In Dr. Oliver's ethics manual LEADING WITH INTEGRITY, he says "There is a need (for school administrators) to stand tall and do the right thing simply because it is right. Oliver then implies that doing the right thing, even though one is not affected personally and often at personal risk, involves speaking out in behalf of others - and provides the poem by Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Socialist.
"Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me -
And there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller was a Protestant minister who watched as his fellow German citizens were taken away by the Nazis to concentration camps or worse. He lamented, as he sat in a Nazi prison for seven years, that he should have spoken out as his countrymen were hauled off, because they were soon to come for him.
It's what I keep in mind as I reveal the facts about virtual charter school millionaires, as many reporters and traditional public school supporters are beginning to be targeted by those millionaire chiefs. Just as the Niemoller revelation that speaking out against "paid for" power and authority sometimes involves personal risk, speaking out and revealing the truth about virtual charter school profiteering also involves personal risk at some level, and so it is with this article:
In Three needed reforms to rein in charter school profiteering, reporter Julie Erfle writes "We've been reading about it for months. Charter school CEOs, including a powerful Arizona legislator are making millions off publicly funded charter schools." The article appearing in the Arizona Mirror on December 5, 2018, could have been about virtual charter schools in Oklahoma with the following revised opening statement: We've been reading about it for months. Charter school CEOs, with the help of a powerful Oklahoma legislator, are making millions off publicly funded charter schools. Julie Erfle goes on - "Oh, well, we shrug. They took a risk, invested money, and made a profit. That's what businesses do. Except Arizona charter schools aren't supposed to function like private sector businesses. Rather, they are classified as public schools, receiving almost all of their funding from Arizona taxpayers."... just like in Oklahoma. Erfle writes "The contract is simple: We supply the cash to operate the schools with an understanding our dollars are neither squandered nor stockpiled. We expect school administrators, whether the title be district superintendent or charter CEO, to take reasonable compensation for the schools they oversee, not treat them like their personal ATM. But the Legislature has broken that trust with taxpayers, crafting loopholes to benefit their charter school friends and turning a blind eye to negligence and fraud." The powerful state legislator that Julie Erfle identifies was Arizona Representative Eddie Farnsworth. He was term-limited as a state rep. in 2018, so is now Senator Farnsworth in 2019. The powerful Oklahoma State Legislator counterpart to Senator Farnsworth is Senator Gary Stanislawski of Tulsa.
Julie Erfle continues "... the legislature has broken that trust with taxpayers, crafting loopholes to benefit their charter school friends (campaign donations) and turning a blind eye to negligence and fraud.... Last year a report authored by the bipartisan Grand Canyon Institute found an astounding 77% of charter operators used taxpayer monies for "questionable financial transactions."
Seventy-seven percent.
Surely that 77% couldn't have included the Oklahoma based Epic Virtual Charter? Maybe it is in the 23% group? I don't think so, with all the corruption already documented with Epic...
Erfle summarizes by writing "... we should look for reforms backed by whistleblowers and watchdogs (as opposed to bought and paid for lawmakers like Farnsworth and Stanislawski) and the charter owners who have been operating under good faith..."
"If we want real 'virtual charter school' reforms, then they should have, at a minimum, three important criteria:
1. Required annual audits by the state auditor and inspector...
2. End the Epic epidemic of self-dealing. Forbid charter owners and their relatives from profiting off curriculum, management fees and a host of other items that are illegal for traditional public schools.
3. Put restrictions in place to prevent inflated administrative overhead and compensation packages that turn some charter CEOs into millionaires while their traditional school counterparts continue to maintain low overhead costs.
Oklahomans deserve an accounting of our public-school dollars. We need a system designed to serve students, not legislators and their politically connected friends.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
More EPIC Questions???
It is a fact that state agencies and departments are responsible for state owned equipment, and are accountable to Oklahoma tax-payers as to how tax dollars are spent. Article 10 section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution states in part "... the credit of the State shall not be given, pledged, or loaned to any individual... nor shall the State.. make donation by gift..." In addition, State Law 70-16-121 states in part "... all textbooks.. shall be owned by such (school) districts...". The implication is that all school equipment and non-perishable materials are owned by the State, and it is illegal to gift such educational items to any individual, company, association, or corporation. The Oklahoma State Department of Education and Oklahoma public schools must account for all "state-owned" equipment such as computers, textbooks, band instruments, sports uniforms, etc... In addition, all school equipment and educational materials purchased by schools with federal dollars must be accountable to the federal government and tax-payers. All state and federal school materials and equipment must be inventoried each year to ensure tax-payer transparency and accountability.
It is an advertised fact that Epic Virtual Charter School provides (gifts) each enrolled student $900 to be placed in the student's education checking account - for purchasing computers, textbooks, private voice or sports lessons, etc... Since these items are not inventoried as "school owned", they must be considered gifts.
Am I missing something in this Epic analysis, or is this Epic practice highly illegal?
Update: Evidently, I did miss something - Gifting is all perfectly legal and here's how: Public Schools typically have old equipment, textbooks, computers, buses, etc... which must be thrown away or sold to the general public. Before trashing or selling though, the school must declare the unneeded items as "surplus". It's a good law, otherwise, schools might give perfectly good, usable items away to anyone, and avoid accountability for taxpayer dollars. Epic has evidently discovered a loophole in accountability laws - It simply declares equipment and education materials provided to students via checking accounts as "surplus equipment". When students do not return state owned equipment when exiting Epic, it simply declares the "gift" as surplus. Abracadabra.. it has now circumvented the "gifting law", and it's all perfectly legal.
It is an advertised fact that Epic Virtual Charter School provides (gifts) each enrolled student $900 to be placed in the student's education checking account - for purchasing computers, textbooks, private voice or sports lessons, etc... Since these items are not inventoried as "school owned", they must be considered gifts.
Am I missing something in this Epic analysis, or is this Epic practice highly illegal?
Update: Evidently, I did miss something - Gifting is all perfectly legal and here's how: Public Schools typically have old equipment, textbooks, computers, buses, etc... which must be thrown away or sold to the general public. Before trashing or selling though, the school must declare the unneeded items as "surplus". It's a good law, otherwise, schools might give perfectly good, usable items away to anyone, and avoid accountability for taxpayer dollars. Epic has evidently discovered a loophole in accountability laws - It simply declares equipment and education materials provided to students via checking accounts as "surplus equipment". When students do not return state owned equipment when exiting Epic, it simply declares the "gift" as surplus. Abracadabra.. it has now circumvented the "gifting law", and it's all perfectly legal.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Virtual Control of Epic
A media release on Thursday, December 13, reads "Sharp files bills to increase oversight and accountability of virtual charter schools". Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee knows that millions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into virtual charter schools with little or no accountability of expenditures, attendance, or student performance (See Epic Questions). He said that "People are tired of low rankings, poor test scores, and high drop-out rates yet these problems exist in our virtual charter schools and the state continues to pour money into them. Educators around the state are demanding changes."
Among the bills filed by Senator Sharp are:
SB 52 would prohibit public schools, charter schools and virtual charter schools from spending state-appropriated funds (public taxpayer dollars) on private extracurricular lessons, such as gymnastics or music lessons. Also prohibited, may be spending public tax dollars for private "educational" field trips.
SB 53 would prohibit a dependent school district (K-8th) from converting all or any part of the district into a conversion school allowing it to act like a (virtual) charter school. It also prohibits any conversion school from contracting with a (private) management organization. This bill will prevent any pyramid/ponzi schemes from being developed in Oklahoma public schools.
SB 54 would establish a new funding process for virtual charter schools based on course completion/progress... Monthly state aid payments would only be provided if a student makes a D or better in a course. Wow! this is an "epic" bill! With 10% or so of passing test scores, virtual providers will soon be out of business - and with around a 35% graduation rate, most virtual pyramid schemers will be reduced to millionaires... from their billionaire status. This could be the one bill that will break the epic piggy bank.
SB 56 would require virtual charter schools to submit attendance records of enrolled students to the student's resident district. Traditional public schools are required by law to comply with compulsory student attendance. Since virtual charter schools are public schools, and virtual charter schools exist within traditional public school districts - this bill will ensure compliance with compulsory attendance. It will also ensure that virtual charter schools are not receiving state appropriations for students not attending.
SB 57 would prohibit public schools, charter schools and virtual charter schools from providing bonuses for the recruitment of students or teachers. On Epic Virtual Charter School's website it provides information... that enrolled students may receive more money deposited in their "education checking account" for referring traditional public school students to Epic. It is also a fact that teachers receive bonuses for recruiting and retaining students for Epic. This philosophy of "recruitment for pay" is the foundation of a ponzi or pyramid business scheme.
*SB 60 would require superintendent salaries and fringe benefits to be paid with only district (ad valorem dollars and dedicated local funds. (Epic virtual charter school administrators can relax, as Epic is currently exempt in reporting its superintendent's salary!) The bill would stop any state appropriated dollars from being used for the (superintendent) salaries in order for them (state appropriated funds) to be diverted to the classroom... Currently the legislature does not set or control administrative salaries and SB 60 would ensure that local districts would not only control the decision but the funds that pay for superintendent salaries. The bill would also prevent state control of administrative spending and place more of it at the local level. It would become very difficult to justify "forced" state school consolidation if administrative function costs were only incurred locally.
SB 879 would amend 70 O.S. 2011, Section 3-132 by removing language allowing the State Board of Education to sponsor a charter school under certain circumstances. It would prohibit the State Board of Education from sponsoring certain charter schools after a certain date. This bill would effectively place the authority for sponsoring charter schools in the hands of local boards of education.
The accountability provided by these bills are for traditional public schools, brick and mortar charters and virtual charters, and are non-discimminatory. Many states already have such laws, so it's time Oklahoma caught up. If these bills and others like them become law, Oklahoma can provide accountability to tax-payers and students alike.
These bills will be vigorously opposed by Epic and other private management organizations for obvious reasons. When millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake for private entrepreneurs, they consider it serious business. Epic chiefs, as well as other virtual providers believe they've covered all bases, however, as they've invested heavily for prevention of accountability bills. ( See
Buying Influence).
To be continued...
Among the bills filed by Senator Sharp are:
SB 52 would prohibit public schools, charter schools and virtual charter schools from spending state-appropriated funds (public taxpayer dollars) on private extracurricular lessons, such as gymnastics or music lessons. Also prohibited, may be spending public tax dollars for private "educational" field trips.
SB 53 would prohibit a dependent school district (K-8th) from converting all or any part of the district into a conversion school allowing it to act like a (virtual) charter school. It also prohibits any conversion school from contracting with a (private) management organization. This bill will prevent any pyramid/ponzi schemes from being developed in Oklahoma public schools.
SB 54 would establish a new funding process for virtual charter schools based on course completion/progress... Monthly state aid payments would only be provided if a student makes a D or better in a course. Wow! this is an "epic" bill! With 10% or so of passing test scores, virtual providers will soon be out of business - and with around a 35% graduation rate, most virtual pyramid schemers will be reduced to millionaires... from their billionaire status. This could be the one bill that will break the epic piggy bank.
SB 56 would require virtual charter schools to submit attendance records of enrolled students to the student's resident district. Traditional public schools are required by law to comply with compulsory student attendance. Since virtual charter schools are public schools, and virtual charter schools exist within traditional public school districts - this bill will ensure compliance with compulsory attendance. It will also ensure that virtual charter schools are not receiving state appropriations for students not attending.
SB 57 would prohibit public schools, charter schools and virtual charter schools from providing bonuses for the recruitment of students or teachers. On Epic Virtual Charter School's website it provides information... that enrolled students may receive more money deposited in their "education checking account" for referring traditional public school students to Epic. It is also a fact that teachers receive bonuses for recruiting and retaining students for Epic. This philosophy of "recruitment for pay" is the foundation of a ponzi or pyramid business scheme.
*SB 60 would require superintendent salaries and fringe benefits to be paid with only district (ad valorem dollars and dedicated local funds. (Epic virtual charter school administrators can relax, as Epic is currently exempt in reporting its superintendent's salary!) The bill would stop any state appropriated dollars from being used for the (superintendent) salaries in order for them (state appropriated funds) to be diverted to the classroom... Currently the legislature does not set or control administrative salaries and SB 60 would ensure that local districts would not only control the decision but the funds that pay for superintendent salaries. The bill would also prevent state control of administrative spending and place more of it at the local level. It would become very difficult to justify "forced" state school consolidation if administrative function costs were only incurred locally.
SB 879 would amend 70 O.S. 2011, Section 3-132 by removing language allowing the State Board of Education to sponsor a charter school under certain circumstances. It would prohibit the State Board of Education from sponsoring certain charter schools after a certain date. This bill would effectively place the authority for sponsoring charter schools in the hands of local boards of education.
The accountability provided by these bills are for traditional public schools, brick and mortar charters and virtual charters, and are non-discimminatory. Many states already have such laws, so it's time Oklahoma caught up. If these bills and others like them become law, Oklahoma can provide accountability to tax-payers and students alike.
These bills will be vigorously opposed by Epic and other private management organizations for obvious reasons. When millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake for private entrepreneurs, they consider it serious business. Epic chiefs, as well as other virtual providers believe they've covered all bases, however, as they've invested heavily for prevention of accountability bills. ( See
Buying Influence).
To be continued...
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Senate Bill 879
State Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee is sponsoring Senate Bill 879, which will allow the rural traditional school district adversely affected by the creation of a charter school within its district boundaries... to have the final decision as to the creation of the charter school.
