I'm taking a break from my usual legislative column/post that I write this time of year to provide my opinion on another subject - competition. Many people remember where they were and what they were doing when very emotional or traumatic events occurred in their lives. For example - the day Elvis Presley died, the day John F. Kennedy was shot, the day terrorists crashed planes into the twin towers of New York City, and the day of the Murrah Building bombing in OKC resonate in the memories of many Americans. In addition these events, one more stands out for me - occurring in 1973. My mind floats back to that time... I remember exactly what I was doing, where I was, and the discussion that followed.
On June 9, 1973, I witnessed the greatest athlete the world has ever seen... not Jan-Michael Vincent in the movie "The World's greatest Athlete", not Michael Jordan, or even Jim Thorpe. Many sports experts and fans (including me) believe the greatest athlete of all time was Secretariat, the thoroughbred racehorse who won the triple-crown (Preakness, Kentucky Derby, and Belmont Stakes) in 1973. I watched the Belmont race on T.V. at 5:30 PM, Saturday, June 9, 1973, and watched it maybe 100 times since, on YouTube. I get misty-eyed every time I see it, not because I really liked Secretariat, the thoroughbred racehorse, but because I knew I was witnessing competition history. I've only become choked-up watching one other race of which I'll speak about a little later, but first:
Secretariat was a thoroughbred who only competed for one season (1973) and only won 21 races, while losing several. In June of 1973, I was 16 and getting ready to start my junior year of high school - and had already watched Secretariat come from behind to win both the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. The last leg of the Triple Crown, the Belmont Stakes, would be run that evening, and I wanted to hopefully see a Triple Crown winner, which Secretariat would be if he won the last race. I really doubted that he could do it, because it's very difficult to beat the same great athlete (Sham, in this case) three times in a row. Sham had already beaten Secretariat in the Woods Memorial just before the Kentucky Derby - but Secretariat turned the tables on him at Churchill Downs, winning by 2 and a half lengths. Sham had run the second fastest time ever recorded though, as he and Secretariat were the only two horses ever to run the Derby in under 2 minutes. Secretariat went on to establish another record in the Preakness two weeks later, barely beating Sham again by 2 and a half lengths. Two weeks after the slim victory at the Preakness came the Belmont Stakes. By now, since Secretariat had two close wins over Sham, I believed it was time the tables were turned, and Sham would win the Belmont. I hope anyone reading this post has now had time to watch the film of "the greatest athlete the world has ever seen" run in what I believe was the "greatest horse race" of all time.
A description of my view of the race: Secretariat burst from the gate, not dead last as usual, but abreast of the other 4 horses, with Sham leading. Secretariat quickly moved to the rail and began to move up on Sham. After the first quarter it became a 2-horse race, but that would not last long, as Secretariat began to pull away. It was at this time that I began to cry, not sobbing - but my throat began to get tight and I could feel the tears welling in my eyes. My dad, who was blind, was listening to the race as well, and he would ask me questions as the competition progressed. When I get choked up, I can't speak, so when he asked me how Sham looked at this time, I could not answer. Laffit Pincay, aboard Sham, probably began to cry as well, as Secretariat had begun to pull away. In the words of Tom Callahan of the Washington Post (1993) who interviewed two other jockeys in the race: From 10 lengths astern, Braulio Baeza on Twice a Prince and Angel Cordero on My Gallant could actually see Sham's heart breaking. They glanced at each other in unjaded astonishment. Sham's legs were splaying apart. He was swimming instead of running. He was crying out in frustration. When seeing the "500 lb. gorilla" (a track coach's term) climb aboard Sham, Baeza declared "I'm gonna get second, man!" to which Cordero replied "You gotta beat me!" as they picked up their whips. Twice a Prince did get second - 31 lengths behind the winner. Sham came home dead last, 45 lengths to oblivion. He never raced again. When Secretariat entered the stretch alone, and kept coming and coming - and he was still alone - the country wept for joy without knowing why.
When Secretariat died in 1989 at the age of nineteen, the world sent flowers by the truckload. He was given the most honored burial plot of all among such thoroughbreds as Omaha and Bold Ruler. When Sham died four years later on April 3, 1993, the world didn't even notice. What did Sham represent? Nothing to speak of, really, maybe the putt that lipped out, the fly ball caught on the warning track, the touchdown drive that died at the 1, the girl who said "I don't".
This one race affected me more deeply than any other event up to this time, and I often thought of it during my days coaching track at Duncan High School. In the word's of one fan "Secretariat was the racehorse made by God". He was perfection. I wept again in 1989 when Secretariat died. When he was autopsied following his death, his heart was estimated to weigh 22 lbs, almost 3 times the weight of the average thoroughbred' heart at 8.5 lbs.. In my opinion, it was the key to his athletic success "he was all heart". It was something I told my track athletes just before a big race - "remember, the one with the most heart will win". I will always think of Secretariat until the day I leave this world, and cry each time I do...
I've postponed writing about our Blanchard Lions Baseball team, primarily because I did not want to "jinx" it (remember the Sports Illustrated cover jinx?). As they enter the playoffs though, I just can't help myself. Our Lions are currently 31 wins against 4 losses on the season, with 23 of those wins by "run-rule" (leading by 8 runs after 5 innings). Our Lions are ranked #31 in the nation by MaxPreps and beat the Owasso Rams, 7 - 1, which is currently ranked 7th in the nation. Only time will tell if this Blanchard team is among the school's all-time best, as the playoffs are just beginning, and the cream will rise to the top - just as Secretariat did in 1973.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Unscientific Research : Four-day School Weeks
UPDATED:
Last month, the Oklahoma State Department of Education published results of a study which examined school expenditures for those schools using a four-day week calendar compared with expenditures while in a five-day week. The researchers involved (presumably SDE employees) claimed the results were obtained utilizing methodologies deemed both valid and reliable. An examination of obtained results and the methods utilized, however, reveal that the conclusions reached were "hully-gully" at best. While I realize the term "hully-gully" is wholly unscientific, I believe the conclusions of the study are also "unscientific", so we utilize terminology easily understood by those not accustomed to valid and reliable methodologies.
Of the 97 school districts currently using a four-day week schedule, 81 started this school year while 16 have been on it for 6 years. The SDE only studied the 16 schools which have been on the four-day week. Those schools are among the smallest in the state, and it is unknown why they went to the shortened schedule in the first place (six years ago), as that question was not asked. The reason may not have been "to save money". I believe the other 81 schools have stated they went to a four-day week "to save money", so the study would have been more relevant if those schools had been examined. The sixteen small schools in the study does not constitute a "random sample" representing all schools on the four-day week, as they weren't chosen at random. This one attribute of the study means that we can't generalize to all schools (many of the 81 schools were medium sized), which renders the conclusions meaningless. The methodology utilized means the study is possibly invalid and unreliable. Research results are deemed "reliable" if the same study conducted later obtains similar results. Studies are deemed "unreliable" which if conducted at a later date, result in different conclusions. For example, if the same analysis is conducted on 16 medium sized schools a year from now, and the results are different from 16 small schools - the SDE conclusion that "four-day weeks does not save money" is blown out of the water. The evidence of "no savings" must be considered anecdotal at best, and unreliable at worst. SDE officials made at least one accurate statement accompanying the unreliable report - after analyzing each district's expenditures, we can find no conclusive evidence to support the theory that four-day school weeks save districts money. I must add to this obvious SDE assertion: after analyzing each district's expenditures, I can find no conclusive evidence to support the theory that four-day school weeks do not save districts money. One must bear in mind "they found no conclusive evidence" because the analysis results were unreliable. For instance, if 16 different schools were studied, the results may have been completely different (schools may have saved boo-koos of money). Also, no factors were accounted for in the SDE analysis which may have caused the schools to increase expenditures. For example, a school may have added a teacher when it went to a four-day week, negating any cost savings. Other factors which could have prevented expenditure reductions for the 16 schools are increases in utility costs, increased insurance costs, increased maintenance costs, increased instruction costs, and inflation. None of these mitigating factors were considered in the SDE report. My complaint concerning the SDE report is not that it conducted unreliable research, but that the SDE and print media disparages those schools on a four-day week. The school which employs me (Blanchard) is one of those 40 schools which will study the data (valid and reliable) and make an informed decision next year as to whether or not to go to a four-day week. We (the Blanchard board of education and superintendent) will not rely on a "hully-gully" analysis of data to make our decision, but rely on our own analysis.
I've had the opportunity to examine two anecdotal examples of medium sized schools not examined by the SDE. One school will have saved $50,000 to $75,000 by the end of the present fiscal year, and the other school will have saved about $10,000. The school which will save only $10,000, however, also saved a teacher's job, which was one of its stated objectives.
Last month, the Oklahoma State Department of Education published results of a study which examined school expenditures for those schools using a four-day week calendar compared with expenditures while in a five-day week. The researchers involved (presumably SDE employees) claimed the results were obtained utilizing methodologies deemed both valid and reliable. An examination of obtained results and the methods utilized, however, reveal that the conclusions reached were "hully-gully" at best. While I realize the term "hully-gully" is wholly unscientific, I believe the conclusions of the study are also "unscientific", so we utilize terminology easily understood by those not accustomed to valid and reliable methodologies.
