No Child Left Behind is a vicious circle.....

[Straydog]

This story explains how.

While the concept of accountability is valid, the system as set up by the Feds is not valid.

[ 11-13-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[freespool]

Straydog,if memory serves me correctly George W Bush used the phrase Leave No Child Behind as one of his keynote campagn slogans. And now the reality is the feds are not funding the educational system adequately enough to make this a reality. Ouch,that's going to leave a nasty mark on his backside. Perhaps that tax rebate wasn't such a good idea after all.

Free

[fish assassin]

Post deleted as irrelevant ...

-assAssin-

[ 11-13-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: fish assassin ]

[Thumper]

A little perspective.

The "No Child Left Behind" act (NCLB), passed in 2001, was actually the brainchild of the Clinton administration. Which is not a criticism, as the act makes sense. It is, however, in no way a panacea.

The Act mainly reinforced the underlying Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and basically expanded the federal government’s role in elementary and secondary education by going beyond the earlier provision of aid to disadvantaged kids and supporting educational research. It is in this area that the Talent schools apparently failed to meet standards.

Remember that federal funding of K-12 education is a tiny, tiny percentage of total costs, and that did not change under the Act. In fact, the Bush NCLB budget increases Oregon’s education funding via the feds to more than $415 million. It also increases Oregon’s Head Start federal funding to more than $55.5 million.

The main thrust of the NCLB emphasizes accountability by making federal aid for schools conditional on those schools meeting academic standards and abiding by policies set by the federal government.

The NCLB requires states to improve the quality of their schools from year to year. The percentage of students proficient in reading and math must continue to grow and the test-score gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students must narrow. The NCLB pushes state governments and educational systems to help low-achieving students in high-poverty schools meet the same academic performance standards that apply to all students.

The NCLB has three basic points:

First --- Accountability for results. The NCLB strengthens Title I responsibility for disadvantaged children by requiring states to implement statewide accountability systems covering all students in the public schools within 12 years after passage.

Second --- Expanded parental options. Students attending Title I schools that fail to improve are given the opportunity to attend a better school within their district.

Third --- Expanded local control and flexibility. The NCLB intended to give states and school districts greater flexibility in the use of Federal education funds in exchange for meeting accountability requirements. There is to be added flexibility in teacher professional development and education technology.

Certain very specific milestones are set, and they extend over the next 5 years. This program is in its infancy, and will not fully roll out until 2008. I'd be happy to detail those milestones if anyone is interested.

Sorry, no one-liners can be applied to this important act.

[ 11-13-2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[id. painter]

Im sorry. But the idea that society is resoposible for the level of expertise you gain while in school is completely wrong.
This is going to back fire . EXAMPLE
The other day I had a two parents come to a parent teacher comference.After each teacher had talked about the student , his behavior and his class work.
These were the first words out of the parents mouth.
" We are his parents, and as parents we have no influence over our him, you how it is ."
" we are highly motivated people and we just dont understand his lack of concern about his grades." " we travel alot" ,,,." what I here you saying is that you (teachers) cant get him to preform in school". "Im his parent and it does us no good to try and get him motivated, because we are his parents, you know how it is."So we quit trying ,it does us no good"
" But , you are his teachers and its your job to figure out how to get him going" "What plan do you have for him" "It is your job ".
This a true conversation with a couple of successful , highly motivated , current parents.
Who's job is it, to teach your children what is important . Who should be working on a plan? Who , who , who. Where does the idea come from that its the teachers , or the schools , or the programs fault.I dont get it. O.K. Ill stop yelling now. id. painter

[Straydog]

Some more perspective:

1. The standards to be met are set by the states and not the Feds. Oregon has some of the highest standards in the nation and is going to have a tougher time showing improvement than other states.

2. One of the criteria for "passing" is attendance, I believe 92% is the nut to hit. But, at the same time, we are being forced to cut many co-curricular activities and like it not, that makes it tougher to keep some kids in school. Further, on the one hand we have the Feds. saying it is the schools responsibility to see that the kids get to school but we have a large and loud conservative populace that says it is up to the parents to take responsiblity and it is not the schools job to deal with the social ills of society, many of which influence school attendance. If Johnny hasn't seen mom and dad sober, or at all, for three days and Johnny dosen't show up at school, the Feds say it is the schools problem and society says it isn't. We can't have it both ways folks!

