Vote No On SQ 744

[Conan71]

One thing SQ 744 doesn't take into account is county and local level funding of schools.  Nowhere do they make a comparison of overall funding per student that I can find in the bill, it's simply state level funding.  

According to this year's TPS budget, the state will fund just under $144mm while local sources will make up just over $156mm, Federal and intermediate sources will equal about $112mm.  In addition, TPS has bond funds and carry-overs totaling just over $154mm.

http://www.tulsaschools.org/district/financial/BudgetFinancePlan1011.pdf

In other words, out of a total revenue stream of $557mm, the state will fund $144mm or 25% of the total.

A real simple metric of common education spending in Oklahoma can be found here:

http://www.ok.gov/okaa/Citizen_Education/Appropriations/

40% of the top 10 appropriations in FY 2009 was common Ed. at $2.5 bln.



The problem I have with an amount spent per pupil as a yard stick is it does not take into account the larger overall state expenditures of Texas, Missouri, and Colorado.  It would stand to reason that a larger total state budget or lower student population would positively skew an average like per pupil spending.  Conversely, sudden enrollment spikes would drive down the dollars spent per student, until budgets could adjust for them.
This happened recently in Oklahoma when enrollment jumped by nearly 10,000 students from 2008 to 2009.  Interestingly, Over 1/2 of those were Hispanic. So much for our hateful laws like HB 1804 scaring off Hispanics, eh?

To me "per pupil spending" simply puts pathos on what would be a somewhat irrelevant statistic unless all surrounding states had similar total budgets and the split for school funding is equal between local, national, and state level funding for schools.   I would think percentage of budgets would be a more accurate yardstick as far as a state's commitment to education.


Using expenditure data from http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Oklahoma_state_budget allowed me to cull overall state and local expenditures by state as well as education expenditures.  It's limitations are not knowing what the split is for common education and what all else is lumped in under the umbrella of education which could be libraries, prison educational initiatives, etc.  It's an interesting government transparency site which will allow you to look at various parts of state governments.

What I did, using a basic spreadsheet, was come up with a percent of budget spending which shows, if anything, Oklahoma ranks in the top 2 in the seven state region:

Education spending as a % of total state outlays: 24.43%, third behind Texas at 25.55%, and Colo. at 24.49%

Education spending on the local level: 49.96%, only New Mexico spends a higher % locally at 50.62%, Arkansas was third with 49.34, then it drops all the way to 43.64% in Missouri

Education spending as a percent of total state and local expenditures, Oklahoma ranks 2nd at 35.19% behind Texas at 35.22%, and followed closely by Arkansas at 35.04%

Education spending as a total percent of what the state puts into combined local and state educational outlays by state:

Oklahoma      40.19%
Arkansas       38.30%
Kansas          34.69%
New Mexico   34.60%
Colorado       30.77%
Missouri        27.71%
Texas           27.07%

I could get better data on common education if I had several days to cull information from various sites but I don't.  What I've done is illustrate that education is a bigger priority to Oklahoma vs. our regional peers than the pro 744 crowd is letting on.  I realize my methodology is somewhat crude, but I believe it provides a better yard stick when compairing differing budgets and student populations.

[MacGyver]

Good analysis and thanks for doing the leg work.

MG

[Conan71]

Using more data found at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/index.asp

For every dollar Oklahoma spends on instruction, we spend 73 cents on non-instructional and support services.

That's on par with Colorado, New Mexico is highest, spending 74 cents on non-instructional and support services per instructional dollar spent.

The rest are as follows:

Arkansas .71
Texas .67
Missouri .67
Kansas .66

I don't know if this means that New Mexico has nicer facilities or higher operating expenses.  Generally one would assume spending more non-instructional money per dollar spent on instruction indicates inefficiency.  It may simply be that the three leading states have to spend more on transportation or heating bills.

There's a lot of interesting information at the NCES site.

[nathanm]

I don't know if this means that New Mexico has nicer facilities or higher operating expenses.  Generally one would assume spending more non-instructional money per dollar spent on instruction indicates inefficiency.  It may simply be that the three leading states have to spend more on transportation or heating bills.

Busing is indeed a very large expense for many districts.