Of the 97 school districts currently using a four-day week schedule, 81 started this school year while 16 have been on it for 6 years. The SDE only studied the 16 schools which have been on the four-day week. Those schools are among the smallest in the state, and it is unknown why they went to the shortened schedule in the first place (six years ago), as that question was not asked. The reason may not have been "to save money". I believe the other 81 schools have stated they went to a four-day week "to save money", so the study would have been more relevant if those schools had been examined. The sixteen small schools in the study does not constitute a "random sample" representing all schools on the four-day week, as they weren't chosen at random. This one attribute of the study means that we can't generalize to all schools (many of the 81 schools were medium sized), which renders the conclusions meaningless. The methodology utilized means the study is possibly invalid and unreliable. Research results are deemed "reliable" if the same study conducted later obtains similar results. Studies are deemed "unreliable" which if conducted at a later date, result in different conclusions. For example, if the same analysis is conducted on 16 medium sized schools a year from now, and the results are different from 16 small schools - the SDE conclusion that "four-day weeks does not save money" is blown out of the water. The evidence of "no savings" must be considered anecdotal at best, and unreliable at worst. SDE officials made at least one accurate statement accompanying the unreliable report - after analyzing each district's expenditures, we can find no conclusive evidence to support the theory that four-day school weeks save districts money. I must add to this obvious SDE assertion: after analyzing each district's expenditures, I can find no conclusive evidence to support the theory that four-day school weeks do not save districts money. One must bear in mind "they found no conclusive evidence" because the analysis results were unreliable. For instance, if 16 different schools were studied, the results may have been completely different (schools may have saved boo-koos of money). Also, no factors were accounted for in the SDE analysis which may have caused the schools to increase expenditures. For example, a school may have added a teacher when it went to a four-day week, negating any cost savings. Other factors which could have prevented expenditure reductions for the 16 schools are increases in utility costs, increased insurance costs, increased maintenance costs, increased instruction costs, and inflation. None of these mitigating factors were considered in the SDE report. My complaint concerning the SDE report is not that it conducted unreliable research, but that the SDE and print media disparages those schools on a four-day week. The school which employs me (Blanchard) is one of those 40 schools which will study the data (valid and reliable) and make an informed decision next year as to whether or not to go to a four-day week. We (the Blanchard board of education and superintendent) will not rely on a "hully-gully" analysis of data to make our decision, but rely on our own analysis.
I've had the opportunity to examine two anecdotal examples of medium sized schools not examined by the SDE. One school will have saved $50,000 to $75,000 by the end of the present fiscal year, and the other school will have saved about $10,000. The school which will save only $10,000, however, also saved a teacher's job, which was one of its stated objectives.
Monday, April 24, 2017
The Unreliable and Invalid A-F School Report Card
The degree to which a measurement procedure produces the same outcome when the same object, event, or construct is measured under identical conditions is the reliability (of any measurement procedure). Validity refers to the ability of the measurement procedure to accurately measure the construct of interest. In other words, we are measuring what we want to measure. "Validity" and "Reliability" are scientific terms utilized to describe whether measurements are meaningless or worthless. In Chapter 2 of the Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics, the authors lament "if we cannot show that our measurement was reliable and valid, the data we collect is meaningless."
The 'A' to 'F' School Report Card is an Oklahoma public school grading system, endorsed by our State Legislature, State Superintendent of Schools, and Governor, which they say provides the public with data (to make decisions about how our schools are doing). Most State Senators and State Reps believe the system is based on valid and reliable data, which brands schools with letter grades (A, B, C, D, or F) in order to determine each school's effectiveness. The question now becomes: Does the system measure any school's effectiveness in a valid and reliable manner?
During the first four years of the school A through F letter grade system, education experts across the nation (in states with the A-F system) conducted research - to determine the validity and reliability of such a system. Researchers from many major universities, including O.S.U. and O.U., concluded the letter grade system for assigning an 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', or 'F' grade to individual "schools" is both invalid and unreliable. Many education experts attempted to answer questions such as "Does the school letter grade system provide a method which gives the public a clear understanding of each school's effectiveness?" In order to determine the answer to the question, correlational studies were conducted which compared existing variables in the new A - F system of measurement. In this way, the valid or invalid and the reliable or unreliable correlational levels could be measured. Variables used for analysis included school funding, student learning capacity, community poverty rates, and school letter grades. Researchers determined that all variables were highly correlated. In other words, as one variable increases, all others included in the analysis either increase or decrease in similar fashion. Variables not included in the research were subjective, such as teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness (How does one measure teacher effectiveness?). Some state lawmakers believe, however, that teacher effectiveness can be measured by student test scores. The analyses of research data indicated that schools with higher funding levels received higher letter grades, schools with higher student learning capacities (as judged by student test scores) received higher letter grades, and schools with higher community poverty rates (as judged by free and reduced student lunch percentages) received lower letter grades ('D' and 'F').
The U.S. Department of Education recognized this deficiency in the school letter grade system, so on November 29,2016, dropped the requirement that states provide a single summative letter grade for each school. Many Oklahoma state lawmakers, as well as State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister, had been saying all along that the school letter grade system was invalid and unreliable because of the single summative letter grade issued to schools. In other words, teacher effectiveness cannot be determined by issuing a single summative school letter grade. One would tend to believe that as soon as the federal government dropped the requirement that schools receive a summative grade, states would also end this requirement - as it was branding all teachers in some schools as failures, when in fact the failure was school funding, poverty, or student learning capacity. The State of Oklahoma forged ahead, however, and is actually doubling down on its criticism of teachers - as Senators and Representatives alike passed the new school letter grade system, which includes the single summative school letter grade! The variable which accounted for less validity (invalid) and less reliability (unreliable) than any other factor... continues unabated.
A quick example of invalid and unreliable teacher labeling: I was the Principal at Duncan Middle School (DMS) from 2001 through 2004. In my opinion, we had some of the best teachers in the state at DMS. Examining the 2016 single summative letter grade for DMS reveals that the school received a 'D', not very good by anyone's standards. I know without a shadow of a doubt that DMS teachers are among the state's best, but they've been labeled as 'poor', by state senators and representatives. Schools and teachers across the state have been mislabeled by those senators and representatives who said, in effect - to heck with research, we must prove how bad Oklahoma teachers really are. Even Joy Hofmeister changed her mind, and now believes (erroneously) that state teachers are only as good as their school's single summative grade - whether it's an A or an F.
Side note: To determine which senators and representatives voted in favor of using the single summative school grade as a method of school and teacher disparagement, go to the Oklahoma Legislature Website, type in HB 1693 under "legislation", and then click "votes". I think all public school supporters will be surprised.
The 'A' to 'F' School Report Card is an Oklahoma public school grading system, endorsed by our State Legislature, State Superintendent of Schools, and Governor, which they say provides the public with data (to make decisions about how our schools are doing). Most State Senators and State Reps believe the system is based on valid and reliable data, which brands schools with letter grades (A, B, C, D, or F) in order to determine each school's effectiveness. The question now becomes: Does the system measure any school's effectiveness in a valid and reliable manner?
During the first four years of the school A through F letter grade system, education experts across the nation (in states with the A-F system) conducted research - to determine the validity and reliability of such a system. Researchers from many major universities, including O.S.U. and O.U., concluded the letter grade system for assigning an 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', or 'F' grade to individual "schools" is both invalid and unreliable. Many education experts attempted to answer questions such as "Does the school letter grade system provide a method which gives the public a clear understanding of each school's effectiveness?" In order to determine the answer to the question, correlational studies were conducted which compared existing variables in the new A - F system of measurement. In this way, the valid or invalid and the reliable or unreliable correlational levels could be measured. Variables used for analysis included school funding, student learning capacity, community poverty rates, and school letter grades. Researchers determined that all variables were highly correlated. In other words, as one variable increases, all others included in the analysis either increase or decrease in similar fashion. Variables not included in the research were subjective, such as teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness (How does one measure teacher effectiveness?). Some state lawmakers believe, however, that teacher effectiveness can be measured by student test scores. The analyses of research data indicated that schools with higher funding levels received higher letter grades, schools with higher student learning capacities (as judged by student test scores) received higher letter grades, and schools with higher community poverty rates (as judged by free and reduced student lunch percentages) received lower letter grades ('D' and 'F').
The U.S. Department of Education recognized this deficiency in the school letter grade system, so on November 29,2016, dropped the requirement that states provide a single summative letter grade for each school. Many Oklahoma state lawmakers, as well as State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister, had been saying all along that the school letter grade system was invalid and unreliable because of the single summative letter grade issued to schools. In other words, teacher effectiveness cannot be determined by issuing a single summative school letter grade. One would tend to believe that as soon as the federal government dropped the requirement that schools receive a summative grade, states would also end this requirement - as it was branding all teachers in some schools as failures, when in fact the failure was school funding, poverty, or student learning capacity. The State of Oklahoma forged ahead, however, and is actually doubling down on its criticism of teachers - as Senators and Representatives alike passed the new school letter grade system, which includes the single summative school letter grade! The variable which accounted for less validity (invalid) and less reliability (unreliable) than any other factor... continues unabated.
A quick example of invalid and unreliable teacher labeling: I was the Principal at Duncan Middle School (DMS) from 2001 through 2004. In my opinion, we had some of the best teachers in the state at DMS. Examining the 2016 single summative letter grade for DMS reveals that the school received a 'D', not very good by anyone's standards. I know without a shadow of a doubt that DMS teachers are among the state's best, but they've been labeled as 'poor', by state senators and representatives. Schools and teachers across the state have been mislabeled by those senators and representatives who said, in effect - to heck with research, we must prove how bad Oklahoma teachers really are. Even Joy Hofmeister changed her mind, and now believes (erroneously) that state teachers are only as good as their school's single summative grade - whether it's an A or an F.
Side note: To determine which senators and representatives voted in favor of using the single summative school grade as a method of school and teacher disparagement, go to the Oklahoma Legislature Website, type in HB 1693 under "legislation", and then click "votes". I think all public school supporters will be surprised.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Corporate Profiteer Team and Our (Failing) Public Schools
Disclaimer: (I have several friends employed by corporations such as Farm Bureau, Devon, and the Walmart corporations). I purchase many things from these corporations, including Farm Bureau Insurance and Devon Energy, but I vehemently disagree with their political position concerning our rural public schools - that our rural Oklahoma public schools are failing. Like Merle Haggard said in 1969 - When you're runnin' down my country (public school), hoss, you're walking on the fightin' side of me.
