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...
Monday, October 22, 2018
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?
Friday, October 5, 2018
State Question 800 and 801
Two state questions which may profoundly affect schools and potentially increase taxes for Oklahomans are State Question 800 and State Question 801. Voters will decide these questions on November 6, 2018. Both questions sound really benign and are touted as the answers for funding public schools and balancing the state budget, but are really not designed to do either.
The Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) states that "State Question 800 is a proposed state Constitutional amendment to create a new state budget reserve fund to collect an increasing percentage of collections from the gross production tax (GPT) on oil and gas. This off-the-top set-aside to the new Oklahoma Vision Fund would begin on July 1, 2020..." Eventually, 100% of GPT collections will be deposited in the fund and after July 1,2020, 4 percent of the fund's principal will be deposited each year into the state's General Revenue Fund. The OSSBA reports that schools now receive about 10% of all gross production revenue in dedicated funding outside of the appropriations process. "The annual diversion of GPT collections would erode the level of dedicated funding and take millions of dollars in potential funding for schools off the table every year... and will eventually eliminate GPT as a dedicated revenue source for schools."
One scenario which may occur if SQ 800 is approved: If GPT is eliminated as a dedicated revenue source for schools, the legislature will have no choice but to provide more appropriated revenue to schools.. in order to make up the loss. In order to provide more appropriated revenue to schools - taxes on working Oklahomans will likely increase. This is not good. Another scenario is that the once dedicated GPT may be sent to schools through the appropriations process, where all public schools will receive an equitable appropriation, but will still be much less than their original dedicated amount. This scenario is not good either, but is more likely, since charter schools are clamoring for more tax dollars. The legislature is likely to increase taxes in either scenario. If one considers himself/herself a "low tax" conservative, they should vote "NO" on SQ 800.
State Question 801 will allow public schools to utilize Building Fund monies for operational expenses, like teacher salaries. Currently, schools receive local ad valorem (property tax) monies to maintain school buildings. The funding cannot be used for teacher salaries, etc... Those lawmakers supporting SQ 801 believe that schools should have the flexibility to use building funds for operational expenses. The only problem with this scenario is that schools receive unequal amounts of building fund monies, because it is based on the property value in each district. For instance, one school with 1,000 students and 35 teachers may receive $50,000 per year in building funds, but another school with the same number of students and teachers may receive $1 million. The first school spends its entire $50,000 for building maintenance and upkeep, while the second school spends $50,000 on building maintenance, but has $950,000 to pay its 35 teachers more money - which results in a $27,000 raise for teachers. The previous example is exaggerated to provide the context of unequal treatment, but still exists.
Many conservatives believe that the approval of SQ 801 will eventually lead to higher property taxes for home and land owners and here's how: If SQ 801 is approved by voters in November, the next thing lawmakers will likely do is to try to equalize building fund monies for schools statewide. Our state lawmakers cannot re-distribute local property taxes for schools without controlling all local property tax statewide. Stay with me now... If the representatives and senators can acquire control over local ad valorem revenue, under the guise of equalizing now operational dollars, they may effectively increase this taxation, in order to provide for the schools which do not receive as much as others. Many conservatives will vote "No" on SQ 801, for this reason alone - it is a veiled attempt to increase your taxes...
Update: October 17, 2018 - The Daily Oklahoman claims support for State Question 801 in Measure would provide school districts flexibility in the Tuesday edition of the editorial page. The opinion of the editorial team is that property rich school districts should be allowed to use "Building Fund" money for operational expenses, including teacher salaries, because it will lead to better school management.
Presently, schools receive 5 mils of property tax for school building maintenance and repairs. Many schools save their building revenue for other purposes, such as a new roof or other small building improvements. As noted previously, not all schools are equal in receiving building revenue and many schools already use excess building revenue for custodial and maintenance employee salaries. Spending Building Fund revenue for custodial and maintenance salaries helps take the pressure off a school's General Fund, with which teacher salaries are paid - so many schools already use building funds for allowable salaries.
