Many public school experts and corporate legislators have debated the cause of low student achievement in our public schools for years, even decades, but have failed to agree on the primary factors affecting student test scores, etc... Several "experts" (including me) believe that low grades in any particular high school class is directly correlated to the ratio of girls to boys in a classroom, and point to anecdotal data in order to confirm their suspicions. For instance, the only 'F' I ever received in high school was in Accounting class. I blame it on the fact that there were 27 girls in the class, but only 3 boys - a ratio of 9 girls for every boy. While this ratio may be very good for a cattle rancher, it's not good in an accounting class. Rick Dorman, another boy in the class, made a slightly higher grade, so the ratio of girls to boys can't be blamed entirely as the cause for low "accounting" grades. (Disclaimer: this is a partially satirical view and partially scientific view of low student achievement in public schools, but 100% true.)
Many corporate lawmakers who consider themselves public school experts, believe low student achievement is directly related to "bad teaching", if not the primary cause. This theory is questionable, because they cite no supporting data which backs this claim. It has about the same validity to say "the ratio of girls to boys is the cause of low student achievement among boys", as it does to say "bad teachers cause low student achievement".
The only way to provide even partial validity in determining the cause of low student achievement in public schools is to do a little scientific analysis of existing data. We are lucky, as Education Week annually provides public school data from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, in it's 2017 Quality Counts State Report Card. We must only provide an analysis of the data, in order to determine links between factors:
Oklahoma public school performance grades:Oklahoma finished 47th among all 50 states and DC with an overall score of 68.3 out of 100 points and a grade of 'D+'. While Education Week provided data in three categories and eight subcategories of state grades, we'll only analyze three subcategory grades for indications of correlation and possible causality. Oklahoma received an 'F' (52.8 points) in the status of K-12 Achievement (measures the state's current student achievement in reading and math performance, graduation rates and results of advanced placement exams. Oklahoma earned an 'F' (43.4 points) for spending on public schools, which surprises none - and is one of the lowest 'F's ever recorded in the history of Quality Counts. The sub-category Spending include measures of average state-wide per student legislator spending and the share of state resources spent on K-12 education. The third sub-category examined, but not analyzed, is Accountability for quality of The Teaching Profession - which Education Week provided no data in 2017, so the data from 2012 is: Oklahoma received a 'B-' (82.4 points). Aside from the subcategories Achievement Equity (88.2) and funding equity (88.2) of 2017, the Quality of the teaching profession for Oklahoma schools had the highest point total at 82.4. This Oklahoma data point alone may eliminate the validity of "corporate legislators' claim that Oklahoma's poor teachers are the root cause of low student achievement, as Oklahoma ranked 3rd among all 50 states and D.C. in the Accountability for Quality of the teaching profession subcategory. We will analyze only two subcategories, school spending and status of student achievement, by correlating the states' point totals in each category to one another. The degree of correlation between the two data sets may be determined by utilizing the following correlative formula: r= the sum of XY - (the sum of X times the sum of Y) divided by the number of data points (ndp); divided by the square root of [the sum of X squared - (the sum of X) squared divided by the ndp] [the sum of Y squared - (the sum of Y) squared divided by the ndp]...
Now that we're all thoroughly confused, I'd like to apologize to my O.U Statistics professor - Dr. Osborn; my Doctoral Chair - Dr. Maiden; and the Dean of the O.U. Education Department - Dr. Garn, for limiting this analysis to only two variables and utilizing a very simplified correlative analysis. An in-depth analysis could have been provided, but I don't have the appropriate computer app. program, and my time is limited. Also, algebraic expressions, symbols, and terminology have been limited or omitted to prevent overload of corporate and crony brains... for an overloaded corporate mind is akin to the last string of Christmas lights which blows a fuse.. or resembles a crack head's mind on meth (bacon frying). I'd also like to apologize before publishing this column - to all readers who are offended by the truth of assigned responsibility and indications of causal relationships, as we know that some will be (namely corporate lawmakers and their cronies). OK, lets plug in the values and calculate r for state spending and student achievement for all states, using the computational formula as a whole: r = (199,773 - 195,150) divided by the square root of 78,613,942 = 4,623 divided by 8,866 = .52...
(Warning: Governor Fallin and corporate legislators in the House and Senate (and their corporate crony friends) should avoid staring directly at the formula as it could cause temporary blindness... or at the very least, brain function could improve..)
According to Cohen's (1988) Guidelines for Correlation Coefficients, a Large Correlation between variables is .50 to 1.00, so r = .52 is a medium/large correlation. (Although it won't damage their mental processes for corporate lawmakers to read the last sentence, it won't help them either, as it could just as well be in a foreign language.) The bottom line is that legislative public school spending is highly correlated (.52) with the status of student achievement. We can also analyze r squared (.27), by determining that 27% of the differences in state student achievement can be predicted by state legislator education spending. Holy Cow! Corporate state legislators blamed low student achievement on poor teaching. Like we said earlier, a correlative procedure could be run, analyzing State Teacher Training, of which Oklahoma scored 82 points in 2012, and Status of Student Achievement - but no correlation at all would probably be determined.
On a final note: Just because two variables are highly correlated does not mean that one is causing the other. There could be several variables at play which affect Student Achievement, such as the ratio of girls to boys (9 to 1) in the Accounting Class I mentioned earlier. But across all 50 states, in a scientific analysis comparing State Education Spending with Student Achievement, we can safely say that the amount of state spending on public schools causes low or high student achievement... but what other school factors may play a role in student achievement? Oklahoma Corporate Lawmakers believe that "Reducing Administrative Costs" is the factor that influences Student Achievement 'more so' than their own state spending for public schools. Many public school experts believe this "hammering of school administrators" is only political rhetoric, so we'll put their belief to the test and correlate State School Administrative Costs with Student Achievement to determine if corporate legislators have a valid argument for public school consolidation, or if it's only empty political rhetoric (lies) to say that only school consolidation will improve student achievement.
Since it's now post Christmas, I'm once again not apologizing to corporate legislators and their friends for conducting the above research and publishing the results. They probably don't understand it anyway. So, not sorry...
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Regarding "Charter school critics' arguments lack consistency"...
I just read the uninformed or biased opinion of The Oklahoman Editorial Board concerning "Charter school critics' arguments lack consistency". The OEB asks "Is it too much to ask for consistency from critics of charter schools?". First of all, there are literally millions of charter school critics in Oklahoma, so at least a few have always been consistent in fairly criticizing "corporate charter schools". We "inconsistent critics" in the mind of the DO Editorial Board, simply want public school decisions to be made at the local democratically elected school board level, not at the corporate non-democratically elected level. This governing philosophy is the linchpin of conservatism - "Local government decisions should be determined at the local level, not at the federal, state, or corporate level". School board members are locally elected government officials, they are not appointed to the position by a higher state or federal official. They are controlled by the local voters which includes parents of local public school students and local officials. The Ed. Op. Board refers to voters in school board elections as vague "special interests groups", so one may question just which groups the Ed. Op. writers are referring to: Democrats, Republicans, Teachers, Educators, Conservatives, or Liberals? Or maybe the real special interest group trying to control local school board elections is the Corporatists, whose primary interest is "corporate welfare".
State Board members, on the other hand, are appointed by corporate (not conservative) state or federal officials whose apparent goal is the control of our local public schools, via corporate welfare (the acquisition of public tax dollars for corporate cronies). We'll disagree with the Ed. board's opinion that "conservative lawmakers" lack consistency - Conservatives do not lack consistency in their belief of reduced government spending and local government. I'm just beginning to critique the corporate media's opinion of our public schools, so will continue this rant after I feed the cows...
The DO Editorial states that "local parents and officials are the ones seeking to launch charter schools", but fails to name the local parents and local officials it refers to. Many local parents and real local officials would believe the biased media, if only it would provide data which back up its claims - it's the difference in uninformed opinions and informed opinions. As a matter of fact, the local officials referred to may be the corporate entity, not local school board officials, which contacted the corporate charter group that appealed to the State Board of Education for control of Seminole Public Schools.
Another example of what the DO Editorial Board considers a local public school is the EPIC virtual charter school chain. (If I am incorrect in assuming that the DO Editorial Board considers EPIC a public school, controlled by local parents and officials, please let me know..). Ample evidence exists that EPIC illegally provides payments to parents in return for enrolling their kids. Through corporate welfare programs provided to EPIC nation-wide by corporate state lawmakers, EPIC pays for private music lessons, private acting lessons, and much more to the parents of students. This private payola provided by corporate lawmakers, is used to entice parents to enroll children in EPIC corporate charter schools at local taxpayers expense. This is how the local taxpayer is bilked out of $ millions: Virtual school vultures circle the Oklahoma skies looking for dead or weakened public schools. Several Oklahoma public schools have been choked down by corporate legislators as a way of providing public school carrion to their virtual vulture corporate cronies. A prime example of a weakened public school which has fallen victim to corporate wolves (Oklahoma corporate legislators) is Panola Public Schools. Panola, already sick from state budget cuts, was near death as EPIC vultures circled overhead. The local Panola school officials envisioned the circling vultures as a lifeline to staying alive, so turned Panola over to the EPIC vultures - as a way of "keeping their doors open". Panola Public Schools was immediately transformed into EPIC Virtual Charter Schools, and the former Panola superintendent was transformed into the new EPIC principal. The new EPIC (Panola) Public School began siphoning students away from area traditional public schools on the promises of providing private lessons to students or the public money to pay for them to the parents of students. Like mistletoe on an Elm tree - virtual charter schools survive on the host public schools, and when the host dies, the parasite moves on - leaving nothing behind. The Virtual Vultures may be likened to the "suitcase farmers" of Dust Bowl Oklahoma during the 1930's. Just as Eastern wheat farming corporations saw hefty profits in buying up or leasing land in the western Oklahoma for plowing up our topsoil, the present-day Virtual Education corporations see the failure of our lawmakers to properly fund public schools as a panacea of profit. The real victims of the Eastern farming corporations were our family farmers and ranchers which is not unlike the real victims of the Virtual Vultures: the charter school students (who often return to their traditional public school, but only after the virtual school has collected the state aid), the public school students in traditional public schools (who had their funding reduced to pay for the Virtuals), and state tax payers (who have been bilked out of $ millions to pay for a public school which is not even real).
Another example of "stealing $millions from tax payers" are the TIF charter schools mentioned in another post. In south Oklahoma City for instance, two charter schools are being built for $60 million, an elementary charter and soon to be high school charter. The $60 million was acquired by a real estate developer through promises to develop a specific area in the OKC School District. The only problem is that OKC school district voters did not approve a "bond" for building the two schools. The only approval was given by the OKC city council. The revenue for building the two charter schools did not originate from local property taxation, but from the state aid that all other public schools should have received. The billionaire entrepreneur has the money game figured out - bilk tax payers out of $millions, in order to become a wealthier billionaire. But he's even smarter than the average billionaire, because he's not bilking OKC tax payers - only who he believes are the "stupid" rural tax payers. So, I have a question for the DO editorial board: The fact that a billionaire real estate developer in Oklahoma City will build two charter schools, at a cost of $60 million which comes from many rural tax payers and rural public school students... Is that not "robbing traditional public schools" to pay for the billionaire developer's "private" charter schools? I have a feeling his little charade will come to a screeching halt within two years.
Back to the Op. Editorial board's shallow and offensive remarks: "... school boards tend to be dominated by special interest groups whose goals don't always align with the broader community". There are approximately 517 local school boards with about 2000 members in Oklahoma. The board members (all of which are parents of students, local business owners, and other local public school supporters) have been elected by their local voters to serve students, which is the special interest group referred to by the DO Ed. board. I am offended by this remark, but not nearly so as most local school board members are.
The DO editorial board opines "Is it too much to ask for consistency from critics of charter schools?", so we must naturally believe that part of the inconsistency the corporate media complains about is the matter of "school choice". In other words, since Senator Sharp is a Republican, he must adhere to the national republican party position for our public schools - that "every parent in America has a right to spend public tax dollars on any form of private, home-schooling, private skill lessons, virtual education corporations (both national and foreign), brick and mortar charter schools, and on and on and on... In the small collective mind of the DO board, no tax increases would be too high to support any form or style for furthering any student's education. It's called competition for Oklahoman's tax dollars, and billionaire developers want their fair share...
I don't personally know Senator Sharp's political philosophy concerning public education, but we must assume he believes that "public tax dollars should go to public services". He must believe that lawmakers don't have the right to direct public money to private and corporate charter schools. But then again, he probably hasn't received any campaign donations from corporately managed education systems or private corporate schools - so has no personal interest in "paying them back", as many corporate lawmakers do...
State Board members, on the other hand, are appointed by corporate (not conservative) state or federal officials whose apparent goal is the control of our local public schools, via corporate welfare (the acquisition of public tax dollars for corporate cronies). We'll disagree with the Ed. board's opinion that "conservative lawmakers" lack consistency - Conservatives do not lack consistency in their belief of reduced government spending and local government. I'm just beginning to critique the corporate media's opinion of our public schools, so will continue this rant after I feed the cows...
The DO Editorial states that "local parents and officials are the ones seeking to launch charter schools", but fails to name the local parents and local officials it refers to. Many local parents and real local officials would believe the biased media, if only it would provide data which back up its claims - it's the difference in uninformed opinions and informed opinions. As a matter of fact, the local officials referred to may be the corporate entity, not local school board officials, which contacted the corporate charter group that appealed to the State Board of Education for control of Seminole Public Schools.