The common code phrase among corporations for "failing public schools" is "school choice". But the corporate choice in school choice is the State Legislator's choice as to where our public tax dollars are directed, and not the parent's choice of schools. For corporate lawmakers, that choice is often toward private and corporate charter schools - not our rural public schools. Only by continuing to proclaim that our public schools are failing, can (for-profit) non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (AFC), corporations, and corporate lawmakers direct public tax dollars to private and corporate charter schools. Schools receiving an 'F' on the now discredited A-F school report card are the ones most vulnerable to corporate attack. Corporate profiteer intent is a "shakedown" of our most vulnerable public schools for public tax dollars, much like the "school yard bully" shaking down lunch money at recess.
The connection between corporations that seemingly have "no connection" to our public schools, or no connection to for-profit non-profits such as the AFC, is not readily evident - but is still there. As an avid public school supporter, I noticed the connection between Walmart and our public schools, and Devon and our public schools several years ago. It seems that many corporations, education non-profits, and corporatists (state corporate lawmakers) belong to a secret organization which calls itself the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is an organization in which corporations and education non-profits such as the AFC buy state lawmakers and even exchange them as if they were a commodity. They say it's the "American Way", buying and selling state lawmakers as if they were stocks to be invested in. These corporations, non-profits, and corporatists are all on the same team - when one is successful in the fine art of profiteering, they are all successful.
I noticed the Farm Bureau link to our failing public schools (corporatist terminology) about a year ago. While pointing out disingenuous corporate and foreign interests in the "Right to Farm" State Question 777, I noticed that Farm Bureau was claiming to be a "grass roots" organization and SQ 777 would be good for our local farmers and ranchers. What was good for the foreign factory farms and ranches though, turned out to be very bad for our local farmers and ranchers. Tomi Lahren, conservative commentator, pointed this fact out several months ago. Farm Bureau, however, jumped in on the side of corporate farm factories, instead of our local farmers and ranchers. State Question 777 if approved, would have simply provided marketing advantages for corporate farms, to the disadvantage for our local ranch producers. Farm Bureau had thus far stuck to campaigning and advocating farm related issues, but several months later trumpeted a "position paper" on public school issues - Voices from Rural Oklahoma: Where's Education Headed on the Plain? Bellwether Education Partners (BEP), a Massachusetts-based education for-profit, non-profit group had published "its" facts (fabrications) about the failure of our rural Oklahoma schools. The end-game for education non-profits such as the BEP and the AFC is to turn public schools into profit centers for the rich and famous. It's what they do, and the name of the game is school choice - which in reality should be called profiteers choice. Farm Bureau's cover as a local, grass-roots organization was blown with their advocacy of SQ 777, but their true colors became evident in their support of the BEP propaganda report. The propaganda supported by Farm Bureau, Devon, the AFC, and Chinese factory farms is that our rural public schools are failing, so state funding should be turned over to education profiteers. Many conservative Oklahomans take issue with increasing taxes for out-of-state corporate education groups and private schools because corporate lawmakers only know how to increase spending in order to keep up with the demand for tax dollars.
In my opinion, only rural lawmakers can stop the corporate slaughter of our rural public schools. For Oklahoma's sake, we can only hope they do.
The common code phrase among corporations for "failing public schools" is "school choice". But the corporate choice in school choice is the State Legislator's choice as to where our public tax dollars are directed, and not the parent's choice of schools. For corporate lawmakers, that choice is often toward private and corporate charter schools - not our rural public schools. Only by continuing to proclaim that our public schools are failing, can (for-profit) non-profits such as the American Federation for Children (AFC), corporations, and corporate lawmakers direct public tax dollars to private and corporate charter schools. Schools receiving an 'F' on the now discredited A-F school report card are the ones most vulnerable to corporate attack. Corporate profiteer intent is a "shakedown" of our most vulnerable public schools for public tax dollars, much like the "school yard bully" shaking down lunch money at recess.
The connection between corporations that seemingly have "no connection" to our public schools, or no connection to for-profit non-profits such as the AFC, is not readily evident - but is still there. As an avid public school supporter, I noticed the connection between Walmart and our public schools, and Devon and our public schools several years ago. It seems that many corporations, education non-profits, and corporatists (state corporate lawmakers) belong to a secret organization which calls itself the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is an organization in which corporations and education non-profits such as the AFC buy state lawmakers and even exchange them as if they were a commodity. They say it's the "American Way", buying and selling state lawmakers as if they were stocks to be invested in. These corporations, non-profits, and corporatists are all on the same team - when one is successful in the fine art of profiteering, they are all successful.
I noticed the Farm Bureau link to our failing public schools (corporatist terminology) about a year ago. While pointing out disingenuous corporate and foreign interests in the "Right to Farm" State Question 777, I noticed that Farm Bureau was claiming to be a "grass roots" organization and SQ 777 would be good for our local farmers and ranchers. What was good for the foreign factory farms and ranches though, turned out to be very bad for our local farmers and ranchers. Tomi Lahren, conservative commentator, pointed this fact out several months ago. Farm Bureau, however, jumped in on the side of corporate farm factories, instead of our local farmers and ranchers. State Question 777 if approved, would have simply provided marketing advantages for corporate farms, to the disadvantage for our local ranch producers. Farm Bureau had thus far stuck to campaigning and advocating farm related issues, but several months later trumpeted a "position paper" on public school issues - Voices from Rural Oklahoma: Where's Education Headed on the Plain? Bellwether Education Partners (BEP), a Massachusetts-based education for-profit, non-profit group had published "its" facts (fabrications) about the failure of our rural Oklahoma schools. The end-game for education non-profits such as the BEP and the AFC is to turn public schools into profit centers for the rich and famous. It's what they do, and the name of the game is school choice - which in reality should be called profiteers choice. Farm Bureau's cover as a local, grass-roots organization was blown with their advocacy of SQ 777, but their true colors became evident in their support of the BEP propaganda report. The propaganda supported by Farm Bureau, Devon, the AFC, and Chinese factory farms is that our rural public schools are failing, so state funding should be turned over to education profiteers. Many conservative Oklahomans take issue with increasing taxes for out-of-state corporate education groups and private schools because corporate lawmakers only know how to increase spending in order to keep up with the demand for tax dollars.
In my opinion, only rural lawmakers can stop the corporate slaughter of our rural public schools. For Oklahoma's sake, we can only hope they do.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
School Profiteers - Part II, Coming Attractions
Yesterday's column/blog centered on Carlton Landing Academy, the quasi-private public charter school for the super-rich of Pittsburgh County and the brainchild of public school profiteers. Today's post is a follow-up to the "strategies" used by ultra-rich city developers - to detail another strategy employed by profiteers to improve corporate profits. The bottom line for corporations is always "company profits", and not the education of our youth - as they so eloquently state.
Several months ago, news headlines across Oklahoma screamed Oklahoma School Board Approves Rural Charter School, indicating "the first rural charter school started from scratch had been approved by the Oklahoma State School Board". Two years ago, Oklahoma Senators and Representatives passed a bill which the governor signed into law, allowing corporate charter schools in our rural communities. Before this bill was passed, corporate charter schools were only allowed in Oklahoma City and Tulsa - but profiteers noticed that a large percentage of public tax dollars was being "squandered" on rural communities and rural schools. Profiteers' definition of "squandered tax dollars" is any local taxation that cannot be accessed by... you guessed it.. profiteers. So, the profiteers in this particular case bought a couple of lawmakers (corrupt politicians) to sponsor the bill, and its been all gravy ever since. As any reader can tell by now, this post is partially sarcastic truth. Public school profiteers are often identified as clandestine groups such as the American Federation for Children and its child, the Oklahoma Federation for Children - or just about any out-of-state corporate group seeking a profit at our taxpayer and public schools' expense. The "Seminole" case is no exception. The new charter law was passed on the assumption that local school boards would be the authority to decide if any rural charter school should exist in a rural community. In other words, the community or town would be able to decide if the corporate charter school is truly needed by students. The law was billed as a "local control" issue - plain and simple. But the sponsors of the Law and their corporate backers had an ace up their sleeve: If the local community decided that the out-of-state corporate charter school was not needed nor wanted, and told it to "hit the road" - the out-of-state corporate group could appeal the local order to a "higher authority", the State Board of Education, with which corporate groups have much influence (remember the "corrupt politicians" in yesterday's post). What eventually happened for the "Academy of Seminole" (sounds very educational, like Carlton Landing Academy) was that it was turned down two times by the community of Seminole, but was approved with flying colors by the State Board of Education (otherwise known as the Corporate Board). The corporate CEO made such statements as "They (Seminole citizens) are having a hard time justifying putting their kids in school system (sic) that averages a 19 and half (again,sic) on an ACT." The corporate school management firm, Responsive Ed, based in Texas will manage the "corporate charter school". Just like Carlton Landing siphoning tax dollars away from Canadian Public School students, the Seminole charter will siphon tax dollars away from Seminole Public School students. In that sense, corporate charter schools are "parasites" feeding off of the local taxpayers. But the shanghaied state funding doesn't all go to Oklahoma students but to line the pockets of corporate CEO's. It's what profiteers do: profit. One small (OK, large) coincidence concerning the Seminole charter is that one of the sponsoring legislators of the law that allowed this unprecedented shanghaiing of local tax dollars now sits on the Academy of Seminole's Board of Directors (which like I said yesterday, can be VERY lucrative). This appointment was reward for a job well done.
Many traditional and local public school supporters believe that what happened in Canadian Public Schools and Seminole Public Schools, cannot happen in our own public school. But hear me now, and believe me later, it can! When corporations believe taxpayer dollars can be legally shanghaied, almost nothing will stop them.
