Disparate funding has Oklahoma schools on roller coaster
Our views: Public remains supportive in time of need
The Oklahoman Editorial
Comments 
105
Published: November 16, 2009
SCHOOL superintendents have never seen anything quite like it. Each month brings more bad news about the state of the state’s economy, and along with it, orders to keep cutting school budgets. But at the same time, the federal government is pouring an unprecedented amount of money into schools, and voters throughout Oklahoma continue to pass school bond issues despite the tough times.
Steven Crawford, executive director of the
Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration and a former longtime superintendent, said the public has been incredibly supportive of local schools in a time of great need. But neither that nor the federal money can ease the pain of the state’s economic woes.
"If things keep going the way they are, it’ll be the worst financial year for schools in my 38-year education career,” Crawford said.
Last week alone, voters approved more than $129 million in bond issues for schools across Oklahoma to help pay for new schools, building repairs, technology, other equipment and buses. That’s a substantial amount of money at a time when many taxpayers are struggling to make financial ends meet at home. Voter resilience is even more impressive looking back over school elections throughout 2009.
Voters have OK’d more than $465 million in bond issues for districts statewide so far this year. At least four districts — Mustang, Deer Creek,
Pawhuska and Putnam City — saw approval of the largest-ever bond issue packages put before each district’s voters.
The ballot box victories are critical and a bit of silver lining in the overall school funding picture. Bond issues are the primary way schools finance capital improvements and transportation, and also can be a big source of technology funding. Most districts try to regularly put bond issue propositions before voters to keep up with maintenance and so property taxes stay level.
The separate funding stream for capital improvements is somewhat of a blessing in times like these. Schools are enduring budget cuts, forcing districts to take a tough look at planned purchases, travel and programs. Even deeper cuts could come because one of the main funds earmarked for education is nearly empty.
Then there’s the quandary of federal funds. The state has received millions in stimulus money, and some of that was used to help fund schools this year. Schools also are getting record amounts of federal money for special education and to educate poor students, but that money comes with many restrictions.
The financial boost is temporary, so education officials are wisely leery of expanding or creating programs that they might not be able to afford without the federal help in two years.
Tulsa officials have said they are receiving about $10 million more in federal funds this year while expecting to lose as much as $4 million in state revenue.
Among all the financial uncertainty, one thing is for sure: this school year is one superintendents won’t soon forget.
Related Topics:
Public Finance,
Domestic Policy,
Social Policy,
Federal Budget,
Political Policy,
Politics,
Education,
Education Issues,
Financial Markets,
Economic Policy,
Government Spending,
Education Policy,
Bond Markets,
Fixed Income Securities,
Economic Stimulus
Leave a Comment
News Photo Galleriesview all
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
I will admit that I did troll a little for you yesterday. Simply because I was doing a little research into your "debating methods" (if that's what YOU call them...) and I was looking for multiple inconsistencies (I've found more of them in your posts than in the Bible... HOLY COW!). However, I'm not Jake. Jake is my boyfriend. We actually met on NewsOK. It's a rather sweet story. Sure, I admit, we tag-teamed a few stories the other day. Nothing is more fun to us than debating a few morons and even engaging in a civilized discussion about subjects we feel most passionately. Also, I would like to thank you as you have given us a new pet name for each other. Nothing says "I love you" more than the word "savant"! :)
If you would be interested in holding a civilized debate without crying foul and dubiously declaring a "win", I will be around.
I encourage you, as a "human", to open your mind. Learn from your surroundings. Do not judge so hastily. Life is about moving forward as an individual. We all have our opinions and it takes a good person to admit when they are wrong or have been wronged.
Open your eyes and ears. Close your mouth. (Or, in this instance, quit banging on your keyboard.)
And the problem with feeding trolls is, of course, that it is like feeding a malignant tumor: the troll craves attention of any sort, good, bad or somewhere in between, just like a tumor feeds off anything in the bloodstream that happens to be handy.