Another example of what the DO Editorial Board considers a local public school is the EPIC virtual charter school chain. (If I am incorrect in assuming that the DO Editorial Board considers EPIC a public school, controlled by local parents and officials, please let me know..). Ample evidence exists that EPIC illegally provides payments to parents in return for enrolling their kids. Through corporate welfare programs provided to EPIC nation-wide by corporate state lawmakers, EPIC pays for private music lessons, private acting lessons, and much more to the parents of students. This private payola provided by corporate lawmakers, is used to entice parents to enroll children in EPIC corporate charter schools at local taxpayers expense. This is how the local taxpayer is bilked out of $ millions: Virtual school vultures circle the Oklahoma skies looking for dead or weakened public schools. Several Oklahoma public schools have been choked down by corporate legislators as a way of providing public school carrion to their virtual vulture corporate cronies. A prime example of a weakened public school which has fallen victim to corporate wolves (Oklahoma corporate legislators) is Panola Public Schools. Panola, already sick from state budget cuts, was near death as EPIC vultures circled overhead. The local Panola school officials envisioned the circling vultures as a lifeline to staying alive, so turned Panola over to the EPIC vultures - as a way of "keeping their doors open". Panola Public Schools was immediately transformed into EPIC Virtual Charter Schools, and the former Panola superintendent was transformed into the new EPIC principal. The new EPIC (Panola) Public School began siphoning students away from area traditional public schools on the promises of providing private lessons to students or the public money to pay for them to the parents of students. Like mistletoe on an Elm tree - virtual charter schools survive on the host public schools, and when the host dies, the parasite moves on - leaving nothing behind. The Virtual Vultures may be likened to the "suitcase farmers" of Dust Bowl Oklahoma during the 1930's. Just as Eastern wheat farming corporations saw hefty profits in buying up or leasing land in the western Oklahoma for plowing up our topsoil, the present-day Virtual Education corporations see the failure of our lawmakers to properly fund public schools as a panacea of profit. The real victims of the Eastern farming corporations were our family farmers and ranchers which is not unlike the real victims of the Virtual Vultures: the charter school students (who often return to their traditional public school, but only after the virtual school has collected the state aid), the public school students in traditional public schools (who had their funding reduced to pay for the Virtuals), and state tax payers (who have been bilked out of $ millions to pay for a public school which is not even real).
Another example of "stealing $millions from tax payers" are the TIF charter schools mentioned in another post. In south Oklahoma City for instance, two charter schools are being built for $60 million, an elementary charter and soon to be high school charter. The $60 million was acquired by a real estate developer through promises to develop a specific area in the OKC School District. The only problem is that OKC school district voters did not approve a "bond" for building the two schools. The only approval was given by the OKC city council. The revenue for building the two charter schools did not originate from local property taxation, but from the state aid that all other public schools should have received. The billionaire entrepreneur has the money game figured out - bilk tax payers out of $millions, in order to become a wealthier billionaire. But he's even smarter than the average billionaire, because he's not bilking OKC tax payers - only who he believes are the "stupid" rural tax payers. So, I have a question for the DO editorial board: The fact that a billionaire real estate developer in Oklahoma City will build two charter schools, at a cost of $60 million which comes from many rural tax payers and rural public school students... Is that not "robbing traditional public schools" to pay for the billionaire developer's "private" charter schools? I have a feeling his little charade will come to a screeching halt within two years.
Back to the Op. Editorial board's shallow and offensive remarks: "... school boards tend to be dominated by special interest groups whose goals don't always align with the broader community". There are approximately 517 local school boards with about 2000 members in Oklahoma. The board members (all of which are parents of students, local business owners, and other local public school supporters) have been elected by their local voters to serve students, which is the special interest group referred to by the DO Ed. board. I am offended by this remark, but not nearly so as most local school board members are.
The DO editorial board opines "Is it too much to ask for consistency from critics of charter schools?", so we must naturally believe that part of the inconsistency the corporate media complains about is the matter of "school choice". In other words, since Senator Sharp is a Republican, he must adhere to the national republican party position for our public schools - that "every parent in America has a right to spend public tax dollars on any form of private, home-schooling, private skill lessons, virtual education corporations (both national and foreign), brick and mortar charter schools, and on and on and on... In the small collective mind of the DO board, no tax increases would be too high to support any form or style for furthering any student's education. It's called competition for Oklahoman's tax dollars, and billionaire developers want their fair share...
I don't personally know Senator Sharp's political philosophy concerning public education, but we must assume he believes that "public tax dollars should go to public services". He must believe that lawmakers don't have the right to direct public money to private and corporate charter schools. But then again, he probably hasn't received any campaign donations from corporately managed education systems or private corporate schools - so has no personal interest in "paying them back", as many corporate lawmakers do...
Teacher pay raise and increasing "Instruction"
The conservative legislator's way to provide $ thousands in pay raises for Oklahoma teachers is to re-direct existing tax dollars to public schools, without raising taxes! As outlined in a previous post/column, almost $1 billion, maybe more, is currently tied up by municipalities for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Of that $1 billion, almost $500 million would have and still can go to our public schools - if only the State Legislature has the "intestinal fortitude" to abolish Oklahoma TIF! Tax Increment Financing began in California in 1945, as a way for its big cities to re-develop "blighted" areas. California used TIF to re-develop neighborhood slums by capturing property tax or sales tax to fund private developers' projects. TIF was never intended to be utilized for developing green zones in cities. A "green zone" by definition is not blighted, but only undeveloped areas. By 2012, California was experiencing state budget problems much like Oklahoma's 2010-2018 budget problems. Tied up in California TIF was $6 billion, which when abolished by Governor Jerry Brown (and followed up by the California Assembly) - sent $6 billion back to California State Service Agencies. The public schools' share was approximately $3 billion.
In Oklahoma, TIF has also recently taken a turn in developing "green zones" - something TIF was never intended for. As a result, public schools could be receiving approximately $500 million they are entitled to - earmarked for Instruction, and without raising taxes. Public Schools in Oklahoma would all be spending more than 60% of their total expenditures for Instruction - if only a courageous Senator or Representative had the brains God gave a goose, and initiated the abolishment of Oklahoma TIF... We'll soon know...
In Oklahoma, TIF has also recently taken a turn in developing "green zones" - something TIF was never intended for. As a result, public schools could be receiving approximately $500 million they are entitled to - earmarked for Instruction, and without raising taxes. Public Schools in Oklahoma would all be spending more than 60% of their total expenditures for Instruction - if only a courageous Senator or Representative had the brains God gave a goose, and initiated the abolishment of Oklahoma TIF... We'll soon know...
Monday, December 18, 2017
The Tossed Bone: Public Schools
On November 21, 2017, Governor Mary Fallin issued an Executive Order which read in part "I, Mary Fallin, Governor of State of Oklahoma, pursuant to the power and authority vested in me by sections 1 and 2 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution hereby direct as follows:
By September 1, 2018, and every year thereafter, the State Board of Education... shall compile a list of every public school district that spends less than sixty percent (60%) of their budget on instructional expenditures.
The State Board of Education... shall notify school districts that are designated for administrative consolidation or annexation by July 1, 2019.
... school districts designated for administrative consolidation or annexation shall submit a plan for administrative consolidation or annexation to the Superintendent and State Board of Education. If a plan is not submitted by the school district, the State Board of Education... shall determine a plan for consolidation or annexation...
Funds saved as a result of administrative consolidation or annexation shall be retained by the school district and reallocated for instructional expenditures.
On the evening of November 21, 2017, Shawn Hime (Executive Director of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association) and Rooney Virgin (Director of Legislative Services for the OSSBA), issued the following response to Governor Fallin's Executive Order:
Members,
Late this afternoon, Gov. Fallin issued three executive orders, including one that puts in place a process to force administrative consolidation of Oklahoma schools...
... the move was clearly political theatre and a distraction from the state's serious fiscal crisis. OSSBA's legal team believes the executive order is on shaky constitutional ground and exceeds the governor's authority.
On December 11, 2017, in Governor Fallin's new Oklahoma Now column, she states: Teacher salaries need to be increased in the state of Oklahoma. This is a simple fact, especially as we compare our teacher compensation to surrounding states...,
For the past two years I have called for a teacher pay increase in my State of the State addresses, but there has not been a solution to this challenge. We must address this issue if we expect to continue to be a prosperous state...
After stating how she has advocated for teacher pay raises for the last two years of her eight year term, Governor Fallin goes on to state just how she will pay for those teacher raises as she says The state of Oklahoma has a role in increasing the salaries of teachers... BUT local school districts also have a responsibility to increase the compensation of teachers. In late November, I signed an executive order to begin thoughtful conversations about local budgets, cost saving efficiencies, and how school districts could send more dollars to classrooms...
"...We have to ensure more existing dollars are reaching every classroom by tackling administrative efficiencies head-on."
My executive order directs the OSBE...to compile a list of school districts that spend less than 60 percent of their budget on instructional expenditures... in other words, no more than 40% should go to non-classroom expenses. ... the (OSBE)... will recommend actions to enhance cost-sharing efficiencies between schools by July 2019.
This action is intended to encourage administrators and school boards to intensely review school district budgets.
I agree with Shawn Hime concerning Fallin's 1st Executive Order that "the move was clearly political theatre..." used as a distraction for the real budget crisis. But "the Order" was political theatre in the sense that she attempted to "throw corporate lawmakers a bone" in order to persuade them to vote for a balanced budget which relies on recurring revenue. The "bone" Governor Fallin has thrown corporate legislators is our public schools on a silver platter. Knowing this is the number one accomplishment in most corporate bucket lists, she has tried to appease them with a gut punch to our public schools. Like Shawn Hime said (the Order) puts in place the process to force administrative consolidation" or annexation.
In Oklahoma Now, Fallin explains her Executive order a little differently, as she later on said the Order was and is intended to encourage (intimidate) administrators and boards to intensely review school district budgets (We can ensure the public and Governor Fallin that we've been "intensely reviewing" our budgets for decades now). In other words, we can study the data we've already studied, and then send our plans for consolidation or annexation to the State Board (and if we don't do it, Governor Fallin will do it for us.
I know Blanchard Schools will comply with the Order, so I'll proceed to lay out our "study and review plans" to be compliant (a good little school). We'd first like to thank Dr. Rick Cobb, Superintendent of Mid-Del, for compiling a list of schools in decreasing order of Instructional expenditures from the highest to the lowest (67.4% Instruction to 21.7% Instruction). The data indicates that 102 school districts spent more than 60% (the grail) for instruction, but 382 districts fell short (a big fat 'F' in corporate lawmakers minds). This data indicates that 382 schools must plan for consolidation or annexation, or face the guillotene.
In avoiding the death penalty (forced consolidation), I'll review only Blanchard Public Schools' expenditure data as listed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from 2013-2014, since this seems to be the federal set of data that corporate lawmakers prefer:
Blanchard
Total students - 1937
Instructional expenditure - 55%
Instructional expenditures include, but are not limited to: regular certified salaries, unused sick leave for certified staff, regular non-certified salaries, stipends, health and accident insurance for certified personnel, FICA-employers contribution, district paid retirement for certified staff (non-administrative), retirement- employers contribution (non-administrative) etc.
* Non-discretionary - 5%
* Discretionary - 95%
Student and staff support - 15%
Student and staff support expenditures include, but are not limited to: Guidance Services, Medical Services, Occupational Therapy, Psychological Services, Speech Pathology Services, Extra-Duty Certified Student Support Services, Instructional Staff Training Services, Library/Media Services, Instruction Related Technology, etc.
* Non-discretionary - 50%
* Discretionary - 50%
District Administration - 3%
District Administration expenditures, the real target for Governor Fallin and corporate lawmakers, include, but are not limited to: Board Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and Minute Clerk Services, Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, County Visual Inspection Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, Other General and Administrative Services, etc..
* Non-Discretionary - 90%
* Discretionary - 10%
Operations/Food Service - 27%
Operations/Food Services expenditures include, but are not limited to: Business Office, Tax Assessment and Collection Services, Communication Services, Personnel Services, Operation of Building Services, Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services, Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Services, Safety Services, Vehicle Operation Services, Monitoring Services, Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance Services, Food and Milk Purchasing, Food Preparation and Dispensing Services, Food and Supplies Dispensing Services, Food and Supplies Delivery Services, Food and Milk Purchases for Reimbursable Student Meals, Land Acquisition Services (for new high school), Debt Service (for new high school), etc.
* Non-Discretionary - 30%
* Discretionary - 70%
Total expenditures - 100%
(* Represents the approximate percentage of discretionary spending, "not legally required", and non-discretionary, "legally required", spending for each category.)
An analysis of the above data indicates the following: In order to provide more funding to Instruction, Operations/Food Service is the category to "rob" in order to accomplish this task (Rob Peter to pay Paul), because it has a higher percentage of "discretionary" spending as well as the second highest level of overall spending (just behind Instruction). The Governor and corporate lawmakers want the public to believe that the category to "rob" is District Administration, even though total "Administrative costs" at 3% is extremely low, and discretionary spending for District Administration is approximately 10% (.7% of total district expenditures).
To comply with Governor Fallin's Executive Order, the school board will begin a "thoughtful conversation" concerning "tackling Administrative inefficiencies head on" at our January regular board meeting. If Blanchard Public Schools were able to actually "rob Peter to pay Paul" and transfer .7% in discretionary administrative costs to Instruction, our Instructional percentage would rise to only 55.7%, far short of Governor Fallin's Executive Order (60%). It's reasonable to assume that Operations/ Food Service at 27% of all district expenditures as well as 90% discretionary, would be the category to reduce and transfer to Instruction. But as Governor Fallin wrote in her Executive Order, we must tackle administrative efficiencies head-on (which is illegal in the NFL) and funds must be saved as a result of administrative consolidation or annexation. We must assume, therefore, that reducing any other expenditure category is outlawed by the governor and her corporate allies in the legislature.
