More conservative education policy at work.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
You are a moron. Those scholars came from our University system and a lot of them did not get their secondary education in Oklahoma.
Are you saying Oklahoma hasn't produced a good number of Rhodes scholars? Because I'm pretty sure we have. Where we rank I haven't bothered to look.
Actually looks like Oklahoma is doing pretty well in education rankings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
Middle of the pack, but at least we ain't California, Texas, and Mississippi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
Middle of the pack, but at least we ain't California, Texas, and Mississippi.
It's interesting that in 2004, when the Dems controlled all 3 branches, Oklahoma ranked 50th in average teacher pay and 49th in per student spending.
Fast forward to 2016, when Republicans controlled all 3 branches, Oklahoma ranked 47th in average teacher's pay and 47th in per student spending.
Here's something weird. In 2004, Republicans took the House for the first time since 1921. Republicans took the Senate for the first time in Oklahoma state history in 2008. 2010 marked the first time in state history that Republicans controlled all three branches.
@syskatine, who junked up Oklahoma education when the Democrats were in charge ? The Russians?
Fast forward to 2016, when Republicans controlled all 3 branches, Oklahoma ranked 47th in average teacher's pay and 47th in per student spending.
Here's something weird. In 2004, Republicans took the House for the first time since 1921. Republicans took the Senate for the first time in Oklahoma state history in 2008. 2010 marked the first time in state history that Republicans controlled all three branches.
@syskatine, who junked up Oklahoma education when the Democrats were in charge ? The Russians?
Last edited:
Government Run Business Results: Low paid employees that cannot be fired and an average at best product being delivered to the consumers that are all but forced to buy it.
Privately Run School Business Results: Reasonably well paid and happy employees that can be fired for any number of reasons, delivering a top shelf product to consumers that seek out their services.
You like having the gov't running things like this. So enjoy the fruits Sys.
Cites for the education stats? You're coming along.
Arguendo, so? You want to talk about everything but how things are. Blame whoever you want in the past, really blister them, especially the dead ones. So? Were there some good solutions getting worked up in this year's legislative session? Next year? Nope.
It's not just the bottom 20 schools. I am telling you, our schools are shit. The education I got back in the day would not cut it now, either. This conservative crew is damning this state to poverty. We need the best stem curriculum not the worst. Imagine that - STEM curriculum here. It would cost money though and gaaaaawddamn we don't do that. We don't care, because the central pillar of conservatism is individual self interest and paying taxes to improve someone else's kid's quality of life doesn't help me right now.
Police, military, VA, Social Security, air traffic controllers, firemen, DOT all say Hi and want to know why you hold them in such disrespect.
So how do we educate kids that can't afford private schools?
So who's doing it right with this all-private education? I look forward to your answer.
I see that you are equating privatizing schools to disbanding the police, the military, the VA, SS, ATC, FDs and the DOT. Great response. Apparently if you get rid of one governmental group then you have to get rid of as many as Sys can think of.
Why is it the job of every taxpayer to pay for services for other peoples’ kids? Should I also pay for their 16 year old’s car insurance since the public as a whole benefits by their driving kids being covered?
Who is doing it right in the private sector? Do you want me to list some private schools for you?
No, my post did not contemplate disbanding those governmental employees or institutions. My words are plainly written in black and white. I challenged your narrative that government functions are poorly ran. You wrote this: "Government Run Business Results: Low paid employees that cannot be fired and an average at best product being delivered to the consumers that are all but forced to buy it." So I listed government run business results with bad employees with average at best product. Your response is spin.
Well it depends on the service. You pay police to protect other people's kids. Firemen to protect their homes and not just yours. Most people see the benefit in everyone else's kids having a quality education. Some people's analysis ends with their immediate financial statement and vulnerable children born to someone else aren't their problem. Like I said, Oklahoma's conservatives don't care about others' kids, so this is where we end up.
I'm aware of some fantastic private schools. They cost lots of money, though. What system of education is doing this private schools thing right? Is there a state or country or city that has turned over all public education to private hands? I'm open to the idea. If it works, then it works. Unlike you, I want the general public (including - get ready -- poor kids! That don't return an immediate benefit to your wallet!) to have a great education, not just the ones that can afford it. I'll support all private schools in a heartbeat if some district or governmental unit has done it and it worked. I just haven't heard of it working on a mass scale like traditional public schools historically have worked before the "only my kid" crowd took over our state government.
So the fact that historically Oklahoma schools have sucked has no bearing on the amount of suck now? You claim to be an attorney. You should know why this reasoning is dumb. Are Republicans making it better? Nope. Did they inherent a great system from Democrats and then trash it? Nope. It is the status quo and has been under both parties for years.
The usual you eating the partisan mayonnaise by the fistful. But I agree with you. Completely. For years under both parties there's been nothing more than a shell game of bullshit that hasn't addressed any actual needs. One glaring question that's met with the bipartisan bullshit of "NO way can we do that, people will suffer!!!!!" is why the hell does Oklahoma have so many school districts? Consolidation would eliminate superintendent spots and free up some cash to go to the classroom. Even if it's only $200 per student, that's still an increase of $200. Or move the savings into some teacher raises. And that isn't a final solution, just maybe part of one.