Several months ago, news headlines across Oklahoma screamed Oklahoma School Board Approves Rural Charter School, indicating "the first rural charter school started from scratch had been approved by the Oklahoma State School Board". Two years ago, Oklahoma Senators and Representatives passed a bill which the governor signed into law, allowing corporate charter schools in our rural communities. Before this bill was passed, corporate charter schools were only allowed in Oklahoma City and Tulsa - but profiteers noticed that a large percentage of public tax dollars was being "squandered" on rural communities and rural schools. Profiteers' definition of "squandered tax dollars" is any local taxation that cannot be accessed by... you guessed it.. profiteers. So, the profiteers in this particular case bought a couple of lawmakers (corrupt politicians) to sponsor the bill, and its been all gravy ever since. As any reader can tell by now, this post is partially sarcastic truth. Public school profiteers are often identified as clandestine groups such as the American Federation for Children and its child, the Oklahoma Federation for Children - or just about any out-of-state corporate group seeking a profit at our taxpayer and public schools' expense. The "Seminole" case is no exception. The new charter law was passed on the assumption that local school boards would be the authority to decide if any rural charter school should exist in a rural community. In other words, the community or town would be able to decide if the corporate charter school is truly needed by students. The law was billed as a "local control" issue - plain and simple. But the sponsors of the Law and their corporate backers had an ace up their sleeve: If the local community decided that the out-of-state corporate charter school was not needed nor wanted, and told it to "hit the road" - the out-of-state corporate group could appeal the local order to a "higher authority", the State Board of Education, with which corporate groups have much influence (remember the "corrupt politicians" in yesterday's post). What eventually happened for the "Academy of Seminole" (sounds very educational, like Carlton Landing Academy) was that it was turned down two times by the community of Seminole, but was approved with flying colors by the State Board of Education (otherwise known as the Corporate Board). The corporate CEO made such statements as "They (Seminole citizens) are having a hard time justifying putting their kids in school system (sic) that averages a 19 and half (again,sic) on an ACT." The corporate school management firm, Responsive Ed, based in Texas will manage the "corporate charter school". Just like Carlton Landing siphoning tax dollars away from Canadian Public School students, the Seminole charter will siphon tax dollars away from Seminole Public School students. In that sense, corporate charter schools are "parasites" feeding off of the local taxpayers. But the shanghaied state funding doesn't all go to Oklahoma students but to line the pockets of corporate CEO's. It's what profiteers do: profit. One small (OK, large) coincidence concerning the Seminole charter is that one of the sponsoring legislators of the law that allowed this unprecedented shanghaiing of local tax dollars now sits on the Academy of Seminole's Board of Directors (which like I said yesterday, can be VERY lucrative). This appointment was reward for a job well done.
Many traditional and local public school supporters believe that what happened in Canadian Public Schools and Seminole Public Schools, cannot happen in our own public school. But hear me now, and believe me later, it can! When corporations believe taxpayer dollars can be legally shanghaied, almost nothing will stop them.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Our Oklahoma Public School Profiteers
Wikipedia defines business "profiteering" as... the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical... and applied to businesses that play on political corruption to obtain government contracts, and Encyclopedia.com as a term for making unconscionable or socially destructive profits, especially in times of economic stress and widespread shortages. While some types of profiteering are illegal, such as price fixing schemes, and others are restricted by industry codes of conduct - a few business profiteers rely on corrupt politicians to enact laws which inevitably create or increase profits for them, but does little for consumers and the general public.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines "profiteer" as a person who takes advantage of a situation in which people are suffering to make a profit... and Merriam-Webster as one who makes an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency.
In applying the descriptors in the previous definitions for profiteers and profiteering, there are indications that the public school funding crisis in Oklahoma is being taken advantage of by profiteers. By the way, profiteers often refer to themselves by the more socially accepted term "capitalists" who are simply more imaginative in targeting public services and tax dollars. As applied to the profiteering of our public schools, political corruption is the directing of the public tax dollars to the private sector by state lawmakers. Government contracts are the actual state state laws which allow for the siphoning of public funds by profiteers while socially destructive profits are those enjoyed by profiteers which help cause the destruction of our public schools. I don't think anyone can deny that public schools in Oklahoma are now in the times of economic stress or that students and teachers are suffering as a result, but only time will tell if the sale of essential goods (public education) during these times of emergency will turn millionaires into billionaires (profiteers).
One example of profiteering at public expense comes to mind when considering the above definitions and facts - the rural charter school movement in Oklahoma. Late last year, Carlton Landing Academy, the first rural charter school opened in Oklahoma. Carlton Landing, the town, was incorporated in 2013 as the brainchild of wealthy entrepreneurs (profiteers) who wanted an exclusive resort community for their friends on Lake Eufala. They immediately started Carlton Landing Academy, a private school for the elite, located in the community. They started with around 50 students for their "designed school" and paid teachers very well - since it was private and exclusive. To actually run and maintain a school is very expensive, and since the "owners" of Carlton Landing are not just "capitalists" - but "profiteers" always seeking ways to earn profits, they began to explore the acquisition of public funds (taxpayer dollars) to finance their private school. They convinced specific lawmakers to sponsor "rural charter school" bills which would legalize the acquisition of public school funding for their exclusive private school. In return for sponsoring a charter school bill, one or more legislators were promised a seat on the charter school board, which can also be very lucrative. The charter school bill was ultimately successful, and Carlton Landing Academy, the exclusive private school, became Carlton Landing - exclusive charter school. It is exclusive because only resident children have parents who are wealthy enough for them to attend. It is a rural public charter school because it receives state aid from the Oklahoma State Department of Education after the charter bill was passed in 2015. Carlton Landing Academy (the now "public" school) received $228,000 in state aid during the 2016 school year. This was $228,000 that Carlton Landing Academy (the private school) did not receive in 2013, 2014, and 2015, so it was only icing on the cake for wealthy entrepreneurs. Bear in mind that wealthy entrepreneurs, for the most part, are those who say Oklahoma has too many school districts and should consolidate, but have actually added over 20 school districts to Oklahoma over the past 5 years. These 20+ schools represent $millions in taxpayer dollars that Oklahoma pays. Carlton Landing Academy, with an initial 50+ students, received approximately $4,300 per student in its first year, which probably paid teacher salaries. If the school had 3 teachers with 17 students each, each teacher could earn $76,000, based on its state aid.
Carlton Landing Academy charter school is located in the Canadian Public Schools district, so could attract students from Canadian as well as many other small surrounding districts. According to profiteers and their legislative allies, "this is all about competition and school choice", so "may the best school win". The result of Carlton Academy attracting enough students to harm the surrounding school districts, however, is slim - since it is an exclusive school, limited by the parents wealth. There is a greater danger to public schools than simply the profiteer acquisition of public state aid - the profiteer acquisition of state dedicated revenue (gross production, school land earnings, car tags, REA tax) and ad valorem revenue (local property tax). Of course, since dedicated revenue is chargeable to state aid, profiteers are not that concerned with acquiring gross production, etc.. because they can not profit from its acquisition. The "BIG" prize for profiteers is the acquisition of ad valorem revenue, since true public schools receive property tax in their Building Fund, General Fund, and Bond and Sinking Fund, but private and corporate charter schools do not. For example, Canadian Public School district (the host for Carlton Landing) received a little over $1 million for its General Fund and about $160,000 for its Building Fund in 2016. Of the $1 million in property taxation that Canadian received, half or more came from Carlton Landing properties as each home is taxed on an average $500,000 value, while the rest of the Canadian School properties are probably not worth as much. Many experts believe that since profiteers' main concern are profits, it only makes common sense that they want to acquire property taxes. A conservative friend of mine in the State Legislature told me that "... the Legislators who support charter schools are desperate to find a viable revenue source for those schools. In order to do so they must have the local gross production taxes, and eventually control of ad valorem. They will use the excuse "the purpose is to receive credit for, and re-distribute all public school funding to corporate charters as well."
It's what profiteers do - profit. These are not profiteers in a traditional sense (capitalists), but profiteers who bleed the public in order to become millionaires and billionaires. If the corporate charter school movement in Oklahoma is successful in bleeding our public schools, the end result will be "ghost" schools in our rural communities, and eventually ghost towns. The only entity which has a chance at stopping the bleeding is our rural lawmakers. This has now become a challenge for our conservative Representatives and Senators: Stop the bleeding of our rural public schools and communities, for our childrens sake and our rural towns sake.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines "profiteer" as a person who takes advantage of a situation in which people are suffering to make a profit... and Merriam-Webster as one who makes an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency.
In applying the descriptors in the previous definitions for profiteers and profiteering, there are indications that the public school funding crisis in Oklahoma is being taken advantage of by profiteers. By the way, profiteers often refer to themselves by the more socially accepted term "capitalists" who are simply more imaginative in targeting public services and tax dollars. As applied to the profiteering of our public schools, political corruption is the directing of the public tax dollars to the private sector by state lawmakers. Government contracts are the actual state state laws which allow for the siphoning of public funds by profiteers while socially destructive profits are those enjoyed by profiteers which help cause the destruction of our public schools. I don't think anyone can deny that public schools in Oklahoma are now in the times of economic stress or that students and teachers are suffering as a result, but only time will tell if the sale of essential goods (public education) during these times of emergency will turn millionaires into billionaires (profiteers).
One example of profiteering at public expense comes to mind when considering the above definitions and facts - the rural charter school movement in Oklahoma. Late last year, Carlton Landing Academy, the first rural charter school opened in Oklahoma. Carlton Landing, the town, was incorporated in 2013 as the brainchild of wealthy entrepreneurs (profiteers) who wanted an exclusive resort community for their friends on Lake Eufala. They immediately started Carlton Landing Academy, a private school for the elite, located in the community. They started with around 50 students for their "designed school" and paid teachers very well - since it was private and exclusive. To actually run and maintain a school is very expensive, and since the "owners" of Carlton Landing are not just "capitalists" - but "profiteers" always seeking ways to earn profits, they began to explore the acquisition of public funds (taxpayer dollars) to finance their private school. They convinced specific lawmakers to sponsor "rural charter school" bills which would legalize the acquisition of public school funding for their exclusive private school. In return for sponsoring a charter school bill, one or more legislators were promised a seat on the charter school board, which can also be very lucrative. The charter school bill was ultimately successful, and Carlton Landing Academy, the exclusive private school, became Carlton Landing - exclusive charter school. It is exclusive because only resident children have parents who are wealthy enough for them to attend. It is a rural public charter school because it receives state aid from the Oklahoma State Department of Education after the charter bill was passed in 2015. Carlton Landing Academy (the now "public" school) received $228,000 in state aid during the 2016 school year. This was $228,000 that Carlton Landing Academy (the private school) did not receive in 2013, 2014, and 2015, so it was only icing on the cake for wealthy entrepreneurs. Bear in mind that wealthy entrepreneurs, for the most part, are those who say Oklahoma has too many school districts and should consolidate, but have actually added over 20 school districts to Oklahoma over the past 5 years. These 20+ schools represent $millions in taxpayer dollars that Oklahoma pays. Carlton Landing Academy, with an initial 50+ students, received approximately $4,300 per student in its first year, which probably paid teacher salaries. If the school had 3 teachers with 17 students each, each teacher could earn $76,000, based on its state aid.
