There are 472 OSSAA member schools which participate in spring baseball. Those schools which may restrict enrollment (RE) and/or provide student financial assistance (FA) comprise 22 schools (4.7%), while those schools which cannot restrict enrollment or provide financial assistance comprise 450 schools (95.3%). In 2011, one year before Rule 14 became effective, 4 RE/FA schools experienced success (final eight in playoff competition), or 8.3%. This success ratio for RE/FA schools was 77% higher than its membership ratio. Forty-four (44) non-RE/FA schools, or 91.7%, experienced "success" on the OSSAA success meter. The success ratio for non-RE/FA schools at 91.7% was 3.8% lower than its membership ratio. An analysis for several other sports can be read here.
Eight years after implementation of the competitive equity Rule 14 in 2019, the success and participation ratios for RE/FA and non-RE/FA schools were identical to 2011. Based on this competitive equity effectiveness study, Rule 14 has been ineffective for establishing a level playing field.
Once again, it remains unknown as to the data and analysis the OSSAA committee utilized in determining that Rule 14 has been effective for baseball. I guess we may analyze its analysis for validity and reliability on August 7 at the OSSAA public meeting...
Friday, June 28, 2019
Friday, June 21, 2019
Competitive Equity for Football
If we study a
single high school sport – football, for the 2011 season (prior to
implementation of the rule) and the 2017 season (6 years into the rule), we may
analyze the results of “equalizing” the chances of success for all member
schools. We will study the play-off success in 2011 and 2017 for the 23 member
schools which may provide student financial assistance and select or limit
students – and compare to 23 randomly selected member schools which may not
provide student financial assistance or select and limit students. We will
assign a point value for advancing to the top eight in each classification,
with additional points assigned for advancing each step. For instance, a member
school will receive one point for participating in football, two points for
advancing to the top eight, four points for top four, six points for top two,
and eight points for “State Champion”. Using this methodology, we may compare
“success” for those member schools which may provide financial assistance and
select or limit students to those member schools which may not – and ultimately
determine if the “bump-up” rule has been effective in “leveling the playing
field”.
TABLE A (“Success” points for 23 member schools which offer
SFA and Select/Limit – 2011)
1)
2
6) 6 11) 1 16) 1 21) 1
2)
6
7) 1 12) 2 17) 1 22) 1
3)
2
8) 4 13) 1 18) 1 23) 1
4)
6
9) 1 14) 1 19) 1 Total Success – 55 points
5)
8
10) 4 15) 2 20) 1 Average success – 2.39 points
TABLE B (“Success” points for 23 randomly selected member
schools which may not offer SFA)
1)
2
6) 1 11) 1
16) 2 21) 4
2)
1
7) 1 12) 1
17) 2 22) 1
3)
6
8) 1 13) 2 18) 2 23) 2
4)
1
9) 1 14) 2 19) 1 Total Success – 39 points
5)
1
10) 1 15) 1 20) 2 Average success – 1.70
TABLE C (“Success” points for 23 members which offer SFA and
Select/Limit – 2017)
1)
6
6) 2* 11) 6 16) 2 21) 4*
2)
6
7) 2* 12) 2
17) 6 22) 4
3)
2
8) 6 13) 1*
18) 1* 23) 4
4)
8
9) 2 14) 6 19) 2* Total Success – 86 points
5)
2
10) 4 15) 4 20) 4 Average success – 3.74
TABLE D (“Success” points for 23 random members which may not
offer SFA)
1)
2
6) 1 11) 1 16) 1 21) 1
2)
1
7) 6 12) 2 17) 1 22) 1
3)
2
8) 1 13) 1 18) 1 23) 1
4)
1
9) 1 14) 1 19) 1 Total Success – 32 points
5)
1
10) 2 15) 1 20) 1 Average success – 1.39
ANALYSIS OF “SUCCESS” TABLES
For the 2011
Oklahoma high school football season - Table A indicates a “success” rate of 55
points for those member schools which may offer student financial assistance
and select/limit student enrollment. Table B (those OSSAA member schools which
may not offer student financial assistance or cannot select/limit student
enrollment) for the 2011 season indicates a “success” rate of 39 points. In
2011, one year before implementation of the “bump-up” rule – the success
enjoyed by those schools which provide scholarships, etc. was significantly
higher than those schools which do not.