For instance, I couldn't believe that thread could still be going on, until I considered the fact that a determined stalker like "Jachel" will hijack any forum to give an outlet to their obsession: they will then squat in that forum for as long as their trollish appetite is fed. I took a peek over there for the first time since my last post, and it has obviously degenerated into a "Jason Edmond obsession fest" just from the posts I *can* see - per usual with such savants. Raven's handled herself quite well, as usual. Reading her side of the conversation I can see that Jachel is apparently now stating it will take a "polygraph" - this is keeping in pattern with the ever-grandiose claims of the fed troll, just like a tumor will continue to swell the more it is fed. It can be diverting, even amusing. But "Jachel" better watch himself: Raven is smarter than he is, and she doesn't have to pretend to be intelligent like he does. She just is. If she calls his bluff you can be guaranteed that there will be a million reasons the "polygraph" (LOL!) doesn't come off, and the troll "Jachel" will blame it all on everyone else, of course. That is the smarmy nature of the forum troll.
On a side note, I suspect "Jachel" is really my old stalker "todd, Norman," simply repackaged as the split personality of "Jake" and "Rachel," and back to posting on the forums under these two monikers.
After this post I'm done feeding him, period, because Joe from Luther is quite right: this is supposed to be an article about school funding, not all the rest of this jazz.
But I hope now folks of good will understand why I put those who stalk me from thread to thread on *ignore*: they derail EVERY SINGLE THREAD ARTICLE, and turn it into one long string of personal attacks and obsessive posts about me, the personality, instead of the issue at hand.
But I vow not one more keystroke to feed that malignancy, because once left completely unfed such tumors tend to shrink and vanish like the ugly blot they truly are.
--
By all means, feel free to post the software and quotes you used to compute such a figure. I would love to replicate those results.
Jason, your nondisclosure should sound alarms in readers' heads. I am simply asking for the name of your software and quotes you used. Your "99%" figure CANNOT be reproduced because it is a falsehood.
You should also relay to Jason our collective decisions to 1) utilize the EXACT software program, quotes, and experimental procedures he used, in an attempt to replicate his "99%" figure, and 2) publicly undergo an evaluation by ANY licensed polygraph examiner of HIS choosing.
In order to satisfy these terms, all I require from Jason is disclosure of the software, quotes, and experimental procedures used. Additionally, if he is not troubled by doing so, he can name his polygraph examiner of choice. I will fund all procedures. I will stage the rest and extend an open invitation to all who choose to come to publicly witness our demonstration of Jason's experiment.
Darci, please relay this to Jason (since he has "ignored" me).
BERT, HENRYETTA - Nov 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm"
BERT, I didn't see your post before I hit submit on mine. Jeff, Oklahoma City, I can't remember engaging him on any article before. He apparently has a problem of some sort, as you pointed out.
"I was reading from the PASSENGERS (emphasis added) seat of my SUV, but I couldn't reply" - Jason, Edmond
Writing, when one looks like a Donkey's rear, not so much:
"I thought people who texted while driving were bad, but imagine someone piloting a gas guzzling SUV while trying to read posts on the Daily Jokelahoman on his IPhone!" - Jeff, Oklahoma City
May I humbly suggest you attempt to comprehend the words your eyes transmit to your brain before you engage your typing fingers to reply.
"It's apparent from a lot of the posts here...that some people have too much time on their hands."
Indeed. Why don't you run off and practice that eye-to-brain coordination thingy for awhile?
And I'll be sure to avoid the turnpike when Jason's driving on it...I thought people who texted while driving were bad, but imagine someone piloting a gas guzzling SUV while trying to read posts on the Daily Jokelahoman on his IPhone!
Perhaps next time, Jason can do his fellow drivers a favor, and wait until he gets to one of the turnpike pit stops before posting more of his drivel.
I'll betcha both of them are panting and fiddling with themselves right now, waiting on the edge of their ratty seats for the next post by *moi*. Heh!
Intellect envy is such an ugly, ugly thing...
BTW, you handed that savant his head in that article last week, I was reading from the passengers seat of my SUV, but I couldn't reply because the connection to my iPhone kept wigging out on the Turnpike. Good job, though, BERT!
BTW, BERT, interesting thing about that "Rachel," if it's the same "Rachel, Midwest City" I think it is - it almost has to be since I have it on *ignore*.
See, I have this nifty little software on my computer(s) that was originally installed to sniff out plagiarism. I can take a paragraph somone has supposedly written, and compare it to a baseline author whose idenity I either know or presume I know.