Senator Sharp relates that "Oklahoma's Charter School's Act of 1999 was amended in 2015, allowing charter school districts to expand beyond the Oklahoma City and Tulsa school districts into rural areas. However, embedded within the 2015 amendment was a loophole that allows an appeal to the unelected State Board of Education to approve a charter school district after it has been twice rejected by the locally elected board." Sharp goes on to explain the public school funding formula and specifically how the State Board creation of rural charter schools adversely affects the local funding for rural traditional schools. The State Board of Education has over-ruled local boards on several occasions (with State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister also voting to approve appeals) and created rural charter schools. As an example of how State approval of rural charter schools affect Oklahoma tax-payers, Senator Sharp quotes factually that "In 2016, traditional public schools received $1,560 in per-pupil state appropriation as compared with $3,034 to a charter district... The rural districts that are the poorest and most dependent on state appropriation are the biggest losers when new charter districts are created."
"The start-up of any new charter district must be sustained by Oklahoma taxpayers in per-pupil funding. The Legislature has been guilty of creating numerous programs without operational funding. If there is over-whelming support for new charter school districts in rural Oklahoma, as a recent Oklahoman editorial suggested, then a 75% supermajority tax increase for their financial funding should be a plausible threshold."
Senate Bill 879 removes language from the charter school law which allows the State Board of Education (and State Superintendent) to sponsor a charter school. It also prohibits the State Board and State Superintendent from sponsoring certain charter schools after certain date; requires certain notification; directs certain charter school applicants to enter into certain contract by certain date; provides for dissolution of certain charter schools after certain date; and removes language regarding the location of certain charter school sponsored by the State Board and State Superintendent...
We believe that SB 879 will help curb big-spending lawmakers' ability to create more and more public charter schools, so that Oklahoma tax-payers are protected from tax increases. The big money, however, is on the side of charter schools, as one may notice in Epic Influence.
Senator Sharp relates that "Oklahoma's Charter School's Act of 1999 was amended in 2015, allowing charter school districts to expand beyond the Oklahoma City and Tulsa school districts into rural areas. However, embedded within the 2015 amendment was a loophole that allows an appeal to the unelected State Board of Education to approve a charter school district after it has been twice rejected by the locally elected board." Sharp goes on to explain the public school funding formula and specifically how the State Board creation of rural charter schools adversely affects the local funding for rural traditional schools. The State Board of Education has over-ruled local boards on several occasions (with State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister also voting to approve appeals) and created rural charter schools. As an example of how State approval of rural charter schools affect Oklahoma tax-payers, Senator Sharp quotes factually that "In 2016, traditional public schools received $1,560 in per-pupil state appropriation as compared with $3,034 to a charter district... The rural districts that are the poorest and most dependent on state appropriation are the biggest losers when new charter districts are created."
"The start-up of any new charter district must be sustained by Oklahoma taxpayers in per-pupil funding. The Legislature has been guilty of creating numerous programs without operational funding. If there is over-whelming support for new charter school districts in rural Oklahoma, as a recent Oklahoman editorial suggested, then a 75% supermajority tax increase for their financial funding should be a plausible threshold."
Senate Bill 879 removes language from the charter school law which allows the State Board of Education (and State Superintendent) to sponsor a charter school. It also prohibits the State Board and State Superintendent from sponsoring certain charter schools after certain date; requires certain notification; directs certain charter school applicants to enter into certain contract by certain date; provides for dissolution of certain charter schools after certain date; and removes language regarding the location of certain charter school sponsored by the State Board and State Superintendent...
We believe that SB 879 will help curb big-spending lawmakers' ability to create more and more public charter schools, so that Oklahoma tax-payers are protected from tax increases. The big money, however, is on the side of charter schools, as one may notice in Epic Influence.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Following Epic Money...
This post is a continuation of the Financial Issues section in Epic Questions... As we try to "follow the money" in Epic OCAS reports from 2014 through 2018, it becomes increasingly difficult - as those responsible for reporting.. change expenditure codes each year. For example, 2014-2015 Epic expenditures show that General Administration Function 2319 (Other Board of Education Services), Object 320 (Professional-Education Services) spent $2,243,165.29.. In other words, these tax dollars were spent for general administrative purposes. During the same 2014-2015 school year, Epic reported spending $3,379,498.14 for Function 1000 Instruction, Object 320 (Professional-Education Services).
In 2015-2016, Epic reported $0 spent for Function 2319, Object 320... but $5,958,268.58 spent for Function 1000, Object 320. For easy comparison, the data in a table:
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Admin. Ob. 320 - $2,243,165.29 $ 0 $ 0
Instruct. Ob. 320 - $3,379,498.14 $5,958,268.58 $8,903,954.17
In comparing expenditures from 2014-2015 with expenditures from 2015-2016, it appears as if the Object 320 for Administrative functions in '14-'15 was added to the Instruction function in '14 -'15 to arrive at the total for Instruction in '15 - '16 ($2,243,165 + $3,379,498 = $5,622,663 is surprisingly close to $5,958,269). One obvious answer to the questionable reporting discrepancy from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016... is that Epic administrators suddenly became teachers. Or... it's a transparent attempt to disguise administrative costs as instructional. Another question arises from "following the tax dollars", though, which is much more important: Did Epic officials spend funds intended for student Instruction for buying influence?
Another example of misspending of taxpayer dollars is the fact that, once enrolled, an Epic student may receive up to $1,000 for "education" related items and experiences. A student may also have additional money deposited in his or her "education checking account" for recruiting new students. Education supplies include textbooks, computers, electronic tablets, printers, multi-media materials, etc.. Education experiences include private sports lessons and "educational" field trips... Any student must justify the education expenditure to the "Chiefs" by providing reason that the item or experience is related to his or her "education". In other words, if private golf lessons at the local country club can be justified as appropriately education related, then a student may write a taxpayer check for them. If a student can justify a "Cancun vacation" as an education related field trip, then he or she may write a taxpayer check for it. If the parent of a student can justify a $1,000 donation to his or her favorite Epic elected official as "education" related, then the parent may write a "taxpayer" check for it...
Updated Dec. 11, 2018: In an effort to curb what many believe is "misappropriation" of tax dollars - Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee has sponsored Senate Bill 20, which will require the "statewide virtual charter school board to create and administer an inventory system for all educational supplies paid for by state-appropriated funds". In other words, each student receiving state appropriated funds for appropriate education supplies, must return the supplies to the state upon graduation or leaving. If the items are not returned to the state, the parent shall be responsible for the cost of the "items". Many Oklahoma citizens believe that since public tax dollars are being used to pay for personal education supplies and items (the textbooks, computers, etc...) should be inventoried, just as they are in traditional public schools. The only question is How will those golf lessons or Cancun vacation be inventoried?
Senate Bill 879 continued on the next page...
In 2015-2016, Epic reported $0 spent for Function 2319, Object 320... but $5,958,268.58 spent for Function 1000, Object 320. For easy comparison, the data in a table:
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Admin. Ob. 320 - $2,243,165.29 $ 0 $ 0
Instruct. Ob. 320 - $3,379,498.14 $5,958,268.58 $8,903,954.17
In comparing expenditures from 2014-2015 with expenditures from 2015-2016, it appears as if the Object 320 for Administrative functions in '14-'15 was added to the Instruction function in '14 -'15 to arrive at the total for Instruction in '15 - '16 ($2,243,165 + $3,379,498 = $5,622,663 is surprisingly close to $5,958,269). One obvious answer to the questionable reporting discrepancy from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016... is that Epic administrators suddenly became teachers. Or... it's a transparent attempt to disguise administrative costs as instructional. Another question arises from "following the tax dollars", though, which is much more important: Did Epic officials spend funds intended for student Instruction for buying influence?
Another example of misspending of taxpayer dollars is the fact that, once enrolled, an Epic student may receive up to $1,000 for "education" related items and experiences. A student may also have additional money deposited in his or her "education checking account" for recruiting new students. Education supplies include textbooks, computers, electronic tablets, printers, multi-media materials, etc.. Education experiences include private sports lessons and "educational" field trips... Any student must justify the education expenditure to the "Chiefs" by providing reason that the item or experience is related to his or her "education". In other words, if private golf lessons at the local country club can be justified as appropriately education related, then a student may write a taxpayer check for them. If a student can justify a "Cancun vacation" as an education related field trip, then he or she may write a taxpayer check for it. If the parent of a student can justify a $1,000 donation to his or her favorite Epic elected official as "education" related, then the parent may write a "taxpayer" check for it...
Updated Dec. 11, 2018: In an effort to curb what many believe is "misappropriation" of tax dollars - Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee has sponsored Senate Bill 20, which will require the "statewide virtual charter school board to create and administer an inventory system for all educational supplies paid for by state-appropriated funds". In other words, each student receiving state appropriated funds for appropriate education supplies, must return the supplies to the state upon graduation or leaving. If the items are not returned to the state, the parent shall be responsible for the cost of the "items". Many Oklahoma citizens believe that since public tax dollars are being used to pay for personal education supplies and items (the textbooks, computers, etc...) should be inventoried, just as they are in traditional public schools. The only question is How will those golf lessons or Cancun vacation be inventoried?
Senate Bill 879 continued on the next page...
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Big 12 Anti-Taunting Rules
Since OU players may no longer be able to throw the "horns down" sign without being penalized, I've asked the Big 12 office for all taunting rules related to all teams. They haven't answered my request as of yet, but an anonymous former quarterback for my former high school team did send me a list of rules:
1) Players cannot throw the horns down sign. That's mean and makes Coach Herman sad. Also, all players, regardless of their team, are not allowed to refuse a congratulatory man-kiss from Coach Herman for the same reason.
2) Players cannot refer to OU as Gooners, Chokelahoma, Land Thieves, or any similar term. That's mean. Also, the mascots Boomer and Sooner, are not horse-pigs. Any such reference will result in a free touchdown.
3) OSU cannot be referred to as Pukes, Gaggies, Little Sister, or Booger Pickens U. Way too mean. Also Mike Gundy must trim his aggressive hair before every game, or forfeit his right to dance in the locker room.
4) Iowa State must remove the bird from the middle of the Cyclone logo. Not all birds identify as Cyclones. However, for those that do, this rule is an exception so as not to offend the pan-bird-cyclone group.
5) Baylor may no longer use the bear-claw gesture. That's scary.
6) Texas Tech may no longer use that pistols-guns up gesture. OSU does that and its copyrighted. Also, no more throwing tortillas. That's dangerous and could poke someones eye out. Also, tortillas don't grow on trees.
7) Kansas State is in the clear. Nothing interesting going on there.
8) Kansas, see rule 7.
9) TCU must change their mascot to just "Frogs" or something else more child-friendly. The addition of "Horned" is just too sexy and risque'.
10) The mascot for West Virginia can no longer wear a raccoon or beaver hat, whatever that thing is on his head. Animals are people too! A construction hat with a beer-bong attached is more appropriate (with non-alcoholic beer of course).
Play nice, people. What do you think this is... college football?
1) Players cannot throw the horns down sign. That's mean and makes Coach Herman sad. Also, all players, regardless of their team, are not allowed to refuse a congratulatory man-kiss from Coach Herman for the same reason.
2) Players cannot refer to OU as Gooners, Chokelahoma, Land Thieves, or any similar term. That's mean. Also, the mascots Boomer and Sooner, are not horse-pigs. Any such reference will result in a free touchdown.
3) OSU cannot be referred to as Pukes, Gaggies, Little Sister, or Booger Pickens U. Way too mean. Also Mike Gundy must trim his aggressive hair before every game, or forfeit his right to dance in the locker room.
4) Iowa State must remove the bird from the middle of the Cyclone logo. Not all birds identify as Cyclones. However, for those that do, this rule is an exception so as not to offend the pan-bird-cyclone group.
5) Baylor may no longer use the bear-claw gesture. That's scary.
6) Texas Tech may no longer use that pistols-guns up gesture. OSU does that and its copyrighted. Also, no more throwing tortillas. That's dangerous and could poke someones eye out. Also, tortillas don't grow on trees.
7) Kansas State is in the clear. Nothing interesting going on there.
8) Kansas, see rule 7.
9) TCU must change their mascot to just "Frogs" or something else more child-friendly. The addition of "Horned" is just too sexy and risque'.
10) The mascot for West Virginia can no longer wear a raccoon or beaver hat, whatever that thing is on his head. Animals are people too! A construction hat with a beer-bong attached is more appropriate (with non-alcoholic beer of course).
Play nice, people. What do you think this is... college football?
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
EPIC questions?
The Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA) has responded to questions regarding Transparency and Accountability of Oklahoma's Virtual Charter Schools. The document addresses the following areas of concern with virtual charter schools:
* Academic Performance Issues
* Student and Accreditation Issues
* Financial Issues
* Governance Issues
* Teacher Issues
The Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA) and CCOSA have addressed these issues with presentation of facts, but doesn't go so far as to answering the most important question - Is it legal? Virtual Charter School officials would probably answer this question "I don't know, but it's fun, ain't it?".
The CCOSA document is 10 pages in length, so we'll start with only one category - Teacher Issues, and progress from there, until all 5 Issues have been analyzed. We'll update this column daily, and by the time all Issues are addressed - the reader will hopefully be able to decide for herself/himself if its all legal.
Teacher Issues: According to EPIC High School's 2017-18 Application for Accreditation - five (5) EPIC High School teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each in the following subjects: U.S. History, 2,239 students; Chemistry I and Biology I, 2,039 students; Geometry and Algebra II, 2,098 students; English I, II, III, and IV, 2,746 students; and Algebra I, 2,948 students. All other EPIC High School teachers are reported under the description "Academic Achievement" with one or more assigned students. The unknown factor is the exact number of high school teachers EPIC employs. (Citations for these facts are listed with the CCOSA Report).