For the 2017
Oklahoma high school football season (5 years after implementation of the
“bump-up” rule for leveling the playing field), Table C indicates a success
rate of 86 points for those schools which provide SFA …, a 31 point increase for “success”. Table D
indicates a success rate of 32 points for non-scholarship member schools, a
drop of 7 points from 2011.
This analysis of
implementation of the OSSAA “bump-up” rule indicates that it has not been
effective for leveling the playing field for all OSSAA member schools. As a
matter of fact, the OSSAA rule may have had just the opposite effect for which
it was intended. Implementation of the rule in 2012 may have provided the
motivation for member schools to take advantage of the ability to provide SFA
and select/limit student admissions. Evidence indicates that one member school
which provides SFA, etc. experienced a success drop from “6 points” in 2011 to
“1 point” in 2017 (after bumping up one enrollment based class level). The
response of the school is to actually drop two class levels (from class-4A to
class 2A) in order to improve its “success rate”. The ability to select/limit
student enrollment has allowed this particular member school a systemic
advantage for increasing its success rate.
CORR. EFFECTS OF RULE 14 (CHANCES OF SUCCESS FOR THOSE
SCHOOLS WHICH PROVIDE SFA AND SA)
Methodology: A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was
calculated for 23 public and private schools which provide student financial
assistance to students and/or selectively admit students. The analysis was
provided for the sport of football only, for the 2011 (the last year before
implementation of Rule 14) and 2017 (6 years into Rule 14) seasons. The Pearson
correlation coefficient (r) obtains a value of between -1 and +1. A negative
‘r’ means that the effects of a specific action or factor(s) in a relationship
are negatively correlated, while a positive ‘r’ means that the effects of
actions or factors are positively correlated. The intent of Rule 14 for OSSAA
member schools was to effectively “level the playing field” for private schools
as well as public schools. By utilizing the Pearson Coefficient Correlation, a
general “success” rate can be determined for the 23 schools for the 2011 season
and be correlated for the same 23 schools for the 2017 season. An ‘r’ = 0 means
that Rule 14 has had no significant effect on “leveling the playing field” for
private schools and public schools in the OSSAA. A negative ‘r’ means that Rule
14 has had the intended effect for member schools – the playing field has been
leveled. In other words, the success rate for those schools which provide
student financial assistance and/or selectively admit students – significantly
decreased from the 2011 h.s. football season to the 2017 season (6 years after
implementation). A positive ‘r’ means that the effects of implementing Rule 14
resulted in the opposite. In other words, the implementation of Rule 14 did not
“level the playing field” in football – and could have even exacerbated the
problem.
Results: When the success rate for those public and private
schools which provide SFA and/or SA was analyzed for the 2011 season and 2017
season, an ‘r’ = .23 was obtained. A positive .23 means that the success rate
for “private” schools increased after implementation of Rule 14. Using Cohen’s
(1988) Guidelines for Correlation Coefficients – the r=.23 means that public
and private schools providing SFA and/or SA, are positively correlated to
“success”. The closer the ‘r’ value is to ‘0’ means there is little or no
correlation to the success of these schools based on the determining factors.
Cohen’s Guidelines reflect that a definite correlation exists when the ‘r’
value is greater than .10 or (-.10). The goal of any classification plan should
be an ‘r’ = 0 to .10. Any value greater would necessarily constitute unfair
competition.
The justification for the OSSAA to start over with a new classification system can be read here.
We will now analyze basketball using the same success model and methodology as football... in our next article/blog:
The justification for the OSSAA to start over with a new classification system can be read here.
We will now analyze basketball using the same success model and methodology as football... in our next article/blog:
Friday, June 14, 2019
Competitive Equity in OK High School Sports
As most people who follow and support Oklahoma high school sports know, competitive equity for public and private schools in the OSSAA has been a contentious issue since the late 1970's. There have been several efforts by OSSAA member schools to "level the playing field" for both public and private school members. A committee was eventually formed in 2009 to study the issue, after more than 30 years of perceived inequity between public schools and their private counterparts. The seventeen member committee was made up of 13 public schools and 4 private school members. After many months of meetings and negotiations, the competitive equity committee provided a recommendation to the OSSAA for re-classification of public and private schools in Oklahoma. The new classification plan became effective for member schools beginning in 2012. After 6 years of implementation, the classification plan was judged a complete and utter failure by most OSSAA members and even several committee members from that 2009 group. Among the reasons provided by those former committee members for the failed effort, was that even though private schools made up only 5% of OSSAA membership, the committee membership reflected a disproportunately high percentage of private schools at 23.5%. This ensured the recommended plan would be excessively convoluted and complicated, and allowed for private schools to circumvent the intent of the rule. Many experts, including former committee members, believe this "rigged" plan was intentionally doomed to failure.