Let's explore another way to increase instruction.. one which involves a little common sense and basic math skills (something that seems to be lacking in the governors office and corporate lawmakers: This pathway to increased Instructional expenditures involves increasing gross production tax to 7%, the rate at which it once was, and eliminating Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which I mentioned in another post. The increase in GPT from the current 2% to 7%, would yield approximately $1,176,470 for Blanchard Instruction.. while eliminating TIF in Oklahoma would yield approximately $882,353 = a total of $2,058,823 added to Blanchard Instructional expenditures.So, instead of spending $7,045,000 for Instruction (55% of total expenditures), Blanchard Schools could spend $9,103,823, or 71% for Instruction. This scenario for increasing Instructional expenditures is unlikely to unfold as Governor Fallin wants to consolidate schools.
So, this column represents the intensive review as ordered by Fallin by utilizing corporate gazinta math (Jethro demonstrated his knowledge of "gazintas" to Uncle Jed of The Beverly Hillbillies - "one gazinta two, two times.. etc") and NCES data. As most analysts can see, Blanchard Public Schools are doomed to be consolidated or annexed to surrounding schools. I think I'll start working on our consolidation/annexation plan early, so as to not be in violation of the Executive Order...
The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce has just announced a "thinking outside the box" school revenue source which doesn't involve tax increases! The Chairman of the Oklahoma State Chamber has stated in a Capitol news conference that he's discovered the holy grail of increased public school revenue - "a more streamlined school system, that would benefit greatly from ... district annexations and consolidations." I'm surprised that no corporate lawmakers came up with this original idea for increasing funding to school instruction, but not really... because this "original idea" is from a Daily Oklahoman article dated August 8, 1989. No less than three commissions, task forces, or committees have presented findings to governors and state legislators since then, but corporate lawmakers and state chambers have not accepted the results - so continue to beat the school consolidation drum. Flash forward to December 18, 2017, 28 years later:
The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce has, once again, recommended to lawmakers that public schools be annexed and consolidated as a way to increase teacher pay and as an additional revenue source, as part of its Strategic Initiative Plan (SIP the kool-aid) - "In the area of education, the recommendation includes creation of a commission to make data-based recommendations on school consolidation." What earth shattering news! The State Chamber has joined Governor Mary Fallin in calling for the annexation or consolidation of most public school districts in Oklahoma. So, the beat goes on...
By September 1, 2018, and every year thereafter, the State Board of Education... shall compile a list of every public school district that spends less than sixty percent (60%) of their budget on instructional expenditures.
The State Board of Education... shall notify school districts that are designated for administrative consolidation or annexation by July 1, 2019.
... school districts designated for administrative consolidation or annexation shall submit a plan for administrative consolidation or annexation to the Superintendent and State Board of Education. If a plan is not submitted by the school district, the State Board of Education... shall determine a plan for consolidation or annexation...
Funds saved as a result of administrative consolidation or annexation shall be retained by the school district and reallocated for instructional expenditures.
On the evening of November 21, 2017, Shawn Hime (Executive Director of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association) and Rooney Virgin (Director of Legislative Services for the OSSBA), issued the following response to Governor Fallin's Executive Order:
Members,
Late this afternoon, Gov. Fallin issued three executive orders, including one that puts in place a process to force administrative consolidation of Oklahoma schools...
... the move was clearly political theatre and a distraction from the state's serious fiscal crisis. OSSBA's legal team believes the executive order is on shaky constitutional ground and exceeds the governor's authority.
On December 11, 2017, in Governor Fallin's new Oklahoma Now column, she states: Teacher salaries need to be increased in the state of Oklahoma. This is a simple fact, especially as we compare our teacher compensation to surrounding states...,
For the past two years I have called for a teacher pay increase in my State of the State addresses, but there has not been a solution to this challenge. We must address this issue if we expect to continue to be a prosperous state...
After stating how she has advocated for teacher pay raises for the last two years of her eight year term, Governor Fallin goes on to state just how she will pay for those teacher raises as she says The state of Oklahoma has a role in increasing the salaries of teachers... BUT local school districts also have a responsibility to increase the compensation of teachers. In late November, I signed an executive order to begin thoughtful conversations about local budgets, cost saving efficiencies, and how school districts could send more dollars to classrooms...
"...We have to ensure more existing dollars are reaching every classroom by tackling administrative efficiencies head-on."
My executive order directs the OSBE...to compile a list of school districts that spend less than 60 percent of their budget on instructional expenditures... in other words, no more than 40% should go to non-classroom expenses. ... the (OSBE)... will recommend actions to enhance cost-sharing efficiencies between schools by July 2019.
This action is intended to encourage administrators and school boards to intensely review school district budgets.
I agree with Shawn Hime concerning Fallin's 1st Executive Order that "the move was clearly political theatre..." used as a distraction for the real budget crisis. But "the Order" was political theatre in the sense that she attempted to "throw corporate lawmakers a bone" in order to persuade them to vote for a balanced budget which relies on recurring revenue. The "bone" Governor Fallin has thrown corporate legislators is our public schools on a silver platter. Knowing this is the number one accomplishment in most corporate bucket lists, she has tried to appease them with a gut punch to our public schools. Like Shawn Hime said (the Order) puts in place the process to force administrative consolidation" or annexation.
In Oklahoma Now, Fallin explains her Executive order a little differently, as she later on said the Order was and is intended to encourage (intimidate) administrators and boards to intensely review school district budgets (We can ensure the public and Governor Fallin that we've been "intensely reviewing" our budgets for decades now). In other words, we can study the data we've already studied, and then send our plans for consolidation or annexation to the State Board (and if we don't do it, Governor Fallin will do it for us.
I know Blanchard Schools will comply with the Order, so I'll proceed to lay out our "study and review plans" to be compliant (a good little school). We'd first like to thank Dr. Rick Cobb, Superintendent of Mid-Del, for compiling a list of schools in decreasing order of Instructional expenditures from the highest to the lowest (67.4% Instruction to 21.7% Instruction). The data indicates that 102 school districts spent more than 60% (the grail) for instruction, but 382 districts fell short (a big fat 'F' in corporate lawmakers minds). This data indicates that 382 schools must plan for consolidation or annexation, or face the guillotene.
In avoiding the death penalty (forced consolidation), I'll review only Blanchard Public Schools' expenditure data as listed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from 2013-2014, since this seems to be the federal set of data that corporate lawmakers prefer:
Blanchard
Total students - 1937
Instructional expenditure - 55%
Instructional expenditures include, but are not limited to: regular certified salaries, unused sick leave for certified staff, regular non-certified salaries, stipends, health and accident insurance for certified personnel, FICA-employers contribution, district paid retirement for certified staff (non-administrative), retirement- employers contribution (non-administrative) etc.
* Non-discretionary - 5%
* Discretionary - 95%
Student and staff support - 15%
Student and staff support expenditures include, but are not limited to: Guidance Services, Medical Services, Occupational Therapy, Psychological Services, Speech Pathology Services, Extra-Duty Certified Student Support Services, Instructional Staff Training Services, Library/Media Services, Instruction Related Technology, etc.
* Non-discretionary - 50%
* Discretionary - 50%
District Administration - 3%
District Administration expenditures, the real target for Governor Fallin and corporate lawmakers, include, but are not limited to: Board Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and Minute Clerk Services, Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, County Visual Inspection Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, Other General and Administrative Services, etc..
* Non-Discretionary - 90%
* Discretionary - 10%
Operations/Food Service - 27%
Operations/Food Services expenditures include, but are not limited to: Business Office, Tax Assessment and Collection Services, Communication Services, Personnel Services, Operation of Building Services, Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services, Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Services, Safety Services, Vehicle Operation Services, Monitoring Services, Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance Services, Food and Milk Purchasing, Food Preparation and Dispensing Services, Food and Supplies Dispensing Services, Food and Supplies Delivery Services, Food and Milk Purchases for Reimbursable Student Meals, Land Acquisition Services (for new high school), Debt Service (for new high school), etc.
* Non-Discretionary - 30%
* Discretionary - 70%
Total expenditures - 100%
(* Represents the approximate percentage of discretionary spending, "not legally required", and non-discretionary, "legally required", spending for each category.)
An analysis of the above data indicates the following: In order to provide more funding to Instruction, Operations/Food Service is the category to "rob" in order to accomplish this task (Rob Peter to pay Paul), because it has a higher percentage of "discretionary" spending as well as the second highest level of overall spending (just behind Instruction). The Governor and corporate lawmakers want the public to believe that the category to "rob" is District Administration, even though total "Administrative costs" at 3% is extremely low, and discretionary spending for District Administration is approximately 10% (.7% of total district expenditures).
To comply with Governor Fallin's Executive Order, the school board will begin a "thoughtful conversation" concerning "tackling Administrative inefficiencies head on" at our January regular board meeting. If Blanchard Public Schools were able to actually "rob Peter to pay Paul" and transfer .7% in discretionary administrative costs to Instruction, our Instructional percentage would rise to only 55.7%, far short of Governor Fallin's Executive Order (60%). It's reasonable to assume that Operations/ Food Service at 27% of all district expenditures as well as 90% discretionary, would be the category to reduce and transfer to Instruction. But as Governor Fallin wrote in her Executive Order, we must tackle administrative efficiencies head-on (which is illegal in the NFL) and funds must be saved as a result of administrative consolidation or annexation. We must assume, therefore, that reducing any other expenditure category is outlawed by the governor and her corporate allies in the legislature.
Let's explore another way to increase instruction.. one which involves a little common sense and basic math skills (something that seems to be lacking in the governors office and corporate lawmakers: This pathway to increased Instructional expenditures involves increasing gross production tax to 7%, the rate at which it once was, and eliminating Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which I mentioned in another post. The increase in GPT from the current 2% to 7%, would yield approximately $1,176,470 for Blanchard Instruction.. while eliminating TIF in Oklahoma would yield approximately $882,353 = a total of $2,058,823 added to Blanchard Instructional expenditures.So, instead of spending $7,045,000 for Instruction (55% of total expenditures), Blanchard Schools could spend $9,103,823, or 71% for Instruction. This scenario for increasing Instructional expenditures is unlikely to unfold as Governor Fallin wants to consolidate schools.
So, this column represents the intensive review as ordered by Fallin by utilizing corporate gazinta math (Jethro demonstrated his knowledge of "gazintas" to Uncle Jed of The Beverly Hillbillies - "one gazinta two, two times.. etc") and NCES data. As most analysts can see, Blanchard Public Schools are doomed to be consolidated or annexed to surrounding schools. I think I'll start working on our consolidation/annexation plan early, so as to not be in violation of the Executive Order...
The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce has just announced a "thinking outside the box" school revenue source which doesn't involve tax increases! The Chairman of the Oklahoma State Chamber has stated in a Capitol news conference that he's discovered the holy grail of increased public school revenue - "a more streamlined school system, that would benefit greatly from ... district annexations and consolidations." I'm surprised that no corporate lawmakers came up with this original idea for increasing funding to school instruction, but not really... because this "original idea" is from a Daily Oklahoman article dated August 8, 1989. No less than three commissions, task forces, or committees have presented findings to governors and state legislators since then, but corporate lawmakers and state chambers have not accepted the results - so continue to beat the school consolidation drum. Flash forward to December 18, 2017, 28 years later:
The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce has, once again, recommended to lawmakers that public schools be annexed and consolidated as a way to increase teacher pay and as an additional revenue source, as part of its Strategic Initiative Plan (SIP the kool-aid) - "In the area of education, the recommendation includes creation of a commission to make data-based recommendations on school consolidation." What earth shattering news! The State Chamber has joined Governor Mary Fallin in calling for the annexation or consolidation of most public school districts in Oklahoma. So, the beat goes on...
Friday, December 15, 2017
Merry Christmas to All
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Legislative wording for Public School re-classification Bill
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 57th Legislature (2018)
House Bill *** By: Casey
AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to schools; requiring the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA), a public agency - as defined by receiving and spending public monies, to adopt a Rule to allow its public school members to compete only against each other for state championships, and its non-public school members to compete only against each other for state championships.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section *
*** of Title 70, unless there is a creation of duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. By August 1, 2018, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association shall publish a list
of all public and non-public secondary schools that:
1) Compete in Athletic state tournaments
2) Compete in Activity state tournaments
3) Compete in Academic state tournaments
B. Schools on the list shall be appropriately divided by "non-public schools" as defined by those schools receiving "private" monies as their primary source for budgeting and providing student financial assistance including, but not limited to, scholarships, endowments, tuition wavers; and "public schools" as defined by those schools receiving state aid and local/county public monies as primary source for budgeting and not providing student financial assistance.
1) Schools divided as ordered in subsection B, shall compete in OSSAA sanctioned State Tournaments in all secondary school sporting events, activity competitions, and academic competitions against only those schools in the same public or non-public division.
2) Any "non-public" which receives a majority of its operational monies from public sources state aid or local and county revenue, and does not provide student financial assistance, shall be allowed to compete against "public schools" during State tournaments or State Championship competitions.
3) Any "public school" which receives a majority of its operational funds from private sources or provides student financial assistance shall compete against non-public schools during OSSAA sanctioned activities or sports.
4) Any "public" or "non-public" school which limits enrollment by "selecting" students based on requirements of the individual school (not state or federal), shall compete against non-public division schools in OSSAA sanctioned events or competitions.
C. Any Oklahoma high schools other than conventional public or non-public schools (including but not limited to "Home" schools, "Virtual Charter", "Brick and Mortar Charter"), and fielding athletic, activity, or academic competitive teams shall be assigned to the appropriate division, public or private, based on the classification Rule in subsection B.