Most traditional public high schools strive to maintain a 20:1 teacher to student ratio, but core classes with as many as 30 students exist in Oklahoma. With 5 teachers having over 2,000 students and several ??? with only one or two students, the financial issue becomes: A traditional public school with approximately the same number of students as EPIC spends about $21 million on teacher salaries out of a $32 million instructional budget. EPIC spent approximately $10 million for teacher salaries out of a $31 million instructional budget. (The traditional school has approximately 525 teachers). The math ($21,000,000 divided by 525) indicates that each traditional teacher will receive about $40,000 in annual salary. If EPIC teachers receive an average of $63,000 per teacher, then $10,000,000 divided by $63,000 = 159 teachers. Several sources have reported EPIC has around 400 teachers, so which number is accurate... 159 or 400? If the number of EPIC teachers is around 400, then which additional EPIC employees are counted toward instructional teachers? And just who are these "super teachers" who have over 2000 students each? And if 100% of the $31 million is not being spent for student instruction, how is it being spent? An AP report out of Florida may provide an answer to this last question, but many other questions still have no answer.
Financial Issues: "According to the 2017 OCAS reports on the OSDE website, EPIC reports 3.28% administrative costs; however, the August 2017 Auditors report reflects that EPIC contracted 10% of gross revenues for operational and administrative services. This difference raises questions whether the OCAS data accurately reflect EPIC's administrative cost..." (CCOSA report, 2018). The mathematical calculation for the OCAS data indicates that EPIC spent .0328 x $38,701,823 = $1,269,420 for general administration. The auditor's report indicates, however, that EPIC spent .10 x $38,701,823 = $3,870,182 for administration. Added to the OCAS administrative spending, a grand total of $5,139,602 (13%) is spent for administration. This discrepancy in reported data may be described as "colorful accounting" at its best. The most obvious question that is asked about the conflicting data is: Why is there a discrepancy in reported administrative costs? One answer may be found in public school law (70 O.S. Sec. 18-124) which allows a maximum 5% administrative costs for schools with more than 1,500 students. EPIC has around 10,000 students. Five percent of $38,701,823 = $1,935,091, for the maximum EPIC may spend for administration. EPIC is compliant according to OCAS data, but is non-compliant according to audit data.
More Financial Issues: "According to 2016-2017 OSDE data... Epic had $38,701,823 in expenditures. Within those expenditures, OCAS Object codes 300-500 show $15,342,669 in what are called Purchased Services... In comparison to Epic, a traditional public school with approximately the same number of students, had $1,342,417 of Purchased Services during the same 2016-2017 time period." Question: Why did Epic spend ten times the money for Purchased Services than the typical traditional public school? Some school financial experts believe that some ($145,000), was spent for "legislator and elected official purchased services".
Governance Issues: "Oklahoma's traditional public schools are governed by local boards of education whose members are elected through processes defined by state law. Oklahoma law also includes processes intended to minimize the possibility that board members' decisions will be influenced by... personal or professional gain. The purpose of these laws is ostensibly to make local boards of education accountable to their local electors and to prevent board members from prioritizing their own interests over those of their district..."
According to the August 2017 Auditor's report, the governing body of EPIC is composed of four nominated members who are also directors of Community Strategies, Inc., a (profitable) non-profit entity. The founder was appointed as the executive officer (superintendent) of EPIC. Only EPIC's activities are included in the August 2017 Auditor's report; the activities of Community Strategies are not. The untold specifics of this business arrangement are significant because EPIC receives $ millions in public dollars annually. At a minimum, taxpayers should know how EPIC's appointed board members are selected and how potential personal and financial conflicts of interest among board members, the executive officer, and EPIC are prevented, as they would be for other board members under Oklahoma law." The question, "Whose in your Wallet?", may now have an answer...
Academic Performance Issues: "According to the National Education Policy Center (NEPC)... school performance measures for both virtual charter and blended schools indicate that they are not as successful as traditional public schools. Nevertheless, enrollment in these schools continues to grow. The May, 2018 NEPC Report reflects that, nationwide, virtual charter schools continue to underperform academically... Of those with available 2016-17 school performance ratings, 36.4% of full-time virtual charter schools... received acceptable performance ratings...
In regard to graduation rates and test scores, most Oklahoma traditional public schools also outperform virtual charter schools... and according to the 2017 graduation report from the OSDE, Epic finished in the bottom five schools... with a rate of 36%... Furthermore, graduation rates at Oklahoma virtual charter schools range from 35.7% (Epic) to 43.8% (not Epic) in comparison to Oklahoma traditional schools graduation rates averaging 84.7%.
Regarding test scores, Oklahoma's 2016-2017 State Test Score data for grade 10, the highest grade tested that year, reflect:
State % Proficient & Advanced Epic % Proficient & Advanced
Math 26 Math 10
Science 19 Science 11
ELA 36 ELA 23
US History 51 US History 33
*Several Epic officials have called this data "fake statistics", and Epic teachers report receiving "bonuses" for the above accomplishments. The bonuses received by Epic teachers, though, are reported to be provided for recruiting and retaining students.
Student and Accreditation Issues: "Public schools are responsible for treating students in an equitable manner in all aspects of their programs, services, and activities and for compliance with state accreditation requirements.
The May 2018 NEPC Report reflects the following:
* Relative to national public school enrollment, virtual charter schools had substantially fewer minority students and fewer low-income students.
* Non-profit Education Management Organizations enrolled a substantially higher proportion of low-income students than their for-profit counterparts.
* The average student-teacher ratio in the nation's traditional public schools was 16 students per teacher. Virtual schools reported having close to three times as many students per teacher (45) compared to the nation's average...
The student-teacher ratio of privately managed virtual schools could be partially responsible for the dismal academic profiles of those schools.
Following the release of the CCOSA research document, an Epic assistant superintendent replied that a response to the "white paper" was forthcoming. As of February 7, 2019, no response has been submitted...
***This CCOSA Report and citations thereof may be read in its entirety on the CCOSA website.
* Academic Performance Issues
* Student and Accreditation Issues
* Financial Issues
* Governance Issues
* Teacher Issues
The Oklahoma Association of School Administrators (OASA) and CCOSA have addressed these issues with presentation of facts, but doesn't go so far as to answering the most important question - Is it legal? Virtual Charter School officials would probably answer this question "I don't know, but it's fun, ain't it?".
The CCOSA document is 10 pages in length, so we'll start with only one category - Teacher Issues, and progress from there, until all 5 Issues have been analyzed. We'll update this column daily, and by the time all Issues are addressed - the reader will hopefully be able to decide for herself/himself if its all legal.
Teacher Issues: According to EPIC High School's 2017-18 Application for Accreditation - five (5) EPIC High School teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each in the following subjects: U.S. History, 2,239 students; Chemistry I and Biology I, 2,039 students; Geometry and Algebra II, 2,098 students; English I, II, III, and IV, 2,746 students; and Algebra I, 2,948 students. All other EPIC High School teachers are reported under the description "Academic Achievement" with one or more assigned students. The unknown factor is the exact number of high school teachers EPIC employs. (Citations for these facts are listed with the CCOSA Report).
Most traditional public high schools strive to maintain a 20:1 teacher to student ratio, but core classes with as many as 30 students exist in Oklahoma. With 5 teachers having over 2,000 students and several ??? with only one or two students, the financial issue becomes: A traditional public school with approximately the same number of students as EPIC spends about $21 million on teacher salaries out of a $32 million instructional budget. EPIC spent approximately $10 million for teacher salaries out of a $31 million instructional budget. (The traditional school has approximately 525 teachers). The math ($21,000,000 divided by 525) indicates that each traditional teacher will receive about $40,000 in annual salary. If EPIC teachers receive an average of $63,000 per teacher, then $10,000,000 divided by $63,000 = 159 teachers. Several sources have reported EPIC has around 400 teachers, so which number is accurate... 159 or 400? If the number of EPIC teachers is around 400, then which additional EPIC employees are counted toward instructional teachers? And just who are these "super teachers" who have over 2000 students each? And if 100% of the $31 million is not being spent for student instruction, how is it being spent? An AP report out of Florida may provide an answer to this last question, but many other questions still have no answer.
Financial Issues: "According to the 2017 OCAS reports on the OSDE website, EPIC reports 3.28% administrative costs; however, the August 2017 Auditors report reflects that EPIC contracted 10% of gross revenues for operational and administrative services. This difference raises questions whether the OCAS data accurately reflect EPIC's administrative cost..." (CCOSA report, 2018). The mathematical calculation for the OCAS data indicates that EPIC spent .0328 x $38,701,823 = $1,269,420 for general administration. The auditor's report indicates, however, that EPIC spent .10 x $38,701,823 = $3,870,182 for administration. Added to the OCAS administrative spending, a grand total of $5,139,602 (13%) is spent for administration. This discrepancy in reported data may be described as "colorful accounting" at its best. The most obvious question that is asked about the conflicting data is: Why is there a discrepancy in reported administrative costs? One answer may be found in public school law (70 O.S. Sec. 18-124) which allows a maximum 5% administrative costs for schools with more than 1,500 students. EPIC has around 10,000 students. Five percent of $38,701,823 = $1,935,091, for the maximum EPIC may spend for administration. EPIC is compliant according to OCAS data, but is non-compliant according to audit data.
More Financial Issues: "According to 2016-2017 OSDE data... Epic had $38,701,823 in expenditures. Within those expenditures, OCAS Object codes 300-500 show $15,342,669 in what are called Purchased Services... In comparison to Epic, a traditional public school with approximately the same number of students, had $1,342,417 of Purchased Services during the same 2016-2017 time period." Question: Why did Epic spend ten times the money for Purchased Services than the typical traditional public school? Some school financial experts believe that some ($145,000), was spent for "legislator and elected official purchased services".
Governance Issues: "Oklahoma's traditional public schools are governed by local boards of education whose members are elected through processes defined by state law. Oklahoma law also includes processes intended to minimize the possibility that board members' decisions will be influenced by... personal or professional gain. The purpose of these laws is ostensibly to make local boards of education accountable to their local electors and to prevent board members from prioritizing their own interests over those of their district..."
According to the August 2017 Auditor's report, the governing body of EPIC is composed of four nominated members who are also directors of Community Strategies, Inc., a (profitable) non-profit entity. The founder was appointed as the executive officer (superintendent) of EPIC. Only EPIC's activities are included in the August 2017 Auditor's report; the activities of Community Strategies are not. The untold specifics of this business arrangement are significant because EPIC receives $ millions in public dollars annually. At a minimum, taxpayers should know how EPIC's appointed board members are selected and how potential personal and financial conflicts of interest among board members, the executive officer, and EPIC are prevented, as they would be for other board members under Oklahoma law." The question, "Whose in your Wallet?", may now have an answer...
Academic Performance Issues: "According to the National Education Policy Center (NEPC)... school performance measures for both virtual charter and blended schools indicate that they are not as successful as traditional public schools. Nevertheless, enrollment in these schools continues to grow. The May, 2018 NEPC Report reflects that, nationwide, virtual charter schools continue to underperform academically... Of those with available 2016-17 school performance ratings, 36.4% of full-time virtual charter schools... received acceptable performance ratings...
In regard to graduation rates and test scores, most Oklahoma traditional public schools also outperform virtual charter schools... and according to the 2017 graduation report from the OSDE, Epic finished in the bottom five schools... with a rate of 36%... Furthermore, graduation rates at Oklahoma virtual charter schools range from 35.7% (Epic) to 43.8% (not Epic) in comparison to Oklahoma traditional schools graduation rates averaging 84.7%.
Regarding test scores, Oklahoma's 2016-2017 State Test Score data for grade 10, the highest grade tested that year, reflect:
State % Proficient & Advanced Epic % Proficient & Advanced
Math 26 Math 10
Science 19 Science 11
ELA 36 ELA 23
US History 51 US History 33
*Several Epic officials have called this data "fake statistics", and Epic teachers report receiving "bonuses" for the above accomplishments. The bonuses received by Epic teachers, though, are reported to be provided for recruiting and retaining students.
Student and Accreditation Issues: "Public schools are responsible for treating students in an equitable manner in all aspects of their programs, services, and activities and for compliance with state accreditation requirements.
The May 2018 NEPC Report reflects the following:
* Relative to national public school enrollment, virtual charter schools had substantially fewer minority students and fewer low-income students.
* Non-profit Education Management Organizations enrolled a substantially higher proportion of low-income students than their for-profit counterparts.
* The average student-teacher ratio in the nation's traditional public schools was 16 students per teacher. Virtual schools reported having close to three times as many students per teacher (45) compared to the nation's average...
The student-teacher ratio of privately managed virtual schools could be partially responsible for the dismal academic profiles of those schools.
Following the release of the CCOSA research document, an Epic assistant superintendent replied that a response to the "white paper" was forthcoming. As of February 7, 2019, no response has been submitted...
***This CCOSA Report and citations thereof may be read in its entirety on the CCOSA website.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Thanksgiving 2018
For many, Thanksgiving is a time to enjoy turkey, ham, and all bounties provided by our Lord - and to thankful for all good things that God has given us. Most also realize that Thanksgiving is a time to be mindful of those not as fortunate... and there are millions. We can't possibly provide a helping hand to all those in need, but if we only help a few, or even one - we are successful. I'm reminded of The Star Thrower Story, a lesson in Loren Eiseley's Book of Essays, which inspires me every day:
The Star Thrower
A man was walking on the beach one day and noticed a boy who was reaching down, picking up a starfish and throwing it into the ocean. As he approached, he called out, "Hello! What are you doing?" The boy looked up and said, "I'm throwing starfish into the ocean". "Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the man."The tide stranded them. If I don't throw them in the water before the sun comes up, they'll die" came the answer. "Surely you realize that there are miles of beach, and thousands of starfish. You'll never throw them all back, there are too many. You can't possibly make a difference." The boy listened politely, then picked up another starfish. As he threw it back into the sea, he said, "It made a difference for that one."
This story plays back often in my mind, almost every day, as I try not to focus on my own well-being... and many people are thinking of it as they prepare for the Thanksgiving Holiday. The lesson which Eiseley hopes people will retain is - No matter how hopeless a situation may appear, only by doing what we can, to help - will we succeed.