After implementation of the 2010 competitive equity plan was judged a "bust" by many members, as many private schools actually accelerated dominance, efforts began anew in 2017 for competitive equity in the OSSAA. Since the beginning of 2018, dozens if not hundreds of member school signatures were gathered for proposing three separate competitive equity plans to the OSSAA for consideration. All three plans were modeled after plans in other states that were successful in establishing competitive equity for all member schools. All three competitive equity classification plans were rejected by the OSSAA.
Unbeknownst to many member schools (I know I was kept in the dark), the OSSAA appointed yet another committee in 2019 - to study the issue further and provide a recommendation for implementation to the OSSAA. The committee met for the fourth and final time on Wednesday, June 12, and will provide a recommendation to the OSSAA on August 7, 2019.
The 2019 Public Equity Committee members who will make the recommendation are from:
1) Pauls Valley; 2) Bishop McGuinness; 3) Adair (Chair); 4) Bishop Kelley; 5) Amber-Pocasset;
6) Mt. St. Mary; 7) Duncan; 8) Metro-Christian Academy
Fifty percent of the committee is made up of public schools and fifty percent is private. It looks fair and unbiased... right? Bear in mind that none of the public school committee members were on the 2009 committee, but all four of the private school members were. A closer look at the four privates which will influence the final recommendation for competitive equity reveals that Bishop Kelly High School, with 99 state titles during its existence, has a higher winning percentage than any public school in the state. Its nearest public school competitor has about 70 state titles. It is very likely that any plan which reduces the rate of state championships for BK will be vetoed. Bishop McGuinness High School showed up for the last committee recommendation in 2010 with its "dream team" of attorneys, and threatened to sue the OSSAA if a plan was drafted which established competitive equity, and reduced its state title acquisitions. (It currently has 87 state titles, second only to BK). Fortunately for the OSSAA, it forwarded a plan which did nothing to restore competitive equity. Mt St. Mary was involved in the volleyball debacle of 2017, in which one private school was bumped up not one, but two classifications - to Mt. Saint Mary's classification, and promply beat them for the state title. It occurred because of the convoluted and complicated do-nothing Rule 14. If not for Rule 14, Mt.Saint Mary would have been a state champion. Metro-Christian High School just dropped two classification levels (from 4A to 2A) for OSSAA competition. Many people believe that Metro-Christian intentionally did this in order to be more like BK and BM.
There you have it. It is understandable for sports fans to believe that the four private school members of the committee will be more influential in the final recommendation than the four publics. Only time will tell, since a final recommendation will be made on August 7 at the OSSAA building.
July 19, 2019 Update: Mike Brown of the Tulsa World wrote an article for the June 19 high school sports edition concerning the August 7 OSSAA meeting and the new "competitive equity" plan to be recommended. In the article, Mr. Brown quotes Brad Rogers, Adair athletic director and committee chair, as saying "Probably the most important things we took from our 'double top-secret' (my quote) meetings is that it seems to be leveling the field in some sports..." and "Football and baseball, two of the sports with the most participation statewide, have seen little perceived dominance by private schools...". Brown also quotes Bishop Kelly athletic director and committee member Lance Parks - "I would say the meetings were significantly fruitful,"... and "The data shed some light on where the rule has been effective in the past...".
So there you have it - Rule 14 will be slightly tweaked for some sports, but not for some major sports such as football, baseball, and basketball. It seems the committee has missed the point of its mission. The committee should not have just considered public and private schools success rates, but the success rates for all schools, public and private, which offer scholarships and select students. I will also provide scientific analyses of data which refutes the committee evidence that football and basketball have not seen domination by private and public schools which offer scholarships. The analysis for football can be read here.
July 25, 2019 Update: As noted above, the competitive equity committee chair believes football has seen little perceived dominance by private schools, insinuating no change is in store for the sport of football. Mike Brown of the Tulsa World quoted Bishop Kelly athletic director as saying "The data shed some light on where the rule has been effective in the past...". The BK AD implies that Rule 14 has been effective for football and baseball, so needs no "tweaking". It is unclear what data Lance Parks has analyzed to reach this conclusion, and we won't know until August 7 at the next regular meeting of the OSSAA directors.