We predict two things will happen as a result of SQ 801 passage. First, look for legislation which will equalize Building Fund revenue statewide - so all public schools will be equalized in the acquisition of operational dollars. The only way lawmakers can provide equity for building fund revenue is to control local property taxation, and then re-distribute to all schools based on the number of students. This scenario will be good for some schools (especially the virtual charter schools which now receive no building fund revenue) and bad for others (the small schools which now receive no state funding). The state will now be responsible for funding those schools which presently are only locally funded, so lawmakers are likely to increase state taxes in order to properly fund them.
The second thing that will likely happen is that schools may be allowed to vote additional property tax millage (from 5 mils to 10 mils for Building Fund revenue), and property taxes will increase, thereby absolving the legislative responsibility for appropriately funding our public schools.
The Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) states that "State Question 800 is a proposed state Constitutional amendment to create a new state budget reserve fund to collect an increasing percentage of collections from the gross production tax (GPT) on oil and gas. This off-the-top set-aside to the new Oklahoma Vision Fund would begin on July 1, 2020..." Eventually, 100% of GPT collections will be deposited in the fund and after July 1,2020, 4 percent of the fund's principal will be deposited each year into the state's General Revenue Fund. The OSSBA reports that schools now receive about 10% of all gross production revenue in dedicated funding outside of the appropriations process. "The annual diversion of GPT collections would erode the level of dedicated funding and take millions of dollars in potential funding for schools off the table every year... and will eventually eliminate GPT as a dedicated revenue source for schools."
One scenario which may occur if SQ 800 is approved: If GPT is eliminated as a dedicated revenue source for schools, the legislature will have no choice but to provide more appropriated revenue to schools.. in order to make up the loss. In order to provide more appropriated revenue to schools - taxes on working Oklahomans will likely increase. This is not good. Another scenario is that the once dedicated GPT may be sent to schools through the appropriations process, where all public schools will receive an equitable appropriation, but will still be much less than their original dedicated amount. This scenario is not good either, but is more likely, since charter schools are clamoring for more tax dollars. The legislature is likely to increase taxes in either scenario. If one considers himself/herself a "low tax" conservative, they should vote "NO" on SQ 800.
State Question 801 will allow public schools to utilize Building Fund monies for operational expenses, like teacher salaries. Currently, schools receive local ad valorem (property tax) monies to maintain school buildings. The funding cannot be used for teacher salaries, etc... Those lawmakers supporting SQ 801 believe that schools should have the flexibility to use building funds for operational expenses. The only problem with this scenario is that schools receive unequal amounts of building fund monies, because it is based on the property value in each district. For instance, one school with 1,000 students and 35 teachers may receive $50,000 per year in building funds, but another school with the same number of students and teachers may receive $1 million. The first school spends its entire $50,000 for building maintenance and upkeep, while the second school spends $50,000 on building maintenance, but has $950,000 to pay its 35 teachers more money - which results in a $27,000 raise for teachers. The previous example is exaggerated to provide the context of unequal treatment, but still exists.
Many conservatives believe that the approval of SQ 801 will eventually lead to higher property taxes for home and land owners and here's how: If SQ 801 is approved by voters in November, the next thing lawmakers will likely do is to try to equalize building fund monies for schools statewide. Our state lawmakers cannot re-distribute local property taxes for schools without controlling all local property tax statewide. Stay with me now... If the representatives and senators can acquire control over local ad valorem revenue, under the guise of equalizing now operational dollars, they may effectively increase this taxation, in order to provide for the schools which do not receive as much as others. Many conservatives will vote "No" on SQ 801, for this reason alone - it is a veiled attempt to increase your taxes...
Update: October 17, 2018 - The Daily Oklahoman claims support for State Question 801 in Measure would provide school districts flexibility in the Tuesday edition of the editorial page. The opinion of the editorial team is that property rich school districts should be allowed to use "Building Fund" money for operational expenses, including teacher salaries, because it will lead to better school management.
Presently, schools receive 5 mils of property tax for school building maintenance and repairs. Many schools save their building revenue for other purposes, such as a new roof or other small building improvements. As noted previously, not all schools are equal in receiving building revenue and many schools already use excess building revenue for custodial and maintenance employee salaries. Spending Building Fund revenue for custodial and maintenance salaries helps take the pressure off a school's General Fund, with which teacher salaries are paid - so many schools already use building funds for allowable salaries.