Carlton Landing Academy charter school is located in the Canadian Public Schools district, so could attract students from Canadian as well as many other small surrounding districts. According to profiteers and their legislative allies, "this is all about competition and school choice", so "may the best school win". The result of Carlton Academy attracting enough students to harm the surrounding school districts, however, is slim - since it is an exclusive school, limited by the parents wealth. There is a greater danger to public schools than simply the profiteer acquisition of public state aid - the profiteer acquisition of state dedicated revenue (gross production, school land earnings, car tags, REA tax) and ad valorem revenue (local property tax). Of course, since dedicated revenue is chargeable to state aid, profiteers are not that concerned with acquiring gross production, etc.. because they can not profit from its acquisition. The "BIG" prize for profiteers is the acquisition of ad valorem revenue, since true public schools receive property tax in their Building Fund, General Fund, and Bond and Sinking Fund, but private and corporate charter schools do not. For example, Canadian Public School district (the host for Carlton Landing) received a little over $1 million for its General Fund and about $160,000 for its Building Fund in 2016. Of the $1 million in property taxation that Canadian received, half or more came from Carlton Landing properties as each home is taxed on an average $500,000 value, while the rest of the Canadian School properties are probably not worth as much. Many experts believe that since profiteers' main concern are profits, it only makes common sense that they want to acquire property taxes. A conservative friend of mine in the State Legislature told me that "... the Legislators who support charter schools are desperate to find a viable revenue source for those schools. In order to do so they must have the local gross production taxes, and eventually control of ad valorem. They will use the excuse "the purpose is to receive credit for, and re-distribute all public school funding to corporate charters as well."
It's what profiteers do - profit. These are not profiteers in a traditional sense (capitalists), but profiteers who bleed the public in order to become millionaires and billionaires. If the corporate charter school movement in Oklahoma is successful in bleeding our public schools, the end result will be "ghost" schools in our rural communities, and eventually ghost towns. The only entity which has a chance at stopping the bleeding is our rural lawmakers. This has now become a challenge for our conservative Representatives and Senators: Stop the bleeding of our rural public schools and communities, for our childrens sake and our rural towns sake.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Who Will Pay for a Teacher Pay Raise?
I think we've all noticed that House Bill 1114, the teacher pay raise bill, keeps chugging along. It has been most recently approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, which means it may soon be heard by the entire Senate. The mystery at this time is where the $318,000,000 will come from, which will give teachers a $6,000 salary increase over the next 3 years. Even those with little financial training know that there must be a re-occurring revenue source for a re-occurring expense, so that "rainy-day" funds will not be spent. With a $900 million budget hole to fill, new money must be found to afford the raise. Still, those House and Senate members who keep hope alive, believe that a revenue source will magically appear... if they only pass the bill. They must either raise taxes for middle-class Oklahomans or find some "hidden" revenue sources.
Since it is very unlikely that the Legislature will vote to increase taxes, they must work hard to "confiscate" or "re-direct" existing sources to pay for a teacher pay increase. The Legislature's answer for funding a pay raise may be in the school funding formula itself. They may be contemplating robbing Peter to pay Paul, by passing the pay raise and expecting the already broke schools to fund it themselves (as is normal). This is how the legislative shell-game would work, if they plan on schools paying for the teacher pay raise:
Utilizing terminology that our mathematically challenged Senators and Representatives understand, the net foundation aid (money from the state) in the top half of the formula is calculated by multiplying the weighted ADM (number of students) by the Foundation Aid Factor ($ amount for each student) less chargeables (money from other sources). So using a hypothetical example, if the school's WADM is 1000 and the FAF is 1000, the result is $1,000,000. But wait, we must still subtract chargeables (other revenue sources, most of which is referred to as "dedicated" money). In our example, there are 5 dedicated sources of revenue, County 4-Mill - $40,000; School Land Earnings - $60,000; Gross Production - $30,000; Motor Vehicle - $140,000; and REA tax - $30,000. The total chargeables is $300,000, which is subtracted from the original $1,000,000 resulting in a net foundation aid of $700,000 for the school. School finance experts will now recognize that I left out the ad valorem chargeable which is also subtracted from the $1,000,000, but for our purposes we won't use it. (BTW, the ad valorem chargeable amounts to approximately 55% of the total local ad valorem received by the school.)
The Oklahoma Legislature receives no credit for allocating those county and local monies such as dedicated and ad valorem funds. This creates a problem, as the Legislature sees it - they want credit. Legislators want to control and spend those other sources of school revenue. If they could get control of that $300,000 in chargeable revenue, they could give it back to the school for a teacher pay raise, and receive credit for providing it. There is an "elephant in the room" or problem they are ignoring, however - The schools are already receiving this revenue! Even then, it is already subtracted from the $1,000,000 supposedly provided by the state. So, not only does the Legislature want credit for providing a $300,000 pay raise for the example school's teachers, but they want it counted twice. There has already been an effort in the House of Representatives to get control of the Gross Production tax which schools already receive, in House Bill 1846. Their master plan may be to take Gross Production revenue from schools, and then to re-distribute it in the form of a teacher pay raise. There is also whisperings in the Legislature about taking control of motor vehicle collections, so it can be re-distributed as well. One may easily understand that the Legislature may "rob Peter to pay Paul" for a teacher pay raise. The problem with all this "robbing" and "thievery" is that in all likelyhood, it won't become known until the last few days of the session. Legislators may pass the budget bill at the end of the session, and then "beat a hot path" to vacation or back to their homies (I mean home districts) - where they can brag about passing a teacher pay increase.
Since it is very unlikely that the Legislature will vote to increase taxes, they must work hard to "confiscate" or "re-direct" existing sources to pay for a teacher pay increase. The Legislature's answer for funding a pay raise may be in the school funding formula itself. They may be contemplating robbing Peter to pay Paul, by passing the pay raise and expecting the already broke schools to fund it themselves (as is normal). This is how the legislative shell-game would work, if they plan on schools paying for the teacher pay raise:
Utilizing terminology that our mathematically challenged Senators and Representatives understand, the net foundation aid (money from the state) in the top half of the formula is calculated by multiplying the weighted ADM (number of students) by the Foundation Aid Factor ($ amount for each student) less chargeables (money from other sources). So using a hypothetical example, if the school's WADM is 1000 and the FAF is 1000, the result is $1,000,000. But wait, we must still subtract chargeables (other revenue sources, most of which is referred to as "dedicated" money). In our example, there are 5 dedicated sources of revenue, County 4-Mill - $40,000; School Land Earnings - $60,000; Gross Production - $30,000; Motor Vehicle - $140,000; and REA tax - $30,000. The total chargeables is $300,000, which is subtracted from the original $1,000,000 resulting in a net foundation aid of $700,000 for the school. School finance experts will now recognize that I left out the ad valorem chargeable which is also subtracted from the $1,000,000, but for our purposes we won't use it. (BTW, the ad valorem chargeable amounts to approximately 55% of the total local ad valorem received by the school.)
The Oklahoma Legislature receives no credit for allocating those county and local monies such as dedicated and ad valorem funds. This creates a problem, as the Legislature sees it - they want credit. Legislators want to control and spend those other sources of school revenue. If they could get control of that $300,000 in chargeable revenue, they could give it back to the school for a teacher pay raise, and receive credit for providing it. There is an "elephant in the room" or problem they are ignoring, however - The schools are already receiving this revenue! Even then, it is already subtracted from the $1,000,000 supposedly provided by the state. So, not only does the Legislature want credit for providing a $300,000 pay raise for the example school's teachers, but they want it counted twice. There has already been an effort in the House of Representatives to get control of the Gross Production tax which schools already receive, in House Bill 1846. Their master plan may be to take Gross Production revenue from schools, and then to re-distribute it in the form of a teacher pay raise. There is also whisperings in the Legislature about taking control of motor vehicle collections, so it can be re-distributed as well. One may easily understand that the Legislature may "rob Peter to pay Paul" for a teacher pay raise. The problem with all this "robbing" and "thievery" is that in all likelyhood, it won't become known until the last few days of the session. Legislators may pass the budget bill at the end of the session, and then "beat a hot path" to vacation or back to their homies (I mean home districts) - where they can brag about passing a teacher pay increase.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
The Unlevel Playing Field: School Funding
Another example of Funding Formula Inequities
Blanchard Public Schools received $11,166,570 in new revenue during the 2016 school year, while right up the road - Newcastle Schools received $12,515,437, a $1,348,867 difference in General Fund acquisition. Blanchard received only 89% of the total operational funds that Newcastle received. The two schools are demographically very similar and have approximately the same number of students, but Newcastle has much more flexibility in addressing the financial needs of students and teachers. Over in the Building Fund, Blanchard received $275,660 (5 mils of its net assessed valuation) in 2016, while Newcastle acquired $512,361 for its 5 mils worth. These discrepancies of funding is because the Newcastle School District enjoys a much higher net assessed valuation than does Blanchard (approximately $50 million for Blanchard compared to $90 million for Newcastle). As a matter of fact, Newcastle received $3,434,784 from local property taxes in 2016 while Blanchard received $1,897,090 for its General Fund. We sometimes feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. This property tax (ad valorem) discrepancy also affects bond issues for capital improvements. While Blanchard can fund new buildings at a rate of $5 million per year (10% of its $50 million assessed value), Newcastle can afford much more at a rate of $9 million per year (10% of the $90 million net). These discrepancies in General, Building, and Bond Funds, certainly are a disadvantage for our students... but not so much for our teachers, and here is why: During the 2016 school year, Blanchard Schools spent more money for teacher salaries than Newcastle did. You, the Blanchard Board of Education, expended $7,587,095 for teacher pay (no administrators or support) in 2016, while Newcastle expended only $7,430,498. Teacher pay in Blanchard amounted to 42.2% of all expenditures while teacher pay in Newcastle amounted to 33.3% of all expenditures.