A simple preliminary analysis of data for competitive equity in Oklahoma high school football
There are 322 member schools which participate in football. Approximately 23 (7.1%) of those private and public schools provide student financial assistance in the form of scholarships, housing, etc... or select students for enrollment, while 299 (92.9%) member schools do not. The OSSAA has decried that "prolonged success is defined as being among the final eight teams in postseason play." In 2011, one year before the implementation of Rule 14 - Six (6) member schools which provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight in all classes, which represented 10.7%. Fifty (50) member schools which do not provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight for football, or 89.3%.
In 2018, after six years of Rule 14 - Eleven (11) or 19.6% of members which provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight in postseason play for football, and forty-five (45) or 80.4% of members which do not provide scholarships were among the final eight.
An analysis of the above data indicates that Rule 14 has not been effective for leveling the playing field in OSSAA football.
July 26, 2019 Update: On September 13, 2018, a Senate Interim Study was held at the state capitol which addressed competitive equity in the OSSAA. Those in attendance know that some speakers were cut short by the Senate Chair, while others were allowed to continue ad nauseam. A hint of an effective plan for competitive equity was provided, however, in the line of questioning from two senators. The answers were provided by Assistant Executive Director Mike Whaley. The conversation went something like this -
Senator Ron Sharp: Mr. Whaley, are there other activities associations other than the OSSAA which private schools may participate in?
Mike Whaley: Yes
Senator Ron Sharp: Is there any other activities association that public schools may participate, other than the OSSAA?
Mike Whaley: No
Senator Gary Stanislawski: Is there something else that public schools may do 'to solve this problem'?
Mike Whaley: Yes
Senator Stanislawski asked Mike Whaley if action may be taken by "public schools" (not the OSSAA) which may resolve the competitive equity issue. Mike Whaley answered yes, indicating that public schools can do something. The answer to the inevitable next question: What can public schools do to resolve the competitive equity problem? is indicated in the questions from Senator Sharp and Mike Whaley's answers above...
July 28, 2019 Update: Since baseball was mentioned as a sport which Rule 14 has been effective for establishing competitive equity for membership, a preliminary analysis can be read here.
After implementation of the 2010 competitive equity plan was judged a "bust" by many members, as many private schools actually accelerated dominance, efforts began anew in 2017 for competitive equity in the OSSAA. Since the beginning of 2018, dozens if not hundreds of member school signatures were gathered for proposing three separate competitive equity plans to the OSSAA for consideration. All three plans were modeled after plans in other states that were successful in establishing competitive equity for all member schools. All three competitive equity classification plans were rejected by the OSSAA.
Unbeknownst to many member schools (I know I was kept in the dark), the OSSAA appointed yet another committee in 2019 - to study the issue further and provide a recommendation for implementation to the OSSAA. The committee met for the fourth and final time on Wednesday, June 12, and will provide a recommendation to the OSSAA on August 7, 2019.
The 2019 Public Equity Committee members who will make the recommendation are from:
1) Pauls Valley; 2) Bishop McGuinness; 3) Adair (Chair); 4) Bishop Kelley; 5) Amber-Pocasset;
6) Mt. St. Mary; 7) Duncan; 8) Metro-Christian Academy
Fifty percent of the committee is made up of public schools and fifty percent is private. It looks fair and unbiased... right? Bear in mind that none of the public school committee members were on the 2009 committee, but all four of the private school members were. A closer look at the four privates which will influence the final recommendation for competitive equity reveals that Bishop Kelly High School, with 99 state titles during its existence, has a higher winning percentage than any public school in the state. Its nearest public school competitor has about 70 state titles. It is very likely that any plan which reduces the rate of state championships for BK will be vetoed. Bishop McGuinness High School showed up for the last committee recommendation in 2010 with its "dream team" of attorneys, and threatened to sue the OSSAA if a plan was drafted which established competitive equity, and reduced its state title acquisitions. (It currently has 87 state titles, second only to BK). Fortunately for the OSSAA, it forwarded a plan which did nothing to restore competitive equity. Mt St. Mary was involved in the volleyball debacle of 2017, in which one private school was bumped up not one, but two classifications - to Mt. Saint Mary's classification, and promply beat them for the state title. It occurred because of the convoluted and complicated do-nothing Rule 14. If not for Rule 14, Mt.Saint Mary would have been a state champion. Metro-Christian High School just dropped two classification levels (from 4A to 2A) for OSSAA competition. Many people believe that Metro-Christian intentionally did this in order to be more like BK and BM.