We predict two things will happen as a result of SQ 801 passage. First, look for legislation which will equalize Building Fund revenue statewide - so all public schools will be equalized in the acquisition of operational dollars. The only way lawmakers can provide equity for building fund revenue is to control local property taxation, and then re-distribute to all schools based on the number of students. This scenario will be good for some schools (especially the virtual charter schools which now receive no building fund revenue) and bad for others (the small schools which now receive no state funding). The state will now be responsible for funding those schools which presently are only locally funded, so lawmakers are likely to increase state taxes in order to properly fund them.
The second thing that will likely happen is that schools may be allowed to vote additional property tax millage (from 5 mils to 10 mils for Building Fund revenue), and property taxes will increase, thereby absolving the legislative responsibility for appropriately funding our public schools.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Joe Whitaker
During our time on this earth, many sad things happen for us personally. So it is, as I write this article about Joe Whitaker - a personal friend who died unexpectedly last Tuesday, September 25, 2018. I met Joe only a couple years ago down at our ranch, south of Lindsay. Joe drove up from Randlett, OK, on a Saturday - to visit his friend, Jack Cesar. Jack is my brother-in-law and helps us out on the ranch. Joe is a mechanic by trade, and usually has Saturday and Sundays off. On this particular Saturday, we were working as usual, so Joe jumped in and worked right alongside Jack and me. Most people understand that farm and ranch work is never easy, and usually quite taxing on the body, when one works the usual 12 to 14 hour day. At the end of that day, I offered Joe a $20 bill (not much about $1.60/hr.) for his help. Joe said "No, I didn't come down here to work, but only to visit my friend Jack.. and I've met you too - which made it worth the trip."
I saw Joe a few more times, always on Saturday or Sunday, and he always fell in with whatever we were doing on that particular day. A couple weeks ago, Joe came down for the last time to visit Jack. He wanted to show Jack his "new car" - an eighties model Chrysler, not worth more than $500. Jack and Joe decided to go grab a bite to eat close to Elmore City, so left the house at around 7 PM. They were laughing and talking as Jack drove east down Highway 29. You know the stretch of highway - no shoulder on either side and drop-off of at least 6 inches on both sides. The little Pontiac G-6 right front tire lost air, which caused the car to only slightly veer across the white line to the right. Since there existed an immediate drop of between 4 to 6 inches just outside the white, the right front of the car was guided toward a drop of about 8 feet - which was only 6 more inches to the outside. The car left the roadway and struck a tree further down the embankment. Jack suffered injuries, but survived the accident. Joe was airlifted to O.U Medical Center that night, but passed away on Tuesday afternoon at approximately 1:10 PM. Jack's heart is still broken.. Sherrie's heart is still broken.. and my heart is still broken.. but we know that Joe is now in a much better place. Please rest now Joe, you deserve it...
I saw Joe a few more times, always on Saturday or Sunday, and he always fell in with whatever we were doing on that particular day. A couple weeks ago, Joe came down for the last time to visit Jack. He wanted to show Jack his "new car" - an eighties model Chrysler, not worth more than $500. Jack and Joe decided to go grab a bite to eat close to Elmore City, so left the house at around 7 PM. They were laughing and talking as Jack drove east down Highway 29. You know the stretch of highway - no shoulder on either side and drop-off of at least 6 inches on both sides. The little Pontiac G-6 right front tire lost air, which caused the car to only slightly veer across the white line to the right. Since there existed an immediate drop of between 4 to 6 inches just outside the white, the right front of the car was guided toward a drop of about 8 feet - which was only 6 more inches to the outside. The car left the roadway and struck a tree further down the embankment. Jack suffered injuries, but survived the accident. Joe was airlifted to O.U Medical Center that night, but passed away on Tuesday afternoon at approximately 1:10 PM. Jack's heart is still broken.. Sherrie's heart is still broken.. and my heart is still broken.. but we know that Joe is now in a much better place. Please rest now Joe, you deserve it...