The School Transparency website of the Oklahoma State Department of Education also provides other financial facts concerning Blanchard Public Schools. For instance, Function Code 1000 - Teacher Salaries for the 2015 school year amounted to $7,214,799. For the 2016 school year, teacher salaries had climbed to $7,587,094, a $372,296 increase in teacher pay (5%). At the same time, Function Code 2300 - General Administration costs decreased from $404,231 in 2015 to $368,946 for 2016, a $35,285 decrease in administration costs (-8.7%). I believe this data represents more evidence that the Blanchard Board of Education values our teachers, by providing more funding for teacher salaries, while at the same time reducing administrative costs.
Blanchard Public Schools received $11,166,570 in new revenue during the 2016 school year, while right up the road - Newcastle Schools received $12,515,437, a $1,348,867 difference in General Fund acquisition. Blanchard received only 89% of the total operational funds that Newcastle received. The two schools are demographically very similar and have approximately the same number of students, but Newcastle has much more flexibility in addressing the financial needs of students and teachers. Over in the Building Fund, Blanchard received $275,660 (5 mils of its net assessed valuation) in 2016, while Newcastle acquired $512,361 for its 5 mils worth. These discrepancies of funding is because the Newcastle School District enjoys a much higher net assessed valuation than does Blanchard (approximately $50 million for Blanchard compared to $90 million for Newcastle). As a matter of fact, Newcastle received $3,434,784 from local property taxes in 2016 while Blanchard received $1,897,090 for its General Fund. We sometimes feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. This property tax (ad valorem) discrepancy also affects bond issues for capital improvements. While Blanchard can fund new buildings at a rate of $5 million per year (10% of its $50 million assessed value), Newcastle can afford much more at a rate of $9 million per year (10% of the $90 million net). These discrepancies in General, Building, and Bond Funds, certainly are a disadvantage for our students... but not so much for our teachers, and here is why: During the 2016 school year, Blanchard Schools spent more money for teacher salaries than Newcastle did. You, the Blanchard Board of Education, expended $7,587,095 for teacher pay (no administrators or support) in 2016, while Newcastle expended only $7,430,498. Teacher pay in Blanchard amounted to 42.2% of all expenditures while teacher pay in Newcastle amounted to 33.3% of all expenditures.
The School Transparency website of the Oklahoma State Department of Education also provides other financial facts concerning Blanchard Public Schools. For instance, Function Code 1000 - Teacher Salaries for the 2015 school year amounted to $7,214,799. For the 2016 school year, teacher salaries had climbed to $7,587,094, a $372,296 increase in teacher pay (5%). At the same time, Function Code 2300 - General Administration costs decreased from $404,231 in 2015 to $368,946 for 2016, a $35,285 decrease in administration costs (-8.7%). I believe this data represents more evidence that the Blanchard Board of Education values our teachers, by providing more funding for teacher salaries, while at the same time reducing administrative costs.
Unbalanced School Funding
From the title of this post/column (Unbalanced School Funding), one might tend to believe that the discourse concerns the fact that public schools in Oklahoma have had their funding cut more than any state in the nation, almost 27% since 2009. Not true - this column illustrates how very similar school districts in Oklahoma can be funded at very different levels. A very real example can illuminate discrepancies in the ways that public schools are funded (only the names of the schools are changed, to protect the innocent):
School A+ (from the invalid A-F school report card) is a rural Oklahoma school district with an enrollment of approximately 700 students. School F (named for the same report card) is very similar to School A - rural, with approximately 700 students. The only difference in the two schools is how much money each receives to help educate students. The Oklahoma Cost Accounting System, OCAS, provides the details of several discrepancies as to the level of funding: While School A received $4,752,124 in new funding for the 2016 school year, School F received only $4,094,190 - a difference of $657,934. School F received only 86% of the student revenue that School A received. Which school do you think that most parents would have their children attend.. the poor school or the wealthy school? The question asked most often at this point is "why is there a discrepancy in funding levels for the two schools?" Examination of the OCAS data for each school reveals some interesting facts. The major difference for the schools is in the "District Sources of Revenue, Taxes Levied, OCAS 1100 - School A received $1,667,502 while School F received $530,179 from local taxation. This disparity doesn't end with the General Fund, as the Building Fund for School A received $241,580 while the Building Fund for School F collected $75,917 in 2016. School A received more than 3 times the Building Fund revenue than School F received.
It's no small wonder that one school received an A on its report card, while a very similar school received an F. The responsibilities for this particular school funding debacle falls not on school officials or local board members, but, once again, on our mathematically challenged lawmakers.
School A+ (from the invalid A-F school report card) is a rural Oklahoma school district with an enrollment of approximately 700 students. School F (named for the same report card) is very similar to School A - rural, with approximately 700 students. The only difference in the two schools is how much money each receives to help educate students. The Oklahoma Cost Accounting System, OCAS, provides the details of several discrepancies as to the level of funding: While School A received $4,752,124 in new funding for the 2016 school year, School F received only $4,094,190 - a difference of $657,934. School F received only 86% of the student revenue that School A received. Which school do you think that most parents would have their children attend.. the poor school or the wealthy school? The question asked most often at this point is "why is there a discrepancy in funding levels for the two schools?" Examination of the OCAS data for each school reveals some interesting facts. The major difference for the schools is in the "District Sources of Revenue, Taxes Levied, OCAS 1100 - School A received $1,667,502 while School F received $530,179 from local taxation. This disparity doesn't end with the General Fund, as the Building Fund for School A received $241,580 while the Building Fund for School F collected $75,917 in 2016. School A received more than 3 times the Building Fund revenue than School F received.
It's no small wonder that one school received an A on its report card, while a very similar school received an F. The responsibilities for this particular school funding debacle falls not on school officials or local board members, but, once again, on our mathematically challenged lawmakers.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Public School Pummeling Continues...
Today, April 12, 2017, marks the 4th state aid cut for our public schools since January. Our Oklahoma public school students and teachers have never, during the last 110 years, received a beating such as they are experiencing this year. The notice from the Oklahoma State Department of Education reads: Based on available funds, the State Aid formula payment for the month of April will be paid at the cumulative amount of 79% instead of the scheduled 81% of the current adjusted allocation... The cash flow shortage of $36.3 million for the April payment supersedes the $18.9 million for the March payment.
For Blanchard Public Schools, after receiving January cuts of $30,000, February - $57,000, March - $59,398, and now April - $114,229, we have accumulated a total of $260,627 in state aid cuts since January 1st, 2017. With two (May and June) state aid payments yet to be collected, at this rate of reductions, we stand to lose $489,085 by year's end. However, if the bleeding doesn't stop, and the cuts accelerate exponentially as they have over the previous months - we could lose almost $1 million by year's end. The State Legislature has not even drafted next year's school budget yet, but with an almost $1 billion budget hole to fill, it is very likely that our public schools will sustain more cuts.
As I reflect on our public school funding battles in Oklahoma over the past several years, whether they are over low teacher pay or low student funding, they remind me of a phrase attributed to the Oglala Lakota chief Low Dog in 1881 - This is a good day to die. To me, this means that "one should not live with any regrets, or tasks left undone". It means that we should continue to fight the good fight for appropriate public school funding, even though we may lose in the end. Many colleagues and I intend to do just that...
For Blanchard Public Schools, after receiving January cuts of $30,000, February - $57,000, March - $59,398, and now April - $114,229, we have accumulated a total of $260,627 in state aid cuts since January 1st, 2017. With two (May and June) state aid payments yet to be collected, at this rate of reductions, we stand to lose $489,085 by year's end. However, if the bleeding doesn't stop, and the cuts accelerate exponentially as they have over the previous months - we could lose almost $1 million by year's end. The State Legislature has not even drafted next year's school budget yet, but with an almost $1 billion budget hole to fill, it is very likely that our public schools will sustain more cuts.
As I reflect on our public school funding battles in Oklahoma over the past several years, whether they are over low teacher pay or low student funding, they remind me of a phrase attributed to the Oglala Lakota chief Low Dog in 1881 - This is a good day to die. To me, this means that "one should not live with any regrets, or tasks left undone". It means that we should continue to fight the good fight for appropriate public school funding, even though we may lose in the end. Many colleagues and I intend to do just that...
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
More Teacher Salary Comparisons
We've all read the news releases quoting data and statistics which point to the fact that Oklahoma teacher salaries are close to last in the nation, and soon will be dead last, ranked 51st (among all states and the District of Columbia. Since I support our Oklahoma teachers, I've often quoted these discouraging stats, and encouraged our state lawmakers to "raise teacher pay" and get us off the bottom of the barrel. I average around one blog post or column each week beating the low teacher pay drum, because Oklahoma teachers are not paid enough for what they do. I carefully research the data and statistics on state teacher salaries across the nation, before posting anything as factual - but here's the caveat: I rarely quote data and statistics which does not support my particular viewpoint concerning teacher pay raises. It's because, like most people, I have a biased perspective when it comes to our public schools or teacher salaries. I have a personal perspective as well as a professional perspective when it comes to teacher pay, and it's very difficult to completely shun personal experiences and knowledge concerning teacher pay in Oklahoma - when I have such a connection.