There are superintendents making $116,000 in a school system of only 124 students. WTF? Why can't one superintendent making $116,000 cover about 5 or 6 of those districts? They can, but since it's big money for those 5 or 6 holding those jobs, they don't want to. It isn't just Oklahoma Republicans that are self serving. There's plenty of Democrats that are the exact same way. Here the latest example of fat raises for superintendents while schools are moving to 4 day weeks to save money. Absolutely terrible.
http://www.news9.com/story/34278629...endents-salaries-rise-as-school-week-shortens
Page 19 for the average teacher salary and page 55 for the per student expenditure for 2003-2004.
http://www.nea.org/home/2004-05-rankings-and-estimates.html
@MegaPoke I am giving you credit where credit is due. I was raised with a brand of conservatism that had some loose christian values i.e. valued the golden rule, generosity, kindness towards the vulnerable, etc. You've been saying that I'm behind the times and the conservatism has changed. You're right about that. Many cons don't even pretend to give a fvck about anyone or those old virtues and it's a total sea change from my grand dad's conservatism. I'm late to the party. It's all about "me" and that's the end of the story.
Because the rural legislators protect those schools.
We used to have sort of a system that did that with county superintendents -- some of it is still on the books... sort of. The old timers tell me the county superintendents never any real power though.
@Bitter Creek
So what school district with all private schools has made it work better than public schools?
So what school district with all private schools has made it work better than public schools?
Agreed.
The Republicans say it'll save money and boost dollars for other stuff. And they say it as if it's the only solution.
Democrats say it's a red herring and would only save a few tens of millions of dollars. Save ONLY a few tens of millions of dollars.
The truth is smack in the middle because neither side wants to actually do anything about it. Too much politics in the hands of superintendents, especially in small town Oklahoma.
That or we believe that charity comes from the heart and should be given voluntarily.
You and your brand believe that if it isn't forcefully taken from taxpayers at the risk of property seizure and/or imprisonment and then funneled through a wasteful government where elitist politicians then stand before crowds and take credit for the reallocation then it isn't real charity.
Yet another great response Sys. Your limits know no bounds.
Why do you start with the premise that it has to be a school district with all private schools.
The question is, do private schools do it better than public.
How much of your time have you donated to a charitable cause or endeavor in the last month?
Of course private schools have better education. Why wouldn't they do it better? I've taken tours of private schools and am blown away at their resources. Parents and kids are also highly motivated, usually from an upper socioeconomic level. I didn't see anyone spinning their wheels with special ed kids, either.
WTF is your point? Take wealthy private schools, compare them with starving private schools and then declare everything should be privatized to operate like the private schools? Without taxes, apparently? You're either: 1. really out of touch; or 2) being obtuse to hide your Little Lord Fauntleroy elitism, or 3) So dumb you can't see the obvious distinctions at play. What a bombshell -- a private school for the wealthy is better than a public school that takes on all comers. So who pays for this private school system without having taxes?
Do you have an example where a school district that teaches all kids with private schools, regardless of their ability to pay, is successful? It's not a trick question. I suspect the answer is "No" because if public schools had private school resources we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm open to the idea, but your obtuse and chickenshit answers are taking me to the answer I've suspected all along.
History says otherwise. The grinding poverty in the old days is very plain evidence that private charity isn't the answer. That, and your admission that your kids are the only ones that matter suggests you're being intellectually honest about that too. Not.
You and your brand believe that if anyone wants to educate kids with tax dollars they're up to no good -- that's because you're trying to rationalize chickenshit greed. Don't drive on roads, don't use publicly financed hospitals, don't go to public universities, don't use the internet, don't use the fruits of taxes if you really believe taxation is that evil. Like in the analysis of educating someone else's kid: All that matters is your money. Don't try to make it a virtue. You've already admitted you only care about your own. Be what you are without trying to dress it up your avarice as a virtue.
I'm having trouble understanding how this org reached its rankings. #19 (Hale in Tulsa) has the following profeciency scores:
Note: I'm not defending any position in this argument. Was just curious to the data behind the analysis and unfortunately find it very minimal.
- Reading performance index: 32% proficient
- Math/Algebra 1 performance index: 20% proficient
- Science performance index: 27% proficient
- Grade 8 reading proficiency: 6.3% vs. 47.5% in Ohio
- Grade 8 math proficiency: 6.3% vs. 52.7% in Ohio
- Grade 8 science proficiency: 7.1% vs. 64.9% in Ohio
Note: I'm not defending any position in this argument. Was just curious to the data behind the analysis and unfortunately find it very minimal.
Who cares? And who cares why these schools have poor performances if they actually do? Oklahoma conthervatifths are to blame for everything.
You may be right -- like a spring football ranking. This morning on the news a story claimed we were now 50th in teacher pay according to someone I've never heard of. This year we finally slipped below Mississippi. Supposedly. The "We're 48th" story from a few months ago may be the same stuff.
So we've gone backwards to the days of Democratic rule? That's really stupid of these conthervatifths.
Similar threads