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Virtual Charter and Traditional Public School
The table below compares the annual expenditures of a typical virtual charter school with the annual expenditures of a typical traditional public school, coded to the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System (OCAS). Dr. Trice Butler of Wilburton Public Schools, Doug Brown of Idabel Public Schools, and Scott Farmer of Fort Gibson Public Schools presented this evidence along with much more - that virtual charter schools are miss-spending our Oklahoma tax dollars. The table provides a percentage of total spent in each category for each school:
Virtual Charter School Traditional Public
Instruction 62.7% 58%
Student Support Services 15.0% 6%
Staff Support Services 2.0 % 3%
General Administration 17.0% 4%
School Administration 3.0% 5%
Building Operations .3% 16%
Student Transportation 0% 2%
Child Nutrition 0% 6%
Total 100% 100%
As one may readily observe, the spending category percentages for the virtual charter school is drastically different (in some cases) from the traditional public school. The largest percentage spent for both schools is relatively equal for Instruction, which includes teacher salaries as the predominant expenditure. The virtual charter actually spent 4.7% more of its total expenditures on teacher salaries than the traditional school did. The virtual charter passes the 60% test for Instruction, while the traditional school fails by 2 percentage points.
Student Support Services includes Guidance Services (school counselors), Medical Services (school nurses and medical equipment/supplies), Occupational Therapy, Psychological Services, Speech Pathology Services, and Audiology Services. The traditional public school spent far less than the virtual charter for Student Support Services, but a more detailed observation reveals a more interesting difference - The virtual charter spent 99.5% of its total in only two subcategories: Attendance Services and Guidance Services. Since the virtual charter probably has no employees who are only charged with guidance counseling or student attendance, the nearly $1 million spent for Student Support Services went into teacher salaries. The traditional public school costs for Student Support Services were evenly divided between all the aforementioned subcategories, and were "stand-alone" services. In other words, a teacher was not also the school nurse or the guidance counselor. Traditional public schools must adhere to restrictions of assignments (certifications), which virtual charters are relieved of. This fact alone partially explains why virtual charter teachers can earn a higher salary than traditional public school teachers.
Staff Support Services includes Instruction and Curriculum Development Services, Instructional Staff Training Services, Library/Media Services, and Instruction-Related Technology. The percentage spent for the virtual and the traditional was almost the same (2% and 3%), with Library/Media being the major beneficiary. Since traditional public schools must have certified librarians, the largest cost went to the salary of the school librarians. The virtual charter probably has no librarians, so the bulk of its Staff Support Service expenditures went into teacher salaries and other virtual media costs.
General Administration Services includes Board Clerk/Deputy Clerk/ Minute Clerk Services, Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, Tax Assessment and Collection Services, Communication Services, and Personnel Services. There is a stark difference in the percentage spent by the virtual charter (17%) and the traditional public school (4%). The virtual charter spent $1,113,130 in General Administration, while the traditional public spent $522,296. The bulk of the virtual charter expenditures went to the Business Office - $672,414.72. After Instruction, this spending category is the virtual charter's largest cost.
School Administration Services includes principal services, site personnel services (secretaries, etc...), printing services, and all other principal office's associated costs. The virtual charter (1,100 students) spent $300,400 in this category, while the traditional public school with 2000 students spent $633,326.
Building Operations and Maintenance includes repairs and maintenance for school facilities, new building construction, and may include custodial and maintenance employee salaries. After Instruction, this is the traditional public school's largest cost. The virtual charter has very little costs associated with building operations and maintenance because it has few buildings (maybe none).
Student transportation makes up very little of the traditional public school expenditures as a percentage (2%), but still accounts for $505,307 in costs. The virtual charter spent nothing in transporting students, because it doesn't transport students to school.
Child Nutrition includes Food and Milk Purchases and Food Preparation and Dispensing Services. The traditional public spent $842,865.64 or 6% in this category, while the virtual charter spent nothing.
