Schools hit

By World's Editorial Writers - 11/2/2009


Oklahoma's economy has turned into the equivalent of a slasher movie. Every day, more disheartening news arrives about cost-cutting. Now comes word that schools are facing more budget cuts, and that a revolving fund that provides more than 25 percent of funding for schools is nearly empty.

In a worst case scenario, this troubling turn of events could lead to the consolidation or closing of some school districts or even the possibility that some districts won't be able to finish the school year.

Cuts are coming soon. The revolving House Bill 1017 fund accounts for more than 25 percent of education funding. The funding source was created in the 1990 education reform law — 1017 — that overhauled school funding. The funding comes from several sources, including income taxes, sales and tobacco taxes and corporate income taxes. September generally is the best for state revenues. That was not the case this year. Instead the fund saw a $16 million shortfall.

Assistant State Superintendent Bill White had dire news at the Board of Education meeting last week:

"This is probably the last month that schools will see only a 5 percent reduction; unless something drastic happens, either collections go up, legislative action, some type of something to get this money up, our schools in November will see more than a 5 percent cut."

School districts face a miserable task. There's never much fat in school budgets and now the economy is forcing cuts into the muscle. How many more programs can be cut, how many more teachers will lose their jobs? It's time for some creative solutions. Any ideas?


_________________________________________________

Tulsa World Reader Comments
_________________________________________________

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/2/2009 7:42:40 AM)
I moved back to Oklahoma because the recession had hit California so badly that virtually everyone was in the shape two years ago that Oklahoma is today. When I got here all I heard was bragging about how the Tulsa Economy was recession proof. About how "liberal" Californians couldn't do anything right. About how wonderful Bush was and how Tulsa was rolling right along and the recession could kiss their grits. Funny how short sighted Oklahoma and Tulsa's politicians are. I understand I'm older and not up on the "new math" but that little escapade in self back patting and lack of planning for what was coming is beyond unbelievable. It's incompetence.

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/2/2009 8:20:32 AM)
You do have a point dappie.

Thunder196, Tulsa (11/2/2009 8:27:49 AM)
I have heard this song so many times now, I am beginning to think "so what". Get rid of all perks from every phase of government. Start with our state capital down to each city. There would be plenty of money.

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/2/2009 8:52:47 AM)
amen Thunder. But won't happen. We're both old enough to know that never happens.

sr71v3, (11/2/2009 10:06:41 AM)
Government at ALL LEVELS should be constrained to those areas specifically designated in the state and federal constitutions. Constant expansion of government reach has cost us much of our freedom and is now destroying us financially.