The Star Thrower
A man was walking on the beach one day and noticed a boy who was reaching down, picking up a starfish and throwing it into the ocean. As he approached, he called out, "Hello! What are you doing?" The boy looked up and said, "I'm throwing starfish into the ocean". "Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the man."The tide stranded them. If I don't throw them in the water before the sun comes up, they'll die" came the answer. "Surely you realize that there are miles of beach, and thousands of starfish. You'll never throw them all back, there are too many. You can't possibly make a difference." The boy listened politely, then picked up another starfish. As he threw it back into the sea, he said, "It made a difference for that one."
This story plays back often in my mind, almost every day, as I try not to focus on my own well-being... and many people are thinking of it as they prepare for the Thanksgiving Holiday. The lesson which Eiseley hopes people will retain is - No matter how hopeless a situation may appear, only by doing what we can, to help - will we succeed.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Priorities - Blanchard Public Schools
Our number one priority for Blanchard Public Schools is the safety and security of students and staff. While academic and activity offerings for our students certainly is of utmost importance, it pales in comparison to our safety needs. We all know about the many student security breeches in public schools around the country... but Blanchard Schools has been on the forefront as providing a safe and secure learning environment for students and teachers. The focus, however, has been on providing a safe learning experience within the confines of our schools - classrooms, libraries, storm proof buildings, entry issues, etc..., but not on school bus safety - bus stops and traffic safety issues.
As of late, we've taken note of several accidents around the country involving vehicles, which have affected the safety of students while waiting at bus stops, crossing dangerous intersections, or riding in buses. One traffic safety consideration, or breach thereof, is the auto driver who fails to pay appropriate attention when passing school buses, whether at stops or on the road. In recognition of this particular student safety breach, and thanks to a parent who emphasized this traffic hazard - Blanchard Public Schools will install video cameras on the STOP arms of its school buses. The cameras will ensure a video recording of nearby autos is produced when the arm is extended in the "STOP" position. When a school bus stops on the road, highway, or street, to pick up or drop off students - the STOP arm on the left side of the bus extends, as a signal that all traffic in front of, and behind the bus must stop... and yield to pedestrians and students. Usually, no video recording is made of traffic headed in both directions, so no proof is obtained of those who might be in a hurry and "run" the stop signal. Students are often in peril when the STOP sign is ignored or a driver does not pay appropriate attention. We hope to emphasize student safety as we install these cameras, and it is hoped we may prevent tragedy. We will provide specific video of traffic violations to our Blanchard Police Department, where action may be taken to prevent tragedy which has occurred elsewhere - so please be aware, and consider the safety of our student bus riders.
Academic and activity course choices for our students is another priority for Blanchard Public Schools. While we have many activities a student may choose to participate, Blanchard Public Schools can certainly improve its selections, and add sports as needed. We participate in many sports under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association (OSSAA), but don't participate in several. Among those sports Blanchard High School does not participate - soccer, swimming, volleyball, speech and debate, and tennis. In addition, the OSSAA is considering adding "girls wrestling" to its list of sports. We believe the OSSAA sport which most students would choose as one we currently don't have, would be "girls volleyball" - but we won't know for sure until we ask the students. Starting the second semester, in January, we will poll our students, as to determine what one sport or activity will be the most popular. The results of this survey will determine what sport or activity not currently offered, will be added next school year.
As of late, we've taken note of several accidents around the country involving vehicles, which have affected the safety of students while waiting at bus stops, crossing dangerous intersections, or riding in buses. One traffic safety consideration, or breach thereof, is the auto driver who fails to pay appropriate attention when passing school buses, whether at stops or on the road. In recognition of this particular student safety breach, and thanks to a parent who emphasized this traffic hazard - Blanchard Public Schools will install video cameras on the STOP arms of its school buses. The cameras will ensure a video recording of nearby autos is produced when the arm is extended in the "STOP" position. When a school bus stops on the road, highway, or street, to pick up or drop off students - the STOP arm on the left side of the bus extends, as a signal that all traffic in front of, and behind the bus must stop... and yield to pedestrians and students. Usually, no video recording is made of traffic headed in both directions, so no proof is obtained of those who might be in a hurry and "run" the stop signal. Students are often in peril when the STOP sign is ignored or a driver does not pay appropriate attention. We hope to emphasize student safety as we install these cameras, and it is hoped we may prevent tragedy. We will provide specific video of traffic violations to our Blanchard Police Department, where action may be taken to prevent tragedy which has occurred elsewhere - so please be aware, and consider the safety of our student bus riders.
Academic and activity course choices for our students is another priority for Blanchard Public Schools. While we have many activities a student may choose to participate, Blanchard Public Schools can certainly improve its selections, and add sports as needed. We participate in many sports under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association (OSSAA), but don't participate in several. Among those sports Blanchard High School does not participate - soccer, swimming, volleyball, speech and debate, and tennis. In addition, the OSSAA is considering adding "girls wrestling" to its list of sports. We believe the OSSAA sport which most students would choose as one we currently don't have, would be "girls volleyball" - but we won't know for sure until we ask the students. Starting the second semester, in January, we will poll our students, as to determine what one sport or activity will be the most popular. The results of this survey will determine what sport or activity not currently offered, will be added next school year.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Blanchard Lions Football: It's time...
Our Blanchard Lions Football team reminds us of the Lions of one year ago. Just as in the 2017 season, the Lions face a formidable foe - the undefeated and second ranked Poteau Pirates... at Poteau, Oklahoma. One year ago, this week, for the second round of the state playoffs - a good, but not stellar Blanchard Lions football squad met the undefeated top-ranked Wagoner Bulldogs. Wagoner had won 47 straight games and three consecutive state titles, before facing Blanchard in that now infamous showdown. The Lions won the hard-fought battle 23 to 14 on that November night. The previous practice week, the Blanchard coaching staff reminded our players that the unranked Notre Dame Fighting Irish had broken a 47 game winning streak by defeating the powerful O.U. Sooners - 60 years before. The Lions were not intimidated by the stellar record of Wagoner, and proceeded to physically beat the Bulldogs on that night one year ago. The Lions were prepared to win, and played each play as if it was their last.
Many high school football fans believe the Blanchard Lions have better players in key positions than they did one year ago. It is still unknown, however, if our Lions have the heart of that 2017 team. Only on Friday night, November 16, 2018, can that question be answered for sure - Are the Blanchard Lions as capable of slewing a giant, just as Notre Dame did on November 16, 1957?
We'll see...
Many high school football fans believe the Blanchard Lions have better players in key positions than they did one year ago. It is still unknown, however, if our Lions have the heart of that 2017 team. Only on Friday night, November 16, 2018, can that question be answered for sure - Are the Blanchard Lions as capable of slewing a giant, just as Notre Dame did on November 16, 1957?
We'll see...
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Cindy Roe
As an advocate (some say crusader) for our traditional public schools, students, and teachers - I sometimes express opinions which reflect the political aspects of public education. So it is with this column:
Cindy Roe was just elected to serve as the new District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) state representative. The incumbent rep. for our district, after serving only a year, decided not to run again. He cited reasons such as "the pressure was too much to serve", or "I was attacked" for quitting, and threw his support behind another candidate for HD 42. He donated $2,700 (the maximum allowed) to the campaign of Allie Burgin - as his legacy to the district. Surprisingly, Allie was defeated in the June primary by Cindy Roe, who then went on to win the general election last week. Allie Burgin was the private and charter school chosen replacement for District 42, and had the financial support of Betsy Devos (the U.S. Secretary of Education) - but was handily defeated.
I had the opportunity in April to question all candidates for the district at Mid-America Technology Center (in Wayne). The only question concerning our public schools, paraphrased, was "Do you believe, if elected, that you should be able to spend public tax dollars for private services?" Mr. Burgin answered the question "Yes". Burgin was the only candidate who indicated that he, as an elected representative, would spend public tax dollars for private services (legislator choice for spending). Cindy Roe answered the question indicating that she will support our public schools, students, and teachers, by not spending public money for private services. This answer is diametrically opposed to her predessessor's actions as the District 42 representative.
The true test of support though is not in answering questions as a candidate, but in how an elected lawmaker votes on bills which affect our traditional (conservative) public schools. We will continue to monitor Cindy Roe's voting record which affects our public schools, and report in this column...
Cindy Roe was just elected to serve as the new District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) state representative. The incumbent rep. for our district, after serving only a year, decided not to run again. He cited reasons such as "the pressure was too much to serve", or "I was attacked" for quitting, and threw his support behind another candidate for HD 42. He donated $2,700 (the maximum allowed) to the campaign of Allie Burgin - as his legacy to the district. Surprisingly, Allie was defeated in the June primary by Cindy Roe, who then went on to win the general election last week. Allie Burgin was the private and charter school chosen replacement for District 42, and had the financial support of Betsy Devos (the U.S. Secretary of Education) - but was handily defeated.
I had the opportunity in April to question all candidates for the district at Mid-America Technology Center (in Wayne). The only question concerning our public schools, paraphrased, was "Do you believe, if elected, that you should be able to spend public tax dollars for private services?" Mr. Burgin answered the question "Yes". Burgin was the only candidate who indicated that he, as an elected representative, would spend public tax dollars for private services (legislator choice for spending). Cindy Roe answered the question indicating that she will support our public schools, students, and teachers, by not spending public money for private services. This answer is diametrically opposed to her predessessor's actions as the District 42 representative.
The true test of support though is not in answering questions as a candidate, but in how an elected lawmaker votes on bills which affect our traditional (conservative) public schools. We will continue to monitor Cindy Roe's voting record which affects our public schools, and report in this column...
Friday, November 2, 2018
Buying influence - EPIC proportions
Many elected officials say "My loyalty can't be purchased" or "Money does not influence me". But are these statements the truth? or are they false? A quick look at some "pay-to-play" donors and the "payed-to-play" recipients, may shed some light on this question. Two individual EPIC CEO's donated $92,096 and $73,839, respectively, to 117 different elected officials - in order to influence school legislation being considered in the House or Senate... Some recipients of the "pay to play" money are:
Joy Hofmeister $30,000? Kevin Stitt $8,100
Gary Stanislawski $1,500 Stephanie Bice $3,500
Katie Henke $1,000 *Charles McCall $5,000
Chuck Strohm $1,500 Jadine Noland $500
Todd Thompsen $500 Matt Pinnell $1,000
Rhonda Baker $4,200 Jason Smalley $3,000
Kim David $2,500 Jon Echols $4,200
Kevin Wallace $2,000 Chris Kannady $3,700
Greg Treat $4,200 Sherrie Conley $1,000
Greg Babinec $500 Josh West $500
Tom Gann $500 Ajay Pittman $1,500
Mark Lawson $500 Shawn Howard $1,000
Kil Easley Graf $1,000 Tammy West $1,000
Nicole Miller $1,000 Todd Russ $1,000
Darin Chambers $500 Mat Hamrick $200
Avery Frix $5,200 Jason Dunnington $500
J. Paul Jordan $2,500 Travis Dunlap $500
George Faught $500 Daniel Pae $1,000
Tammy Townley $1,000 Garry Mize $1,000
Gary Sims $1,000 Terry O'Donnell $2,700
Trey Caldwell $1,000 Jack Beall $1,000
Robert Manger $1,000 Kevin McDugle $1,000
Rusty Cornwell $1,000 T.J. Marti $1,000
Frank Simpson $3,000 Cyndi Munson $1,000
Jim Grego $1,000 Jud Strom $1,000
Jim Olsen $1,000 Brian Hill $1,000
Toni Hasenbeck $1,000 Carol Bush $1,000
Zach Taylor $2,000 Ryan Martinez $500
Mike Osburn $500 Kyle Hilbert $1,000
Kevin West $1,000 Mark Lepak $1,000
Dan Hicks $1,000 Denise Crosswhite $1,000
Ronny Johns $1,000 Tommy Hardin $1,000
Marilyn Stark $1,000 Ty Burns $1,000
Glen Mulready $2,700
* Oklahoma Speakers Ball
This list is not all-inclusive and some elected officials actually turned down the pay-to-play money... and most lost their election bid. As a matter of fact, a personal friend reported he turned down $1,000 from an EPIC CEO, and promptly lost his re-election bid. As one may plainly see, some candidates received more than others - ranging from $24,585 down to $200. The only reasoning shared by many, is that some candidates are judged to be more persuasive than others... for EPIC.
Since EPIC is a public school, the influenced candidates and officials probably say they are only supporting our public school students and teachers - for the payola. Many people believe, however, that EPIC has far more influence than other public schools - "Money Talks and BS Walks". The next question that one may ask is - How does a company CEO, who probably makes less than $150,000 in annual salary, donate more than half that salary to elected state officials? The answer may be: The individuals in question cannot afford to donate half their annual salary to candidates, but Oklahoma taxpayers can afford it! Also, a link to the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System (OCAS) may provide an explanation to this intriguing question. One virtual charter spent $983,017 of its administrative expenses for community relations, federal and state relations, and business office expenses. This total was almost 90% of its cumulative administrative expenses and did not include the superintendents salary. It may be safely assumed that at least part of this expenditure originated in state appropriated student dollars. The connection and analysis may be that "an increase in state appropriations to virtuals results in donations to the listed candidates. A link to this California article may provide yet another answer...
