Adding a few LOFT-like concepts to Oklahoma education

 Adding a few LOFT-like concepts to Oklahoma education

A new research on education was released last week with a number of recommendations. It's the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency this time.

According to a report from LOFT earlier this year, Oklahoma teachers were paid the highest salary in the area. That's untrue. However, in order to obtain that outcome, the analysts had incorporated a few arbitrary variables into the model.

That gave me pause as I started to analyse the LOFT public schools.

This report doesn't seem to distort figures as much as the earlier work did. However, there are certain oversimplifications and misconceptions about the work of the Oklahoma State Department of Education. Additionally, don't expect to learn where every education dollar goes; for that, one must contact local districts. This is a macro perspective.

The Oklahoma Cost Accounting System, which allows local district officials to submit budget data using nearly 4,000 different codes, served as the primary source of data for the report.

Nevertheless, a lot of the suggestions are sound, and some of them have already been tried but failed due to political opposition. The funding formula update is one of those long needed concepts.

The legislation was passed in 1981 with the intention of ensuring student and district equity. Local taxes and student demographics are taken into consideration in the calculation, which is prescribed by law. Its goal is to ensure that underfunded districts don't fall behind by providing resources to satisfy each student's needs.

It doesn't accomplish that, especially for pupils from low-income families, according to the LOFT experts. The study confirms what academics have been saying for years: it costs more to educate children in poverty. It costs significantly more at schools where a large percentage of students live in poverty.

While the method gives a low-income student's specific needs more weight, it does not take into account the needs of districts with high concentrations of poverty. The research indicated that all neighbouring states offer more resources to schools in this category.

Many Oklahomans haven't had to deal with this reality. Poor academic results are directly correlated with poverty rates. Students who struggle financially are more likely to attend schools with low test scores, graduation rates, and marks on the State Report Card.

Students from low-income families frequently require supports including before- and after-school activities, mentoring, field excursions, basic requirements, and materials for extracurricular activities. In contrast to more affluent communities, parents frequently cannot afford to contribute to these initiatives. It might be challenging to maintain initiatives like active PTAs. Counselors and social workers are former teachers.

These weights may be adequate to hoist a small number of low-income students at a school. However, a school with a 50–100% low-income student population faces unique difficulties.

According to the research, the weight amount should be increased to match that of other special categories, and additional resources should be allocated to locations with a significant proportion of low-income kids. 0.34 is the suggested weight. Of course, I'd aspire higher.

High poverty, English language learners, special education, and gifted and talented districts with few or no children who qualify for weighted amounts feel they will lose money. They are correct.

Moving current dollars about won't fix issues if the Legislature doesn't invest real money in the per-pupil financing formula. In terms of costs per student, the National Center for Education Statistics ranks Oklahoma 46th.

This year, the Legislature maintained the level of education funding. Teachers and staff will experience a pay loss due to inflation, not to mention the current culture war focused on public schools.

The Legislature must make Oklahoma education competitive in order to modernise the system, and doing so costs money.

The state Education Department's control over the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System was criticised in the LOFT report.

The majority of money are sent to the 540 local districts, which are overseen by elected school boards, through the Education Department. These individuals are legally obligated to manage schools, including financial management.

That is what local control is all about. The Oklahoma State Education Department lacks the necessary resources and legislative power to audit, look into, or regulate. It establishes basic requirements, broad guidelines, and serves as a hub for data gathering.

Six personnel, including one investigator, work for the agency to keep the accounting system up to date. Officials investigate anything that attracts attention.

That is what transpired when districts reportedly spent more than $200,000 on weapons and ammunition. In the end, a human error occurred.

Consider the number of employees the state Education Department would need to evaluate each transaction from each of the 540 districts. Miscoding cases in the study cost an estimated $6 million, or 0.1 percent of state school spending.

That mistake rate is not too bad.

Joy Hofmeister, the state superintendent, compared it to the tax system. Everybody puts in tax forms with signatures certifying the data is accurate and comprehensive. Everyone is not audited. When a red flag is raised or when people are selected at random, that is done.

The LOFT report suggested enhancing the system with more thorough financial analyses and larger sample sizes. The state will then need to increase resources to cover that.

Despite all the concerns about excessive administrative costs, the report outlines the districts and amounts that were determined to be in excess of the permitted administrative spending limits.

The Epic Charter School was the clear winner, exceeding permitted administrative costs by over $7 million. The Epic's blending learning centre charters came in second at $3.3 million. The overages for the remaining 12 districts decreased more quickly, ranging from $61,000 (Rock Creek) to $200. (Billings).

State racketeering charges have been brought against the founders and chief financial officer of the well-known video game company Epic over the issue.

Another intriguing suggestion was to amend the law so that the State Board of Education may be appointed by the House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem. Currently, all board members are appointed by the governor.

That could be an allusion to LOFT's role as the legislative branch's research division.

This report on education won't be the last or even the final one. State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd is anticipated to conduct another groundbreaking investigation into money after receiving a request from Governor Kevin Stitt. His opponent for reelection in November is Hofmeister, the agency's director.

Byrd has proven to be an objective, accurate, and in-depth investigator. It will be intriguing to see if her calculations and suggestions concur with those of the LOFT analysts.