-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
As someone personally very involved with our public school system --- three cheers from me!
Someone tell me why a parent shouldn't have public school choice? (Now, If there is an increased cost to the chosen school to require busing ... then that is a problem, but I don't believe that is part of this law).
I think it is wonderful we are providing options for parents, many without large incomes, to send their child to better performing schools. We have to recognize their are some schools and some districts, with ineffective leaders like TPS Dr. Gist, are not keeping pace with schools surrounding them.
Too many people care more about particular teacher or administrator jobs in a specific location/school than they do with educating our young people. We need to start putting the students and the student's parents first --- this bill goes a long way in helping students in under performing schools an opportunity at an enhanced education.
*** I do have one concern and that is the timing of this bill. COVID altered the number of regularly enrolled students in some schools, even ones that had in-person classes. I hope there is some exemption or understanding of schools numbers for 2020-2021 school year. ***
Someone tell me why a parent shouldn't have public school choice? (Now, If there is an increased cost to the chosen school to require busing ... then that is a problem, but I don't believe that is part of this law).
I think it is wonderful we are providing options for parents, many without large incomes, to send their child to better performing schools. We have to recognize their are some schools and some districts, with ineffective leaders like TPS Dr. Gist, are not keeping pace with schools surrounding them.
Too many people care more about particular teacher or administrator jobs in a specific location/school than they do with educating our young people. We need to start putting the students and the student's parents first --- this bill goes a long way in helping students in under performing schools an opportunity at an enhanced education.
*** I do have one concern and that is the timing of this bill. COVID altered the number of regularly enrolled students in some schools, even ones that had in-person classes. I hope there is some exemption or understanding of schools numbers for 2020-2021 school year. ***
Last edited:
-
5
- Show all
I interpreted @andylicious statement to mean we need to not have salaries defined only by years taught ——meaning change that so we can compensate teachers by ability.
-
1
- Show all
Kind of, teachers in Oklahoma can be on temporary contract for two years which is a year to contract renewed only direct board vote. They then move to a non-career contract for a year, the rules on this have changed over the years, but the teacher then has the expectation of being rehired and there has to be specific reasons for non-renewal. The career teacher had full due process and something has to really go off the rails for the teacher not to be rehired. The board votes on teachers every year, but if you want to reduce staff you have to start the process early. Teachers, even on temporary contracts, aren't at will employees. Once a district hires them or fail to remove them they have to pay out unless there is a reason they lose their certificate.
Take Stillwater for example. They kept us basically closed for a full year when every school around us found a way to make it work.
Stillwater schools lost over 700 kids this year. That’s more than an entire elementary school.
The board and superintendent kept caving to the teachers union who wanted a permanent vacation. They knew they could get away with it and not suffer any financial consequences. This law needed to happen. Not every family has the means to pay for a private school or give their kids transportation to another district every day. There has to be consequences for a school district that puts the interests of the employees over the best interest of the kids they are supposed to be educating.
Our superintendents kids attend school in Wichita and have been in class while he fought to keep ours out. In my opinion there should be some criminal repercussions for administrations and board members who enact these policies. I can be thrown in jail for not sending my kids to school. Why can’t they be charged for keeping the schools closed?
Stillwater schools lost over 700 kids this year. That’s more than an entire elementary school.
The board and superintendent kept caving to the teachers union who wanted a permanent vacation. They knew they could get away with it and not suffer any financial consequences. This law needed to happen. Not every family has the means to pay for a private school or give their kids transportation to another district every day. There has to be consequences for a school district that puts the interests of the employees over the best interest of the kids they are supposed to be educating.
Our superintendents kids attend school in Wichita and have been in class while he fought to keep ours out. In my opinion there should be some criminal repercussions for administrations and board members who enact these policies. I can be thrown in jail for not sending my kids to school. Why can’t they be charged for keeping the schools closed?
You’re conflating a few different things. You’re original post is claiming that open transfer policies (SB 782) and altering the funding formula to the last two years instead of the current formula of using the last three years (HB 2078). The school boards are pursuing legal action over how the SDOE board settled old litigation with the Charter Schools Association over how some constitutional and statutory provisions are interpreted.
Addressing your initial post: there are actually some rural schools that should increase in per pupil funding as a result of HB 2078 while some will also lose funds as a result of students moving. Many of the ones that are proclaiming they will lose funds, rural or urban, it is a result of people moving naturally and a bigger factor is schools that decided to stay closed so parents took their kids to online charters or districts that were open. We will probably see a natural migration back to the local brick in mortar for many of these children next year as a result of the schools being open.
The current system makes it difficult for the schools that are seeing the increase in students because they are not getting as much of a proper proportion of funds for said students because the funding formula is over three years. Many states don’t have any sort of multi year time frame for this calculation.
I really don’t get why someone could be against open transfer if someone is for what is best for students. If a student is struggling or a parent believes another school or district is better for their child they should be able to move said student as long as it complies with the procedure.
On the lawsuit and settlement: I’m not going to delve too deep into the nuance—if you want me to, I can follow up—so everyone doesn’t fall asleep but the charter schools position had a strong legal basis and they recently amended to pursue past funds. The crux of the argument for the charter school association is that they believe charter school (public education) students should get their share of ad valorem and other taxes follow them to their school district. The settlement was for this interpretation in the future without pursuing past lost revenue.
This creates so many questions now and the current outcome would hit OCPS, TPS, and other large public schools hard financially so it’s worth litigation to get clarification. Specifically on the change on how certain taxes are apportioned that are usually associated with the building fund.
Addressing your initial post: there are actually some rural schools that should increase in per pupil funding as a result of HB 2078 while some will also lose funds as a result of students moving. Many of the ones that are proclaiming they will lose funds, rural or urban, it is a result of people moving naturally and a bigger factor is schools that decided to stay closed so parents took their kids to online charters or districts that were open. We will probably see a natural migration back to the local brick in mortar for many of these children next year as a result of the schools being open.
The current system makes it difficult for the schools that are seeing the increase in students because they are not getting as much of a proper proportion of funds for said students because the funding formula is over three years. Many states don’t have any sort of multi year time frame for this calculation.
I really don’t get why someone could be against open transfer if someone is for what is best for students. If a student is struggling or a parent believes another school or district is better for their child they should be able to move said student as long as it complies with the procedure.
On the lawsuit and settlement: I’m not going to delve too deep into the nuance—if you want me to, I can follow up—so everyone doesn’t fall asleep but the charter schools position had a strong legal basis and they recently amended to pursue past funds. The crux of the argument for the charter school association is that they believe charter school (public education) students should get their share of ad valorem and other taxes follow them to their school district. The settlement was for this interpretation in the future without pursuing past lost revenue.
This creates so many questions now and the current outcome would hit OCPS, TPS, and other large public schools hard financially so it’s worth litigation to get clarification. Specifically on the change on how certain taxes are apportioned that are usually associated with the building fund.
-
3
- Show all