D. The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), a public agency, shall take necessary action to assist the Oklahoma Secondary Activities Association (OSSAA), a public agency, to divide public schools and non-public schools for State tournaments and/or competitions, by August 1, 2018.
E. If the OSSAA has not divided public schools and non-public schools for athletic, activity, and academic State competitions by August 1, 2018, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association shall be placed under the authority of the Oklahoma State Department of Education, but not the Oklahoma State Board of Education, a public agency.
SECTION 2. This Act shall become effective July 1, 2018.
SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this Act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
1st Session of the 57th Legislature (2018)
House Bill *** By: Casey
AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to schools; requiring the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA), a public agency - as defined by receiving and spending public monies, to adopt a Rule to allow its public school members to compete only against each other for state championships, and its non-public school members to compete only against each other for state championships.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section *
*** of Title 70, unless there is a creation of duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. By August 1, 2018, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association shall publish a list
of all public and non-public secondary schools that:
1) Compete in Athletic state tournaments
2) Compete in Activity state tournaments
3) Compete in Academic state tournaments
B. Schools on the list shall be appropriately divided by "non-public schools" as defined by those schools receiving "private" monies as their primary source for budgeting and providing student financial assistance including, but not limited to, scholarships, endowments, tuition wavers; and "public schools" as defined by those schools receiving state aid and local/county public monies as primary source for budgeting and not providing student financial assistance.
1) Schools divided as ordered in subsection B, shall compete in OSSAA sanctioned State Tournaments in all secondary school sporting events, activity competitions, and academic competitions against only those schools in the same public or non-public division.
2) Any "non-public" which receives a majority of its operational monies from public sources state aid or local and county revenue, and does not provide student financial assistance, shall be allowed to compete against "public schools" during State tournaments or State Championship competitions.
3) Any "public school" which receives a majority of its operational funds from private sources or provides student financial assistance shall compete against non-public schools during OSSAA sanctioned activities or sports.
4) Any "public" or "non-public" school which limits enrollment by "selecting" students based on requirements of the individual school (not state or federal), shall compete against non-public division schools in OSSAA sanctioned events or competitions.
C. Any Oklahoma high schools other than conventional public or non-public schools (including but not limited to "Home" schools, "Virtual Charter", "Brick and Mortar Charter"), and fielding athletic, activity, or academic competitive teams shall be assigned to the appropriate division, public or private, based on the classification Rule in subsection B.
D. The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), a public agency, shall take necessary action to assist the Oklahoma Secondary Activities Association (OSSAA), a public agency, to divide public schools and non-public schools for State tournaments and/or competitions, by August 1, 2018.
E. If the OSSAA has not divided public schools and non-public schools for athletic, activity, and academic State competitions by August 1, 2018, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association shall be placed under the authority of the Oklahoma State Department of Education, but not the Oklahoma State Board of Education, a public agency.
SECTION 2. This Act shall become effective July 1, 2018.
SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this Act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
A $10,000 teacher pay raise.. without raising taxes
The "conservative" perspective for teacher pay raises...
Something that big-spending corporate legislators can rarely do these days is to "think outside the revenue box", in order to provide additional public school funding and a teacher pay raise - without raising taxes. Governor Fallin has even suggested that if we could only consolidate most public schools in Oklahoma, teachers would receive a giant pay increase. While the Governor knows this inference is not true, she really believes the only way to provide teachers a pay raise is to raise taxes on the working poor and middle-income Oklahomans. This belief of Governor Fallin and her corporate cronies is also very far from the truth.
Right now, in Oklahoma, almost $1 billion in property tax revenues are controlled by municipalities, which would normally go to public schools if it weren't for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) used by cities. TIF is an increasingly popular way for Oklahoma cities to promote economic development, as approximately 30 municipalities with 60 TIF zones are acquiring property tax revenue, which would normally go to public schools statewide. The 30 cities in question have often convinced the local public school that by supporting the TIF, the local school will receive more revenue for teachers and their school. The fact of the matter is - it's true! The 30 public schools within the 60 TIF zones will receive more funding for teacher salaries and school operations... at the expense of the remaining 497 public schools. In other words, what the "dirty thirty" have received has come from all the other "no-TIF" schools. (Note - There are a few TIF schools such as Blanchard which have received virtually nothing from the city TIF, primarily because it usually takes several years for the TIF to start collecting revenue.)
According to Greg Jungman, Norman Ward 4 Council member 2012-2016, in a Norman Transcript editorial November 12, 2017: "Norman Public Schools (NPS) claims that the TIF creates $680,000 in additional state funding for our schools - enough to hire about 15 teachers." This claim failed to explain where this money comes from. It is taken from other school districts in Oklahoma.
... NPS ends up with more money due to a TIF because in Oklahoma, the state funding formula equalizes funding across schools. As a district generates more ad valorem (property tax) revenue, the State kicks in less formula funding. State funding and ad valorem revenue trade off-on, essentially, a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Any ad valorem within a TIF district is excluded from the state equalization formula and does not trade-off with the district's state funding. The city TIF, though, splits ad valorem revenue and some goes to NPS. Since this ad valorem originates within a TIF, it is uncounted in the equalization formula. In receiving this portion of the TIF ad valorem, NPS "double dips" and collects both the ad valorem and the state funding - funding that would have gone to other schools.
So, the increase in NPS's budget comes directly from the state-wide allocation for education. Since every dollar of state funding for Norman is a dollar not available to other schools, 15 additional teachers for Norman means 15 fewer teachers in other Oklahoma schools.
The city of Norman, however, is not the biggest recipient of state education dollars at only $680,000. The Oklahoma City Council just passed a TIF zone, in which OKC Public Schools will receive approximately $60 million from other "no-TIF" schools. The bottom line for teachers and public schools statewide is this: If Oklahoma eliminated all TIF's immediately, our public schools could receive a $500 million influx of ad valorem revenue, which it should already receive. Teachers could receive a $10,000 pay increase, without raising taxes. (Don't think that it can't be done. California eliminated TIF subsidies 5 years ago, when Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to eliminate TIF - and returned $ billions to California Public Schools. Think about that..)
Another definitive example of a city acquiring state aid for a school at the expense of all other public schools in the state - is the Western Gateway TIF District in south Oklahoma City. The Humphreys Company... (does the name sound familiar) has convinced the OKC Council and Oklahoma City Public Schools that half the acquired ad valorem revenue ($60 million) will be used to build two new charter schools in the district. Doing the "developer math" results in $60 million being taken from all other state public schools. A further analysis of this one TIF district reveals that $60 million could be used to provide a $1,500 raise for every teacher in the state... or two classroom teachers for each school district in the state. The corporate developer will build two new charter schools, at the expense of all public schools and their students. As corporate industry is calling for consolidation of public schools, the same corporate executives are building additional charter schools (its called corporate math). With the 2nd special session of the year starting Monday, Dec. 18, it's a pretty sure bet that nothing will be done before Christmas, and it's another sure bet that the only teacher pay raise will be born on tax increases, and not on "thinking outside the box".
In summary, a conservative state legislator should write the bill for eliminating TIF in Oklahoma, so that each Oklahoma teacher can receive a $10,000 pay raise... without raising taxes on the working poor and middle income earners. Of course, since there are far fewer conservative lawmakers than there are corporate lawmakers at the Capitol - its a safe bet that any teacher pay raise will include tax increases... but maybe not, we'll see what happens this Spring..
Something that big-spending corporate legislators can rarely do these days is to "think outside the revenue box", in order to provide additional public school funding and a teacher pay raise - without raising taxes. Governor Fallin has even suggested that if we could only consolidate most public schools in Oklahoma, teachers would receive a giant pay increase. While the Governor knows this inference is not true, she really believes the only way to provide teachers a pay raise is to raise taxes on the working poor and middle-income Oklahomans. This belief of Governor Fallin and her corporate cronies is also very far from the truth.
Right now, in Oklahoma, almost $1 billion in property tax revenues are controlled by municipalities, which would normally go to public schools if it weren't for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) used by cities. TIF is an increasingly popular way for Oklahoma cities to promote economic development, as approximately 30 municipalities with 60 TIF zones are acquiring property tax revenue, which would normally go to public schools statewide. The 30 cities in question have often convinced the local public school that by supporting the TIF, the local school will receive more revenue for teachers and their school. The fact of the matter is - it's true! The 30 public schools within the 60 TIF zones will receive more funding for teacher salaries and school operations... at the expense of the remaining 497 public schools. In other words, what the "dirty thirty" have received has come from all the other "no-TIF" schools. (Note - There are a few TIF schools such as Blanchard which have received virtually nothing from the city TIF, primarily because it usually takes several years for the TIF to start collecting revenue.)
According to Greg Jungman, Norman Ward 4 Council member 2012-2016, in a Norman Transcript editorial November 12, 2017: "Norman Public Schools (NPS) claims that the TIF creates $680,000 in additional state funding for our schools - enough to hire about 15 teachers." This claim failed to explain where this money comes from. It is taken from other school districts in Oklahoma.
... NPS ends up with more money due to a TIF because in Oklahoma, the state funding formula equalizes funding across schools. As a district generates more ad valorem (property tax) revenue, the State kicks in less formula funding. State funding and ad valorem revenue trade off-on, essentially, a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Any ad valorem within a TIF district is excluded from the state equalization formula and does not trade-off with the district's state funding. The city TIF, though, splits ad valorem revenue and some goes to NPS. Since this ad valorem originates within a TIF, it is uncounted in the equalization formula. In receiving this portion of the TIF ad valorem, NPS "double dips" and collects both the ad valorem and the state funding - funding that would have gone to other schools.
So, the increase in NPS's budget comes directly from the state-wide allocation for education. Since every dollar of state funding for Norman is a dollar not available to other schools, 15 additional teachers for Norman means 15 fewer teachers in other Oklahoma schools.
The city of Norman, however, is not the biggest recipient of state education dollars at only $680,000. The Oklahoma City Council just passed a TIF zone, in which OKC Public Schools will receive approximately $60 million from other "no-TIF" schools. The bottom line for teachers and public schools statewide is this: If Oklahoma eliminated all TIF's immediately, our public schools could receive a $500 million influx of ad valorem revenue, which it should already receive. Teachers could receive a $10,000 pay increase, without raising taxes. (Don't think that it can't be done. California eliminated TIF subsidies 5 years ago, when Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to eliminate TIF - and returned $ billions to California Public Schools. Think about that..)
Another definitive example of a city acquiring state aid for a school at the expense of all other public schools in the state - is the Western Gateway TIF District in south Oklahoma City. The Humphreys Company... (does the name sound familiar) has convinced the OKC Council and Oklahoma City Public Schools that half the acquired ad valorem revenue ($60 million) will be used to build two new charter schools in the district. Doing the "developer math" results in $60 million being taken from all other state public schools. A further analysis of this one TIF district reveals that $60 million could be used to provide a $1,500 raise for every teacher in the state... or two classroom teachers for each school district in the state. The corporate developer will build two new charter schools, at the expense of all public schools and their students. As corporate industry is calling for consolidation of public schools, the same corporate executives are building additional charter schools (its called corporate math). With the 2nd special session of the year starting Monday, Dec. 18, it's a pretty sure bet that nothing will be done before Christmas, and it's another sure bet that the only teacher pay raise will be born on tax increases, and not on "thinking outside the box".
In summary, a conservative state legislator should write the bill for eliminating TIF in Oklahoma, so that each Oklahoma teacher can receive a $10,000 pay raise... without raising taxes on the working poor and middle income earners. Of course, since there are far fewer conservative lawmakers than there are corporate lawmakers at the Capitol - its a safe bet that any teacher pay raise will include tax increases... but maybe not, we'll see what happens this Spring..
Monday, December 11, 2017
Taxation and public schools - Information
Most Oklahoma property owners have received their tax bills from county assessors across the state, of which half must be paid by the end of December. For Blanchard property owners and many other communities statewide, they've noticed a substantial increase in one category - the sinking fund millage rate. The millage rate for any particular fund remains relatively stable over time, except for the Sinking Fund. The monetary amount of ones property tax bill is calculated by multiplying the assessment ratio by the millage rate for each of the seven funds. The only millage category which regularly fluctuates upward or downward each year, is the school Sinking Fund. The school Sinking Fund acquires revenue, in order to make the appropriate annual school bond payments (to the lending institution which funded the new high school). The millage rate for the sinking fund changes annually, either up or down, so that the correct payment can be met. The Sinking Fund millage must change according to property values, which often does not change.
As an example, the 2017 Sinking Fund millage rate in Blanchard is 53.15 Mills. In 2008, Blanchard voters approved a School Bond Issue so that citizens could provide a new high school for Blanchard Public School students. In effect, by passing the bond referendum, Blanchard citizens "borrowed" the money to build a new high school for Blanchard kids. The board of education built the school over the next two years, and our kids were in the school by 2011. Property owners in Blanchard were then obligated to pay back the "loan" used to build the school. Each year, until the loan is paid off in 2019, citizens are obligated to make an annual bond payment. That annual payment to the lending institution can range from about $2 million to over $3 million each year, depending on financial conditions such as personal property values, percentage of collected taxes (schools may collect only 80% of taxes due, as several property owners may not pay on time), and uncollected tax which was counted on. Several corporations often challenge their property tax assessments, so may delay payment for up to 3 years. Also, in 2012, Oklahoma citizens voted to eliminate intangible property tax assessments for national and international corporations in Oklahoma, which effectively eliminated this revenue stream for local schools used to make bond payments. The elimination of intangible property taxation for corporations placed more of the burden on local property owners for paying off bond issues.