Analysis of Data
As we analyze the percentages spent for the OCAS categories of virtual charters as compared to traditional public schools, it is important to keep the corporate reformers' goal for our public schools in mind: All public schools, both charter and traditional public schools should spend at least 60% of total expenditures in the classroom (Instruction). This goal has been touted by Governor Fallin, former gubernatorial candidate Todd Lamb, and specific profitable non-profit groups - as the way to provide teacher pay raises and streamline public education. As one may observe from the data above, the virtual charter school passes the 60% rule, as it provides 62.7% of total expenditures to Instruction. The traditional public school fails by 2 percentage points, by spending only 58% in the classroom. Many lawmakers believe the virtual charter requires no more examination, since it passed the Fallin and Lamb 60% Rule. The question then becomes "How may the traditional public school spend more of its funds in Instruction?" Common sense dictates that the school should look to the other categorical expenditures, and transfer costs from those to Instruction. Those "60% Rule" advocates believe that if other categorical costs could only be transferred to Instruction - public education outcomes would improve. Graduation rates would increase and student test scores would rise. Most traditional public schools have graduation rates of between 80% and 95% and "school letter grades of A's and B's, but these may be improved upon if the "60% Rule" is followed.
The second largest category for expenditures is "Building Operations and Maintenance" at 16%. If the traditional public school could only transfer 2 percentage points from "Building" costs to Instruction, the "classroom" would now have 60% and Building costs would be reduced to 14%. Problem solved.
A much better way of solving the 60% Crisis may have already occurred. The legislature increased taxes for the working poor (cigarette and fuel) and provided a much needed teacher pay raise, which is now in effect. The "teacher pay raises" are coded directly to Instruction, so many traditional public schools will now pass the Fallin/Lamb test. Look for many traditional public schools to spend more than 60% of total costs "in the classroom".
Although the virtual charter school passed the Fallin/Lamb 60% Rule with flying colors, a cost/benefit analysis will now be provided for it. Since the focus of many Oklahoma citizens is most often trained on administrative costs for our public schools, our analysis is limited to General administrative costs for virtual charters in comparison and contrast to traditional public schools. The virtual charter school in our analysis is composed of approximately 1,100 enrolled students, while the traditional public school has approximately 2,000 students. Of the over $1 million spent by the virtual for General Administration, $624,324 was spent for Official/Administrative Services by the virtual charter. It is uncertain which Business Officials received over a half-million tax-payer dollars, but one may be the Virtual Charter "Director of Government Relations" who was present at the capitol on Tuesday when this cost-benefit analysis was presented. The question now must be asked, "What are some of the benefits provided to Oklahoma tax-payers by virtual charters, for this spending?" The benefits to tax-paying citizens would be a good public education for all citizens. A well-educated public benefits everyone, not just students. One test of the cost-benefit relationship is the student graduation rate as a percentage of cohort attendance. In other words, of the students entering 9th grade, what percentage graduate within four years? Traditional public schools usually graduate between 85% and 99% of students who enter 9th grade at any particular traditional public. The four virtual charter schools in our state had graduation rates of 15%, 22%, 28%, and 33% for the 2015-2016 school year. The high cost of the Business Office for virtual charters doesn't appear to translate into high graduation rates. In fact, the goal of the Business Office appears to be enrolling students for the cash benefit, then forgetting to educate.
The traditional public school with 2,000 students incurred Business Office expenses totaling $40,900 for the same time period the virtual charter (1,100 students) incurred $578,074 in Business Office costs. Several state senators have stated it is irrelevant how virtual charter schools spend tax-payer dollars (whether for the Business Office or for students), as long as results like the "average 25% graduation rate" are obtained. Several other state senators believe Oklahoma tax-payers should expect better results, if virtual charters are willing to spend $Thousands for a "Director of Government Relations". (The Director's job is assumed to be "lobbying for more taxpayer dollars".)
As a result of this limited cost/benefit analysis - a state senator has promised legislation which would 1) Prohibit "for profit" virtual charter schools, and 2) Provide virtual education for traditional public school students. This proposed legislation needs the support of all Oklahoma tax-payers to succeed, as "for-profit" charter schools will be working very hard to defeat it.
Virtual Charter School Traditional Public
Instruction 62.7% 58%
Student Support Services 15.0% 6%
Staff Support Services 2.0 % 3%
General Administration 17.0% 4%
School Administration 3.0% 5%
Building Operations .3% 16%
Student Transportation 0% 2%
Child Nutrition 0% 6%
Total 100% 100%
As one may readily observe, the spending category percentages for the virtual charter school is drastically different (in some cases) from the traditional public school. The largest percentage spent for both schools is relatively equal for Instruction, which includes teacher salaries as the predominant expenditure. The virtual charter actually spent 4.7% more of its total expenditures on teacher salaries than the traditional school did. The virtual charter passes the 60% test for Instruction, while the traditional school fails by 2 percentage points.