It appears that all bases are covered by the two EPIC Chiefs and Government Relations Director, as the elected officials receiving the big $$$ are listed below with their assignments:
* Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent of Public Instruction - $25,585
* Mike Hunter, Attorney General - $11,737
* Kevin Stitt, Governor - $8,100
* Avery Frix, Judiciary Committee - $5,200
* Charles McCall, House Speaker - $5,000
* Jon Echolls, House Majority Leader - $4,200
* Rhonda Baker, House Education Chair - $4,200
* Greg Treat, Senate Pro-Tem - $4,200
* Chris Kannady, Judiciary Committee Chair - $3,700
* Stephanie Bice, Finance Committee Chair - $3,500
* Jason Smalley, Education Committee A&B - $3,000
* Glen Mulready, State Insurance Commissioner - $2,700
* Kim David, House Appropriations Chair - $2,500
* John Paul Jordan, District Judge - $2,500
* Kevin Wallace, Senate Appropriations Chair - $2,000
* Tammy West, Education Committee A&B - $1,500
* Gary Stanislawski, Senate Education Chair - $1,500
* Matt Pinnell, Lieutenant Governor - $1,000
While it is not illegal to donate to elected officials campaigns, it may be illegal as to where the donations originate. For example, EPIC Virtual School spent $8.9 million (school year 2015-2016) for student instruction costs, which was formerly coded to administrative costs in 2014-2015. It is suspected, although it can't be proven, that the EPIC officials provided at least some student instructional appropriations to state elected officials. The $92,122 donated to the candidates above is reported to originate in the salaries of three EPIC officials. The EPIC officials did not just deposit the funds without the candidates knowing full well what was expected in return. What is expected in return for the generous wads of cash, is favorable legislation from the representatives and senators, favorable court rulings from the court officials, favorable AG opinions from the AG, favorable appropriations from the finance officials, and favorable support from public school officials and education chairs. The elected officials who have grounds for a complaint may be the Lieutenant Governor, who only received $1,000; the Senate Education Chair at $1,500 (the House Education Chair received $4,200); and the House Education Committee A&B head at $1,500 (the Senate Education Committee A&B head received $3,000). So much for equity...
Investigative reporter Jennifer Palmer of Oklahoma Watch wrote that Leaders of the state's largest virtual charter school (Epic) contributed at least $145,000 to the campaigns of dozens of candidates this year..., but the question remains "What favorable legislation and actions do the CEO's expect in return for these donations?".. Many traditional public school supporters believe some favorable bills and actions have already occurred. For example, Senator Stephanie Bice (the recipient of $3,500 from Harris and Chaney) sponsored a school consolidation bill during the last legislative session. Senator Bice related that the bill was what her constituents wanted, and since Chaney (Epic's superintendent) and Harris (the profitable non-profit's CEO) are Bice constituents - she is being truthful. Another example of "money talking"..
Another example of "money talks" is: In 2015, Representative Dennis Casey was on the House Common Education Committee, and voted to kill House Bill 2949 (a school voucher bill which would have allowed state tax dollars to flow to private and religious schools). The vote was 9 to 9 to kill the bill, which effectively ended it. The House Education Committee Chair, Representative Jason Nelson, a "paid to play" lawmaker - promptly removed Casey from the committee, and revived HB 2949 in 2016. After removing Casey from the committee, the bill passed on a 9 to 8 vote.
Yet another example of "money manipulation" occurred last week in the Oklahoma State Senate. Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee, a traditional public school supporter, was the vice-chair of the Senate Education Committee - and sponsored an interim study for virtual charter school funding. The interim study for the Senate Education Committee was held in October, 2018. The study provided information concerning how and why virtual school providers obtain state funding (tax dollars). Last week, when committee assignments were made, Senator Sharp became the latest victim of Epic money. He was removed as Education vice-chair by two senators - Greg Treat, the senate Pro-Tem and recipient of $4,200 from Epic; and Gary Stanislawski, the Education Committee Chair and recipient of $1,500 from Epic. The removal of Senator Ron Sharp from the vice-chair of the education committee may be traced directly to orders from Epic in the opinion of many public school supporters.
Update - Senator Joe Newhouse, (the named replacement for Senator Ron Sharp, as the Education Committee vice-chair), did not receive any Epic monies as reported by the Ethics Commission. He did, however, receive $13,611 in campaign support from the Betsy DeVos voucher group Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund, which is not reported to the Ethics Commission. The OFCAF is a dark money group which is similar to the Epic contributors. The big-money groups are similar in that they both deplore traditional public schools, the only difference being that Epic's contributors are named Chaney and Harris, but the OFCAF's contributors are anonymous (Why it's called "dark money").
Update - In following up on the contributor and recipient information in Palmer's article and the above recipient information, it becomes crystal clear as to the type of legislation which Epic wants to influence - education related bills. It also becomes clear which lawmakers are under the influence of Epic millionaires. For example, the Senate Education Committee is composed of the Chair Gary Stanislawski ($1,500 from Epic), Vice-Chair Joe Newhouse ( $36,399 from a pro-voucher group - $13,611 in support of, and $22,788 in opposition to Representative Newhouse's election opponents), Senator Jason Smalley ($3,000 from Epic), Senator Wayne Shaw ($1,000 from Epic), Senator Marty Quinn ($500 from Epic), and the Senate Pro-Tem Greg Treat, responsible for committee assignments ($4,200). In addition, Senator Joe Silk, member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education received $500 from Epic.
The House Common Education Committee recipients of Epic money include Representative Rhonda Baker ($4,200 from Epic), Representative Todd Russ ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Trey Caldwell ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Tammy West ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Mike Osburn ($500 from Epic), Representative Jadine Noland ($500 from Epic),and Representative Tom Gann ($500 from Epic). In addition, House Speaker Charles McCall received $5,000 from Epic for the Speaker's Ball - and Representative Jon Echolls, the House Majority Leader and responsible for committee assignments received $4,200 from Epic.
Just to make sure all lose ends were tied up (T's crossed and I's dotted), Epic chiefs provided $25,585 to the State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister.
Joy Hofmeister $30,000? Kevin Stitt $8,100
Gary Stanislawski $1,500 Stephanie Bice $3,500
Katie Henke $1,000 *Charles McCall $5,000
Chuck Strohm $1,500 Jadine Noland $500
Todd Thompsen $500 Matt Pinnell $1,000
Rhonda Baker $4,200 Jason Smalley $3,000
Kim David $2,500 Jon Echols $4,200
Kevin Wallace $2,000 Chris Kannady $3,700
Greg Treat $4,200 Sherrie Conley $1,000
Greg Babinec $500 Josh West $500
Tom Gann $500 Ajay Pittman $1,500
Mark Lawson $500 Shawn Howard $1,000
Kil Easley Graf $1,000 Tammy West $1,000
Nicole Miller $1,000 Todd Russ $1,000
Darin Chambers $500 Mat Hamrick $200
Avery Frix $5,200 Jason Dunnington $500
J. Paul Jordan $2,500 Travis Dunlap $500
George Faught $500 Daniel Pae $1,000
Tammy Townley $1,000 Garry Mize $1,000
Gary Sims $1,000 Terry O'Donnell $2,700
Trey Caldwell $1,000 Jack Beall $1,000
Robert Manger $1,000 Kevin McDugle $1,000
Rusty Cornwell $1,000 T.J. Marti $1,000
Frank Simpson $3,000 Cyndi Munson $1,000
Jim Grego $1,000 Jud Strom $1,000
Jim Olsen $1,000 Brian Hill $1,000
Toni Hasenbeck $1,000 Carol Bush $1,000
Zach Taylor $2,000 Ryan Martinez $500
Mike Osburn $500 Kyle Hilbert $1,000
Kevin West $1,000 Mark Lepak $1,000
Dan Hicks $1,000 Denise Crosswhite $1,000
Ronny Johns $1,000 Tommy Hardin $1,000
Marilyn Stark $1,000 Ty Burns $1,000
Glen Mulready $2,700
* Oklahoma Speakers Ball
This list is not all-inclusive and some elected officials actually turned down the pay-to-play money... and most lost their election bid. As a matter of fact, a personal friend reported he turned down $1,000 from an EPIC CEO, and promptly lost his re-election bid. As one may plainly see, some candidates received more than others - ranging from $24,585 down to $200. The only reasoning shared by many, is that some candidates are judged to be more persuasive than others... for EPIC.
Since EPIC is a public school, the influenced candidates and officials probably say they are only supporting our public school students and teachers - for the payola. Many people believe, however, that EPIC has far more influence than other public schools - "Money Talks and BS Walks". The next question that one may ask is - How does a company CEO, who probably makes less than $150,000 in annual salary, donate more than half that salary to elected state officials? The answer may be: The individuals in question cannot afford to donate half their annual salary to candidates, but Oklahoma taxpayers can afford it! Also, a link to the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System (OCAS) may provide an explanation to this intriguing question. One virtual charter spent $983,017 of its administrative expenses for community relations, federal and state relations, and business office expenses. This total was almost 90% of its cumulative administrative expenses and did not include the superintendents salary. It may be safely assumed that at least part of this expenditure originated in state appropriated student dollars. The connection and analysis may be that "an increase in state appropriations to virtuals results in donations to the listed candidates. A link to this California article may provide yet another answer...
It appears that all bases are covered by the two EPIC Chiefs and Government Relations Director, as the elected officials receiving the big $$$ are listed below with their assignments:
* Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent of Public Instruction - $25,585
* Mike Hunter, Attorney General - $11,737
* Kevin Stitt, Governor - $8,100
* Avery Frix, Judiciary Committee - $5,200
* Charles McCall, House Speaker - $5,000
* Jon Echolls, House Majority Leader - $4,200
* Rhonda Baker, House Education Chair - $4,200
* Greg Treat, Senate Pro-Tem - $4,200
* Chris Kannady, Judiciary Committee Chair - $3,700
* Stephanie Bice, Finance Committee Chair - $3,500
* Jason Smalley, Education Committee A&B - $3,000
* Glen Mulready, State Insurance Commissioner - $2,700
* Kim David, House Appropriations Chair - $2,500
* John Paul Jordan, District Judge - $2,500
* Kevin Wallace, Senate Appropriations Chair - $2,000
* Tammy West, Education Committee A&B - $1,500
* Gary Stanislawski, Senate Education Chair - $1,500
* Matt Pinnell, Lieutenant Governor - $1,000
While it is not illegal to donate to elected officials campaigns, it may be illegal as to where the donations originate. For example, EPIC Virtual School spent $8.9 million (school year 2015-2016) for student instruction costs, which was formerly coded to administrative costs in 2014-2015. It is suspected, although it can't be proven, that the EPIC officials provided at least some student instructional appropriations to state elected officials. The $92,122 donated to the candidates above is reported to originate in the salaries of three EPIC officials. The EPIC officials did not just deposit the funds without the candidates knowing full well what was expected in return. What is expected in return for the generous wads of cash, is favorable legislation from the representatives and senators, favorable court rulings from the court officials, favorable AG opinions from the AG, favorable appropriations from the finance officials, and favorable support from public school officials and education chairs. The elected officials who have grounds for a complaint may be the Lieutenant Governor, who only received $1,000; the Senate Education Chair at $1,500 (the House Education Chair received $4,200); and the House Education Committee A&B head at $1,500 (the Senate Education Committee A&B head received $3,000). So much for equity...
Investigative reporter Jennifer Palmer of Oklahoma Watch wrote that Leaders of the state's largest virtual charter school (Epic) contributed at least $145,000 to the campaigns of dozens of candidates this year..., but the question remains "What favorable legislation and actions do the CEO's expect in return for these donations?".. Many traditional public school supporters believe some favorable bills and actions have already occurred. For example, Senator Stephanie Bice (the recipient of $3,500 from Harris and Chaney) sponsored a school consolidation bill during the last legislative session. Senator Bice related that the bill was what her constituents wanted, and since Chaney (Epic's superintendent) and Harris (the profitable non-profit's CEO) are Bice constituents - she is being truthful. Another example of "money talking"..
Another example of "money talks" is: In 2015, Representative Dennis Casey was on the House Common Education Committee, and voted to kill House Bill 2949 (a school voucher bill which would have allowed state tax dollars to flow to private and religious schools). The vote was 9 to 9 to kill the bill, which effectively ended it. The House Education Committee Chair, Representative Jason Nelson, a "paid to play" lawmaker - promptly removed Casey from the committee, and revived HB 2949 in 2016. After removing Casey from the committee, the bill passed on a 9 to 8 vote.
Yet another example of "money manipulation" occurred last week in the Oklahoma State Senate. Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee, a traditional public school supporter, was the vice-chair of the Senate Education Committee - and sponsored an interim study for virtual charter school funding. The interim study for the Senate Education Committee was held in October, 2018. The study provided information concerning how and why virtual school providers obtain state funding (tax dollars). Last week, when committee assignments were made, Senator Sharp became the latest victim of Epic money. He was removed as Education vice-chair by two senators - Greg Treat, the senate Pro-Tem and recipient of $4,200 from Epic; and Gary Stanislawski, the Education Committee Chair and recipient of $1,500 from Epic. The removal of Senator Ron Sharp from the vice-chair of the education committee may be traced directly to orders from Epic in the opinion of many public school supporters.
Update - Senator Joe Newhouse, (the named replacement for Senator Ron Sharp, as the Education Committee vice-chair), did not receive any Epic monies as reported by the Ethics Commission. He did, however, receive $13,611 in campaign support from the Betsy DeVos voucher group Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund, which is not reported to the Ethics Commission. The OFCAF is a dark money group which is similar to the Epic contributors. The big-money groups are similar in that they both deplore traditional public schools, the only difference being that Epic's contributors are named Chaney and Harris, but the OFCAF's contributors are anonymous (Why it's called "dark money").
Update - In following up on the contributor and recipient information in Palmer's article and the above recipient information, it becomes crystal clear as to the type of legislation which Epic wants to influence - education related bills. It also becomes clear which lawmakers are under the influence of Epic millionaires. For example, the Senate Education Committee is composed of the Chair Gary Stanislawski ($1,500 from Epic), Vice-Chair Joe Newhouse ( $36,399 from a pro-voucher group - $13,611 in support of, and $22,788 in opposition to Representative Newhouse's election opponents), Senator Jason Smalley ($3,000 from Epic), Senator Wayne Shaw ($1,000 from Epic), Senator Marty Quinn ($500 from Epic), and the Senate Pro-Tem Greg Treat, responsible for committee assignments ($4,200). In addition, Senator Joe Silk, member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education received $500 from Epic.