The reason(s) your property tax increased: I received several calls over the past month from concerned Blanchard citizens saying the McClain County Assessors Office had told them "it's the school's responsibility your property taxes increased, so call the superintendent". Several callers claimed the Assessors Office had placed blame squarely on the school. I don't know whether or not it is accurate county officials actually blamed the school, but I do know that the Sinking Fund millage increased - not by the school's choice, but because of unrelated factors as stated above. This is the mathematical explanation - The school must make a $3.1 million payment toward the new high school. The $3.1 million is paid directly from the Sinking Fund millage on your property assessment, so the Fund must accumulate exactly $3.1 million over the course of one year. Your Sinking Fund property tax is determined by multiplying your net assessed value in the upper right hand corner of your assessment (in my case, 41,100) x .001 = 41.1 x 53.15 (the Mills) = $2,184 (the amount I must pay to the school Sinking Fund in McClain County). This total is approximately $500 more than I had to pay last year, which is absurd, but necessary - since the school would probably default on the taxpayers loan, if it did not make the full payment. As a taxpaying citizen, I don't like the fact that the District Sinking Fund cannot collect enough ad valorem revenue from sources that were once present, but no longer are - or from those entities that delay or simply do not pay their share - but I must make up the difference for the slackers. The really bad news: I also pay property tax to the District Sinking Fund in Garvin County as well as Stephens County, so the property tax millage rate is, in effect, tripled (for me). There are also major corporate entities which hide property so that it is difficult to assess. As a matter of fact, if the county assessor's office could find and assess all the hidden corporate property - the Sinking Fund mills would be much lower - and we'd all have a Merry Christmas. The bottom line for tax payers is this - The District Sinking Fund millage rate is not determined by the school, it is determined by the bond payment that must be made to the lending institution. The good news for me and other personal property owners is that next year, the Sinking Fund Millage is just as likely to go down, as it went up this year. By the way, several school districts in Garvin County and McClain County (Lindsay, Purcell, Newcastle, etc) have Sinking Fund Millages on property assessments, so will have fluctuations up and down on property taxes.
As an example, the 2017 Sinking Fund millage rate in Blanchard is 53.15 Mills. In 2008, Blanchard voters approved a School Bond Issue so that citizens could provide a new high school for Blanchard Public School students. In effect, by passing the bond referendum, Blanchard citizens "borrowed" the money to build a new high school for Blanchard kids. The board of education built the school over the next two years, and our kids were in the school by 2011. Property owners in Blanchard were then obligated to pay back the "loan" used to build the school. Each year, until the loan is paid off in 2019, citizens are obligated to make an annual bond payment. That annual payment to the lending institution can range from about $2 million to over $3 million each year, depending on financial conditions such as personal property values, percentage of collected taxes (schools may collect only 80% of taxes due, as several property owners may not pay on time), and uncollected tax which was counted on. Several corporations often challenge their property tax assessments, so may delay payment for up to 3 years. Also, in 2012, Oklahoma citizens voted to eliminate intangible property tax assessments for national and international corporations in Oklahoma, which effectively eliminated this revenue stream for local schools used to make bond payments. The elimination of intangible property taxation for corporations placed more of the burden on local property owners for paying off bond issues.
The reason(s) your property tax increased: I received several calls over the past month from concerned Blanchard citizens saying the McClain County Assessors Office had told them "it's the school's responsibility your property taxes increased, so call the superintendent". Several callers claimed the Assessors Office had placed blame squarely on the school. I don't know whether or not it is accurate county officials actually blamed the school, but I do know that the Sinking Fund millage increased - not by the school's choice, but because of unrelated factors as stated above. This is the mathematical explanation - The school must make a $3.1 million payment toward the new high school. The $3.1 million is paid directly from the Sinking Fund millage on your property assessment, so the Fund must accumulate exactly $3.1 million over the course of one year. Your Sinking Fund property tax is determined by multiplying your net assessed value in the upper right hand corner of your assessment (in my case, 41,100) x .001 = 41.1 x 53.15 (the Mills) = $2,184 (the amount I must pay to the school Sinking Fund in McClain County). This total is approximately $500 more than I had to pay last year, which is absurd, but necessary - since the school would probably default on the taxpayers loan, if it did not make the full payment. As a taxpaying citizen, I don't like the fact that the District Sinking Fund cannot collect enough ad valorem revenue from sources that were once present, but no longer are - or from those entities that delay or simply do not pay their share - but I must make up the difference for the slackers. The really bad news: I also pay property tax to the District Sinking Fund in Garvin County as well as Stephens County, so the property tax millage rate is, in effect, tripled (for me). There are also major corporate entities which hide property so that it is difficult to assess. As a matter of fact, if the county assessor's office could find and assess all the hidden corporate property - the Sinking Fund mills would be much lower - and we'd all have a Merry Christmas. The bottom line for tax payers is this - The District Sinking Fund millage rate is not determined by the school, it is determined by the bond payment that must be made to the lending institution. The good news for me and other personal property owners is that next year, the Sinking Fund Millage is just as likely to go down, as it went up this year. By the way, several school districts in Garvin County and McClain County (Lindsay, Purcell, Newcastle, etc) have Sinking Fund Millages on property assessments, so will have fluctuations up and down on property taxes.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Oklahoma reclassification for private schools and public schools
We've examined some of the unique advantages that many private schools utilize to dominate the public competition in high school activities and sports. Many of those private school advantages are confirmed by private schools, such as "tuition waivers" (more commonly known as scholarships), superior facilities, and selective enrollment (more commonly called "cherry picking"). Several other factors which enhance a private school's ability to dominate the public school competition includes the recruiting of athletes, which is often denied by private schools - because "recruiting" is very hard to prove. From an article in The Denver Post: The almost unenforceable gray area (in high school "recruiting"), however, is monitoring talented middle-schoolers being recruited by coaches, parents, and high school representatives. Multiple sources confirmed this practice is widespread in metro Denver, by both public and private schools... Multiple sources in Oklahoma have also confirmed this practice is widespread in Oklahoma City as well as rural Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) realized that many private schools were taking advantage of the several weapons at their disposal, thereby dominating the public school competition during the early 1990's. Some member schools of the OSSAA began efforts to "level the playing field" for private and public competition, but it wasn't until 2012 that "classification rules" were changed to allay the "private school advantages". It's now been 5 years since Rule 14 has been in effect, so we've examined if the rule has been successful in "leveling the playing field". Data and analysis of statistics indicate the answer is a resounding "NO", Rule 14 has not been effective! The same private schools which used "unfair advantages" to dominate the public school competition in a particular classification, is still dominating the public school competition even after moving up one classification level, and sometimes two classification levels! (See Victory Christian volleyball).
So, if advancing a private school up "one classification level" (if the school meets a specific success threshold), has not been effective for "leveling the playing field" - what rule or legislated law would be effective? Almost all 50 states are dealing with, or dealt with the same private/public issue - so we can look to what other states have done to "level the playing field" between private schools and public schools.
Georgia - In 2000, Georgia passed a 1.5 multiplier formula for private schools to determine which classification a private school would play. For instance, if a private school had 334 students (hint: HH), it was multiplied by 1.5, which means it would compete for championships in the classification befitting 501 students. After 8 years, the "multiplier formula" in Georgia ended, as data showed that the multiplier did not impact the percentage of private schools winning state titles. Separation of private and public schools for playoffs in specific classifications was approved in 2012.
New York - It classifies all private schools into divisions based on past success, enrollment, and level of competition. (Public schools and private schools are separated).
Virginia - There are separate tournaments and state associations for public and private schools.
Texas - There are separate associations for public and private schools.
Tennesee - Schools are split into two divisions: Division I for publics and privates that don't provide financial aid or tuition waivers, and Division II for privates that offer financial aid - including but not limited to scholarships, tuition waivers, salaried jobs. Also, a 1.8 multiplier is applied to privates in Division I.
While no two states are exactly alike demographically, Oklahoma is similar to several states in population, public school and private school participation in athletic associations, etc... I have a personal friend who coaches high school football in Georgia, so I ask him why the "multiplier system" did not work for "leveling the playing field" between private schools and public schools. He told me that some private schools discovered they could "game the system", by controlling their student numbers. Some private schools began to increase enrollment so they could belong to the classification assigned . For instance, the 1.5 multiplier assigned a private school with 500 students with public schools that had 750 students. Since the private school could control its student numbers (which public schools cannot do), it soon had 750 students over time. In another instance, a private school advanced to a higher classification under the "multiplier" rule. It then began to reduce student numbers, so it could belong to a lower classification when divisions were realigned (every two years for football, just like Oklahoma). Some private schools "manipulated student numbers" to belong to their chosen classification. The "multiplier rule" was in effect "useless" for leveling the playing field between privates and publics. Oklahoma, it appears, is traveling down the same road Georgia took in leveling the playing field in high school sports. While I realize that high school sports are not quite as important to many Oklahomans as they are to me... they are crucial in our rural communities, and so is a level playing field for our public school students... and if the OSSAA will not solve this inequity problem, then our rural communities must solve it... Think about that...
Update: More evidence of private school domination as created by the OSSAA - Since 1940, no public school has won more state titles than Ada, with 68. Even though Ada has been winning state championships in all sports for the last 77 years, it pales in comparison to Bishop Kelly, a private school, which has won 102 state titles... since 1967.
After analyzing all factual evidence above, as well as in previous articles, it has become crystal clear that private schools have dominated the public school competition in Oklahoma, because of many systemic advantages provided by the OSSAA. After examining the data from other state associations, it also is clear that Oklahoma private schools have dominated their public counterparts at a higher level, than any other state! So, how can we "level the playing field" for private schools and public schools in the OSSAA?
Most suggestions are similar to what Tennessee or Georgia utilizes to level the playing field: Oklahoma could separate private and public schools which provide financial aid from private and public schools which do not. The "financial aid" schools could be subdivided into "class A" and "class B" (based on enrollment or ADM). The financial aid schools could schedule the non-financial aid schools during the regular seasons (which would eliminate the scheduling problem for private schools), but be separated for the OSSAA playoffs. I believe this brief answer to the problem, would be acceptable for both private schools and public schools in the OSSAA.
Update: I'd really like to hear from private school advocates and any OSSAA officials concerning the viability of the above reclassification plan. If you think I'm just "whistling in the wind", let me know. I do know that several OSSAA officials as well as many private school advocates read this column, so please express your opinion in the comments section of this post. Also, you may read the article in a New Jersey newspaper, and answer the poll question to express your opinion. Remember, silence means agreement - so please respond.
The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) realized that many private schools were taking advantage of the several weapons at their disposal, thereby dominating the public school competition during the early 1990's. Some member schools of the OSSAA began efforts to "level the playing field" for private and public competition, but it wasn't until 2012 that "classification rules" were changed to allay the "private school advantages". It's now been 5 years since Rule 14 has been in effect, so we've examined if the rule has been successful in "leveling the playing field". Data and analysis of statistics indicate the answer is a resounding "NO", Rule 14 has not been effective! The same private schools which used "unfair advantages" to dominate the public school competition in a particular classification, is still dominating the public school competition even after moving up one classification level, and sometimes two classification levels! (See Victory Christian volleyball).
So, if advancing a private school up "one classification level" (if the school meets a specific success threshold), has not been effective for "leveling the playing field" - what rule or legislated law would be effective? Almost all 50 states are dealing with, or dealt with the same private/public issue - so we can look to what other states have done to "level the playing field" between private schools and public schools.
Georgia - In 2000, Georgia passed a 1.5 multiplier formula for private schools to determine which classification a private school would play. For instance, if a private school had 334 students (hint: HH), it was multiplied by 1.5, which means it would compete for championships in the classification befitting 501 students. After 8 years, the "multiplier formula" in Georgia ended, as data showed that the multiplier did not impact the percentage of private schools winning state titles. Separation of private and public schools for playoffs in specific classifications was approved in 2012.
New York - It classifies all private schools into divisions based on past success, enrollment, and level of competition. (Public schools and private schools are separated).
Virginia - There are separate tournaments and state associations for public and private schools.
Texas - There are separate associations for public and private schools.
Tennesee - Schools are split into two divisions: Division I for publics and privates that don't provide financial aid or tuition waivers, and Division II for privates that offer financial aid - including but not limited to scholarships, tuition waivers, salaried jobs. Also, a 1.8 multiplier is applied to privates in Division I.
While no two states are exactly alike demographically, Oklahoma is similar to several states in population, public school and private school participation in athletic associations, etc... I have a personal friend who coaches high school football in Georgia, so I ask him why the "multiplier system" did not work for "leveling the playing field" between private schools and public schools. He told me that some private schools discovered they could "game the system", by controlling their student numbers. Some private schools began to increase enrollment so they could belong to the classification assigned . For instance, the 1.5 multiplier assigned a private school with 500 students with public schools that had 750 students. Since the private school could control its student numbers (which public schools cannot do), it soon had 750 students over time. In another instance, a private school advanced to a higher classification under the "multiplier" rule. It then began to reduce student numbers, so it could belong to a lower classification when divisions were realigned (every two years for football, just like Oklahoma). Some private schools "manipulated student numbers" to belong to their chosen classification. The "multiplier rule" was in effect "useless" for leveling the playing field between privates and publics. Oklahoma, it appears, is traveling down the same road Georgia took in leveling the playing field in high school sports. While I realize that high school sports are not quite as important to many Oklahomans as they are to me... they are crucial in our rural communities, and so is a level playing field for our public school students... and if the OSSAA will not solve this inequity problem, then our rural communities must solve it... Think about that...
Update: More evidence of private school domination as created by the OSSAA - Since 1940, no public school has won more state titles than Ada, with 68. Even though Ada has been winning state championships in all sports for the last 77 years, it pales in comparison to Bishop Kelly, a private school, which has won 102 state titles... since 1967.