3. As for teacher flexibilty and training, that is all well and good except, again, there is no funding offered to accomplish the goals. Back around the early '70's I believe, the education community, with the help and encouragement of the Fed. Gov. decided to go to a Middle School system as opposed to a Jr. High School system. With that came the desire to ease the burden of kids going from one teacher all day to changing classes. To accomplish this, we urged Middle School teachers to have a general ed. certification without specific fields of expertise. Now, if a middle school fails to meet the yearly improvment goals, Districts are required to send a letter to parents of kids in those schools telling them their teachers are not "highly qualified teachers" and they will have an opportunity to move their child should the "problem" persist. So, now we have a whole bunch of middle school teachers that were told not to certify in one subject area being told they are not "highly qualified teachers". This despite many of them have been very succesfull teachers for over 25 years!! This does a lot for moral! Further, these teachers now have to become certified in specific subject areas which costs teachers and districts money, none of which is being supplied by the people that changed the rules, the Fed. Government!

And stil I will have to keep trying to answer the question "why does it keep costing more for education?" or "how much is enough?" I guess that can only be answered once the rules stop changing........

[ 11-13-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Silver Hilton]

I'm with Painter on this one. The best asset for a child's education is a motivated, involved, aware, parent. It can be stunning who turns out not to be in that group.

The concern I have about the NCLB act and similar efforts to fund charter schools or vouchers is that they damage the school that is left behind. The financial impact is one impact, but I think the more important impact is the loss of the children and parents that are the most motivated. That's a loss that will ultimately starve the school.

There is this notion that teachers and schools need to be punished. Maybe some do, but as far as I am concerned, that is the role of the school board and the district, not the feds. Federal action is usually a pretty blunt instrument.

I think the NCLB act is a fine example of misguided "feel good" legislation that will hurt rather than help our children as a whole.

In addition to my belief that it is doomed to have the opposite result intended, there are some side criticisms that are important. Any law that tries to mandate standards has a cost of measurement. In my daughter's school, the testing necessary to measure the school's performance under this act consumed over a week of time. That's about 2.5% of the school year. That's 2.5% of our school dollars that are used for purposes other than education, and other than helping those students that are trailing. Generally when our assets are reduced by the government, we call it a tax.

Second, I think it's debateable whether society is helped by focusing on the academically low achieving. To be very blunt, kids who don't have the intelligence, emotional skills, and parental support systems to succeed in school drain resources from those who do. The top kids are going to do well wherever they are. The lowest performing kids are going to struggle wherever they are. The disabled will always struggle. I think that we should be concerned about how we are supporting the 80% in the middle. The NCLB act directly removes time and money from educating those kids in the middle, and incents the schools to focus on the fringes. Is that smart?

That's a belief that will no doubt prove controversial. It may or may not be valid. However, under the NLCB, it is a belief that a local community can now no longer put into practice if they wished. So this act reflects one more whittling away of the principle of local control and states rights.

That's an act of Big Government. I'm not surprised that it was born during the Clinton years. I wish it had died there as well.

My 2 cents.

[id. painter]

I strongly believe that this trend in education will result in a precieved resposibilty shift.For millions .
It is already becoming evident,,, thats what we need, millions more detached, irresponsible parents, wanting something for nothng. They will expect educated successful children regardless of how they were raised. id. p.

[roadsend]

Thumper
"Remember that federal funding of K-12 education is a tiny, tiny percentage of total costs, and that did not change under the Act." ---Unfortunately the level of federal funding isn't even close to the cost of all the federal mandates.
"On a previous thread it was pointed out that the equivalent of about half of all income taxes paid by Oregonians now support K-12 education." ---Thank Measure 5 for this, along with a major loss of local control.

Straydog
"One of the criteria for "passing" is attendance" --- The schools have no hammer on students or parents to control attendance. A parent can pull their kids out as many days as they wish for almost any reason: hunting, fishing, ball games, or rock concerts to name a few.
Using attendance as a criterion for "passing" (ergo school funding) is like cutting funding to local police if the crime rate goes up.