There you have it. It is understandable for sports fans to believe that the four private school members of the committee will be more influential in the final recommendation than the four publics. Only time will tell, since a final recommendation will be made on August 7 at the OSSAA building.
July 19, 2019 Update: Mike Brown of the Tulsa World wrote an article for the June 19 high school sports edition concerning the August 7 OSSAA meeting and the new "competitive equity" plan to be recommended. In the article, Mr. Brown quotes Brad Rogers, Adair athletic director and committee chair, as saying "Probably the most important things we took from our 'double top-secret' (my quote) meetings is that it seems to be leveling the field in some sports..." and "Football and baseball, two of the sports with the most participation statewide, have seen little perceived dominance by private schools...". Brown also quotes Bishop Kelly athletic director and committee member Lance Parks - "I would say the meetings were significantly fruitful,"... and "The data shed some light on where the rule has been effective in the past...".
So there you have it - Rule 14 will be slightly tweaked for some sports, but not for some major sports such as football, baseball, and basketball. It seems the committee has missed the point of its mission. The committee should not have just considered public and private schools success rates, but the success rates for all schools, public and private, which offer scholarships and select students. I will also provide scientific analyses of data which refutes the committee evidence that football and basketball have not seen domination by private and public schools which offer scholarships. The analysis for football can be read here.
July 25, 2019 Update: As noted above, the competitive equity committee chair believes football has seen little perceived dominance by private schools, insinuating no change is in store for the sport of football. Mike Brown of the Tulsa World quoted Bishop Kelly athletic director as saying "The data shed some light on where the rule has been effective in the past...". The BK AD implies that Rule 14 has been effective for football and baseball, so needs no "tweaking". It is unclear what data Lance Parks has analyzed to reach this conclusion, and we won't know until August 7 at the next regular meeting of the OSSAA directors.
A simple preliminary analysis of data for competitive equity in Oklahoma high school football
There are 322 member schools which participate in football. Approximately 23 (7.1%) of those private and public schools provide student financial assistance in the form of scholarships, housing, etc... or select students for enrollment, while 299 (92.9%) member schools do not. The OSSAA has decried that "prolonged success is defined as being among the final eight teams in postseason play." In 2011, one year before the implementation of Rule 14 - Six (6) member schools which provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight in all classes, which represented 10.7%. Fifty (50) member schools which do not provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight for football, or 89.3%.
In 2018, after six years of Rule 14 - Eleven (11) or 19.6% of members which provide scholarships or select students were among the final eight in postseason play for football, and forty-five (45) or 80.4% of members which do not provide scholarships were among the final eight.
An analysis of the above data indicates that Rule 14 has not been effective for leveling the playing field in OSSAA football.
July 26, 2019 Update: On September 13, 2018, a Senate Interim Study was held at the state capitol which addressed competitive equity in the OSSAA. Those in attendance know that some speakers were cut short by the Senate Chair, while others were allowed to continue ad nauseam. A hint of an effective plan for competitive equity was provided, however, in the line of questioning from two senators. The answers were provided by Assistant Executive Director Mike Whaley. The conversation went something like this -
Senator Ron Sharp: Mr. Whaley, are there other activities associations other than the OSSAA which private schools may participate in?
Mike Whaley: Yes
Senator Ron Sharp: Is there any other activities association that public schools may participate, other than the OSSAA?
Mike Whaley: No
Senator Gary Stanislawski: Is there something else that public schools may do 'to solve this problem'?
Mike Whaley: Yes
Senator Stanislawski asked Mike Whaley if action may be taken by "public schools" (not the OSSAA) which may resolve the competitive equity issue. Mike Whaley answered yes, indicating that public schools can do something. The answer to the inevitable next question: What can public schools do to resolve the competitive equity problem? is indicated in the questions from Senator Sharp and Mike Whaley's answers above...