The House Common Education Committee recipients of Epic money include Representative Rhonda Baker ($4,200 from Epic), Representative Todd Russ ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Trey Caldwell ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Tammy West ($1,000 from Epic), Representative Mike Osburn ($500 from Epic), Representative Jadine Noland ($500 from Epic),and Representative Tom Gann ($500 from Epic). In addition, House Speaker Charles McCall received $5,000 from Epic for the Speaker's Ball - and Representative Jon Echolls, the House Majority Leader and responsible for committee assignments received $4,200 from Epic.
Just to make sure all lose ends were tied up (T's crossed and I's dotted), Epic chiefs provided $25,585 to the State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Virtual Lies, Half-truths, and Propaganda
The CEO of Epic One Virtual Charter Schools recently sent an e-mail to his teachers claiming school superintendents lied to the Senate Education Committee (concerning how virtual charter schools spend your tax dollars) :
Dear Faculty,
Recently, the state Senate Education Committee held an interim study on EPIC and virtual charter schools. EPIC was not allowed to present or provide response to that study. In fact, the executive director of the Oklahoma Virtual Charter Schools Board was given the wrong time and location for the study, so was prevented herself from presenting... Presentations were made by various brick and mortar superintendents selected by the Cooperative Council of School Administrators (CCOSA), as well as a presentation by a CCOSA representative himself, all who made blatantly false and insulting allegations about our faculty and school... (For context and for the purposes of you knowing the facts, EPIC's per pupil funding is nearly dead last among all public school systems in Oklahoma and about a third of what Oklahoma City and Tulsa Public Schools receive.)
The only sentence in this e-mail which is factual and not misleading is "Recently...". All other statements to his faculty are half-truths, propaganda, or outright false. For instance, EPIC may provide a response to the facts presented at any time, and send it to the members of the Senate Education Committee. The CEO is unlikely to respond to this invitation, however, because facts are difficult to refute.
Secondly, the executive director of the Oklahoma Virtual Charter Schools Board was invited to speak, but did not show up on time. She was provided the time and place of the study, but it is unknown why she was late. The chair of the Senate Education Committee, who controls the order of speakers, could have recognized her and allowed her to speak, but the OVCSB executive director stayed in the back of the room, and chose not to be identified.
Some of the "blatantly false and insulting allegations" are provided in the table below. For the 2016-2017 school year - the Total Students (TS), Total Expenditures (TE), General Administration and Central Services (GA), and percent of administration costs to total costs are provided for selected traditional public schools and virtual charter schools...
School # Students Total Expend. Admin. Expend. %
Mustang 11,031 $67,530,069 $3,857,143 5.7%
Owasso 9,737 $60,259,476 $2,544,322 4.2%
Yukon 8,479 $53,783,578 $2,568,266 4.8%
Enid 8,028 $56,248,103 $2,370,051 4.2%
Blanchard 2,016 $13,661,915 $530,687 3.9%
Lindsay 1,245 $8,433,625 $411,761 4.9%
EPIC 9,077 $38,701,823 $2,610,868 6.7%
Connections 1,118 $6,498,538 $1,120,867 17.2%
The EPIC CEO is correct in saying that EPIC's per pupil funding is lower than almost all traditional public schools (Epic's per pupil funding is $4,264, while Mustang's is $6,122). However, this is not the complete story and a "half-lie" when administrative costs for EPIC (6.7%) is compared to Mustang's administrative costs (5.7%). As a matter of fact, when a mid-sized traditional public school, Blanchard administrative costs (3.9%)... is compared to a mid-sized corporate virtual school, Connections administrative costs (17.2%) - the difference is even more pronounced.
A more detailed examination of the expenditure data for traditional public schools as compared to corporate virtual charter schools may help to answer the question: "How and why do virtual charters spend more tax dollars for administration than traditional public schools?" One answer may be in the OCAS expenditure Function 2500 and Object 300 series. A comparison for these expenditure codes is provided in the table below:
School Function 2500 Object 300 Expenditures % of Total Exp.
Yukon $34,371 .06%
Blanchard $0 0%
EPIC $876,011 2.3%
Connections $672,314 10.3%
The facts of the matter - EPIC spent 38 times more for administrative functions than Yukon schools did, and Connections spent more than 171 times more than Yukon. The questions now become: "To what entities did this money flow?" and "What results were produced as $millions were directed to the top of the corporate pyramid?" Partial performance results can be ascertained from the student graduation rates of traditional public schools and virtual charter public schools in the table below.
School Cohort Graduation Rate (%)
Yukon 92%
Mustang 94%
Blanchard 82%
Lindsay 79%
EPIC 36%
Connections 44%
Insight 30%
OK Virtual 43%
If a school's graduation rate is any indicator of "quality product", then the state is wasting tax dollars on "for-profit" virtual charter schools. Three of the total four virtual charter schools identified in the table are "for-profit" - EPIC, Connections, and Insight. Many people believe that funneling tax dollars to the administrative costs of virtual charters is a waste.
At least some of the waste has gone to state elected officials...
Dear Faculty,
Recently, the state Senate Education Committee held an interim study on EPIC and virtual charter schools. EPIC was not allowed to present or provide response to that study. In fact, the executive director of the Oklahoma Virtual Charter Schools Board was given the wrong time and location for the study, so was prevented herself from presenting... Presentations were made by various brick and mortar superintendents selected by the Cooperative Council of School Administrators (CCOSA), as well as a presentation by a CCOSA representative himself, all who made blatantly false and insulting allegations about our faculty and school... (For context and for the purposes of you knowing the facts, EPIC's per pupil funding is nearly dead last among all public school systems in Oklahoma and about a third of what Oklahoma City and Tulsa Public Schools receive.)
The only sentence in this e-mail which is factual and not misleading is "Recently...". All other statements to his faculty are half-truths, propaganda, or outright false. For instance, EPIC may provide a response to the facts presented at any time, and send it to the members of the Senate Education Committee. The CEO is unlikely to respond to this invitation, however, because facts are difficult to refute.
Secondly, the executive director of the Oklahoma Virtual Charter Schools Board was invited to speak, but did not show up on time. She was provided the time and place of the study, but it is unknown why she was late. The chair of the Senate Education Committee, who controls the order of speakers, could have recognized her and allowed her to speak, but the OVCSB executive director stayed in the back of the room, and chose not to be identified.
Some of the "blatantly false and insulting allegations" are provided in the table below. For the 2016-2017 school year - the Total Students (TS), Total Expenditures (TE), General Administration and Central Services (GA), and percent of administration costs to total costs are provided for selected traditional public schools and virtual charter schools...
School # Students Total Expend. Admin. Expend. %
Mustang 11,031 $67,530,069 $3,857,143 5.7%
Owasso 9,737 $60,259,476 $2,544,322 4.2%
Yukon 8,479 $53,783,578 $2,568,266 4.8%
Enid 8,028 $56,248,103 $2,370,051 4.2%
Blanchard 2,016 $13,661,915 $530,687 3.9%
Lindsay 1,245 $8,433,625 $411,761 4.9%
EPIC 9,077 $38,701,823 $2,610,868 6.7%
Connections 1,118 $6,498,538 $1,120,867 17.2%
The EPIC CEO is correct in saying that EPIC's per pupil funding is lower than almost all traditional public schools (Epic's per pupil funding is $4,264, while Mustang's is $6,122). However, this is not the complete story and a "half-lie" when administrative costs for EPIC (6.7%) is compared to Mustang's administrative costs (5.7%). As a matter of fact, when a mid-sized traditional public school, Blanchard administrative costs (3.9%)... is compared to a mid-sized corporate virtual school, Connections administrative costs (17.2%) - the difference is even more pronounced.
A more detailed examination of the expenditure data for traditional public schools as compared to corporate virtual charter schools may help to answer the question: "How and why do virtual charters spend more tax dollars for administration than traditional public schools?" One answer may be in the OCAS expenditure Function 2500 and Object 300 series. A comparison for these expenditure codes is provided in the table below:
School Function 2500 Object 300 Expenditures % of Total Exp.
Yukon $34,371 .06%
Blanchard $0 0%
EPIC $876,011 2.3%
Connections $672,314 10.3%
The facts of the matter - EPIC spent 38 times more for administrative functions than Yukon schools did, and Connections spent more than 171 times more than Yukon. The questions now become: "To what entities did this money flow?" and "What results were produced as $millions were directed to the top of the corporate pyramid?" Partial performance results can be ascertained from the student graduation rates of traditional public schools and virtual charter public schools in the table below.
School Cohort Graduation Rate (%)
Yukon 92%
Mustang 94%
Blanchard 82%
Lindsay 79%
EPIC 36%
Connections 44%
Insight 30%
OK Virtual 43%
If a school's graduation rate is any indicator of "quality product", then the state is wasting tax dollars on "for-profit" virtual charter schools. Three of the total four virtual charter schools identified in the table are "for-profit" - EPIC, Connections, and Insight. Many people believe that funneling tax dollars to the administrative costs of virtual charters is a waste.
At least some of the waste has gone to state elected officials...
Friday, October 26, 2018
School administrative expenditure comparisons
Many Oklahoma citizens and several state lawmakers have suggested "school consolidation" or "administrative consolidation" as the remedy for Oklahoma's school funding problems. We've already provided research and analyzed data which indicates "no additional money is provided to the classroom when traditional public schools are consolidated, or when administrative costs are consolidated". The tables below further illustrates that traditional public school consolidation is nothing more than a canard for saving money. For comparative purposes, we have provided data for 23 mid-size traditional public schools (schools with 1500 to 2100 students) - listing the School, Total Expenditures, Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Total Administrative Expenditures (including site administration), Total Administrative dollars spent per student, and Total Administrative Costs (not including site administration). The data was obtained from the Oklahoma State Department of Education website and the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System (OCAS) records from the 2013-2014 school year (the latest available). The information is provided in two tables for easy comparisons and calculations.
School Total Admin. Expend. ADM Total Spent/Student
1) $2,082,924.29 1,948.51 $1,068.98
2) $1,091,428.08 1,814.82 $601.53
3) $1,327,688.65 1,741.37 $762.44
4) $1,282,019.37 1,731.09 $740.59
5) $1,603,600.83 1,809.14 $886.39
6) $1,352,548.12 1,783.32 $558.44
7) $1,312,716.35 1,570.73 $835.74
8) $1,474,335.89 1,703.25 $865.60
9) $1,881,369.93 1,797.38 $1,046.73
10) $1,243,054.34 1,850.55 $671.72
11) $1,474,028.49 1,802.41 $817.81
12) $1,453,284.57 1,732.25 $838.96
13) $1,181,597.32 1,515.19 $779.83
14) $1,701,940.90 1,780.09 $956.10
15) $1,212,960.48 1,820.86 $666.15
16) $1,118,690.62 1,560.26 $716.99
17) $1,276,427.80 1,832.69 $696.48
18) $1,728,523.35 1,552.18 $1,113.61
19) $1,867,725.47 1,830.70 $1,020.22
20) $1,447,155.65 2,027.96 $713.60
21) $1,817,891.14 1,833.56 $991.45
22) $1,463,538.46 1,642.02 $891.30
23) $1,577,274.73 2,070.12 $761.92
Average $762.41
(The Total Administrative Expenditures for each school represents all administrative costs, including central office expenditures and principal office expenditures.)
School Total Admin. Expend. ADM Total Spent/Student
1) $2,082,924.29 1,948.51 $1,068.98
2) $1,091,428.08 1,814.82 $601.53
3) $1,327,688.65 1,741.37 $762.44
4) $1,282,019.37 1,731.09 $740.59
5) $1,603,600.83 1,809.14 $886.39
6) $1,352,548.12 1,783.32 $558.44
7) $1,312,716.35 1,570.73 $835.74
8) $1,474,335.89 1,703.25 $865.60
9) $1,881,369.93 1,797.38 $1,046.73
10) $1,243,054.34 1,850.55 $671.72
11) $1,474,028.49 1,802.41 $817.81
12) $1,453,284.57 1,732.25 $838.96
13) $1,181,597.32 1,515.19 $779.83
14) $1,701,940.90 1,780.09 $956.10
15) $1,212,960.48 1,820.86 $666.15
16) $1,118,690.62 1,560.26 $716.99
17) $1,276,427.80 1,832.69 $696.48
18) $1,728,523.35 1,552.18 $1,113.61
19) $1,867,725.47 1,830.70 $1,020.22
20) $1,447,155.65 2,027.96 $713.60
21) $1,817,891.14 1,833.56 $991.45
22) $1,463,538.46 1,642.02 $891.30
23) $1,577,274.73 2,070.12 $761.92
Average $762.41
(The Total Administrative Expenditures for each school represents all administrative costs, including central office expenditures and principal office expenditures.)
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Thank You - Citizens of Blanchard
In 2008, Blanchard voters approved a bond issue for building a new high school for students and the community. The school has been making payments for this new school since then, at about $2 million per year. The bond is set to be retired in June of 2020, so I thought it would be a good time to review school bond structures - the way money is acquired and spent.