"So, now we have a whole bunch of middle school teachers that were told not to certify in one subject area being told they are not "highly qualified teachers". --- This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

Silver Hilton
"I'm with Painter on this one. The best asset for a child's education is a motivated, involved, aware, parent." --- Every study has confirmed the involved parent as the best indicator of student success.

I personally think that the whole No child left behind Act, CIM/CAM, and all the other legislative posturing, state and federal, over the past several years are nothing but attempts to make legislators look good and at the same time shift blame for societies ills on to our over burdened and underfunded school systems.

[Thumper]

So help me out. How much is enough?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Just one more dollar Jack. Just one more.

Was'nt it Rockafeller that was ask how much money is enough and he responded just one more dollar or something like that? Anyways i.d.painter hit the nail on the head.

[Thumper]

Hmmmmm. No takers? Maybe it is easier to just grouse.

[roadsend]

Thumper
"So help me out. How much is enough?"

Its complicated. But first of all the whole funding issue needs to be made more decipherable.
Mandates to local districts need to be accompanied by all the funding necessary, just like we do when building an Interstate Highway or activating a fighter squadron.
Actual instruction costs need to be funded as such. Each activity needs to be identifiable as to its actual costs.
Social and medical services such as in extremely handicapped special ed situations need to be called what they are and funded from seperate budgets.
Extra-curriculars including the expensive sports stadiums need to be funded as clubs and community entertainment perhaps with taxes on the very profitable professional sports industry.
Better use of facilities i.e. more summer use when heating and lighting costs are lower need to be explored.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by roadsend:
Thumper
"So help me out. How much is enough?"

Its complicated. But first of all the whole funding issue needs to be made more decipherable.
Mandates to local districts need to be accompanied by all the funding necessary, just like we do when building an Interstate Highway or activating a fighter squadron.
Actual instruction costs need to be funded as such. Each activity needs to be identifiable as to its actual costs.
Social and medical services such as in extremely handicapped special ed situations need to be called what they are and funded from seperate budgets.
Extra-curriculars including the expensive sports stadiums need to be funded as clubs and community entertainment perhaps with taxes on the very profitable professional sports industry.
Better use of facilities i.e. more summer use when heating and lighting costs are lower need to be explored.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

getting to where we are today took a long time and a lot of things happening...getting out isn't going to be very easy.

But, identifying the true costs of all programs, and "calling a duck, a duck" is the first step.

Not doing this, and doing it immediately, just leads us farther and farther down a very nasty road, where only the wealthy children are educated well, and the rest just bring up the rear.

Hmmmmmmm....is that part of the "plan"?? Do I hear the black helicopters?

TR

[happybrew]

We're homeschooling our kids. This year, the school district we live in will spend $6500 per student. Since I have 5 kids, that adds up to $32,500 in savings to the State of Oregon every year. Yet I spend at most a couple of hundred. My 11 year old is now working on high school level geometry. My 7 year old reads at fifth grade level. My 9 year old has a bigger vocabulary than most adults. My 3 year old knows how to use a computer, and will probably start reading, adding, and subtracting this year. I test my kids against the state's benchmarks, and their scores put them in the 95th to the 99th percentiles. I find it strange that the state can't take $32,500, and educate five average kids to that level with it. Heck, they could pay me the money, and I could stay home all day and have my kids in college by the age of 14!

The fact of the matter is, the schols are in the business of educating children. They do well at educating large groups of them. They don't do so well at educating individuals. This is perhaps the reason for "no child left behind", but it really would require for schools to become an entirely different creature that what they are right now. I can educate a small group cheaply and effectively. A school cannot. It would require an entirely different way of looking at the problem. The buildings are too expensive, the overhead is too high, there are too many rules, too much paperwork, parents who don't care. In the end, all of this extraneous focus, on things other than actually educating the child is what dooms things like no child left behind to failure.