July 28, 2019 Update: Since baseball was mentioned as a sport which Rule 14 has been effective for establishing competitive equity for membership, a preliminary analysis can be read here.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
How to Break Public Schools and Teachers
A first year teacher in Oklahoma may now earn about $36,000 in annual salary, still not enough to pay the bills but enough to eat most days. Each year of service that passes, the teacher receives about $400 more. If the teacher received $36,600 during her first year, she will receive about $37,000 during the second year. After 25 years of service, the teacher may receive $50,444 in annual salary, and decide to retire. After all, the teacher paid into the Oklahoma Teacher Retirement System (OTRS) for 25 years, and needs a well-deserved rest. Any teacher's retirement pension is calculated on an average of the three highest years in salary. For instance, the teacher who puts in 25 years before retiring may have earned $48,777, $48,995, and $50,444 during their last 3 years of employment. The average ($49,405) is the figure used to calculate the teacher's retirement benefit. It is generally a percentage of that figure. Most teachers pay far more into the OTRS than they get back in benefits.Those that retire after 30 or 40 years service pay more into the OTRS than they will ever recoup in benefits. They usually expire before getting their investment back.
After 5 years of employment as a teacher, one becomes vested and may retire with full benefits. In the above example, the teacher earned $37,469, $37,904, and $38,338 to average $37,904 for calculation purposes. It's not much retirement, but the teacher only paid into OTRS for five years.
Anyone see the OETA program on June 12 about how Kentucky legislators almost broke the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System? It seems that Kentucky lawmakers borrowed from the KTRS in order to balance its state budget. They borrowed money that teachers had paid into the system for retirement purposes (highly unethical if not illegal).
Now comes the hard pill for Oklahoma teachers to swallow: Everyone has seen the recruiting brochures which tout EPIC teachers receive anywhere from $60,000 to more than $100,000 in annual salary. EPIC employees may belong to the OTRS, so upon retirement - their benefit package is calculated using the average of last three years employment. That figure could be up to $100,000, but most if not all traditional public school employees have paid into OTRS for more than 30 to 40 years before reaching that average. A factual scenario is that a first-year teacher is hired by EPIC at $100,000, works for the next 5 years and becomes vested, retires at the age of 27, and goes back to work for a traditional public school at a salary of $40,000. The teacher is now drawing retirement from funds never paid into OTRS! This factual scenario may break the OTRS within 5 years! (The time required to become vested.) Thank you, EPIC..
...and consider this fun fact: One or two EPIC employees earn well over $1 million... It is not known if they too belong to OTRS, but will nonetheless help break the system.
After 5 years of employment as a teacher, one becomes vested and may retire with full benefits. In the above example, the teacher earned $37,469, $37,904, and $38,338 to average $37,904 for calculation purposes. It's not much retirement, but the teacher only paid into OTRS for five years.
Anyone see the OETA program on June 12 about how Kentucky legislators almost broke the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System? It seems that Kentucky lawmakers borrowed from the KTRS in order to balance its state budget. They borrowed money that teachers had paid into the system for retirement purposes (highly unethical if not illegal).
Now comes the hard pill for Oklahoma teachers to swallow: Everyone has seen the recruiting brochures which tout EPIC teachers receive anywhere from $60,000 to more than $100,000 in annual salary. EPIC employees may belong to the OTRS, so upon retirement - their benefit package is calculated using the average of last three years employment. That figure could be up to $100,000, but most if not all traditional public school employees have paid into OTRS for more than 30 to 40 years before reaching that average. A factual scenario is that a first-year teacher is hired by EPIC at $100,000, works for the next 5 years and becomes vested, retires at the age of 27, and goes back to work for a traditional public school at a salary of $40,000. The teacher is now drawing retirement from funds never paid into OTRS! This factual scenario may break the OTRS within 5 years! (The time required to become vested.) Thank you, EPIC..
...and consider this fun fact: One or two EPIC employees earn well over $1 million... It is not known if they too belong to OTRS, but will nonetheless help break the system.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
More unanswered EPIC questions
At the risk of receiving another shuffle or sidestep, I'll pose one more question for any EPIC official:
Monday, June 3, 2019
Dear Assistant Superintendent Hickman:
Shelly Hickman, M.Ed., Assistant Superintendent for EPIC Charter Schools - felt compelled to criticize my objections to EPIC Charter Schools' blatant recruiting of local students and teachers. Hickman is listed as EPIC's "Managing Director of External Affairs" and serves as the chief media spokesperson. She is responsible for strategic communications (for recruiting purposes), marketing (for recruiting purposes), and community relations (for recruiting purposes), and yes - recruiting teachers and students. In her "Letter" to local newspapers, Assistant Superintendent Hickman begins "... Jim Beckham blatantly accused Epic Charter Schools of trying to recruit students...", and "We were shocked...", thereby.. strategically communicating that EPIC does not recruit students, and was surprised that anyone could think so.
