Ryan Walters is freaking the HE double chopsticks out of the libs

[rawhide]

That there is the problem. Why in the $%#& do we have 400+ school districts in this state? What a waste of admin costs and government fat. At the most we should have one district per county which all the schools report. That would be 77 districts which is still probably too many.

Example in my area, why does Banner, Darlington and other dinky schools have its own school and are not part of El Reno PS? Why does Crooked Oak in the freaking middle of OKC have its own school district? Union in Tulsa should be part of TPS. Heck, Mustang, Western Heights and Yukon should all be in the same district.

I hear complaints about too many kids in classrooms (which is correct) but we could have the money for teachers if we trim the fat on admin costs. My wife works for the schools and the schools are packed and they keep adding admin jobs and not teachers. I just don't get it, other than the desire to not lose the "hometown school" or because of sports.

In most communities, especially rural communities, the school is the face of the community.

Administrative bloat in OK schools is a myth. OK law mandates a cap on the money that a district can spend on administration. For the most part, reducing the number of school districts doesn't reduce administrative duties. They are mostly dictated by the number of students and increases in administrators can be attributed to increased demands by state and federal government. A secondary school principal is doing the work of 4-5 positions in a for profit corporate business and for less money than just one of those positions pays.

Oklahoma schools have very strict guidelines and laws that dictate how money is spent and accounted for. A school cannot take money from one fund and spend it on another. Elaborate sports facilities are funded and approved by the voters in the district.

 

[Glocktogo]

In most communities, especially rural communities, the school is the face of the community.

Administrative bloat in OK schools is a myth. OK law mandates a cap on the money that a district can spend on administration. For the most part, reducing the number of school districts doesn't reduce administrative duties. They are mostly dictated by the number of students and increases in administrators can be attributed to increased demands by state and federal government. A secondary school principal is doing the work of 4-5 positions in a for profit corporate business and for less money than just one of those positions pays.

Oklahoma schools have very strict guidelines and laws that dictate how money is spent and accounted for. A school cannot take money from one fund and spend it on another. Elaborate sports facilities are funded and approved by the voters in the district.

I’d say the last sentence rings true, but the statistics I posted definitely contradict the rest. The people see it and it’s a BIG component of why schools don’t get more support.

 

[rawhide]

I’d say the last sentence rings true, but the statistics I posted definitely contradict the rest. The people see it and it’s a BIG component of why schools don’t get more support.

How do the stats you posted contradict my position that administrative bloat is a myth? The per student spending ratio supports my claim.

 

[RagdollOp]

My mom has been a teacher for over 50 years in Oklahoma, so I am not a teacher hater, however public schools and teachers have a victim complex. No one forced them to become teachers.
Also, tax money should follow the student and public schools should have to compete with private schools. I even think the money should be available for home schoolers. Free market innovation would help education if the government would get out of the way.
And we should definitely audit the state department of education. The fact that they are crying about it tells me there is a lot of waste. They need accountability.

 

[Glocktogo]

How do the stats you posted contradict my position that administrative bloat is a myth? The per student spending ratio supports my claim.

No, it doesn’t. If anything it proves that more could be spent per student if there were fewer districts. It’s proportionally inverse to the spending per student. There is absolutely no justification for such a lopsided and excessive number of districts.

Oklahoma probably runs leaner than the other states in spite of the ridiculous number of districts we have, not because of it.

 

[sherrick13]

I’m pretty sure the OP, and others on this thread who share his sentiments, were kids well before Obama was even considering being in office.

“
**** you liberal ****s. Like you have given a **** about people that ****ing detest that you have tried to put CRT and homo ****ing **** in our classrooms.


Don't like it, go slit your wrists.”

Sounds pretty anti American to me.

Commies arent human.

 

[rawhide]

No, it doesn’t. If anything it proves that more could be spent per student if there were fewer districts. It’s proportionally inverse to the spending per student. There is absolutely no justification for such a lopsided and excessive number of districts.

Oklahoma probably runs leaner than the other states in spite of the ridiculous number of districts we have, not because of it.

I'm not sure we are both addressing the same question.

Is your contention that reduced number districts will reduce cost which in turn will free up funds to spend more in the classroom?

I've already pointed out that reducing the number of districts is not likely to reduce the number of administrators. It is likely to have increased transportation cost and potentially devastating economic effects in many communities.

I also struggle to understand how small government conservatives think the solution to public education is to increase centralization and reduce local control. Who will be in control? I think a lot of rural people will feel like they are getting more, not less, of what they claim is wrong with public ed.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm not sure we are both addressing the same question.

Is your contention that reduced number districts will reduce cost which in turn will free up funds to spend more in the classroom?

I've already pointed out that reducing the number of districts is not likely to reduce the number of administrators. It is likely to have increased transportation cost and potentially devastating economic effects in many communities.

I also struggle to understand how small government conservatives think the solution to public education is to increase centralization and reduce local control. Who will be in control? I think a lot of rural people will feel like they are getting more, not less, of what they claim is wrong with public ed.

It’s about economies of scale. Administration doesn’t always need to be on-site. Administrative resources can be shared. Cost analysis can be run on transportation resources and needs.

Fewer administrations require fewer administrators, that’s axiomatic. As for economic effects, are you referring to the loss of buying power centralized in the pockets of school administrators? Or are you referring to contracts, which could be rotated? Feel free to explain them in greater detail?

There is a point of diminishing returns and degraded service, but it’s not to be found where Oklahoma stands in the region. If 77 separate counties isn’t “local” enough, can you explain why it takes 535 to do? And if 535 school districts is just right, why not have 535 counties? Or how about 597, which is the number of incorporated cities and towns in Oklahoma? Or perhaps we should do away with counties completely, and just have 597 incorporated areas/districts?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If rural communities want to spend more money on “local” administrative costs, that should be their choice. Just don’t expect anyone to care when they have less to spend on teachers and students. Choices have consequences after all.

 

[turkeyrun]

Administrative bloat ?

$400k in 3 Superintendents for a County with ~850 students.

Lawton High School graduated almost 1000. District has 3 HS, plus Jr Highs and Elementary with 1 Superintendent at a salary of $168k.

A return to teaching and curriculum of the '50s is what is needed.
Teachers supported. Parents involved. Administrators and woke agendas reeled in.
Companies have operated the same plan, for years. Fat at the top, just enough trickles down to keep the over-inflated salaries coming in.

Crap has gone so far, for so long, a complete nuking and rebuild may be the only option.

 

[1Mudman]

I can tell you the NW part of the state is not like that. Very common to still pray before sporting events, graduations, etc. I witnessed that all the way from class C schools up to 5A schools just this last year. Masks? Many were mandatory in the fall of 20', optional after that. Most were optional in the fall 20'. Some sporting indoor sporting events were limited to family only spectators during the fall of 20'.

Grand daughter is a Soccer player at Edmond North and they play the Star Spangled Banner and have a prayer before games. Every girl stands with their hand over their heart as well!