Student Support Services includes Guidance Services (school counselors), Medical Services (school nurses and medical equipment/supplies), Occupational Therapy, Psychological Services, Speech Pathology Services, and Audiology Services. The traditional public school spent far less than the virtual charter for Student Support Services, but a more detailed observation reveals a more interesting difference - The virtual charter spent 99.5% of its total in only two subcategories: Attendance Services and Guidance Services. Since the virtual charter probably has no employees who are only charged with guidance counseling or student attendance, the nearly $1 million spent for Student Support Services went into teacher salaries. The traditional public school costs for Student Support Services were evenly divided between all the aforementioned subcategories, and were "stand-alone" services. In other words, a teacher was not also the school nurse or the guidance counselor. Traditional public schools must adhere to restrictions of assignments (certifications), which virtual charters are relieved of. This fact alone partially explains why virtual charter teachers can earn a higher salary than traditional public school teachers.
Staff Support Services includes Instruction and Curriculum Development Services, Instructional Staff Training Services, Library/Media Services, and Instruction-Related Technology. The percentage spent for the virtual and the traditional was almost the same (2% and 3%), with Library/Media being the major beneficiary. Since traditional public schools must have certified librarians, the largest cost went to the salary of the school librarians. The virtual charter probably has no librarians, so the bulk of its Staff Support Service expenditures went into teacher salaries and other virtual media costs.
General Administration Services includes Board Clerk/Deputy Clerk/ Minute Clerk Services, Board Treasurer Services, Election Services, Legal Services, Audit Services, Office of the Superintendent Services, Tax Assessment and Collection Services, Communication Services, and Personnel Services. There is a stark difference in the percentage spent by the virtual charter (17%) and the traditional public school (4%). The virtual charter spent $1,113,130 in General Administration, while the traditional public spent $522,296. The bulk of the virtual charter expenditures went to the Business Office - $672,414.72. After Instruction, this spending category is the virtual charter's largest cost.
School Administration Services includes principal services, site personnel services (secretaries, etc...), printing services, and all other principal office's associated costs. The virtual charter (1,100 students) spent $300,400 in this category, while the traditional public school with 2000 students spent $633,326.
Building Operations and Maintenance includes repairs and maintenance for school facilities, new building construction, and may include custodial and maintenance employee salaries. After Instruction, this is the traditional public school's largest cost. The virtual charter has very little costs associated with building operations and maintenance because it has few buildings (maybe none).
Student transportation makes up very little of the traditional public school expenditures as a percentage (2%), but still accounts for $505,307 in costs. The virtual charter spent nothing in transporting students, because it doesn't transport students to school.
Child Nutrition includes Food and Milk Purchases and Food Preparation and Dispensing Services. The traditional public spent $842,865.64 or 6% in this category, while the virtual charter spent nothing.
Analysis of Data
As we analyze the percentages spent for the OCAS categories of virtual charters as compared to traditional public schools, it is important to keep the corporate reformers' goal for our public schools in mind: All public schools, both charter and traditional public schools should spend at least 60% of total expenditures in the classroom (Instruction). This goal has been touted by Governor Fallin, former gubernatorial candidate Todd Lamb, and specific profitable non-profit groups - as the way to provide teacher pay raises and streamline public education. As one may observe from the data above, the virtual charter school passes the 60% rule, as it provides 62.7% of total expenditures to Instruction. The traditional public school fails by 2 percentage points, by spending only 58% in the classroom. Many lawmakers believe the virtual charter requires no more examination, since it passed the Fallin and Lamb 60% Rule. The question then becomes "How may the traditional public school spend more of its funds in Instruction?" Common sense dictates that the school should look to the other categorical expenditures, and transfer costs from those to Instruction. Those "60% Rule" advocates believe that if other categorical costs could only be transferred to Instruction - public education outcomes would improve. Graduation rates would increase and student test scores would rise. Most traditional public schools have graduation rates of between 80% and 95% and "school letter grades of A's and B's, but these may be improved upon if the "60% Rule" is followed.