Since Ms. Hickman seems to be a regular reader of local newspapers and my public school support blog, I have a few questions. These questions were first posed to Shelly in December of 2018, and she promised a response was forthcoming, but only crickets have been heard since. Since I don't have a bachelor's degree in mass communications or a master's degree in education, as does Shelly Hickman (I have an H.D., Hayseed Doctorate), please strategically communicate your answers at my level, as I'm a farmer/rancher:
1) The OSBI is currently investigating you (EPIC) for enrolling students already attending private schools across Oklahoma. You are reportedly accepting state aid for students not attending EPIC, which may constitute "defrauding" the state of tax dollars. Please explain?
2) Article 10, section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution states "... 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 "... all textbooks shall be owned by such (school) districts..." How has EPIC circumvented the Oklahoma Constitution and State Law in gifting more than 6,000 laptop computers and more than $3,000,000 to individuals?
3) You (EPIC) have reported class sizes of 25-30 students, but five (5) EPIC high school teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each in U.S. History (2,239 students), Chemistry I and Biology I (2039 students), Geometry and Algebra II (2,098 students), English I,II,III, and IV (2,746 students), and Algebra I (2,948 students). Please explain?
4) State Law prohibits a public school of EPIC proportions to exceed 5% in administrative costs. According to 2017 Oklahoma Cost Accounting System reports, EPIC has 3.28% in administrative costs; however, the August 2017 auditor's report reflects that EPIC expended an additional 10% for a total 13.28% in administrative costs. How do you reconcile, Shelly?
5) The 2017 graduation rate report from the Oklahoma State Department of Education lists EPIC with a 35.7% student graduation rate, while Oklahoma traditional public schools average 86%. Is this rate part of the "world-class learning opportunities" that you market?
I have several more questions to ask, but I now have to go feed the cows, literally. I'm counting on you to strategically communicate and market some answers to the five questions above, however, and I'll have a few more next week. I'm betting we'll only hear crickets, once again...
Since Ms. Hickman seems to be a regular reader of local newspapers and my public school support blog, I have a few questions. These questions were first posed to Shelly in December of 2018, and she promised a response was forthcoming, but only crickets have been heard since. Since I don't have a bachelor's degree in mass communications or a master's degree in education, as does Shelly Hickman (I have an H.D., Hayseed Doctorate), please strategically communicate your answers at my level, as I'm a farmer/rancher:
1) The OSBI is currently investigating you (EPIC) for enrolling students already attending private schools across Oklahoma. You are reportedly accepting state aid for students not attending EPIC, which may constitute "defrauding" the state of tax dollars. Please explain?
2) Article 10, section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution states "... 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 "... all textbooks shall be owned by such (school) districts..." How has EPIC circumvented the Oklahoma Constitution and State Law in gifting more than 6,000 laptop computers and more than $3,000,000 to individuals?
3) You (EPIC) have reported class sizes of 25-30 students, but five (5) EPIC high school teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each in U.S. History (2,239 students), Chemistry I and Biology I (2039 students), Geometry and Algebra II (2,098 students), English I,II,III, and IV (2,746 students), and Algebra I (2,948 students). Please explain?
4) State Law prohibits a public school of EPIC proportions to exceed 5% in administrative costs. According to 2017 Oklahoma Cost Accounting System reports, EPIC has 3.28% in administrative costs; however, the August 2017 auditor's report reflects that EPIC expended an additional 10% for a total 13.28% in administrative costs. How do you reconcile, Shelly?
5) The 2017 graduation rate report from the Oklahoma State Department of Education lists EPIC with a 35.7% student graduation rate, while Oklahoma traditional public schools average 86%. Is this rate part of the "world-class learning opportunities" that you market?
I have several more questions to ask, but I now have to go feed the cows, literally. I'm counting on you to strategically communicate and market some answers to the five questions above, however, and I'll have a few more next week. I'm betting we'll only hear crickets, once again...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)