. I fully support funding for education, but I wouldn't support any bill that so vaguely requires us to spend money without a source (or destination for that matter) for that funding.
Ha! Nothing's a bigger turnoff than a stage 5 clinger
I pink puffy heart this. I feel this way exactly. Education is such an investment, one that cannot be underestimated. However, I do have reservations concerning where the money derives from.
I've done a few studies into why education is lacking in so many Oklahoma schools and the issues that are bit archaic (such as early 1930s archaic) yet plague our schools.
When same sex marriage (and possibly polygamy as I want to remain married to dh) are legal I may ask you to marry me based on this post alone. That is all.
Interesting. Thanks for the replies. I was leaning towards no, mainly because they seem to be pretty vague about where the money is coming from and how exactly they're going to use it. Which are 2 big problems.
I completely agree with you ladies. The fact that we have no idea where the money's coming from - or where it's going - scares me. And honestly, is it's left up to the local towns how the money's distributed or whatever, Lawton's screwed...I'm convinced after our superintendent allowed ghost employees to show up on payroll for two years and has bypassed other things to help the system out, the entire school system's run by people who could give a crap about the kids there.
If answers were more clear there, I'd lean more towards yes...but since they aren't, I'm probably voting no. Still gathering information, but I'm coming up empty.