Many people, when buying a $100,000 home, can't pay cash - so must mortgage the home and make monthly or annual payments for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. When voters approved purchasing the new high school, they also approved making payments for its acquisition. It was a 12-year mortgage, so citizens will be making the last annual payment in 2020. The "payments" to the lien holder have averaged about $2 million per year. The county or school treasurer must adjust the millage rates each year, so that enough money is collected in the bond or sinking fund to make the appropriate payment. The county assessor, by law, cannot adjust the assessed value of any property, so that the appropriate payment can be made. The assessor also cannot adjust any market value upward, more than 3% each year, even if a property market value increases more than 3%. The property tax that any home owner pays is derived by multiplying an assessment figure (typically 11% of any homes market value) by the millage rate. A simple example would be: A home's market value is $100,000, so the assessment for property tax purposes is set at 11%, or $11,000. This $11,000 is multiplied by the millage rate, lets say 100 mils, so the math to calculating your property tax bill is $11,000 x .100 (one mil is one-one thousandth of a dollar) = $1,100. Only the bond or sinking fund millage rate may be adjusted each year for acquiring the appropriate bond payments. In other words, the bond millage may increase or decrease, based on the total market value of all property. In 2017, the actual millage rate for Blanchard Public Schools was $131.80. For a $100,000 market value home, the property tax payed was .13180 x $11,000 = $1449.80. The millage rate was adjusted so that the school could make the appropriate $2 million payment. Anything less would mean default by the school, and a judge would order the appropriate increase.
The good news is this: In 2018, when citizens pay property taxes, they will discover that the millage rate will have decreased to $120.75. When the $11,000 is multiplied by .12075, the $100,000 home tax will slip to $1,328.25, a decrease of 8.38%. The reason for this decrease is that property value in the Blanchard District increased by 8.38%. Property value increases resulted in millage rate decreases.
Many people, when buying a $100,000 home, can't pay cash - so must mortgage the home and make monthly or annual payments for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. When voters approved purchasing the new high school, they also approved making payments for its acquisition. It was a 12-year mortgage, so citizens will be making the last annual payment in 2020. The "payments" to the lien holder have averaged about $2 million per year. The county or school treasurer must adjust the millage rates each year, so that enough money is collected in the bond or sinking fund to make the appropriate payment. The county assessor, by law, cannot adjust the assessed value of any property, so that the appropriate payment can be made. The assessor also cannot adjust any market value upward, more than 3% each year, even if a property market value increases more than 3%. The property tax that any home owner pays is derived by multiplying an assessment figure (typically 11% of any homes market value) by the millage rate. A simple example would be: A home's market value is $100,000, so the assessment for property tax purposes is set at 11%, or $11,000. This $11,000 is multiplied by the millage rate, lets say 100 mils, so the math to calculating your property tax bill is $11,000 x .100 (one mil is one-one thousandth of a dollar) = $1,100. Only the bond or sinking fund millage rate may be adjusted each year for acquiring the appropriate bond payments. In other words, the bond millage may increase or decrease, based on the total market value of all property. In 2017, the actual millage rate for Blanchard Public Schools was $131.80. For a $100,000 market value home, the property tax payed was .13180 x $11,000 = $1449.80. The millage rate was adjusted so that the school could make the appropriate $2 million payment. Anything less would mean default by the school, and a judge would order the appropriate increase.
The good news is this: In 2018, when citizens pay property taxes, they will discover that the millage rate will have decreased to $120.75. When the $11,000 is multiplied by .12075, the $100,000 home tax will slip to $1,328.25, a decrease of 8.38%. The reason for this decrease is that property value in the Blanchard District increased by 8.38%. Property value increases resulted in millage rate decreases.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Why conservatives should vote "no" on SQ 801
State Question 801, if approved by voters, will give schools the right to use "Building Funds" for operational expenses such as teacher salaries. Schools currently receive 5 mils of assessed local property value for the purpose of building acquisition, maintenance, and upkeep. Schools cannot use building funds for anything else, such as teacher salaries and student instructional needs. Also, schools' General Fund monies are equalized through the state funding formula, so all schools operate with roughly the same amounts. Teacher salaries and student needs are paid from a school's General Fund, which is based on the school's number of students.
An equalization problem will result if SQ 801 passes, because 5 mils (one one-thousandth of assessed district value) is not equal for all schools. School "A" may receive $1 million for its Building Fund, which $500,000 could be used for teacher salaries and student needs - but school "B" may receive only $500,000 of which none could be spent for teacher salaries. Inequity is automatically created for schools operational monies, if SQ 801 passes.
Inequity among schools is created by the state legislature, since lawmakers placed the state question on the November ballot. The underlying intent of the authoring lawmakers is to take the burden off the state for providing operational funding, and place it square on the shoulders of local property owners. As a result of SQ 801 passing, many "property poor" schools will sue the state for "equal treatment". Remember, operational monies are currently equalized, but inequity will be created, if SQ 801 passes. Those "property poor" schools will likely win the lawsuits which will follow 801 passage, because all public school students deserve equal treatment. A judge is likely to order the state legislature to equalize those Building Fund monies which public schools receive. The legislature is unlikely to take operational monies from wealthy schools to provide equity, but very likely to allow poor schools to increase their millage rates (from the current 5 mils to 10 or 15 mils). Since property tax is calculated by multiplying the millage rate by the net assessed property value, property tax in poor districts will likely skyrocket. For example, 5 mils of a $100,000 market value home, of which $11,000 is assessed, will result in ".005 x $11,000 = $55 going to a school's Building Fund. Increasing the millage rate to 10 mils will result in ".010 x $11,000 = $110, or a $55 increase for your property tax.
Many conservatives believe State Question 801 is a backdoor attempt by lawmakers to increase your property tax. The bottom line is this: If you want your property tax to increase - vote "yes" on SQ 801...
An equalization problem will result if SQ 801 passes, because 5 mils (one one-thousandth of assessed district value) is not equal for all schools. School "A" may receive $1 million for its Building Fund, which $500,000 could be used for teacher salaries and student needs - but school "B" may receive only $500,000 of which none could be spent for teacher salaries. Inequity is automatically created for schools operational monies, if SQ 801 passes.
Inequity among schools is created by the state legislature, since lawmakers placed the state question on the November ballot. The underlying intent of the authoring lawmakers is to take the burden off the state for providing operational funding, and place it square on the shoulders of local property owners. As a result of SQ 801 passing, many "property poor" schools will sue the state for "equal treatment". Remember, operational monies are currently equalized, but inequity will be created, if SQ 801 passes. Those "property poor" schools will likely win the lawsuits which will follow 801 passage, because all public school students deserve equal treatment. A judge is likely to order the state legislature to equalize those Building Fund monies which public schools receive. The legislature is unlikely to take operational monies from wealthy schools to provide equity, but very likely to allow poor schools to increase their millage rates (from the current 5 mils to 10 or 15 mils). Since property tax is calculated by multiplying the millage rate by the net assessed property value, property tax in poor districts will likely skyrocket. For example, 5 mils of a $100,000 market value home, of which $11,000 is assessed, will result in ".005 x $11,000 = $55 going to a school's Building Fund. Increasing the millage rate to 10 mils will result in ".010 x $11,000 = $110, or a $55 increase for your property tax.
Many conservatives believe State Question 801 is a backdoor attempt by lawmakers to increase your property tax. The bottom line is this: If you want your property tax to increase - vote "yes" on SQ 801...
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Vote Liz George for House District 42
Vote Liz George for House District 42!
I will vote for Liz George on November 6, 2018, for House District 42 state representative because she supports our public schools, as Liz is a member of the Blanchard Board of Education. Liz will support all state and county services, as she will help provide appropriate funding to health care services and county roads and bridges - without raising taxes.
In addition, Liz is supported and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, as it states "We know that you will be a pro-business legislator focused on making Oklahoma a better place to live and do business. The conservative State Chamber also proclaims in its endorsement that "Liz George understands the complex issues facing our state. She has the experience to be a leader for meaningful reforms and common-sense solutions. Liz George knows that providing a quality education to our children is essential for economic development and moving our state forward. I encourage you to support Liz George so that she can fight for the reforms that will make Oklahoma a better place to live, work, and raise a family." The Chamber goes on to say "It is important to Oklahoma's business community to support candidates like you, and we are confident that the voters of your district will also see the importance of supporting you."
I know that I will be voting for Liz George for House District 42!
Sincerely,
Jimmy Beckham
(This ad supported and authorized by the friends of Liz George)
I will vote for Liz George on November 6, 2018, for House District 42 state representative because she supports our public schools, as Liz is a member of the Blanchard Board of Education. Liz will support all state and county services, as she will help provide appropriate funding to health care services and county roads and bridges - without raising taxes.
In addition, Liz is supported and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, as it states "We know that you will be a pro-business legislator focused on making Oklahoma a better place to live and do business. The conservative State Chamber also proclaims in its endorsement that "Liz George understands the complex issues facing our state. She has the experience to be a leader for meaningful reforms and common-sense solutions. Liz George knows that providing a quality education to our children is essential for economic development and moving our state forward. I encourage you to support Liz George so that she can fight for the reforms that will make Oklahoma a better place to live, work, and raise a family." The Chamber goes on to say "It is important to Oklahoma's business community to support candidates like you, and we are confident that the voters of your district will also see the importance of supporting you."
I know that I will be voting for Liz George for House District 42!
Sincerely,
Jimmy Beckham
(This ad supported and authorized by the friends of Liz George)
Monday, October 22, 2018
Charles K. Heatly
I attended the funeral of an old friend and mentor on Sunday at the Lindsay High School gymnasium, aptly named "Charles K. Heatly Arena". It was the largest devotion and remembrance of any I've ever attended, as Coach Heatly is legendary. He organized his funeral much the same way he organized his girls basketball teams (which won over 500 games, 2 state titles, 3 state runner-ups, and 17 state tournament appearances). Doyle Greteman, former Blanchard High School principal and former Lindsay school superintendent, spoke and introduced the speakers during the memorial. One tribute was given by Jill Street, former All-State player, who represented the 100+ Leopardette players in attendance. Another tribute was provided by Tommy Noles, a former All-State basketball player and All-State football player, who represented the 100+ high school men athletes in attendance that played for Coach Heatly. Also in attendance was Sherri Coale, University of Oklahoma womens basketball coach and John Cox, state superintendent candidate. Reba McEntire, who attended Charlie's basketball camps as a high school player, sent flowers to the remembrance. All speakers had numerous memories of Coach Heatly, including his son, Danny, who related the following: The Lindsay Leopardettes were playing Byng in the semi-finals of the state tournament in 1968. His point forward - Gaylyn Armstrong, put up a jump shot "in the lane", which went under the basket but swished the net on the way to the floor. Gaylyn was fouled while shooting, and Heatly made the slam-dunk motion and screamed "Yes!". The game official approached the score table and made the same gesture "shot good" plus one free throw. Gaylyn completed the unlikely 3-point play, eventually winning the game, and then winning the state championship the following day. (A side-note is that the game official went on to officiate during the NCAA Championships and in the NFL as a football official.) Of course, as most Oklahoma sports fans know, Charlie Heatly is a true "Girls Basketball" legend and a pioneer for high school girls basketball, both in Oklahoma and nationwide, but my recollections are from Jr. High football...
Coach Heatly was my first organized school coach in Lindsay Jr. High, 1970, as my 8th grade football coach. For competitive sports, we only had "little league" prior to 1970, and the coaches weren't mean (We didn't have to run much and didn't get chewed out, which was just the opposite in Jr. High football. I was a player for the Leopard Cubs (as we were called), as was Danny Heatly, Coach Heatly's son, and my future brother-in-law - as my sister Dana would soon marry him. At the end of each football practice - Coach Heatly had wind-sprints in store for us. We would run 6 or 8 50's at which time Heatly began allowing the winner of each sprint to "go in". I was fairly fast, by Leopard standards, so would usually win the first sprints before beginning the elimination sprints. Danny was also fast, but usually finished in the middle of the pack, before it counted. As the first elimination sprint was run, I noticed that I had not finished first, but Danny had won. He had smartly saved his best for when it counted, and would get to "go in". Not so fast, though, as to prevent Charlie from noticing. I can still hear Coach Heatly say "Jimmy, you can go in, Danny you can stay out here." Danny won the next several heats, but Coach Heatly never let him "go in" early. As a matter of fact, Danny usually stayed until everyone else went in to get dressed. He was a quarterback though, and needed the extra practice...
Coach Heatly was my first organized school coach in Lindsay Jr. High, 1970, as my 8th grade football coach. For competitive sports, we only had "little league" prior to 1970, and the coaches weren't mean (We didn't have to run much and didn't get chewed out, which was just the opposite in Jr. High football. I was a player for the Leopard Cubs (as we were called), as was Danny Heatly, Coach Heatly's son, and my future brother-in-law - as my sister Dana would soon marry him. At the end of each football practice - Coach Heatly had wind-sprints in store for us. We would run 6 or 8 50's at which time Heatly began allowing the winner of each sprint to "go in". I was fairly fast, by Leopard standards, so would usually win the first sprints before beginning the elimination sprints. Danny was also fast, but usually finished in the middle of the pack, before it counted. As the first elimination sprint was run, I noticed that I had not finished first, but Danny had won. He had smartly saved his best for when it counted, and would get to "go in". Not so fast, though, as to prevent Charlie from noticing. I can still hear Coach Heatly say "Jimmy, you can go in, Danny you can stay out here." Danny won the next several heats, but Coach Heatly never let him "go in" early. As a matter of fact, Danny usually stayed until everyone else went in to get dressed. He was a quarterback though, and needed the extra practice...
Monday, October 8, 2018
False Assumptions in "Right-Sizing Oklahoma Districts"
James R. Machell, Ph.D., a University of Central Oklahoma professor, has published a 16 page "white paper" - "Right Sizing" Oklahoma Districts: Examining district size, enrollment, and superintendent compensation in Oklahoma School Districts. His "abstract" of the research paper reads "This paper includes data related to the number and size of school districts and superintendent salaries in the state of Oklahoma. It is intended to encourage dialogue among elected state leaders and citizens about the need to consider cost savings that could result in badly needed additional funding being directed to classrooms across the state through cost savings that could be realized through the reorganization of many of the small school districts across Oklahoma." Many traditional public school supporters interpret the intent of the paper and the abstract is to convince "elected state leaders and citizens" that major school consolidation would put $27 million back in Oklahoma public school classrooms. A re-write of the abstract with interpreted intent is as follows: This paper includes data related to the number and size of school districts and superintendent salaries in the state of Oklahoma - "There are too many school districts which are small (less than 3,500 students) and those district superintendent salaries are far too large." It is intended to encourage dialogue... - "It is intended to encourage school consolidation..." ... cost savings that could be realized through the (reorganization) - consolidation of many of the small (and medium sized) school districts across Oklahoma.