thehero, (11/2/2009 10:18:01 AM)
How right you are dustyoutlaw. A brief history lesson for those who don’t remember. In 2003, the State was coming out of another budget crisis. Oil and gas revenues were increasing and the State began to see revenue surpluses. By 2004, Oklahoma's economy was beginning to thrive, thanks to these oil and gas revenues. Teachers began to receive large pay increases and the balance of power shifted in the State House of Representatives. The cutting of the State income tax rate began to be the focus of the new majority. Each year, the tax rate was being reduced but spending obligations (as I mentioned with teacher pay raises) were increasing. Why not? State revenues were good thanks to oil and gas revenues. In 2006, the balance of power shifted in the Senate to a 50-50 split. Tax cuts were continuing. Fast forward to 2008. The national economy is tanking. However, Oklahoma's is still doing well. The Rainy Day Fund is full and there is still talk of more tax cuts. By the start of 2009, oil and gas prices plummet. State oil and gas revenues begin to plummet also. By mid-year 2009 (the end of the last fiscal year), the State's revenues begin to come up short. Since the State, and the State's economy as a whole, is so dependent on oil and gas production, all State revenue sources begin to feel the effect. The State starts the 2009-10 fiscal year with a 7% budget cut to all State agencies, except education, which has federal stimulus money available to offset any budget cut. The first three months of the year, revenues continue to come in well below estimates in all three major revenue categories, sale and use tax, income tax and gross production. The State then must cut budgets further each month to ensure revenues are adequate to meet expenditures. I mentioned above about tax cuts and teacher pay increases. These are important matters. On one hand, our Legislature was decreasing potential State revenues with the tax cuts and increasing ongoing State spending on the other hand with the teacher pay increases. A false sense of security was prevalent since State revenues (particularly oil and gas) at the time were adequate to cover these matters. Now, oil and gas revenues can’t cover the expenditures and we don’t have the income tax revenue as we did before to help ease the burden. With Oklahoma’s balanced budget Statute, massive budget cuts must occur. Never should one increase a permanent expenditure without having a permanent stable revenue source to cover it. Cutting the tax rate compounded this. Here is the reality in the education world. Approximately 85%-90% of a school district’s operational budget is personnel-related (salary and benefits). Most of the remainder is fixed costs such as textbooks, utilities, insurance, etc. The textbook money has already been spent. There is little room for any budget cuts without affecting personnel. The saving grace may be in federal stimulus money. The guidelines for this indicate that the State can use some of the stimulus money for education if the education budget dips below FY 2008 or FY 2009 levels, whichever greater. It has. The Governor must choose to use these funds for this purpose. He probably won’t do this without the blessing of the Legislature, which now appears will not meet until the regular session in February. In the meantime, without any Legislative action, schools have no choice but to continue to cut and these cuts will have to be personnel. Sorry about the long post.

Check It out, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:17:03 AM)
Kids knew more about math and science and history and geography and government when school was in one room schoolhouses and held when the planting was done! It has been proven over and over that more money does not equate to a better education. Let's scrap the whole thing and start over.

sr71v3, (11/2/2009 11:23:51 AM)
WOW CIO ... We agree! Education was far superior before government interference turned our schools into indoctrination centers.

thehero, (11/2/2009 1:23:17 PM)
Check It Out: Your comments are true to a point. More money does not necessarily equate to a better education, but it can. You look at the school districts in the State that have the lowest per-pupil revenue for operations in the State. They are districts such as Owasso, Edmond, Mustang, Choctaw and Broken Arrow to name a few. These districts receive some $2,000 per student less than the State average. Now look at Tulsa or Oklahoma City Public Schools. They receive around $2,000 more per student than the State average. Whose test scores and academic achievement is generally higher? It’s not OKCPS or TPS. Thus, the argument that money does not enhance academic achievement. Districts such as OKCPS and TPS receive much more in federal money, per pupil than Owasso or Broken Arrow. Much of the criteria for doling out federal money is based on the school district’s percentage of free or reduced meal percent. Generally speaking, if you have a school district that has a free or reduced meal percentage of less than 50%, then you may not even be eligible to receive many grants that a district with a 50% or higher receives or you receive a grant allocation based on that percentage. The higher the percentage, the more you get. So if is not money, then what is it? These districts that outperform usually have the most parental involvement in their children’s education. No matter how much money you allocate to a school district, it is ultimately up to the parents, students and teachers to ensure positive academic achievement. If you are deficient in any of these areas, then academic performance will suffer. Schools can do something about teacher deficiencies but it is very hard for schools to control the other external factors. So back to the money issue. What if some of these higher performing schools were to receive more funding per pupil? Could it be that the lack of funds for these schools are holding up further academic achievement? In many cases, yes. These schools can’t afford to buy some of the things these schools which receive more money can. For example, hiring tutors, more aides, smaller class sizes, etc. So the argument that additional funding doesn’t improve academic performance is only somewhat true.

insider, Tulsa (11/2/2009 5:50:38 PM)
Sr71v3, schools do not indoctrinate. Believe it or not, times have changed. Students have changed. The world has changed. The government is not really that involved in my class. I can't imagine what on earth some of you non teachers are talking about.



Email to a Friend
Main Menu