The second largest category for expenditures is "Building Operations and Maintenance" at 16%. If the traditional public school could only transfer 2 percentage points from "Building" costs to Instruction, the "classroom" would now have 60% and Building costs would be reduced to 14%. Problem solved.
A much better way of solving the 60% Crisis may have already occurred. The legislature increased taxes for the working poor (cigarette and fuel) and provided a much needed teacher pay raise, which is now in effect. The "teacher pay raises" are coded directly to Instruction, so many traditional public schools will now pass the Fallin/Lamb test. Look for many traditional public schools to spend more than 60% of total costs "in the classroom".
Although the virtual charter school passed the Fallin/Lamb 60% Rule with flying colors, a cost/benefit analysis will now be provided for it. Since the focus of many Oklahoma citizens is most often trained on administrative costs for our public schools, our analysis is limited to General administrative costs for virtual charters in comparison and contrast to traditional public schools. The virtual charter school in our analysis is composed of approximately 1,100 enrolled students, while the traditional public school has approximately 2,000 students. Of the over $1 million spent by the virtual for General Administration, $624,324 was spent for Official/Administrative Services by the virtual charter. It is uncertain which Business Officials received over a half-million tax-payer dollars, but one may be the Virtual Charter "Director of Government Relations" who was present at the capitol on Tuesday when this cost-benefit analysis was presented. The question now must be asked, "What are some of the benefits provided to Oklahoma tax-payers by virtual charters, for this spending?" The benefits to tax-paying citizens would be a good public education for all citizens. A well-educated public benefits everyone, not just students. One test of the cost-benefit relationship is the student graduation rate as a percentage of cohort attendance. In other words, of the students entering 9th grade, what percentage graduate within four years? Traditional public schools usually graduate between 85% and 99% of students who enter 9th grade at any particular traditional public. The four virtual charter schools in our state had graduation rates of 15%, 22%, 28%, and 33% for the 2015-2016 school year. The high cost of the Business Office for virtual charters doesn't appear to translate into high graduation rates. In fact, the goal of the Business Office appears to be enrolling students for the cash benefit, then forgetting to educate.
The traditional public school with 2,000 students incurred Business Office expenses totaling $40,900 for the same time period the virtual charter (1,100 students) incurred $578,074 in Business Office costs. Several state senators have stated it is irrelevant how virtual charter schools spend tax-payer dollars (whether for the Business Office or for students), as long as results like the "average 25% graduation rate" are obtained. Several other state senators believe Oklahoma tax-payers should expect better results, if virtual charters are willing to spend $Thousands for a "Director of Government Relations". (The Director's job is assumed to be "lobbying for more taxpayer dollars".)
As a result of this limited cost/benefit analysis - a state senator has promised legislation which would 1) Prohibit "for profit" virtual charter schools, and 2) Provide virtual education for traditional public school students. This proposed legislation needs the support of all Oklahoma tax-payers to succeed, as "for-profit" charter schools will be working very hard to defeat it.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Competitive Equity Plan #3
As many traditional public school supporters know, we presented two competitive equity re-classification plans for the board to consider sending out to a vote of the membership (over the past year). Both plans were shot down by the board (by votes of 12-2 and 12-1) to not allow a membership vote. No reasons were provided by any board members or the executive director for disallowing a vote on either plan. As a matter of fact, one board member (who voted NO) stated that "we all know that either of these presented plans would pass a vote of the membership".
The third plan (which will garner the appropriate 20 signatures for presentation) will be presented to the board for consideration of a membership vote in the near future. We propose the plan entail assigning the metro-area (high population centers) public and private schools which provide student financial assistance and/or select-limit enrollment, to Class 6A II. This may involve 8 to 16 schools. The remaining public and private schools would move up one classification level from where their enrollment dictates (approximately 8 to 16 schools). For sports other than football, the SFA and SA metro-schools will move to class 6A. This plan will ensure that all classifications have a more equitable number of schools. (The small schools, 2A and below, will have fewer and the large schools will have 24 to 32 members.) This is a workable plan, which partially solves the "watered down" issue and is non-discriminatory (considers both public and private schools).