I grew up during the 1960's, attended a rural Oklahoma School (Lindsay) and lived with my mother, father, brother, and sister... 7 miles from town. I remember my mother "going back to college" in 1965 to obtain her teaching certificate, so she could help feed the kids. My father had become disabled at that time, so could not work. We always had food on the table during those early years, but most of it came in big silver cans (commodity).We also had plenty of milk from our old milk cow, and lots of garden grown vegetables. We (kids) thought we were wealthy beyond belief, and really were, for the things that count. OK, back to teacher pay:
My mother, the only one in our family holding down a job, received approximately $300 a month for teaching school (kindergarten, 3rd, and 5th grades). She was underpaid, as all Oklahoma teachers were back in the '60's - and Oklahoma was probably ranked near dead last in teacher pay, as it is now. When I began teaching in 1980, my actual take-home pay was $777 per month. I thought at that time that I would become a rich man as I saved $1000 during my first year of teaching. My point is that some things never change, and likely never will. My colleague who writes A View From the Edge,likens the struggle for higher teacher pay in Oklahoma to the orchestra which played Nearer, My God, to Thee as the Titanic sank. We cannot hope to change the situation at hand, only accept it.
As I said earlier, I usually only quote the data and statistics which support my particular perspective, but as a researcher - I know that's not the appropriate thing to do. To this end, I'll quote some additional data and analyses which support the antithesis: Oklahoma teachers are not underpaid.
Many salary analysts say that factors such as the cost of living in any particular state must be calculated in order to arrive at an accurate teacher pay ranking. Cost of living adjustments utilize such indicators as the overall tax burden in a state to determine the actual take-home pay and purchasing power for teachers. Most teachers in Oklahoma believe they should be paid closer to the regional average (8 states), than at the bottom of the pack. The regional average for a teacher's salary is $48,673, adjusted for purchasing power, while the Oklahoma teachers' average pay is $46,727. Utilizing this pay scale would result in Oklahoma teachers receiving a $1,946 salary adjustment to reach the regional average. This proposed teacher pay raise is a far cry from the $6,000 to $10,000 salary increase that some education groups are calling for. Many analysts believe that the overall tax burden for teachers should also be calculated to determine an appropriate salary increase. A newly released study by WalletHub, a personal finance website, indicates that Oklahoma is ranked 47th in the nation for its overall tax burden. Many experts say Oklahoma teacher salaries, therefore, are ranked as high as 25th in the nation, when considering take-home pay instead of actual salary.
Teacher salary analyses such as the one above are accurate, but are also part of the data and statistics most often quoted by those against our public schools. Most education experts believe, however, that all accurate data and statistics should be considered - before determining appropriate teacher pay increases in Oklahoma.
I grew up during the 1960's, attended a rural Oklahoma School (Lindsay) and lived with my mother, father, brother, and sister... 7 miles from town. I remember my mother "going back to college" in 1965 to obtain her teaching certificate, so she could help feed the kids. My father had become disabled at that time, so could not work. We always had food on the table during those early years, but most of it came in big silver cans (commodity).We also had plenty of milk from our old milk cow, and lots of garden grown vegetables. We (kids) thought we were wealthy beyond belief, and really were, for the things that count. OK, back to teacher pay:
My mother, the only one in our family holding down a job, received approximately $300 a month for teaching school (kindergarten, 3rd, and 5th grades). She was underpaid, as all Oklahoma teachers were back in the '60's - and Oklahoma was probably ranked near dead last in teacher pay, as it is now. When I began teaching in 1980, my actual take-home pay was $777 per month. I thought at that time that I would become a rich man as I saved $1000 during my first year of teaching. My point is that some things never change, and likely never will. My colleague who writes A View From the Edge,likens the struggle for higher teacher pay in Oklahoma to the orchestra which played Nearer, My God, to Thee as the Titanic sank. We cannot hope to change the situation at hand, only accept it.
As I said earlier, I usually only quote the data and statistics which support my particular perspective, but as a researcher - I know that's not the appropriate thing to do. To this end, I'll quote some additional data and analyses which support the antithesis: Oklahoma teachers are not underpaid.
Many salary analysts say that factors such as the cost of living in any particular state must be calculated in order to arrive at an accurate teacher pay ranking. Cost of living adjustments utilize such indicators as the overall tax burden in a state to determine the actual take-home pay and purchasing power for teachers. Most teachers in Oklahoma believe they should be paid closer to the regional average (8 states), than at the bottom of the pack. The regional average for a teacher's salary is $48,673, adjusted for purchasing power, while the Oklahoma teachers' average pay is $46,727. Utilizing this pay scale would result in Oklahoma teachers receiving a $1,946 salary adjustment to reach the regional average. This proposed teacher pay raise is a far cry from the $6,000 to $10,000 salary increase that some education groups are calling for. Many analysts believe that the overall tax burden for teachers should also be calculated to determine an appropriate salary increase. A newly released study by WalletHub, a personal finance website, indicates that Oklahoma is ranked 47th in the nation for its overall tax burden. Many experts say Oklahoma teacher salaries, therefore, are ranked as high as 25th in the nation, when considering take-home pay instead of actual salary.
Teacher salary analyses such as the one above are accurate, but are also part of the data and statistics most often quoted by those against our public schools. Most education experts believe, however, that all accurate data and statistics should be considered - before determining appropriate teacher pay increases in Oklahoma.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Drug-Free School Zones
In November, 2016, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved State Question 780, which in effect changed some drug possession crimes from a felony to misdemeanor. It was part of the criminal justice reform measures so needed in Oklahoma. State Question 781 (also approved by voters) allowed the money saved by implementing SQ 780 to be utilized for drug treatment programs - instead of spending it on felony prosecution and incarceration. The state will save $ millions in the prosecution of felonies and the over-incarceration of drug offenders. The approval of both SQ 780 and SQ 781 will result in a high cost for some, however. Many people know that to defend against felony charges is more expensive for those charged, than it is for those charged with a misdemeanor. It does not matter if the defendant is guilty or innocent, it's still very expensive. The recipient of felony charges vs. misdemeanor charges is and always has been the "defense attorneys". Attorneys earn much more money defending felony drug cases than only misdemeanors - even if those charged are actually innocent.
House Bill 1482, enrolled for the 2017 state legislative session, is a bill which many believe was encouraged by attorneys to roll back the voter-approved laws, and change some misdemeanors back to drug felonies. This is where the public school connection comes in. House Bill 1482 would have created a 1,000-foot zone around schools where drug possession would trigger a felony charge. The House author of HB 1482, Tim Downing (R) of Purcell said that educators didn't know the shift in drug possession laws also applied to areas near schools, so they all presumably voted "Yes" on SQ 780. Mr. Downing insinuates that all educators are ignorant, but I know many educators who knew exactly what they were voting for, as they voted "Yes" on SQ 780 and SQ 781.
I know this post/column seems to be a repeat of an earlier blog/column in which the true motive for authoring HB 1482 was examined, but there is updated information. It now seems that HB 1482 will not be heard in the Senate committee it was assigned to, after passing the House with flying colors. The Senate sponsor of HB 1482, Anthony Sykes (R), has pulled the plug on the hapless bill, so it probably will not be heard in the Senate this session. Oklahoma voters have at least won a reprieve over those who wish to subvert the will of people.
House Bill 1482, enrolled for the 2017 state legislative session, is a bill which many believe was encouraged by attorneys to roll back the voter-approved laws, and change some misdemeanors back to drug felonies. This is where the public school connection comes in. House Bill 1482 would have created a 1,000-foot zone around schools where drug possession would trigger a felony charge. The House author of HB 1482, Tim Downing (R) of Purcell said that educators didn't know the shift in drug possession laws also applied to areas near schools, so they all presumably voted "Yes" on SQ 780. Mr. Downing insinuates that all educators are ignorant, but I know many educators who knew exactly what they were voting for, as they voted "Yes" on SQ 780 and SQ 781.
I know this post/column seems to be a repeat of an earlier blog/column in which the true motive for authoring HB 1482 was examined, but there is updated information. It now seems that HB 1482 will not be heard in the Senate committee it was assigned to, after passing the House with flying colors. The Senate sponsor of HB 1482, Anthony Sykes (R), has pulled the plug on the hapless bill, so it probably will not be heard in the Senate this session. Oklahoma voters have at least won a reprieve over those who wish to subvert the will of people.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Teacher Salary Comparisons... Both Sides
Anyone reading my blog posts or column knows that I'm unabashedly biased toward our public schools, teachers, and students. While I quote data and statistics which support my opinions as to why Oklahoma has the lowest teacher pay in the nation and why our students are mistreated by the legislature when it comes to allocating appropriations to our public schools. I also quote data and opinions of others as to why our Oklahoma teachers are not underpaid and how our public schools are not underfunded. To this end, I'll try to be unbiased as we take a look at the Oklahoma teacher pay issue.
Many studies and much research indicate that teacher pay in Oklahoma ranks among the bottom states in the nation - as low as 49th, above only Mississippi according to some. For this reason, many experts say that our Oklahoma teachers need and deserve a raise. Most lawmakers say that although teachers do need a pay increase, "Oklahoma does not have the money to provide a teacher pay increase, while staring down the barrel of an almost $1 billion budget deficit". My opinion is that both statements are true - "Oklahoma teachers need and deserve a pay raise" but "Oklahoma does not have the money right now to provide a teacher pay raise".
Many public school finance "experts" say, however, "because the cost-of-living is much lower in Oklahoma than almost all states, Oklahoma teachers pay actually ranks much higher than 49th". The experts also say that most Oklahoma teachers are overpaid because "they only work 9 months out of the year", so are free to take lavish vacations during the summer months. One state senator quoted some data which indicates that any Oklahoma City teacher who moves to Dallas to teach, will actually earn less money in Texas. He laments that he "felt compelled to do some research" to determine if Oklahoma teachers are indeed ranked 49th in the nation for salary, and encourages others to do the same. I agree with the senator in that "If you're going to do a study, you need to carefully research and take into account all relative factors" such as cost-of-living adjustments which affect teacher salaries. Again, I agree. What I disagree with is his interpretation of the data, when he says "...the average (teacher) pay in Dallas is $55,052... the average Oklahoma teacher's salary, adjusted for Dallas' cost of living, would be $55,825" so "the teacher would actually be losing $773 per year by moving from Oklahoma City to Dallas". My friend, the senator, points out that an "...average Oklahoma City teacher's salary is $46,635 while the average pay in Dallas is $55,052", an $8,417 difference.