When "Jake, Midwest City" and "Rachel" showed up the other day attacking posters in tandem, I got suspicious. I cut and pasted a paragraph of something "Jake" had posted, and several sentences that "Rachel" had authored.
Guess what the software told me? That the probability that "Jake, Midwest City" and "Rachel, Midwest City" were the same author was better than 99%. So when I put "Jake" on ignore I went ahead and put his doppelganger "Rachel" on iggy, too, since they are one and the same person at the same keyboard, just swapping back and forth between monikers.
At first, I was puzzled by the fact that when I put "Jake" on *ignore* I could still see "Rachels" posts - but then I figured it out. NewsOK.com will allow a person to have as many accounts as one has different e-mail addresses, and if one just swaps between browsers no one is any the wiser (except the admins of the forum, who can see the identical IP address.
In any event, all too much fun - driving the savants mad with envy, resentment, jealousy, and rage.
http://newsok.com/many-fans-want-home-of-the-sooners-refrain-to-stop/article/3417055?widgetOffset0=0&custom_click=lead_story_title#comment
--
--
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah - chooo!
Oh, well: another day, another "MBA" with a tail tucked away headed for the thread exits, snarling from the thumping.
Hey, I'm a poet and didn't even know it - to coin a phrase. Heh.
Again, sarcasm should only be relayed in a verbal conversation or the meaning of the words you use can and will be misconstrued.
(Corrected sentence - this flu is clogging my brain-to-fingers wires)
"Jason, Edmond: I have asked you five times to answer my question about state revenues?" - That's not how it works in grown-up land, savant. Not only was my query first in order, but it also supplied the conditions by which I was willing to answer your question. You simply refuse to answer, which is very telling - to answer truthfully would confirm what you have repeatedly implied in your posts.
"Name calling and braying about these posts" - *Ahem*:
"everyone out there can see how dumb you really are. Once again your feeble mind cannot comprehend..." - MBA, Oklahoma City, 11:02 pm
Glass houses, rocks, all of that.
"As Matt1 pointed out, your math is still off in your Fantasyland repost." - Lame stuff. He pointed it out after my first post, and I thanked him for the correction. That correction stands - but the percentages were not the heart of my post - my metaphor about the stupid citizen in the Realm of Jason from Edmond was. That cheap riposte is simply a distraction from the issues.
"I am done with you" - We'll see. You haven't been able to keep yourself from replying to every post of mine in this thread thus far. You will not answer the straightforward question because you will either be forced to admit my premise (that you are for raising taxes in a recession), or lie about how you really on the issue (by saying you wouldn't repeal the tax cuts, which you would if you had the power).
So, you options are either to admit I'm correct or lie. I can well see why you are "done with" me.....(*snickers*)
MBA, I guess I'll have to resort to the kind of metaphor that one usually reserves for kindergardners.
Let's say I'm Dictator, and I've imposed a Stupid Tax on all the certified morons in my realm. I levy this tax at 10% on their incomes, so unemployed morons are, obviously, not taxed.
Are you with me so far? Let's make sure:
Employed, certified morons in The Realm of Jason of Edmond have their incomes taxed at 10%. Got it? Good.
Okay, at some point I get a plaintive, squealing letter from one of my subjects who happens to be a certified moron. He pleads for some relief from the Stupid Tax. I write MBA back, and tell him I intend to issue a decree forwith that will lower his and all the other morons in my realm's Stupid Tax to 7%. This is done - in effect, a 3% tax cut.
Time goes by, and the economy in my realm gets bad. A full scale recession takes hold, and revenues start to drop. Since most businesses fire their stupid employees first, the amount I collect from the Stupid Tax drops precipitously. Come to think of it, the principal of "fire the stupid first when times get bad" may be the reason why you have all this time to sit around and post bilge on these forums, MBA, but let's put that aside.
An advisor of mine writes me any number of memos deploring the 3% tax cut. In fact, she ridicules it and points to that cut as the nub of all sorts of revenue problems. She doesn't *explicitly* say "raise taxes": she doesn't have to. It is clear she thinks (A) the cut in the Stupid Tax was wrong and (B) that that cut should be repealed.