After analyzing all factual evidence above, as well as in previous articles, it has become crystal clear that private schools have dominated the public school competition in Oklahoma, because of many systemic advantages provided by the OSSAA. After examining the data from other state associations, it also is clear that Oklahoma private schools have dominated their public counterparts at a higher level, than any other state! So, how can we "level the playing field" for private schools and public schools in the OSSAA?
Most suggestions are similar to what Tennessee or Georgia utilizes to level the playing field: Oklahoma could separate private and public schools which provide financial aid from private and public schools which do not. The "financial aid" schools could be subdivided into "class A" and "class B" (based on enrollment or ADM). The financial aid schools could schedule the non-financial aid schools during the regular seasons (which would eliminate the scheduling problem for private schools), but be separated for the OSSAA playoffs. I believe this brief answer to the problem, would be acceptable for both private schools and public schools in the OSSAA.
Update: I'd really like to hear from private school advocates and any OSSAA officials concerning the viability of the above reclassification plan. If you think I'm just "whistling in the wind", let me know. I do know that several OSSAA officials as well as many private school advocates read this column, so please express your opinion in the comments section of this post. Also, you may read the article in a New Jersey newspaper, and answer the poll question to express your opinion. Remember, silence means agreement - so please respond.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
The "Numbers Game" has no effect on private school classification
I left off in another article by making two assertions concerning private school participation in the OSSAA: 1) "Selective Enrollment" (for classification purposes) is the greatest advantage private schools employ in competitions with public schools; and 2) The OSSAA's "rule" for eliminating this unfair (classification) advantage is not effective. The "rule" for "leveling the playing field" on which private schools compete with public schools, effectively advances private schools up one classification level, when specific conditions are met - which illustrates private school advantages. We examined one example in the last article concerning private school advantages: Heritage Hall High School dominated class 2A and class 3A public school competition for years in all high school sports, and won dozens, if not hundreds, of state titles according to the OSSAA. The "rule" for classifying private schools up one level if certain criteria were met, applied in the case of the Heritage Hall Chargers, so it advanced one class to class-4A. This year (2017-2018), the Heritage Hall Chargers won the class 4A football State Title on December 1, over the Ada Cougars - even though Heritage Hall has an average daily membership of 334 students (Vinita, the smallest class 4A public school, has 498 students by comparison). This ADM should classify HH in the lower half of 3A according to the OSSAA's "numbers game" of classification. In the case of the Heritage Hall Chargers, playing in class 4A football, has had NO EFFECT for "leveling the playing field". As a matter of fact, when the OSSAA re-classifies football playing schools in 2018, it is very likely Heritage Hall will be classified in 2A - since it continues to reduce enrollment, and the largest class 2A public school has 315 students. Private schools can "control" their enrollment, thereby classifying themselves to any enrollment based classification (B - 6A) they wish. Public schools have no such ability.
We may examine another case of the private school advantage, which I've also mentioned in a previous article. The case of Victory Christian High School volleyball: Victory Christian, a private school, won the class 5A State Championship in volleyball this year. It wasn't a unique achievement, as private schools win a high percentage of state titles, but consider the fact that Victory Christian has 287 students according to the latest ADM, while one of the smallest public schools in class 5A, Tahlequah, has 1166 students. As a matter of fact, Victory C. was classified in class 2A for football. What illustrates the private school advantage even more strongly is that Victory should have been classified in class 3A volleyball by the student ADM, and advanced to class 4A because of rule 14... Instead, the OSSAA mistakenly advanced VC to play for the class 5A State Title. VC won the class 5A State Title, over... another private school, Mt. Saint Mary! In the opinion of many, it did not matter to VC in which class it played volleyball, 3A, 4A, or 5A, it would win regardless because student enrollment numbers are irrelevent to private schools in general. Also, in the opinion of many public school supporters, this OSSAA debacle is one more example of their enrollment based classification scheme failing its members.
I have been a witness to the private school systemic advantages since 1984, when a public school I coached for, Duncan, first encountered private school competition. I never played for a high school that encountered the private school advantage, as privates were first admitted to the OSSAA in the early 1970's. During the 1990's two efforts failed at re-classifying private schools, but in 2009 - another effort for re-classification resulted in Rule 14, implemented in 2012. The implementation of Rule 14 resulted in several lawsuits being filed by private schools which contended that the Rule was unfair for private schools. The end results in the implementation of the Rule, however, proved that it had no effect on "leveling the playing field" from 2012 to the present, as evidenced. The state of Georgia implemented a similar rule in 2008, which also had no effect on leveling private school advantages, so changed it in 2012. Many public school supporters believe its time to "level the playing field" in Oklahoma, similar to what Texas and several other do. (Private schools in Texas play in their own league, and several states provide a classification system in which private schools play in their own division, once the playoffs start). It may be time for "legislation" to provide a level playing field for public schools and private schools, since no other entities have provided it... Think about that..
A couple of years ago, I was having dinner with a top officer in public and government affairs for a major Oklahoma and international corporation. His job is to help the company make decisions about specific legislation the company supports and even specific candidates for state office. He has terrific political instincts, which I suppose is why he has the job. I was campaigning for state office at the time, but not the reason I was having dinner with him, since about 40 other state and community leaders were also present. The discussion eventually turned to our public schools, and something he said made me realize what part of the problem is, concerning our public schools. I had stated that much of our public school funding issues stem from the fact that corporate and private education companies now want Oklahoma public service tax dollars. I believe that public tax dollars should be received by public state agencies such as public schools and public roads, and legislators should not spend public money (tax dollars) for private services or corporate vendors. He asked me a simple question - Do you believe in competition for public schools? In other words, he was asking me if public schools should be competing with corporate and private schools for public funding. The question was centered on the corporate political philosophy for public schools - school choice. In the opinion of most public school supporters, school choice is not about individual students choosing the corporate, private, or public school they attend, but about legislators choosing to spend public tax dollars on private services and corporate vendors. My answer to his question concerning competition for public school (service) tax dollars was - I believe public schools can compete with private schools and corporately managed schools, if the "playing field is level." I, at that moment, realized what the problem is concerning many issues that public schools must deal with, such as school consolidation, acquisition of public tax dollars by corporate and private services, low teacher pay, legislative criminals, corporate lawmakers, and public service destruction. The problem is that politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level for public, private, and corporate schools in competition for public tax dollars.
I know many readers are now wondering what the above has to do with "the price of eggs in China" or what this issue has to do with public schools vs. private schools on the athletic field. The problem is the same, whether it is the private school advantage for acquiring tax dollars or private school systemic advantages when competing with public schools on the athletic field. Corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that private and corporate acquisition of public funds is a good thing, and corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level when private high school teams compete with public high school teams. Neither corporate philosophy is true...
We may examine another case of the private school advantage, which I've also mentioned in a previous article. The case of Victory Christian High School volleyball: Victory Christian, a private school, won the class 5A State Championship in volleyball this year. It wasn't a unique achievement, as private schools win a high percentage of state titles, but consider the fact that Victory Christian has 287 students according to the latest ADM, while one of the smallest public schools in class 5A, Tahlequah, has 1166 students. As a matter of fact, Victory C. was classified in class 2A for football. What illustrates the private school advantage even more strongly is that Victory should have been classified in class 3A volleyball by the student ADM, and advanced to class 4A because of rule 14... Instead, the OSSAA mistakenly advanced VC to play for the class 5A State Title. VC won the class 5A State Title, over... another private school, Mt. Saint Mary! In the opinion of many, it did not matter to VC in which class it played volleyball, 3A, 4A, or 5A, it would win regardless because student enrollment numbers are irrelevent to private schools in general. Also, in the opinion of many public school supporters, this OSSAA debacle is one more example of their enrollment based classification scheme failing its members.
I have been a witness to the private school systemic advantages since 1984, when a public school I coached for, Duncan, first encountered private school competition. I never played for a high school that encountered the private school advantage, as privates were first admitted to the OSSAA in the early 1970's. During the 1990's two efforts failed at re-classifying private schools, but in 2009 - another effort for re-classification resulted in Rule 14, implemented in 2012. The implementation of Rule 14 resulted in several lawsuits being filed by private schools which contended that the Rule was unfair for private schools. The end results in the implementation of the Rule, however, proved that it had no effect on "leveling the playing field" from 2012 to the present, as evidenced. The state of Georgia implemented a similar rule in 2008, which also had no effect on leveling private school advantages, so changed it in 2012. Many public school supporters believe its time to "level the playing field" in Oklahoma, similar to what Texas and several other do. (Private schools in Texas play in their own league, and several states provide a classification system in which private schools play in their own division, once the playoffs start). It may be time for "legislation" to provide a level playing field for public schools and private schools, since no other entities have provided it... Think about that..
A couple of years ago, I was having dinner with a top officer in public and government affairs for a major Oklahoma and international corporation. His job is to help the company make decisions about specific legislation the company supports and even specific candidates for state office. He has terrific political instincts, which I suppose is why he has the job. I was campaigning for state office at the time, but not the reason I was having dinner with him, since about 40 other state and community leaders were also present. The discussion eventually turned to our public schools, and something he said made me realize what part of the problem is, concerning our public schools. I had stated that much of our public school funding issues stem from the fact that corporate and private education companies now want Oklahoma public service tax dollars. I believe that public tax dollars should be received by public state agencies such as public schools and public roads, and legislators should not spend public money (tax dollars) for private services or corporate vendors. He asked me a simple question - Do you believe in competition for public schools? In other words, he was asking me if public schools should be competing with corporate and private schools for public funding. The question was centered on the corporate political philosophy for public schools - school choice. In the opinion of most public school supporters, school choice is not about individual students choosing the corporate, private, or public school they attend, but about legislators choosing to spend public tax dollars on private services and corporate vendors. My answer to his question concerning competition for public school (service) tax dollars was - I believe public schools can compete with private schools and corporately managed schools, if the "playing field is level." I, at that moment, realized what the problem is concerning many issues that public schools must deal with, such as school consolidation, acquisition of public tax dollars by corporate and private services, low teacher pay, legislative criminals, corporate lawmakers, and public service destruction. The problem is that politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level for public, private, and corporate schools in competition for public tax dollars.
I know many readers are now wondering what the above has to do with "the price of eggs in China" or what this issue has to do with public schools vs. private schools on the athletic field. The problem is the same, whether it is the private school advantage for acquiring tax dollars or private school systemic advantages when competing with public schools on the athletic field. Corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that private and corporate acquisition of public funds is a good thing, and corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level when private high school teams compete with public high school teams. Neither corporate philosophy is true...
Thursday, November 30, 2017
We're number 1! We're number 1! ...
Monday, November 27, 2017
The Private School Advantage - Selective Enrollment
In 1973, the NCAA divided college level athletics into Division I, Division II, and Division III categories for athletic competition. For football, Division I and II universities could offer scholarships, but Division III schools cannot. The NCAA categorized the schools offering sports such as football, because the "playing field" would always be tilted towards those schools which offer scholarships... as they would always attract the best high school players, and ultimately be more successful. Common sense dictates that the Langston Lions (Division III Football) cannot compete with the Oklahoma Sooners (Division I). The Sooners can attract the best high school football talent from around the nation and offer scholarships to future All-Americans, while the Langston Lions can only offer football as a sport, to those attending school there. The kids that play football at Langston, do it because they love the sport. They get nothing in return, for playing football at Langston. The NCAA has a very good classification system for categorizing college sports, because it levels the playing field!
The Oklahoma Secondary School Athletic Association (OSSAA) has a system for classifying schools to level the playing field. It classifies schools according to enrollment, which is appropriate if all member schools are equal according to their number of students. The number of students any member school has enrolled, has become woefully inadequate for classifying public schools in the OSSAA. The system is now outdated because of the private schools now allowed to participate in the OSSAA. The "playing field" in the OSSAA has been tilted toward the member private schools by forcing its member public schools to compete directly with private schools. The OSSAA "created inequity" would be the same for university competition, if the NCAA forced Division III schools (no scholarships) to compete with Division I schools for "national championships".
The inequity in athletic competition between public schools and private schools was highlighted for all high school football fans this past weekend, as the Noble Bears faced the Bishop McGuinness Fitin' Irish in the class 5A state semi-finals - and the Blanchard Lions played the Heritage Hall Chargers in the class 4A semi-finals. Both public school teams were "slaughtered", not because the private schools "had better coaches" or "their kids just work harder" - but because they are allowed to compete with specific built in advantages. Advantages such as unlimited school district boundaries (nation-wide), ability to provide scholarships for deserving athletes, and the ability to recruit high level athletes from anywhere in the nation. Of course private schools deny the innate advantages listed above, but irrefutable proof exists that the OSSAA permits these "tilted field" advantages.
So, the question now becomes "If the OSSAA believes that private schools in Oklahoma enjoy systemic advantages over public schools - why doesn't it 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? If any OSSAA official has an answer to this question, let us know. If anyone reading this post personally knows an OSSAA official, please ask this question, and let us know what the answer is... I've blamed OSSAA officials for being too cowardly in the past for refusing to re-classify schools, but I really don't know if that's the answer.
Most people have heard the old adage "if you don't have a better plan, don't complain", so this is my better plan for athletic classification in the OSSAA: Classify all schools using the university classification system - Division "I" schools would be those private schools which offer scholarships. Division "II" schools, both public and private, would be those which do not offer scholarships. The "Division II" schools could keep the current "enrollment based" classification system as well. If there is anything amiss in this plan, please let me know what it is - as I don't have intimate knowledge of how the OSSAA works (as several OSSAA officials have told me so).