I've accepted my senator friend's invitation to "carefully research and take into account all relative factors". According to Cost of Living: How far will my salary go in another city, CNNMoney, a resident teacher of Oklahoma City, earning $50,000 would earn a comparable salary of $54,036 if moving to Dallas. In other words, a teacher living in Oklahoma City earning $50,000 must be paid $4,036 more in Dallas to break even. The cost-of-living is higher in Dallas than it is in Oklahoma City, so if a teacher moving to Dallas from OKC receives an $8,417 raise, he or she would actually only see a $4,831 raise, according to the Cost of Living index. Let's use another example: If an Edmond Public Schools teacher earning $50,000 gets a job teaching in Denton, Texas, where the cost of living is less, he or she must only make a comparable salary of $48,494. "Simple math" as my senator friend states, results in the teacher actually getting a $8,417 + $1,506 = $9,923 raise when factoring the cost of living.
My senator friend is not wrong when quoting the salary comparisons between Oklahoma City teachers and Dallas teachers (according to his data) - but his motive must now be questioned, since his data is different than other collected data. He is either trying to talk Oklahoma City teachers out of accepting a job in Dallas, or he truly believes that Oklahoma teachers make slightly more than Texas teachers. My motives for posting data which is diametrically opposed to my friend's data may also be questioned - I am either trying to talk teachers into leaving Oklahoma for Texas or I truly believe that Texas teachers earn more money than Oklahoma teachers... (it's the latter). There are several groups which truly do not like Oklahoma teachers and public schools, however, so we'll quote their bogus data next time.
Many studies and much research indicate that teacher pay in Oklahoma ranks among the bottom states in the nation - as low as 49th, above only Mississippi according to some. For this reason, many experts say that our Oklahoma teachers need and deserve a raise. Most lawmakers say that although teachers do need a pay increase, "Oklahoma does not have the money to provide a teacher pay increase, while staring down the barrel of an almost $1 billion budget deficit". My opinion is that both statements are true - "Oklahoma teachers need and deserve a pay raise" but "Oklahoma does not have the money right now to provide a teacher pay raise".
Many public school finance "experts" say, however, "because the cost-of-living is much lower in Oklahoma than almost all states, Oklahoma teachers pay actually ranks much higher than 49th". The experts also say that most Oklahoma teachers are overpaid because "they only work 9 months out of the year", so are free to take lavish vacations during the summer months. One state senator quoted some data which indicates that any Oklahoma City teacher who moves to Dallas to teach, will actually earn less money in Texas. He laments that he "felt compelled to do some research" to determine if Oklahoma teachers are indeed ranked 49th in the nation for salary, and encourages others to do the same. I agree with the senator in that "If you're going to do a study, you need to carefully research and take into account all relative factors" such as cost-of-living adjustments which affect teacher salaries. Again, I agree. What I disagree with is his interpretation of the data, when he says "...the average (teacher) pay in Dallas is $55,052... the average Oklahoma teacher's salary, adjusted for Dallas' cost of living, would be $55,825" so "the teacher would actually be losing $773 per year by moving from Oklahoma City to Dallas". My friend, the senator, points out that an "...average Oklahoma City teacher's salary is $46,635 while the average pay in Dallas is $55,052", an $8,417 difference.
I've accepted my senator friend's invitation to "carefully research and take into account all relative factors". According to Cost of Living: How far will my salary go in another city, CNNMoney, a resident teacher of Oklahoma City, earning $50,000 would earn a comparable salary of $54,036 if moving to Dallas. In other words, a teacher living in Oklahoma City earning $50,000 must be paid $4,036 more in Dallas to break even. The cost-of-living is higher in Dallas than it is in Oklahoma City, so if a teacher moving to Dallas from OKC receives an $8,417 raise, he or she would actually only see a $4,831 raise, according to the Cost of Living index. Let's use another example: If an Edmond Public Schools teacher earning $50,000 gets a job teaching in Denton, Texas, where the cost of living is less, he or she must only make a comparable salary of $48,494. "Simple math" as my senator friend states, results in the teacher actually getting a $8,417 + $1,506 = $9,923 raise when factoring the cost of living.
My senator friend is not wrong when quoting the salary comparisons between Oklahoma City teachers and Dallas teachers (according to his data) - but his motive must now be questioned, since his data is different than other collected data. He is either trying to talk Oklahoma City teachers out of accepting a job in Dallas, or he truly believes that Oklahoma teachers make slightly more than Texas teachers. My motives for posting data which is diametrically opposed to my friend's data may also be questioned - I am either trying to talk teachers into leaving Oklahoma for Texas or I truly believe that Texas teachers earn more money than Oklahoma teachers... (it's the latter). There are several groups which truly do not like Oklahoma teachers and public schools, however, so we'll quote their bogus data next time.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Condensed Blanchard School Funding
According to Education News, a national K-12 education publication, Oklahoma Legislators have reduced public school student funding more than any state in the nation - almost 27% since 2008. For Blanchard Public Schools, this means the legislature has reduced our state allocation by more than $1.6 million in inflation adjusted dollars for our kids. This school year is not over yet, but the legislature has already reduced our state aid by $146,000 thru March (3 cuts). If this trend continues through June 30, our Oklahoma Legislature will have reduced Blanchard student funding by another $300,000. This escalation in funding cuts will result in Oklahoma reducing state funding by 31% since 2008 ($1.9 million for Blanchard).
We now know that the state budget deficit (created by the legislature) is almost $900 million, as it (the Oklahoma Legislature) prepares to write next years budget. Since our public schools receive about 35% of the state budget of more than $7 billion, and the budget hole to be $900 million - public school allocations could be $315 million less next year than this year's school budget. For Blanchard Public Schools, we could get hit with another $900,000 in reductions - next year!
At this point in time, we have no choice - we must look at ways to cut $900,000 (15%) from next year's school budget (the worst case scenario). We must reduce expenditures in our 2018 budget document, which we are already working on. The April 1st deadline (by law) for the legislature to let us know what revenue we have to work with - has come and gone, so as usual... we are working blindly. Since 2003, our State Legislature has broken the law every year, by not funding our public schools by April 1st.
Our Oklahoma Legislature has no knowledge of the school budgeting process (or any budgeting process for that matter). However, our State Legislature is expert on political processes, so it has spun this state budget fiasco in another direction away from themselves. In many cases, they have blamed the school funding crisis on the public schools themselves. It's what politicians do: they blame all catastrophes on any and everyone but themselves... and have blamed the school funding crisis on local school boards and superintendents, in many cases.
As an example of only one way that the Blanchard Board of Education has tried to meet state funding cuts head on is illustrated on the Oklahoma State Department of Educations website under the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System tab. For the 2014-2015 school year, the Blanchard Board of Education spent $404,231 (2.2% of all expenditures) for general administrative services (Bold Code 2300). General administrative services include treasurer services, election services, legal services, auditing services, administrative salaries for all directors, central office staff, the superintendent, and all office supplies such as computers, paper, copy machines, etc.. For the 2015-2016 school year (the latest year documented) administrative services had been cut to $368,946 (2.05% of all expenditures), an 8.7% reduction.
In comparing the same two years for "instructional expenditures", which is primarily non-administrative salaries, $7,214,798 was spent during the 2014-2015 school year, but increased to $7,587,094 in 2015-2016, a 5% increase. The bottom line for most school districts is that they will continue to cut administrative costs to the bone in order to weather the storm, but will strive to provide the best education possible for students... by not cutting instructional expenditures.
We now know that the state budget deficit (created by the legislature) is almost $900 million, as it (the Oklahoma Legislature) prepares to write next years budget. Since our public schools receive about 35% of the state budget of more than $7 billion, and the budget hole to be $900 million - public school allocations could be $315 million less next year than this year's school budget. For Blanchard Public Schools, we could get hit with another $900,000 in reductions - next year!
At this point in time, we have no choice - we must look at ways to cut $900,000 (15%) from next year's school budget (the worst case scenario). We must reduce expenditures in our 2018 budget document, which we are already working on. The April 1st deadline (by law) for the legislature to let us know what revenue we have to work with - has come and gone, so as usual... we are working blindly. Since 2003, our State Legislature has broken the law every year, by not funding our public schools by April 1st.
Our Oklahoma Legislature has no knowledge of the school budgeting process (or any budgeting process for that matter). However, our State Legislature is expert on political processes, so it has spun this state budget fiasco in another direction away from themselves. In many cases, they have blamed the school funding crisis on the public schools themselves. It's what politicians do: they blame all catastrophes on any and everyone but themselves... and have blamed the school funding crisis on local school boards and superintendents, in many cases.
As an example of only one way that the Blanchard Board of Education has tried to meet state funding cuts head on is illustrated on the Oklahoma State Department of Educations website under the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System tab. For the 2014-2015 school year, the Blanchard Board of Education spent $404,231 (2.2% of all expenditures) for general administrative services (Bold Code 2300). General administrative services include treasurer services, election services, legal services, auditing services, administrative salaries for all directors, central office staff, the superintendent, and all office supplies such as computers, paper, copy machines, etc.. For the 2015-2016 school year (the latest year documented) administrative services had been cut to $368,946 (2.05% of all expenditures), an 8.7% reduction.
In comparing the same two years for "instructional expenditures", which is primarily non-administrative salaries, $7,214,798 was spent during the 2014-2015 school year, but increased to $7,587,094 in 2015-2016, a 5% increase. The bottom line for most school districts is that they will continue to cut administrative costs to the bone in order to weather the storm, but will strive to provide the best education possible for students... by not cutting instructional expenditures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)