Imagine something like this: teachers hired as independent contractors, given $65,000 to educate ten kids to standard. They are responsible for finding the place and the materials to teach those ten kids, out of that $65,000. What's left over after expenses are paid is the teacher's salary. It becomes competitive, with teachers responsible for getting their own students, and parents responsible for finding a teacher for their kids. I think this is entirely realistic. It would make education efficient, and replicate the best features of homeschooling. Teachers would be directly accountable for efficiency, and for how much money they make.

happybrew

[ampersat]

Hey Otolith,
Think of it this way: one day, god willing, we'll retire and, god willing, there'll still be something called the social security system and, god willing, we'll actually get some money out of it (I know it's a pipe dream but what the heck). All those kids that you paid to educate will be paying you to fish. At the very least, you can hope that the education these kids get will get them a job somewhere instead of leaving them unemployeed and poor with lots of free time to steal the smoker full of salmon sitting in front of your house.

[roadsend]

Happybrew
My compliments to you folks who are doing such a fine job in educating your kids. As has been reported on this thread and elsewhere, the best indicator of student success is parental involvement and you certainly meet and excel regarding that standard.

Unfortunately, percentage-wise at least, few parents have the capacity or the motivation to follow your example. As kids move into high school, homeschooling becomes more difficult as the complexity of the college prep classes increases. Chemistry lab, trig and calculus, foreign language, and other subjects chalenge the ability of many, if not most, parents.
The idea of "teachers hired as independent contractors, given $65,000 to educate ten kids to standard" sounds great, but who would insure kids were being taught what they need? It would be like me, since I have some education and background in law enforcement, saying to the folks in my neighborhood: pay me 1/2 of what you pay in taxes for the sheriff, state police, and feds and I will handle your law enforcement needs.
The sounder our public schools, the greater our potential for continued success as a nation. I can think of no successful country which lacks a functioning school system.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
And stil I will have to keep trying to answer the question "why does it keep costing more for education?" or "how much is enough?" I guess that can only be answered once the rules stop changing

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Good points Straydog. I would really like your answer to the last question. How much is enough?

On a previous thread it was pointed out that the equivalent of about half of all income taxes paid by Oregonians now support K-12 education. The present income tax rate is 9%, or 10% if the voters fail in their attempt to roll back the new increase. In fact, for Multnomah County residents you can add another 1% increase, making the total 11%. For them, that will be an increase of 22% in income taxes in just one year (11/9 = 122%). Ouch! Just to keep the educational system alive.

Then Brion pointed out a whole panorama of additional items that he views as critical, including year-round schooling and class sizes of 15 students. I asked how much more all this would cost, and how much higher the income tax rate would climb to make this necessary.

I never did get the answer to that question.

It is an imperfect world, for sure. No doubt a lot of nice things could be achieved if Brion's shopping list could be filled. But what would this cost? It seems pointless for those who advocate major spending increases to just keep wailing about "cuts."

Help us out here. How much do you need to feel good about school funding? And how many additional % in your state income tax would that take?

[ 11-13-2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Otolith]

I have no kids in school, so can I please have my tax money back?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Nice try Bill but you still have to pay for my kids. All three of them. Sorry.

Jack, you gotta give til it hurts, take a pain pill and give some more. That is what it will take. But in reality, truly not much has changed since I was a grade schooler. Same old debate of we need more and same old responce: BITE ME!!!

As Straydog pointed out it is a vicious circle with no cure in sight. I'm taxed up to my hairline as it is and there are new taxes and fees setup darn near every day. As much as I would like to help I will continue to vote no on any new tax no matter what it is. Sorry, I've had it with overtaxation.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Otolith:
I have no kids in school, so can I please have my tax money back?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sure, right after you pay back the cost of your education, the cost of roads you use but we don't, the cost of any police protection you have recieved but we have not, the cost of any fire protection you have received but we have not and the cost of any govermnent subsidised health care you have received but we have not.

Oh, and you will not be entitled to any societal benefit that will come from the kids being educated today.

So much for "United we Stand".

[Straydog]

Jack,

One more time, now focus buddy.....

I guess that can only be answered once the rules stop changing........