Update: On Monday, November 27, 2017, I received the following response (paraphrased to protect the identity) from an OSSAA official in response to claims I made concerning "private school re-classification":
... you implied that there is illegal recruiting by some private schools. Being member schools of this organization, if this is taking place, it absolutely violates Rule 9 of our Rules and Policies. If you would provide us with the specific information, schools and names of students recruited, we will certainly investigate as we would with any other violation reported to us.
You also made a statement in your blog of November 27 that private schools have no boundaries. I would like to refer you to Policy XLIII in our OSSAA Policies found on our webpage that outlines the boundaries for all OSSAA private schools.
I'll address the concerns, but I think it's important to note that my two concerns as outlined above were not addressed in the response: 1) why doesn't it (the OSSAA) 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it already provides a 'level' playing field. 2) Is the Divisional classification system feasible and appropriate for high school athletic competitions or not? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it is not feasible and inappropriate, since this issue was also not addressed in the response.
Concerns of OSSAA:
1) Implied illegal recruiting by some private schools - I did not imply, I stated as fact that student recruiting goes on at some private schools, namely Bishop McGuiness and Heritage Hall. I'll not relinquish "names of students", as it violates specific privacy laws. If the parents of referenced students gave me permission to "publicize" names, then I most certainly would. I currently do not have the authority to release public school student names, and will not. I'm also quite certain that no "recruited" private school students would step forward to say "I was recruited". Regardless of recruiting evidence being available, the OSSAA would simply investigate the claim - and if it determined a case of illegal recruiting did take place, it would sanction the guilty school (slap on the wrist). What the OSSAA would not do is change its classification system in order to provide equity between private and public schools - which is the real issue at hand. To provide my statement of illegal recruiting is simply a distraction technique used to change the subject from reclassification to evidence of wrongdoing. (It's an old trick that good attorneys use in court to change the course of 'why we're here'.)
2) My statement that "private schools have no boundaries" - implies that private schools may recruit student-athletes from anywhere in the nation, much the same as Division I colleges do. The OSSAA quotes the district boundaries for all private schools in the state, which was assigned by private schools several years ago. I'm well aware of the privately assigned boundaries for private schools, as a private school is usually located within as well as outside several public school districts. In my opinion, these private school district boundaries would simply be the recruiting zone for each private school. Private schools can only recruit student-athletes from the public and private schools located within the Division I school's boundaries. (Some private schools recruiting boundaries even over-lap other private schools, so one private school may recruit student-athletes from another private school, LOL. Student-athletes from outside the recruiting zone can still play for the Division I private school, but must move to a residence within the recruiting zone, even on-campus.
I hope I've cleared up any misinterpretations of my two statements concerning my beliefs about the private vs. public school systemic "un-level playing field". I still haven't received an answer yet concerning the proposed "Divisional" classification system for Oklahoma high school athletics. Many states utilize a version of the Divisional System. Texas, for example, does not permit private schools to play in its athletic association, except for the top enrollment based class 6-A. So, don't say "It can't be done in Oklahoma". I look forward to comments about this proposal on my blog...
Update: Since we (public schools) now have the attention of OSSAA officials regarding the classification scheme for member schools, and the OSSAA evidently denies the charge that "illegal recruiting of athletes" takes place, both actively and passively.. directly and indirectly - We're asking any OSSAA official: "If no direct or indirect recruiting takes place by private schools, then what is your explanation for the unparalleled success on the playing field for privates?" ("Indirect" recruiting are all those legal activities and offerings which private schools engage in, which motivate student-athletes to choose the particular private school of choice. Activities such as providing scholarships and taxpayer funded vouchers for deserving students, and offerings such as hundred million dollar athletic facilities and magnified media attention. For more examples of indirect recruiting - just follow the money.) Let's now go back to an earlier post for a prime example of the private school advantage:
The Analysis of State Championship Brackets for Volleyball: There are 28 class 3A volleyball teams in Oklahoma comprised of 23 public schools and 5 private schools. All five private schools qualified for the eight team state tournament bracket, while three public schools qualified. If all success indicators were equal between private schools and public schools, roughly an equal percentage of private schools and public schools would qualify for the state tournament. In other words, if no mitigating success factors are not present for private schools - the percentage of private schools qualifying for the state tournament should approximately match the percentage of private schools existing in class 3A volleyball. (100% of private schools qualified for the state tournament, but private schools comprise only 17.8% of the total 28 schools in class 3A.) So, if mitigating success factors are indeed present for private schools, we ask the OSSAA - What are those mitigating success factors? If the answer is: 3A volleyball is an isolated case study, and doesn't apply to all classifications and across all high school sports - It's not true. This discrepancy in the OSSAA classification scheme crosses all classifications and all sports.
I look forward to an explanation from any OSSAA officials (employees or directors) or any private school officials concerning the inordinate success enjoyed by private schools in the OSSAA, if not mitigating success factors. Please provide your explanations in writing (no phone calls), and I'll post. (Note: I know for a fact that many OSSAA officials and private school officials read this blog...)
Selective Enrollment (indirect recruiting) is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools. Private schools select students for enrollment, so can also select the OSSAA numbers based classification to which they belong. Several years ago, believing that the number of students any particular school has enrolled - the OSSAA implemented a rule which it thought would "level the playing field" for public schools when competing against private schools. The "rule", in effect, was to move a private school "up" one "enrollment based" classification level, if the private school had placed in the top eight (of any particular sport) for a number of years. It is now evident, the rule has had no effect on "leveling the playing field" for public schools in the OSSAA. Since the OSSAA classifies all schools according to "number of students", classifying private schools according to enrollment does not eliminate any private school advantages. An example of the "effect" of the OSSAA's watered down rule can be seen in class 4A football: One of the largest class 4A schools is Ada with 677 students, while the smallest public school in class 4A is Vinita (498 students). Heritage Hall, a private school, has 345 students - which would place it toward the bottom of class 3A, according to student numbers. Heritage Hall was ultra-successful competing in class 3A, winning multiple state titles, so moved up to class 4A in 2016 - in compliance with the rule. Heritage Hall, even though having fewer students than all public schools in class 4A, is still dominating the competition and plays Ada this week for the class 4A State Title. It can be asserted at this point, that classifying a private school based on its number of students - does not level the playing field one bit! I'd like to hear from any OSSAA official or private school official, in writing, concerning these assertions: 1) Selective enrollment is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools and 2) The OSSAA's "Rule" for eliminating the private school advantage does not work.
The Oklahoma Secondary School Athletic Association (OSSAA) has a system for classifying schools to level the playing field. It classifies schools according to enrollment, which is appropriate if all member schools are equal according to their number of students. The number of students any member school has enrolled, has become woefully inadequate for classifying public schools in the OSSAA. The system is now outdated because of the private schools now allowed to participate in the OSSAA. The "playing field" in the OSSAA has been tilted toward the member private schools by forcing its member public schools to compete directly with private schools. The OSSAA "created inequity" would be the same for university competition, if the NCAA forced Division III schools (no scholarships) to compete with Division I schools for "national championships".
The inequity in athletic competition between public schools and private schools was highlighted for all high school football fans this past weekend, as the Noble Bears faced the Bishop McGuinness Fitin' Irish in the class 5A state semi-finals - and the Blanchard Lions played the Heritage Hall Chargers in the class 4A semi-finals. Both public school teams were "slaughtered", not because the private schools "had better coaches" or "their kids just work harder" - but because they are allowed to compete with specific built in advantages. Advantages such as unlimited school district boundaries (nation-wide), ability to provide scholarships for deserving athletes, and the ability to recruit high level athletes from anywhere in the nation. Of course private schools deny the innate advantages listed above, but irrefutable proof exists that the OSSAA permits these "tilted field" advantages.
So, the question now becomes "If the OSSAA believes that private schools in Oklahoma enjoy systemic advantages over public schools - why doesn't it 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? If any OSSAA official has an answer to this question, let us know. If anyone reading this post personally knows an OSSAA official, please ask this question, and let us know what the answer is... I've blamed OSSAA officials for being too cowardly in the past for refusing to re-classify schools, but I really don't know if that's the answer.
Most people have heard the old adage "if you don't have a better plan, don't complain", so this is my better plan for athletic classification in the OSSAA: Classify all schools using the university classification system - Division "I" schools would be those private schools which offer scholarships. Division "II" schools, both public and private, would be those which do not offer scholarships. The "Division II" schools could keep the current "enrollment based" classification system as well. If there is anything amiss in this plan, please let me know what it is - as I don't have intimate knowledge of how the OSSAA works (as several OSSAA officials have told me so).
Update: On Monday, November 27, 2017, I received the following response (paraphrased to protect the identity) from an OSSAA official in response to claims I made concerning "private school re-classification":
... you implied that there is illegal recruiting by some private schools. Being member schools of this organization, if this is taking place, it absolutely violates Rule 9 of our Rules and Policies. If you would provide us with the specific information, schools and names of students recruited, we will certainly investigate as we would with any other violation reported to us.
You also made a statement in your blog of November 27 that private schools have no boundaries. I would like to refer you to Policy XLIII in our OSSAA Policies found on our webpage that outlines the boundaries for all OSSAA private schools.
I'll address the concerns, but I think it's important to note that my two concerns as outlined above were not addressed in the response: 1) why doesn't it (the OSSAA) 'level the playing field' in athletic competition between private schools and public schools? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it already provides a 'level' playing field. 2) Is the Divisional classification system feasible and appropriate for high school athletic competitions or not? We must guess that the OSSAA believes it is not feasible and inappropriate, since this issue was also not addressed in the response.
Concerns of OSSAA:
1) Implied illegal recruiting by some private schools - I did not imply, I stated as fact that student recruiting goes on at some private schools, namely Bishop McGuiness and Heritage Hall. I'll not relinquish "names of students", as it violates specific privacy laws. If the parents of referenced students gave me permission to "publicize" names, then I most certainly would. I currently do not have the authority to release public school student names, and will not. I'm also quite certain that no "recruited" private school students would step forward to say "I was recruited". Regardless of recruiting evidence being available, the OSSAA would simply investigate the claim - and if it determined a case of illegal recruiting did take place, it would sanction the guilty school (slap on the wrist). What the OSSAA would not do is change its classification system in order to provide equity between private and public schools - which is the real issue at hand. To provide my statement of illegal recruiting is simply a distraction technique used to change the subject from reclassification to evidence of wrongdoing. (It's an old trick that good attorneys use in court to change the course of 'why we're here'.)
2) My statement that "private schools have no boundaries" - implies that private schools may recruit student-athletes from anywhere in the nation, much the same as Division I colleges do. The OSSAA quotes the district boundaries for all private schools in the state, which was assigned by private schools several years ago. I'm well aware of the privately assigned boundaries for private schools, as a private school is usually located within as well as outside several public school districts. In my opinion, these private school district boundaries would simply be the recruiting zone for each private school. Private schools can only recruit student-athletes from the public and private schools located within the Division I school's boundaries. (Some private schools recruiting boundaries even over-lap other private schools, so one private school may recruit student-athletes from another private school, LOL. Student-athletes from outside the recruiting zone can still play for the Division I private school, but must move to a residence within the recruiting zone, even on-campus.
I hope I've cleared up any misinterpretations of my two statements concerning my beliefs about the private vs. public school systemic "un-level playing field". I still haven't received an answer yet concerning the proposed "Divisional" classification system for Oklahoma high school athletics. Many states utilize a version of the Divisional System. Texas, for example, does not permit private schools to play in its athletic association, except for the top enrollment based class 6-A. So, don't say "It can't be done in Oklahoma". I look forward to comments about this proposal on my blog...
Update: Since we (public schools) now have the attention of OSSAA officials regarding the classification scheme for member schools, and the OSSAA evidently denies the charge that "illegal recruiting of athletes" takes place, both actively and passively.. directly and indirectly - We're asking any OSSAA official: "If no direct or indirect recruiting takes place by private schools, then what is your explanation for the unparalleled success on the playing field for privates?" ("Indirect" recruiting are all those legal activities and offerings which private schools engage in, which motivate student-athletes to choose the particular private school of choice. Activities such as providing scholarships and taxpayer funded vouchers for deserving students, and offerings such as hundred million dollar athletic facilities and magnified media attention. For more examples of indirect recruiting - just follow the money.) Let's now go back to an earlier post for a prime example of the private school advantage:
The Analysis of State Championship Brackets for Volleyball: There are 28 class 3A volleyball teams in Oklahoma comprised of 23 public schools and 5 private schools. All five private schools qualified for the eight team state tournament bracket, while three public schools qualified. If all success indicators were equal between private schools and public schools, roughly an equal percentage of private schools and public schools would qualify for the state tournament. In other words, if no mitigating success factors are not present for private schools - the percentage of private schools qualifying for the state tournament should approximately match the percentage of private schools existing in class 3A volleyball. (100% of private schools qualified for the state tournament, but private schools comprise only 17.8% of the total 28 schools in class 3A.) So, if mitigating success factors are indeed present for private schools, we ask the OSSAA - What are those mitigating success factors? If the answer is: 3A volleyball is an isolated case study, and doesn't apply to all classifications and across all high school sports - It's not true. This discrepancy in the OSSAA classification scheme crosses all classifications and all sports.
I look forward to an explanation from any OSSAA officials (employees or directors) or any private school officials concerning the inordinate success enjoyed by private schools in the OSSAA, if not mitigating success factors. Please provide your explanations in writing (no phone calls), and I'll post. (Note: I know for a fact that many OSSAA officials and private school officials read this blog...)
