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.