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"Wailing"?? Oh, you are indeed colorful. Not accurate, but colorful....... :grin:

[Jimmy Carl Black]

My Opinion:

-The no child left behind plan will fail miserably along with virtually every other piece of the Bush agenda. I repeat this is my opinion-it's just what I see happening- not a jab at anyone's personal beliefs.

-Multiple choice tests are a failed technique at measuring what an individual has learned.

-Everyone with school-aged children should protect them by petitioning the government to keep these tests voluntary.

Food for thought: If a school is not meeting the bench marks, how does reducing their funding help leave no child behind?

We need to seriously think over our priorities in this country. There will always be loafers who drain on society. Our public schools are the last place we need to cut costs. Think about where these kids go when they turn 18. Look at our prisons, wellfare lines. It's pay now or later. We really need to take the high road here people.

[DanS]

I find it strange that the state can't take $32,500, and educate five average kids to that level with it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Maybe they could.......but I get the feeling that your children aren't average in any sense of the word, hb. You should be very proud. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[happybrew]

I am proud of them, however nationally, homeschooled kids perform at the 90th percentile. They also have similar performance on the SAT's, and have a well above average acceptance rate into college. I think a number of factors are at work with that. First, there is parental involvement. That can't be replicated, but if a teacher has a small load of students, perhaps some of the individual concern can make up for that. There is a smaller workload for the teacher, but this is mitigated by the necessity for the parent to be a generalist. There are outstanding resources out there, however, and a determined parent keeping an eye out can find good, dirt cheap software to help the child learn what a parent doesn't know how to teach. You find it in odd places too. I found a great American History CD at Big Lots, and some very good high school math tutoring software (pre-algebra through calculus) at Ross Dress for Less, of all places, for only about $6. I think that if the schools really truly want to see results, it would behoove them to imitate some of what those who are getting results are doing. Homeschooling gets results. My kids are average for homeschoolers. They only look above average compared to public schoolers. If we want to make sure no child gets behind, we need to get away from the "bulk" approach to education, and move toward an individualized approach.

happybrew

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Jimmy Carl Black:
- It's pay now or later. We really need to take the high road here people.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is what Straydog keeps saying. What I am trying to determine is how much more will be necessary. Do the income taxes need to go to 12% (in Multnomah County, 1% less outside), 13%, 15%, 20% or what?

It is one thing to just keep saying that there isn't enough money. It is quite another to suggest the amount that will be necessary. If those who want more money will give Oregonians the amount believed necessary, at least the voters can make a decision based on full understanding of the costs. Just pleading for more, more, more clearly isn't working.

Ideas?

[Jimmy Carl Black]

It's not so much about more more more but a sense of general priority. If we truly make the education of our people a top priority, we will find a way to make it happen. God knows we find a way when we decide something is worth fighting for.

Personally, I'm for gradually whittling down federal taxes so that we can afford to increase state and local taxes thereby minimizing bureaucracy and wastes and make sure the money goes where we need it. More local control would help our situation greatly-NOT Bush's no child left behind plan. (And whether or not it was Clinton's baby is not my concern, he's out of office and Bush is promoting it NOW)

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Jimmy Carl Black:
More local control would help our situation greatly-NOT Bush's no child left behind plan.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am confused. Expanded local control and flexibility is one of the core tenets of the NCLB legislation. The act is intended to give states and school districts greater flexibility in the use of Federal education funds in exchange for meeting accountability requirements. There is also to be added flexibility in teacher professional development and education technology.

What specifically is it that you find objectionable about the act?

[kayakfisher]

Happy Brew...

Good job on the home schooling. I know a lot of home schooling families...and there is no doubt that model works, but it works only for those who have the time, talent, energy, creativity, intelligence...etc to make it work. You know well that it cannot work for everyone. There is no model that works best for everyone...including the public school system. Many kids are also achieving what your kids have, and are doing that in a public school system. Do you believe that the home schooled kids are an average group of kids coming from average families that cover the gamut in our state? No way...it is a self selected group of very motivated parents and their offspring...a group of interested parents on a mission. That is a huge factor in the success of a kid's education, an interested pair of parents. The private schools have that one advantage...a set of parents that are successful enough to pay the bills, and are interested enough in the education of their kids to have an influence on that process.