Still with me?
Okay, this advisor happens to be smoking hot, and she lends some physical persuasion to her case by becoming one of my concubines. I repeal the tax. The tax goes from 7% back to where it was previously, to wit, 10%.
By any standard one wishes to measure, I have just *increased* taxes by 3% - and in the middle of a recession.
By any standard one wishes to employ in their reasoning, my smoking hot advisor urged me to do what I did, i.e., raise taxes. She cannot claim to have not had a hand in urging their repeal - she "condemned" them repeatedly! Just as you admit to doing below, while still trying to convince us you don't mean what you plainly say.
Is the scenario becoming at least a little clearer to you? Do you see, even in your dim torpor, how you have plainly called for a tax increase (in the middle of a recession no less) by constantly, in post after post after post, ridiculing and calling into question the continued efficacy of the previous tax cuts? Do you now start to grasp the import of your OWN STATEMENTS?
I wonder...maybe we *DO* need a Stupid Tax for the willfully dense. I know me a savant who'd be ah payin'.
(*REPOST* for the dim-witted)
You *have* repeatedly insisted that it was a mistake to cut those tax rates - your own post admits it. Now, either you think it was a mistake, or you do not. Mistakes exist to be corrected. Why can't you simply say "I think the tax cuts should be repealed" or "I do not think the tax cuts should be repealed"? I ASK YOU, for about the nth time. Why can't you answer a simple question?
lanny, my "false links" were straight to the Department of Education, with a detailed PDF. So the answer to my question is "no, lanny, Tulsa has not quit lying about his favorite pet topic." You could have simply said "I have not quit lying, yet."
There's always hope!
Let's say I'm Dictator, and I've imposed a Stupid Tax on all the certified morons in my realm. I levy this tax at 10% on their incomes, so unemployed morons are, obviously, not taxed.
Are you with me so far? Let's make sure:
Employed, certified morons in The Realm of Jason of Edmond have their incomes taxed at 10%. Got it? Good.
Okay, at some point I get a plaintive, squealing letter from one of my subjects who happens to be a certified moron. He pleads for some relief from the Stupid Tax. I write MBA back, and tell him I intend to issue a decree forwith that will lower his and all the other morons in my realm's Stupid Tax to 7%. This is done - in effect, a 3% tax cut.
Time goes by, and the economy in my realm gets bad. A full scale recession takes hold, and revenues start to drop. Since most businesses fire their stupid employees first, the amount I collect from the Stupid Tax drops precipitously. Come to think of it, the principal of "fire the stupid first when times get bad" may be the reason why you have all this time to sit around and post bilge on these forums, MBA, but let's put that aside.
An advisor of mine writes me any number of memos deploring the 3% tax cut. In fact, she ridicules it and points to that cut as the nub of all sorts of revenue problems. She doesn't *explicitly* say "raise taxes": she doesn't have to. It is clear she thinks (A) the cut in the Stupid Tax was wrong and (B) that that cut should be repealed.
Still with me?
Okay, this advisor happens to be smoking hot, and she lends some physical persuasion to her case by becoming one of my concubines. I repeal the tax. The tax goes from 7% back to where it was previously, to wit, 10%.
By any standard one wishes to measure, I have just *increased* taxes by 3% - and in the middle of a recession.
By any standard one wishes to employ in their reasoning, my smoking hot advisor urged me to do what I did, i.e., raise taxes. She cannot claim to have not had a hand in urging their repeal - she "condemned" them repeatedly! Just as you admit to doing below, while still trying to convince us you don't mean what you plainly say.
Is the scenario becoming at least a little clearer to you? Do you see, even in your dim torpor, how you have plainly called for a tax increase (in the middle of a recession no less) by constantly, in post after post after post, ridiculing and calling into question the continued efficacy of the previous tax cuts? Do you now start to grasp the import of your OWN STATEMENTS?
I wonder...maybe we *DO* need a Stupid Tax for the willfully dense. I know me a savant who'd be ah payin'.