The third plan (which will garner the appropriate 20 signatures for presentation) will be presented to the board for consideration of a membership vote in the near future. We propose the plan entail assigning the metro-area (high population centers) public and private schools which provide student financial assistance and/or select-limit enrollment, to Class 6A II. This may involve 8 to 16 schools. The remaining public and private schools would move up one classification level from where their enrollment dictates (approximately 8 to 16 schools). For sports other than football, the SFA and SA metro-schools will move to class 6A. This plan will ensure that all classifications have a more equitable number of schools. (The small schools, 2A and below, will have fewer and the large schools will have 24 to 32 members.) This is a workable plan, which partially solves the "watered down" issue and is non-discriminatory (considers both public and private schools).
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
OSSAA Interim Study Results
The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) interim study on "competitive equity" for all members was held September 11 at the capitol. The "old white guys" (according to one senator), wasted her entire afternoon - providing evidence that a competitive equity classification plan is needed.. or in her words, complaining. I must agree with the senator, and I'm sure her constituents do - as she has mostly large public schools, private schools, and virtual charter schools in her district. These schools have no interest in competitive equity in the OSSAA.
The end results of the study was that the OSSAA assistant executive director persuaded the Senate Committee that a competitive equity plan is not needed, so no action will result. There was an interesting line of questioning, however, from both Senator Sharp and Senator Stanislawski as to what actions the OSSAA may take to resolve the issue. Senator Ron Sharp asked the "executive director" - "Are there any other athletic organizations available that private schools can belong?" The ex. director answered "Yes, two or three." Senator Sharp then asked "Are there any alternative organizations that (traditional) public schools may belong?" The ex. director answered "No." Senator Stanislawski (who most public schools have great respect) then followed up with "Is there anything else public schools can do?" The ex. director of the OSSAA answered "Yes."
Senator Stanislawski's question and the subsequent answer can be interpreted to mean several things - it's anyone's opinion. In the opinion of many in attendance, though, the "executive director" implied that all those member schools which believe that competitive equity must exist in the OSSAA have the right to form their own league.
A Competitive Equity Committee (CEC) has been formed for consideration of the next step for providing competitive equity in the OSSAA, or any athletic league formed. The members of the committee shall remain anonymous for now, although most OSSAA members will soon be aware. The first step of the committee will be to provide yet another competitive equity classification plan to the OSSAA board for consideration. It will probably be shot down, just as the previous two have - as the ex. director bragged in the interim study. The CEC will gather the required twenty member signatures for consideration before the board, and the board will hear the plan during one of the upcoming regular meetings.
The 200+ members of the OSSAA which believe that competitive equity doesn't exist - are not gonna quit...
The end results of the study was that the OSSAA assistant executive director persuaded the Senate Committee that a competitive equity plan is not needed, so no action will result. There was an interesting line of questioning, however, from both Senator Sharp and Senator Stanislawski as to what actions the OSSAA may take to resolve the issue. Senator Ron Sharp asked the "executive director" - "Are there any other athletic organizations available that private schools can belong?" The ex. director answered "Yes, two or three." Senator Sharp then asked "Are there any alternative organizations that (traditional) public schools may belong?" The ex. director answered "No." Senator Stanislawski (who most public schools have great respect) then followed up with "Is there anything else public schools can do?" The ex. director of the OSSAA answered "Yes."
Senator Stanislawski's question and the subsequent answer can be interpreted to mean several things - it's anyone's opinion. In the opinion of many in attendance, though, the "executive director" implied that all those member schools which believe that competitive equity must exist in the OSSAA have the right to form their own league.
A Competitive Equity Committee (CEC) has been formed for consideration of the next step for providing competitive equity in the OSSAA, or any athletic league formed. The members of the committee shall remain anonymous for now, although most OSSAA members will soon be aware. The first step of the committee will be to provide yet another competitive equity classification plan to the OSSAA board for consideration. It will probably be shot down, just as the previous two have - as the ex. director bragged in the interim study. The CEC will gather the required twenty member signatures for consideration before the board, and the board will hear the plan during one of the upcoming regular meetings.
The 200+ members of the OSSAA which believe that competitive equity doesn't exist - are not gonna quit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)