To take your model and extend it...by your proposal to pay a teacher to be a homeschooler! As soon as you have to start paying for supplies and time of the teacher, a building, insurances, phones, heat, and the list goes on...the cost skyrockets. If you really itemize it out the real costs are higher than most people realise. It is not as simple when you start paying someone to do it...and your real costs as a home educator are buffered somewhat by the fact that you do it in your home, and get to spend extra time with your kids. The costs are also increased by the loss of income maybe...and if you are a cardica surgeon, or an engineer, etc...these costs also are not insignificant, the loss of the services of these people with specialise services that may not be available if these people are no longer doing the work they were trained for.

Home schooling is great, but it is not the total answer, nor is it workable for everyone. I know that my kids are benefitting from the chance to be around other intelligent adults and kids in a place different from their home...and where they can be exposed to thoughts, philosophies, outlooks, readings that I could not give them..because i am one person who has by own biases and at times tunnel vision I am not even aware of. It may be good for my kids to also have discussions with other bright people that would encourage them to think outside the box of the limitted views presented by their parents...and that includes me as much as any parent.

Thanks for the posts...and thoughts.

Mike

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Thumper,

It's the accountability requirements that are the sticking point for me.

[Thumper]

And how would you change them? Specifically?

[happybrew]

Hmmm. Ya got me thinking, kayakfisher. Many valid points, especially about being a highly motivated self-selected group...

I've been wondering about a career other than restaurants, considered nursing, banking, starting my own business, lots of things, but few things seem to either fit or be workable.....

But there is the possibility of a charter school. My sister-in-law is a teacher, I'm great with organizing and adminstration, been able to pull a profit out of thin air, even when transferred to a loser store by my enemies to justify firing me (turned it into the highest profits in the chain in three months). Perhaps we can start a charter school to replicate all the great things about homeschooling for those who can't do it themselves. Low overhead, low class size, lots of teacher-student interaction, high expectations, and lots of caring. Hmmmm. Gonna have to research this one. If I'm gonna talk the talk, how about if I walk the walk? Yep, some research is definitely in order.

happybrew

[Straydog]

Originally posted by happybrew:
Hmmm. Ya got me thinking, kayakfisher. Many valid points, especially about being a highly motivated self-selected group...

I've been wondering about a career other than restaurants, considered nursing, banking, starting my own business, lots of things, but few things seem to either fit or be workable.....

But there is the possibility of a charter school. My sister-in-law is a teacher, I'm great with organizing and adminstration, been able to pull a profit out of thin air, even when transferred to a loser store by my enemies to justify firing me (turned it into the highest profits in the chain in three months). Perhaps we can start a charter school to replicate all the great things about homeschooling for those who can't do it themselves. Low overhead, low class size, lots of teacher-student interaction, high expectations, and lots of caring. Hmmmm. Gonna have to research this one. If I'm gonna talk the talk, how about if I walk the walk? Yep, some research is definitely in order.

happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Happybrew,

Good luck. Sounds like you may be on to something except I see one thing missing in the brief resume you list and that is the heartfelt desire for ALL kids to be the absolute best they can be (there is a big difference when they aren't your own) above organizational skills and the ability to "pull a profit out of thin air." When things get tight and that profit isn't there, who is going to suffer so that you can insure your bottom line?

Bottom line is, it isn't about turning a profit, it is about being in the business of taking a raw product (kids) and turning them into people.

Let's say one of your own kids or one you get in your charter school has learning disorder and a physical handicap that requires they have an aide at all times. That knocks the heck out of your profit margin. How you gonna remain profitable? Or say a you end up with a couple of kids that live 20 miles from your school. How are you going to provide them transportation and still remain profitable?

Surely you aren't thinking of starting a charter school with public funds and being able to pick and choose your clientele like a private school, are you?

[ 11-17-2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
That is what Straydog keeps saying. What I am trying to determine is how much more will be necessary. Do the income taxes need to go to 12% (in Multnomah County, 1% less outside), 13%, 15%, 20% or what?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Income taxes need to be taken out of the picture.
We need to fund education with a STABLE economic base, not with income taxes. It has been 15 years since the implimintation of measure 5 and the loss of a local taxing base for kids and STILL the state has not delivered the stable education funding we were promised.