Selective Enrollment (indirect recruiting) is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools. Private schools select students for enrollment, so can also select the OSSAA numbers based classification to which they belong. Several years ago, believing that the number of students any particular school has enrolled - the OSSAA implemented a rule which it thought would "level the playing field" for public schools when competing against private schools. The "rule", in effect, was to move a private school "up" one "enrollment based" classification level, if the private school had placed in the top eight (of any particular sport) for a number of years. It is now evident, the rule has had no effect on "leveling the playing field" for public schools in the OSSAA. Since the OSSAA classifies all schools according to "number of students", classifying private schools according to enrollment does not eliminate any private school advantages. An example of the "effect" of the OSSAA's watered down rule can be seen in class 4A football: One of the largest class 4A schools is Ada with 677 students, while the smallest public school in class 4A is Vinita (498 students). Heritage Hall, a private school, has 345 students - which would place it toward the bottom of class 3A, according to student numbers. Heritage Hall was ultra-successful competing in class 3A, winning multiple state titles, so moved up to class 4A in 2016 - in compliance with the rule. Heritage Hall, even though having fewer students than all public schools in class 4A, is still dominating the competition and plays Ada this week for the class 4A State Title. It can be asserted at this point, that classifying a private school based on its number of students - does not level the playing field one bit! I'd like to hear from any OSSAA official or private school official, in writing, concerning these assertions: 1) Selective enrollment is the greatest advantage private schools have over public schools and 2) The OSSAA's "Rule" for eliminating the private school advantage does not work.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Fallin's Flunk List and Gazinta Math
Governor Fallin (executive in charge of consolidating schools) just ordered the State Department of Education (SDE) to ... compile a naughty list of every public school district that spends less than sixty percent (60%) of their budget on instructional expenditures. The State Board of Education (SBE)... shall consider and make recommendations for administrative consolidation or annexation of school districts described in paragraph one. (The SBE shall force all schools on the naughty list to consolidate with good schools or disappear altogether.)...
In order to strengthen public confidence in the efficient use of state education dollars, ... school districts designated for ... consolidation or annexation (dissolution) shall submit a plan for consolidation or dissolution to the Superintendent and SBE. If a plan is not submitted by the school district, the SBE and State Superintendent... shall determine a plan (force) ...consolidation or annexation.
Those schools spending less than 60% of their budget on instructional expenditures can be identified on the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) website www.ok.gov/oeqa/.
Approximately 350 Oklahoma public schools currently spend less than 60% on "Instruction", which leaves approximately 150 schools which spend more than 60% on "Instruction".
As is usually the case, when the sheer number of schools which fit any particular category, such as naughty or nice, becomes too burdensome to analyze - I only analyze the schools in my home area. In this case, the schools located in Garvin and McClain Counties.. or House District 42 are analyzed. According to the OEQA, the schools in Garvin County which spend less than 60% of all expenditures on "Instruction" are Elmore City-Pernell - 54.7%, Maysville - 40.1%, Paoli - 57.1%, Pauls Valley - 59.1%, Stratford - 54.6%, and Wynnewood - 57.8%. These Garvin County schools have made the naughty list, and are in danger of being annexed or consolidated. The nice list for Garvin County schools is short and only includes Whitebead, with 60.4% spent on instruction and Lindsay , with 60.0% spent on instruction.
(Update: Student Instructional Support expenditures have been added to Instruction expenditures by Dr. Rick Cobb, Superintendent of Mid-Del Schools, which has resulted in several Garvin County schools being added to the "Nice List". Those new "nice" schools are Pauls Valley (60.5%) and Paoli (60.5%).
In applying the "60% model" of school consolidation or annexation to Garvin County schools: Elmore City-Pernell, Wynnewood, and Maysville would be forced to consolidate or annex to Lindsay - and Paoli, Stratford, and Pauls Valley could be forced to consolidate or annex to Whitebead. Of course, for this model to be successful in Garvin County - the House District 42 Representative would have to be on board, and he surely would be since he has stated in the past that he's in favor of forced consolidation.
In analyzing expenditures for McClain County schools, we determine those that currently spend (2016 data) less than 60% on instruction are Dibble - 56%, Newcastle - 54%, Purcell - 57.9%, Washington - 52.8%, and Wayne - 46.4%. The list of McClain County schools which spend more than 60% is also short, as only Blanchard (60.7%) made the nice list. (Disclaimer: The author of this post is superintendent of Blanchard, so knows very well it's just a crap shoot, and Blanchard could fall below that 60% threshold in an instant.)
(Update: Purcell has been added to the "nice" list with 63.7% spent on Instruction.)
I think one can see how truly absurd this consolidation model is, especially for the supporters of all the rural schools, large and small, in Oklahoma. I really don't think Governor Fallin is serious about this executive order, for a multitude of reasons. And I don't believe it will ever be implemented, and neither does Governor Fallin. We'll examine and analyze those reasons this order will fail and the political reasons it was even mentioned - in an update of this post...
Literally hundreds of public school consolidation or annexation studies (research) have been conducted in most U.S. states over the past 20 years. Almost all research has been conducted after a state financial crisis, as a way to prove that schools are not efficient in their use of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately (for corporate politicians), if the research is thoroughly examined and analyzed, no evidence exists which indicates that more tax dollars can be directed back to "instruction" after consolidation or annexation (see "Capacity for Efficiency" study, 2010, by the Office of Educational QualityandAccountability;okhouse.gov/Documents/InterimStudies/2012/12-024%20presentation%20h.pdf; nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts).
In the interest of brevity, I'll only post anecdotal evidence which indicates that no tax dollars can be directed back to the "classroom" or "instruction" after consolidation or annexation of school districts, and... I'll only post data and analyses from Garvin and McClain County school districts, since these are my local school districts.
From an earlier post: In 2010, the Office of Accountability conducted a "Capacity for Efficiency" study, at the request of Governor Fallin, which analyzed a "county consolidation model" for school efficiency when all public schools were consolidated or annexed to only one county school district... The methodology for the study compared the total administrative expenditures for all school districts in any particular county - to only one school district outside the county with a similar number of students. For example, the total administrative expenditures for all six (6) schools in McClain County (including superintendent salaries) was compared to the administrative expenditures in two separate school districts, Mustang and Yukon. The total number of students for all six McClain County schools combined was approximately 8,000, and both Mustang and Yukon had approximately 8,000 students. The Office of Educational Quality and Accountability determined that the McClain County schools had No Capacity for Efficiency if consolidated or annexed when compared to the Yukon or Mustang school districts. In other words, the total administrative expenditures for all schools in McClain County < (is less than) the administrative expenditures in either Mustang or Yukon schools. This fact must come as a shock to corporate legislators such as Tim Downing (McClain County) who believe that consolidating all schools to only one county school will save $millions in tax dollars, and send $millions in administrative expenses back to the classroom (instruction).
Anecdotal data does exist that consolidation or annexation does not save taxpayer dollars or send more money to instruction. In McClain County, at the conclusion of the 2014-2015 school year, Byars annexed to Wayne Public Schools. At the start of the 2015-2016 school year, Byars public schools no longer existed, so an analysis may be provided which compares administrative expenditures both before and after annexation. The administrative expenditures for Byars and Wayne combined for the 14-15 school year was 5.99% of total expenditures. After annexation of Byars to Wayne in '15-'16, administrative expenditures were 6.21% of total expenditures, an increase of .22%. This particular anecdotal example of annexation did not result in lower administrative costs, nor did it result in more money to the classroom.
Update: In examining the Wayne/Byars annexation in light of Governor Fallin's new "60% consolidation or annexation model" we determine that Byars was on the naughty list in 2015, spending only 48.5% of its total expenditures on "instruction". Also in 2015, Wayne spent 52.9% for "instruction" so landed on the naughty list as well. After annexation in 2016, the new consolidated Wayne/Byars spent only 46.4% for "instruction", landing it on the really naughty list. As this example is anecdotal, it is unclear whether or not all annexations would result in a reduced percentage of expenditures going to student "instruction"... but this lone example certainly indicates that fact. Instead of a long naughty list of almost 500 schools, we could have a long really naughty list of schools.
If the "60% model of annexation" proves out that administrative consolidation or annexation does not save taxpayer dollars or send more money to classroom instruction, then it cannot be "the right thing" as Governor Fallin so eloquently stated. I urge everyone who truly cares about our public school students to please review the research concerning "school consolidation" that proves it just doesn't save tax dollars, nor provide better instruction. The facts should be important to Governor Fallin and her corporate cronies in the State Legislature...
Update: Technical Aspects of Fallin's Naughty list - Although asking me to describe the "Mr. Science" technical aspects of Governor Fallin's naughty list or Flunk List (The "Flunk List" was how athlete eligibility was determined for Lindsay High School Football, back in the day.) without using "colorful rhetoric", I'll give it a try. Fallin's Flunk List (FFL) of public schools is composed of all Oklahoma public schools spending less than 60% of all expenditures for "Instruction" (the Function 1000 Series in the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System manual). According to OCAS - Instruction includes the activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students. Teaching may be provided for students in a school classroom, in another location such as a home or hospital, and in other learning situations such as those involving co-curricular activities. It may also be provided through some other approved medium such as television, radio, telephone, correspondence, and other educational or assistive technology devices. Included here are the activities of teacher assistants of any type (clerks, graders, teaching machines, etc.) which assist in the instructional process. The activities of tutors, translators, and interpreters would be recorded here. Also, include department chairpersons who teach for any portion of time. Tuition/transfer fees paid to other LEAs would be included here. At this point I have several questions that I hope Professor Fallin can answer: What is a teaching machine? I assume it is a "teacher". Secondly - If counselors, librarians, school nurses, principals, resource officers, etc. teach students for a portion of the school day, can that portion of student support be coded to the 1000 series? For instance, Governor Fallin, if a school couselor teaches one class period during the school day, may one sixth of the counselor's salary be coded to Instruction?
My last question for Professor Fallin (ok, I can't help but be a little colorful in describing this issue) provided a hint of what is not included for Instruction: Counselors, Librarians, School Nurses, School Resource Officers, Principals, Student Attendance Services, Student Social Work Services (such as activities designed to improve pupil attendance and to assess and improve the well-being of pupils), activities such as investigating and diagnosing pupil problems arising out of the home school or community, and all expenditures coded 2000. I hope Professor Fallin is not becoming too bogged down at this point (more colorful rhetoric), but we really do need some questions answered.
I know I'm beginning to bog down in describing the asinine and complicated executive order that all schools spending less than 60% on Instruction may be consolidated or annexed, so I'll speed it up a little. In examining Professor Fallin's school spending data, it appears her executive order has come directly from the federal government, as the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has determined the formula used to calculate local public school expenditure percentages. Now, I have a last question for Professor Fallin - Is this executive order from a conservative perspective... or a corporate perspective? Public Schools are waiting for your answer...
And while we're waiting, a look at a hypothetical example of a school district's expenditure percentages may offer a clue as to what Professor Fallin (the federal government) expects:
Expenditures for (Instruction - 55%, Student and Staff Support - 15.1%, District administration - 2.9%, and Operations/Child nutrition - 27%). The percentages indicated represent the level of expenditures for a real school in each of four categories. This particular school will be on the FFL (Fallin's flunk list), because it spends less than 60% on Instruction (55<60, for those knowing your "gazintas"). The mathematical problem facing school districts is "moving expenditure percentages" from other areas to "instruction". Instruction should gain 5 percentage points just to reach the 'D' level (60%).
Another school district spends 67% in "instruction, 7% for student and staff support, 8.4% for administration, and 17.6% for operations/child nutrition. This school spends a higher percentage of expenditures for "instruction" and "administration" than the first example, and is considered an 'A' school by Professor Fallin (in no danger of being listed on the FFL).
Mathematical principles dictate that the first example school above must fire some of the school and student support employees (those in the 15.1% and 27% categories), and replace them with teachers... to get off the FFL. This would be yet another question for "the professor" - How many local counselors, librarians, bus drivers, nurses, principals,custodians, and others should the school fire to be an 'A' school? I know what many corporate legislators are thinking, since their minds aren't tuned for math - Why can't you just fire the school superintendent and reach that magical 60% level? For two reasons - 1) Each school district must have a superintendent, by order of law and 2) Since superintendent salaries typically cost each school district less than 1% of total expenditures, eliminating the superintendent could only possibly add 1% to "instruction", providing 56% instead of 55%. The school would remain on Fallin's Flunk List. As a matter of fact, even if the entire 2.9% for administrative costs was shifted to "instruction" - the school would still spend only 57.9% for instruction. I believe this 60% school consolidation executive order is built on corporate fuzzy math.
Update: Fallin's Flunk List - Ben Felder, blogger for NEWSOK, writes that "Oklahoma City mayor and gubernatorial candidate Mick Cornett said school consolidation is an idea he supports for some of the 24 schools that are located inside the city limits of Oklahoma City." The 24 schools are mostly large schools, of which all are on Professor Fallin's Flunk List. All 24 schools will be expected to provide a consolidation or annexation plan to the state board for approval, according to the FFL (60%) executive order. All 24 schools must provide a plan which will result in raising their "F" in "instructional spending" (less than 60%) to at least a "D" (60% to 69%). The most logical way to do this: Consolidate or annex to a school with a "passing grade", such as ... ... ... ... ... . Wait a minute! there are no schools in OKC which are not on the FFL, which probably means that all 24 schools will combine with the nearest passing school. The OKC FFL schools would probably have to ask the nearest "passing school" for permission to annex, and it is doubtful any near "D" schools would agree to take them on. (All Oklahoma schools have graded out "F" or "D".) By the way, Cornett never said anything about consolidating small, rural schools, so I think "he's our man" for governor. LOL! This is just one more example of the absurdity in the FFL consolidation model, and the "gazinta" math used to justify it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)