Here it is: http://www.gossip-boy.com/Jason_Murphey.html
But, that's not me. I've never been any kind of sex offender, registered or not. Calling me that is libel and could get you served.... I'm not gay. Nor have I ever posted any messages (that anyone is welcome to search for) that you claim. The messages you are pulling up are about whether or not a person was raped. I've never advocated that victims of rape "liked it." Frankly, I'm having trouble finding what you are referring to. Probably why you pulled quotes out of context. But hey, you're a Republican legislator, right?
Oh, wait. This is the very first time you've tried to deny that. Kinda late, arent' you? And you've already given yourself away too many times. Denial is a big part of 90 percent of what you advocate.
You know, like putting me on "ignore". If my comments are so dismissive, then what are you worried about? Hmm.
Jason, Edmond: Once again you do not bring anything of value to this thread. I condemned the tax cuts because they have affected the State's revenue and have contributed to the state's revenue shortfall. That is fact. You still have failed to show where I have "demanded" their repeal. But once again again, you evade my question? What would you do to raise state revenues at this time? I've asked you three times for your answer. What is it Jason? Obviously you do not have an answer so until you do, you are dismissed. Don't flatter yourself, I used you style because that may be the only thing you understand in this thread. You know, you have to write to the level of the person you are speaking to and in your case, I have to kick it down a few notches.
Get it?
But of course you do: you're simply trying to salvage some slender shred of credibility here tonight.
I submit you have none - and by your own words.
Jason, Edmond: I’m glad you quoted my earlier post. Now everyone out there can see how dumb you really are. Once again your feeble mind cannot comprehend what I wrote. I said the tax CUTS were wrong for Oklahoma. I didn’t say anything about a tax INCREASE. You see Jason, “cuts” mean a decrease. Leaving the tax rate alone was the prudent thing to do, especially when increasing permanent expenditures. That was my point. Better yet, why don’t you answer my question. What would you do to raise state revenues at this time?
*Ahem*...
"Come on D.O., it's O.K. to admit the tax cuts were wrong for the State of Oklahoma. Trying to defend them every week makes you look more foolish. - MBA, Oklahoma City"
Link: http://newsok.com/hard-times-twisting-darkness-into-opportunity/article/3416332#ixzz0X59WdCHy
Repealing tax cuts is the same thing as raising taxes, "MBA" - and you seem all in favor of that in the post you made and I linked. Or do we have you wrong? I think not...
Now that you've been proven either (a) a liar or (b) someone who simply is unwilling to stand behind the things they type in other threads, why should any of us take you seriously any longer?
I'll be curious to see how you respond, now that you can no longer deny that you are *FOR* raising taxes in the middle of a recession...
Please answer yes or no.
(Crossposted):
Well, of course, for phony "MBA's" like our very own forum regular, there is *NEVER* a good time to cut taxes - or keep tax cuts in place that have already been implemented.
No, for such poseurs (he's an CPA, or whatever he's constantly claiming, about like my kitty cat is) it is always and forever the duty of government at all levels to grow, and taxes of nearly every sort to go up.
One supposes the rate of taxation should grow all the way to 100% - tell us, "MBA," I'm curious: is there *ANY* level at which the rate of taxation by the state of Oklahoma should top off? 50%? How about 75% 90%?
No - in point of fact, the state government should cut its budget to make revenues fit outlays, not increase taxes in the middle of a recession. A first year Econ student - or whatever they're calling it these days - could tell you that.
But our friend MBA "majored" in internet posting, not economics.
But they don't dare ask them to name the 10 Commandments or the Disciples.
Ask Forrest Gump what God's first name is. He will say it is Andy. Why? "Andy walks with me. Andy talks with me. Andy tells me I am His own."
Does God ordain people for good health? Are some people sick because God wanted that for them? Are healtcare nightmares a natural thing to be tolerated?
You gotta love that socialized medicine, especially when you're receiving, right Bert.
-
The D.O. also mentions bond funds. Bond funds cannot be used for operational costs either. You cannot pay salaries, benefits, insurance or utilities out of bond funds. The passage of school bond issues in this economy show that patrons of many school districts do indeed want good facilities, up-to-date technology and positive physical learning environments for their children. Unfortunately, the realization is that these schools can build the facilities but can't afford to staff them.
Dok does the same with dhs stinker, helps cretae the political climate that produces policies leaving critical services way underfunded, then run front page stories about the agencies shortfallings. You think.