Until we have a stable source of income and protection from rising insurance and other costs, protection from state mandates that are not funded and protection from federal mandates that are not funded, no one can say XXXX is the amount needed to educate our kids. The target keeps moving and the income source is not stable.

[ 11-17-2003, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
.....no one can say XXXX is the amount needed to educate our kids. The target keeps moving and the income source is not stable.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydog, you have just given the most hopeless of responses. You indicate that (1) there is no way can the task can be costed, and (2) even if the cost could be defined, the income source is so fluid that it cannot be defined.

End of sad, sad story. I suggest that with that approach, very few voters will be convinced to bless the tax increase.

[id. painter]

The lotto was to be a big financial bonus for the education process..in Idaho .. I wonder what has happened to that $. id. painter

[Straydog]

Frankly, while I certainly hope the tax increase does pass and will work hard to see that it does, it was never meant to be an end all, Thumper.

That is exactly why there is a special interim committee beginning work on finding an equitable way to overhaul the state's taxing system and you can bet your rabbit chow that stable funding for education will take up a very large part of the conversation.

Perhaps it is the short sighted opinion that the current debate over the sucharge is to find long term solutions to our problem that is part of our problem here. It is merely a three year bandaid while we as a state prepare for the long term surgery fix that our tax systems begs for.

You seem to want to end a conversation with opinions based on a three year temporary fix rather than face the reality that we need a long term solution to our fouled up taxing mechanism. How short sighted. :depressed:

I wonder how many other 'aginners have this misconception that the surcharge is about a long term fix of our funding mess?

[ 11-17-2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
You seem to want to end a conversation with opinions based on a three year temporary fix rather than face the reality that we need a long term solution to our fouled up taxing mechanism. How short sighted.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My point is that you will never get the "three year temporary fix" (yeah, right) without giving the voters some specifics.

There is a long term solution for school financing, and it is simple. School boards and administrators have to learn to live within the means of Oregon's taxpayers.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
My point is that you will never get the "three year temporary fix" (yeah, right) without giving the voters some specifics.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It won't be the first temporary tax fix.

You will hear plenty of specifics. I have provided several articles giving specifics. I have given numbers showing specifics.

You have to be willing to hear specifics before they will do any good.

I do though wonder, why as a Washingtonian are you so concerned about Oregons Tax structure and education? Why are you attempting to stand in the way of a fix needed in your neighboring state?

[roadsend]

Straydog
"We need to fund education with a STABLE economic base, not with income taxes. It has been 15 years since the implimintation of measure 5 and the loss of a local taxing base for kids and STILL the state has not delivered the stable education funding we were promised."

Why is it that the anti-school funding folks never want to talk about the real impact of measure 5 on school funding and the state budget in general?

The School districts still need, however, to create a budget document which will more clearly expound the actual costs of each school activity to insure better public support.

[Straydog]

Jack,

Sorry if I have misinterpreted your stance on this.

I thought I remember you saying on other threads that the schools did not need more revenue, rather they need to be better managed.

I apologize if my memory has failed me :blush:

As for your interest in Oregon, I get it. Thanks for clarifying. :smile:

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Happybrew,

Good luck. Sounds like you may be on to something except I see one thing missing in the brief resume you list and that is the heartfelt desire for ALL kids to be the absolute best they can be (there is a big difference when they aren't your own) above organizational skills and the ability to "pull a profit out of thin air." When things get tight and that profit isn't there, who is going to suffer so that you can insure your bottom line?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My point was not that I would like to make a lot of money, but that I can make things work financially. I don't require a lot of money to live on. Obviously, a school is not a profit-making machine. It can, however, be a big drain down which money is poured to little or no effect.

Originally posted by Straydog:

Bottom line is, it isn't about turning a profit, it is about being in the business of taking a raw product (kids) and turning them into people.

