Who are School Districts in Business to Serve?
Administrators or Students?

By Bob Sullivan

If the issue wasn’t so serious, the crisis wasn’t so pronounced, and Oklahoma’s future didn’t so rest upon changing the status quo, I would have found terribly funny the retorts by education administrators reported June 20th, against keeping 65% of our education money in Oklahoma’s classrooms. As it is, I found their obfuscations, distortions and rank justifications for poor accountability of taxpayer education funds to be the exact reasons why voters should have the opportunity to set priorities for K-12 public education funding.

Let’s go through this issue…slowly and simply…lest our taxpayer-paid education officials not keep up.

I’m pleased to have led the effort to gather over 170,000 voter signatures to place on the ballot what’s call First Class Education for Oklahoma—a requirement that all Oklahoma school districts place 65% of their taxpayer operational funds in the classroom and on classroom instruction, or at least tell us why they can’t. About a fourth of all school districts throughout the US already meet or exceed this threshold. In just the last year, neighboring Kansas and Texas as well as Georgia and Louisiana have adopted 65% in the classroom goals. Governors from Bill Richardson in New Mexico to Jeb Bush in Florida are calling on 65% to reach their classrooms. And Governor Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota favors a 70% in the classroom goal, having already surpassed 65% reaching their classrooms.

In promoting the issue, I’ve been saying Oklahoma is ranked 46th nationally with only 57 cents of every dollar reaching the classroom. Newly released figures from the US Census Department shows those figures are wrong. Oklahoma now ranks 50th -- dead last – with only 55.4 cents reaching our classrooms, teachers and students.

Oklahoma ranking dead last isn’t just embarrassing, it’s flat cheating our taxpayers and teachers, students and parents.

The article said, “Karl White, EPS business manager, said because he isn’t sure what the proposed solution counts toward “classroom instruction” it is hard to estimate what it would take for EPS to meet the proposed 65 percent goal.”

Well then Mr. White hasn’t read the one-page initiative which clearly lays out what is counted as instruction. From the initiative I quote,

Section I, For purposes of this Act, “Classroom Instructional Expenditures” means expenditures directly related to classroom instruction, including, but not limited to, instructional staff and instructional materials. “Instructional” shall include activities dealing directly with interaction between students and teachers or other classroom and instructional personnel, special education instruction, tutors, books, classroom computers, general instruction supplies, instructional aides, libraries and librarians, class activities such as field trips, athletics, arts, music and multidisciplinary learning, and extra curricular activities including, but not limited to, drama, sports and band.

Where does such a definition come from for “classroom instruction?” From the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal agency that asks every school district in America to report these numbers annually and has for decades.

There is but one minor change to the NCES definition and that’s for libraries and librarians to be included as an inside the classroom expense, which Mr. Shawn Hime from the State Department of Education wrongly said was not counted towards instruction.

The initiative also specifically says that districts below 65% will be allowed to increase at 2% a year to slowly phase in the requirement, that districts may seek a waiver from the State Superintendent if there’s a legitimate reason why the 65% goal cannot be reasonably be reached, and specifically cites rural transportation costs as a potential reason for such a waiver.

Yes, I value teachers inside the classroom more than education bureaucrats outside the classroom. Perhaps Mr. White and Mr. Himes could better use their taxpayer paid time on the job -- and outside the classroom -- to find ways to streamline education overhead instead of using taxpayer paid time organizing the campaign against having 65% of our education dollars reach Oklahoma classrooms, teachers and students.