Before we analyze Dr. Machell's data, analysis, and recommendations, we must examine the probable origin of the non-biased white paper. One has to look no further than Senate Bill 920 which Senator *** authored during the 2018 regular session. Dr. Machell works for the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) in Edmond, which is very near Senate District 22. Machell is also probably a constituent of Senator ****. SB 920 would have administratively consolidated all Oklahoma traditional public schools with less than 200 students. When it was disclosed that consolidating designated schools would save virtually no taxpayer dollars - the committees to which it was assigned quickly killed it. Many public school supporters believe that Senator **** is the driving force for the research paper published by Dr. Machell. The paper has certainly encouraged dialogue concerning school consolidation, but also advocates administratively consolidating schools with less than 1,000 students, before consolidating schools with less than 3,500 students. So, Dr. Machell has in effect - "doubled down" on the original "less than 200 students" consolidation plan. Dr. Machell claims that $27 million could be saved by "eliminating" superintendents, so we'll examine his data and subsequent analysis for accuracy.
While the data quoted and utilized by Dr. Machell is for the most part accurate, the true number of Oklahoma school districts seems to elude him - as 524, 588, and 607 are quoted in different sections of his research. The State Department of Education even lists 546 as the number of Oklahoma school districts. This datum point may be irrelevant though, as Dr. Machell is relatively sure there are 538 total superintendents - and what he believes is relevant to his study is consolidating superintendents. (note: Dr. Machell never uses the term "consolidate" in his paper. He prefers "reorganize", as it is less threatening. It's like saying - "This will be painless".
Dr. Machell finally concludes that by using his consolidation model, we could eliminate 300+ superintendents and pare the number down to a total of 200... and save $27 million. He finally disclaims that there are a number of reasons why his approach to (consolidating) superintendents may not work. These include the difficulty politically and practically in (consolidating) school districts. ... the details associated with the practical details of managing such a change is complicated and messy. State leaders have considered various approaches to school district (consolidation) and some officials have studied efforts in other states with little to show in terms of results. Some have found that school district (consolidation) actually does little to save money and increase efficiencies.
From an article by Emily Windler of KOSU in 2016, paraphrased: The states of Oklahoma and Louisiana have about the same number of students (664,200 and 665,478, respectively), while Oklahoma has 516 school districts (superintendents) and Louisiana has only 70 school districts (superintendents). Anyone would tend to believe that Oklahoma spends more on General Administration and Total Administration than Louisiana does, but the facts say something completely opposite this assumption. According to the 2014 U.S. Census data - Louisiana, with 70 school superintendents, spent $179,587,000 on General Administration and $586,168,000 in total Administrative Spending. Oklahoma, on the other hand, with over 500 school superintendents, spent $175,201,000 on General Administration and $465,532,000 in Total Administration Spending. (Superintendent salaries in both states are about the same).
One example of administrative consolidation which actually increased administrative costs is right next door in neighboring Arkansas. From 2003 to 2006, Arkansas reduced its school districts and superintendents from 367 to 246. For the 2007-2008 school year, instead of reducing administrative expenses, school administrative costs actually increased 10%! Cases like Arkansas' are repeated over and over again, like in West Virginia, South Carolina, etc...
In April of 2018, we analyzed the "virtual" consolidation of twelve traditional public schools in one rural county - to determine the administrative cost savings when the twelve superintendents were rolled into one county superintendent. The cost savings were proven to be minimal, and most likely none. Using one model of consolidation, administrative costs even increased after the twelve schools were virtually consolidated. We may now virtually consolidate state traditional public schools utilizing the "Machell" model of school consolidation (which he calls re-organization) to determine if the state can actually (virtually) save $27 million. We will analyze the data from four mid-size schools (more than 1,000 students, but less than 3,500) by utilizing Total Expenditures, Total Administrative Expenditures, and Total Superintendent Salaries. Only the totals for each category will be analyzed, since the data can be accessed in the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System. The Total Expenditures for all four schools during the 2016 fiscal year was $66,796,664. Total Administrative Expenditures for the schools was $2,398,773 (3.6% of Total Expenditures) and Total Superintendent Salaries was $444,535 (.7% of Total Expenditures).
Dr. Machell believes the state can save money if three of the four superintendents are eliminated from the school payroll ($27 million statewide). If the "Machell Model" were used to administratively reorganize the four districts, he believes one superintendent would earn $150,000 and the schools, once consolidated, would save $294,535 in superintendent salaries. While it may be accurate to say "$294,535 will be saved in superintendent salaries" once three superintendents are eliminated, it's not accurate to say that $294,535 will be saved in Total Expenditures or Total Administrative Expenditures. Knowing that by eliminating superintendent services will only
shift the administrative costs to other administrative categories, such as an assistant superintendent or principal salary - the Office of Accountability provided and additional $100,000 to each consolidated school's Total Administrative Expenditures category (in its 2010 "cost of efficiency" model). Because of increased costs since 2010, we'll virtually add $110,000 to each of the three consolidated schools' Total Admin. Expenditures. The final "virtual" Total Superintendent Salaries, after consolidating will now be $480,000, as compared to $444,535 before consolidation. Of course, this virtual consolidation scenario is only anecdotal, a snapshot, but it would probably play out identically if all schools with less than 3,500 students are consolidated. If the state were forced to pay an additional $12,000 for each consolidated school (less than 3,500 students, which totals approx. 500 districts), the Total Administrative Expenditure increase could reach $6 million.
Dr. Machell claims that by reducing the number of superintendents in Oklahoma - $27 million will be saved for instructional costs, but fails to quote even one state where he finds this is true. We've already compared Louisiana's Administrative costs, with only 70 superintendents, to Oklahoma's 538 superintendents. What about other states with fewer superintendents though? Surely there are some states with fewer superintendents than Oklahoma... which spend less money for Administration?
State No. of Supts. No. of Students Admin. $/student
Alabama 180 743,789 $813
Arkansas 289 492,132 $732
Kentucky 186 686,598 $810
Oklahoma 538 692,878 $686
South Carolina 102 763,533 $712
West Virginia 57 277,452 $826
The state's four virtual charter schools will be immune from any consolidation efforts because three of them are privately managed, so the state can't touch them without additional legislation. We'll take a look at the data anyway, and compare to the four traditional schools. Total Expenditures for the virtuals during the 2016 fiscal year was $47,208,232; Total Administrative Expenditures was $2,894,146 (6.1%) and Total Superintendent Salaries was $1,235,130 (2.6%). This total is debatable because virtual schools code the Superintendent Salaries in several subcategories, such as 2500 Business Office. Anyone familiar with gazintas can plainly see that 6.1% > 3.6% and 2.6% > .7%. The question now becomes - Why have our state lawmakers granted immunity from consolidation to the virtual charter schools?
Before we analyze Dr. Machell's data, analysis, and recommendations, we must examine the probable origin of the non-biased white paper. One has to look no further than Senate Bill 920 which Senator *** authored during the 2018 regular session. Dr. Machell works for the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) in Edmond, which is very near Senate District 22. Machell is also probably a constituent of Senator ****. SB 920 would have administratively consolidated all Oklahoma traditional public schools with less than 200 students. When it was disclosed that consolidating designated schools would save virtually no taxpayer dollars - the committees to which it was assigned quickly killed it. Many public school supporters believe that Senator **** is the driving force for the research paper published by Dr. Machell. The paper has certainly encouraged dialogue concerning school consolidation, but also advocates administratively consolidating schools with less than 1,000 students, before consolidating schools with less than 3,500 students. So, Dr. Machell has in effect - "doubled down" on the original "less than 200 students" consolidation plan. Dr. Machell claims that $27 million could be saved by "eliminating" superintendents, so we'll examine his data and subsequent analysis for accuracy.
While the data quoted and utilized by Dr. Machell is for the most part accurate, the true number of Oklahoma school districts seems to elude him - as 524, 588, and 607 are quoted in different sections of his research. The State Department of Education even lists 546 as the number of Oklahoma school districts. This datum point may be irrelevant though, as Dr. Machell is relatively sure there are 538 total superintendents - and what he believes is relevant to his study is consolidating superintendents. (note: Dr. Machell never uses the term "consolidate" in his paper. He prefers "reorganize", as it is less threatening. It's like saying - "This will be painless".
Dr. Machell finally concludes that by using his consolidation model, we could eliminate 300+ superintendents and pare the number down to a total of 200... and save $27 million. He finally disclaims that there are a number of reasons why his approach to (consolidating) superintendents may not work. These include the difficulty politically and practically in (consolidating) school districts. ... the details associated with the practical details of managing such a change is complicated and messy. State leaders have considered various approaches to school district (consolidation) and some officials have studied efforts in other states with little to show in terms of results. Some have found that school district (consolidation) actually does little to save money and increase efficiencies.
From an article by Emily Windler of KOSU in 2016, paraphrased: The states of Oklahoma and Louisiana have about the same number of students (664,200 and 665,478, respectively), while Oklahoma has 516 school districts (superintendents) and Louisiana has only 70 school districts (superintendents). Anyone would tend to believe that Oklahoma spends more on General Administration and Total Administration than Louisiana does, but the facts say something completely opposite this assumption. According to the 2014 U.S. Census data - Louisiana, with 70 school superintendents, spent $179,587,000 on General Administration and $586,168,000 in total Administrative Spending. Oklahoma, on the other hand, with over 500 school superintendents, spent $175,201,000 on General Administration and $465,532,000 in Total Administration Spending. (Superintendent salaries in both states are about the same).
One example of administrative consolidation which actually increased administrative costs is right next door in neighboring Arkansas. From 2003 to 2006, Arkansas reduced its school districts and superintendents from 367 to 246. For the 2007-2008 school year, instead of reducing administrative expenses, school administrative costs actually increased 10%! Cases like Arkansas' are repeated over and over again, like in West Virginia, South Carolina, etc...
In April of 2018, we analyzed the "virtual" consolidation of twelve traditional public schools in one rural county - to determine the administrative cost savings when the twelve superintendents were rolled into one county superintendent. The cost savings were proven to be minimal, and most likely none. Using one model of consolidation, administrative costs even increased after the twelve schools were virtually consolidated. We may now virtually consolidate state traditional public schools utilizing the "Machell" model of school consolidation (which he calls re-organization) to determine if the state can actually (virtually) save $27 million. We will analyze the data from four mid-size schools (more than 1,000 students, but less than 3,500) by utilizing Total Expenditures, Total Administrative Expenditures, and Total Superintendent Salaries. Only the totals for each category will be analyzed, since the data can be accessed in the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System. The Total Expenditures for all four schools during the 2016 fiscal year was $66,796,664. Total Administrative Expenditures for the schools was $2,398,773 (3.6% of Total Expenditures) and Total Superintendent Salaries was $444,535 (.7% of Total Expenditures).
Dr. Machell believes the state can save money if three of the four superintendents are eliminated from the school payroll ($27 million statewide). If the "Machell Model" were used to administratively reorganize the four districts, he believes one superintendent would earn $150,000 and the schools, once consolidated, would save $294,535 in superintendent salaries. While it may be accurate to say "$294,535 will be saved in superintendent salaries" once three superintendents are eliminated, it's not accurate to say that $294,535 will be saved in Total Expenditures or Total Administrative Expenditures. Knowing that by eliminating superintendent services will only
shift the administrative costs to other administrative categories, such as an assistant superintendent or principal salary - the Office of Accountability provided and additional $100,000 to each consolidated school's Total Administrative Expenditures category (in its 2010 "cost of efficiency" model). Because of increased costs since 2010, we'll virtually add $110,000 to each of the three consolidated schools' Total Admin. Expenditures. The final "virtual" Total Superintendent Salaries, after consolidating will now be $480,000, as compared to $444,535 before consolidation. Of course, this virtual consolidation scenario is only anecdotal, a snapshot, but it would probably play out identically if all schools with less than 3,500 students are consolidated. If the state were forced to pay an additional $12,000 for each consolidated school (less than 3,500 students, which totals approx. 500 districts), the Total Administrative Expenditure increase could reach $6 million.
Dr. Machell claims that by reducing the number of superintendents in Oklahoma - $27 million will be saved for instructional costs, but fails to quote even one state where he finds this is true. We've already compared Louisiana's Administrative costs, with only 70 superintendents, to Oklahoma's 538 superintendents. What about other states with fewer superintendents though? Surely there are some states with fewer superintendents than Oklahoma... which spend less money for Administration?
State No. of Supts. No. of Students Admin. $/student
Alabama 180 743,789 $813
Arkansas 289 492,132 $732
Kentucky 186 686,598 $810
Oklahoma 538 692,878 $686
South Carolina 102 763,533 $712
West Virginia 57 277,452 $826
The state's four virtual charter schools will be immune from any consolidation efforts because three of them are privately managed, so the state can't touch them without additional legislation. We'll take a look at the data anyway, and compare to the four traditional schools. Total Expenditures for the virtuals during the 2016 fiscal year was $47,208,232; Total Administrative Expenditures was $2,894,146 (6.1%) and Total Superintendent Salaries was $1,235,130 (2.6%). This total is debatable because virtual schools code the Superintendent Salaries in several subcategories, such as 2500 Business Office. Anyone familiar with gazintas can plainly see that 6.1% > 3.6% and 2.6% > .7%. The question now becomes - Why have our state lawmakers granted immunity from consolidation to the virtual charter schools?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)