Let's say one of your own kids or one you get in your charter school has learning disorder and a physical handicap that requires they have an aide at all times.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First, they are already people. Second, I actually have considerable experience assisting people with physical disabilities, and some experience teaching kids with learning disabilities. In that case, I would explain to the parent what we could, and could not do for the child, and let them make the decision about whether they wanted to have the child in the school. If they did, I'd knock myself out making sure they got the best education I could provide.

Originally posted by Straydog:

That knocks the heck out of your profit margin. How you gonna remain profitable? Or say a you end up with a couple of kids that live 20 miles from your school. How are you going to provide them transportation and still remain profitable?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Who says I need to provide the transportation? If I wanted to send my kids to a school in Albany, and I live in Salem, you can be sure Albany wouldn't transport my kids. I'd be willing to transport them myself at any rate.

Originally posted by Straydog:
Surely you aren't thinking of starting a charter school with public funds and being able to pick and choose your clientele like a private school, are you?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope. What makes you think I would? I'm simply trying to make the point that education need not be the bureaucratic monstrosity it often is. You sound like you feel a bit threatened by the prospect. Do you feel threatened? Obviously, I'm no expert, but I don't need to be. I can get experts to work for me, and I know quite a few. I do know that a lot of teachers want smaller class sizes, and the ability to work more closely with students. With low overhead, that's a real possibility. I've heard numerous teachers complaining about bureaucratic runaround, bloated administration, and lack of funds that actually go to the classes. In Salem-Keizer, the biggest expense is administration. That should be one of the smallest expenses. Of the public school teachers I know personally, most of those with kids send their kids to a private school. That tells me a lot. My whole idea is not to make a profit, but to put the resources where they belong, in the classroom, benefiting both students and teachers. It is, however, just an idea. I need to look into it.

happybrew

[Straydog]

HB,

No, I don't feel threatened.

It is just that most Charter Schools are public schools and get public dollars to operate. With that, you do not get to pick and choose who you accept. Also, public schools do not have the liberty of telling the parents of a special needs child what they can and can not do for the child and let the parents decide if that is acceptable or not. Public education means every child has an opportunity to be educated.

I was involved in an effort to start a charter school and we were turned down by our district and were unable to change their minds through mediation. We could have appealed the decision but chose not to.

[happybrew]

I'm glad you don't feel threatened. That tells me a lot about where you're coming from. I've heard that there is a lot of opposition to charter schools. Why is that? Why was yours turned down, and what did it have to offer that the usual public schools did not? And if a parent demands that we do things that would more than exhaust our budget, would we be legally required to do them?

Thanks!

happybrew

[Straydog]

The premise of our proposed Charter School was parental involvment. While there would have been no legal recourse, our plan was to have parents commit, through a contract, to a minimum of amount of volunteer work for the school per year.

We were turned down because we could not prove that the school would be "revenue neutral". In other words, by taking the 80% ADM for the kids we would have at our school, we would not be leaving the rest of district with less money than they have without the Charter School.

Our argument was that while we would likely not be revenue neutral to begin with, after a year or two we would actually be bringing more money into the district by recapturing those that have left the district to be home schooled or private schooled.

According to OEA, "revenue neutral" is not a valid reason for not approving a Charter School but it would have required an appeal and a fight to get it done. The person that was heading up the proposal, with the support of those of us on the board, did not want to pursue a Charter School if it were to be in what we felt would be a hostile environment in regards to the district. In other words, we wanted the district to want us and work cooperatively for the benefit of the whole district.

As an alternative I have since become a member of the Board of Directors of the District.
Just after my election we turned down another charter request due to lack of data that showed they could pull it off financially for more than one year. We feel this one may be appealed but so far have not been notified of that.

[ 11-17-2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
I do though wonder, why as a Washingtonian are you so concerned about Oregons Tax structure and education? Why are you attempting to stand in the way of a fix needed in your neighboring state?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Stand in the way? I'd like to see the problem fixed, and that will take someone in your state to stand up and talk specifics rather than moaning on and on about financing shortfalls and "budget" cuts.

My interest is because all of my education was in Oregon, my lady is a current Oregon public school teacher, my kids got most of their education in Oregon, and I ran my business in Oregon for over 17 years. Guess I am an Oregonian at heart. [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img]