http://newsok.com/okc-district-recommends-school-closings/article/5542383

"School board members and community members criticized the plan, which recommends closing Edgemere, Gatewood, F.D. Moon, Green Pastures and Johnson.

A sixth school, Northeast Academy for Health Sciences and Engineering Enterprise, would become a neighborhood middle school serving an estimated 563 students in grades 5-8, including 165 seventh- and eighth-graders from Douglass Mid-High."

It'll be very interesting to see how this unfolds, both politically and from a practical standpoint (if it does indeed happen).

Hey, OKCPS is in the position now that they dont have the population to support the schools as spread out as they are....simple fact. There are going to be a lot of emotions with this, like there always are in these situations. But elementary schools are the first line of issues when it comes to size. They're more often than not, sized too small because people wanted neighborhood schools. If you dont have 500+ kids in an elementary school in a district this size, you are sized wrong. And the next step up, middle schools should combine at least two of those (preferably 3) into a single middle school, with a high school collecting at least 2 middle schools. Unfortunately, OKCPS is so spread out that it's not usually practical from a density standpoint. Northeast High is a good example of that. Really, the district would probably be better off removing itself from that section and having another district take that...Milwood seems the natural choice given the location. It's a historic structure, but it's been grossly ignored.

This is a problem that isn't going to go away either. As fewer children live in the OKCPS district (and more often than not, concentrate near certain high school areas), this is going to happen more.

Honestly, I think this is the right move. I think OKCPS finally has someone that is starting to get that this problem isn't just going to go away, and some tough decisions are going to have to be made.

This is a problem that isn't going to go away either. As fewer children live in the OKCPS district (and more often than not, concentrate near certain high school areas), this is going to happen more.
It's my understanding that the number of students in the OKCPS has continued to increase instead of being fewer. The issue seems to be where they are concentrated.

It's my understanding that the number of students in the OKCPS has continued to increase instead of being fewer. The issue seems to be where they are concentrated.

I don't know about the total number of students in the district but some of the schools on the SW side keep getting increasing numbers of students. It was realized that U.S. Grant High School, as plans for the new building were being finalized, wasn't big enough for the student population so another wing of classrooms was added and it was still too small when the new building opened. They've added a number of portables but the number of students keeps going up.

I have no direct experience with other areas of the district but I've heard there are many schools, particularly on the North side, that are running well under capacity. I think Zuplar is right and some tough decisions are going to have to be made.

The Oklahoman's editorial board took this stance on the proposal:

http://newsok.com/school-closings-tough-but-necessary-decisions-for-okc-district/article/5542675

OKCPS hasn't had a Superintendent willing to make the tough calls. Aurora Lora (which is an awesome name BTW) has really, IMO, shown that she can do that. I think she's on the right track and people are going to have to realize the only way to turn this district around is make some tough choices that will eventually be a net positive for kids.

The Oklahoman's editorial board took this stance on the proposal:

http://newsok.com/school-closings-tough-but-necessary-decisions-for-okc-district/article/5542675

The Jack Jennings quote in this article is spot on. Unfortunately, the second part seems to apply across the board to most of society's problems.

Update from The Oklahoman:

Closing schools could be hard sell for Oklahoma City school district

http://newsok.com/closing-schools-could-be-hard-sell-for-oklahoma-city-school-district/article/5543128

"The third community meeting will be at 5:30 Tuesday at Gatewood Elementary, 1821 NW 21. Another will be at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at Edgemere Elementary, 3200 N Walker."

The trouble with closing these schools is that charters are simply going to pop up in these buildings taking even more money out of the school district. I don't really think the math works here.

Also it seems like as more people move to the core into places like classen-ten-penn and JFK or what have you, that demand for schools in these areas will rise, so it's like we're shooting ourselves in the foot in a sense...

Update:

OKC’s Lora to offer plan to save $10M without closures

http://www.newsok.com/article/5543558

As a former OKCPS teacher, there are a ton of things I could say needs to be done. But first and foremost is for the legislature to formulate a consistent and reliable way to fund public schools across the state. Folks outside the system don't realize how dire the situation is. Our legislature acts like lemmings, ready to go off the cliff as long as they can say they voted for a teacher raise.

Update:

OKC’s Lora to offer plan to save $10M without closures

http://www.newsok.com/article/5543558

Not mentioned in the article is that all staff cuts, both at schools and central office, will likely be attainable thru normal attrition, rather than letting people go. Hopefully it works out that way.

http://newsok.com/economics-professor-non-teaching-staff-surge-prevented-oklahoma-teacher-pay-raises/article/5531583

http://newsok.com/economics-professor-non-teaching-staff-surge-prevented-oklahoma-teacher-pay-raises/article/5531583

I can see this. Oklahoma and Oklahomans get bashed by people saying we don't care about education or teacher pay, but that's just not true. We're always talking about spending more on education and passing things like the lottery and talking about wanting to give teachers raises, but it's how the schools are run that's hamstringing us as a state when it comes to education. When more money does get voted for or when more money comes through with something like the lottery, instead of being efficient with the money or spending it on teacher pay or directly affecting the students' education, schools say, "Great. Now we can hire more staff." So we never see the increase in teacher pay or education funding that we think we should get. Perhaps not all of that staff is needed. Only some.

The last funding increase in education happened in 2003 with the lottery. You're really going to have to update your material. We're always talking about spending more, but we never follow through. In 2008, we were already near the bottom in education and we lead the nation in cuts.

https://i2.wp.com/okpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/education-cuts.jpg?resize=375%2C824

Our schools are to the point where OKC schools is consolidating classrooms, facilities, laying off teachers. Many rural schools are on a 4 day school week. The system is at its breaking point.

As a former OKCPS teacher, there are a ton of things I could say needs to be done. But first and foremost is for the legislature to formulate a consistent and reliable way to fund public schools across the state. Folks outside the system don't realize how dire the situation is. Our legislature acts like lemmings, ready to go off the cliff as long as they can say they voted for a teacher raise.
If Oklahoma voters really care about education, then they are simply going to have to somehow, someway develop the willpower to not elect legislators who believe an important goal of the state must be to gradually cut the income tax until it's all gone, and replace it with nothing. Keeping them in office will only make things worse. You said people don't realize how dire the situation is, but are they really going to get upset about it should their school system go to 4 days a week? Maybe ending the school's athletic programs would help. No more football games at the stadium.

Last funding increase I'm aware of is a $181,000,000 bond issue that Mustang voters passed in Feb this year. The article explains that non teaching staff increases alone could have given teachers a larger raise than they asked for.
Time to remove all these would be kingdom building administrators from our bureaucracies. IE: schools, churches, government.

Many rural schools are on a 4 day school week. The system is at its breaking point.

I know we've talked about this before, and I've posted about it before, but we've got too many small, rural districts.

This article is a couple of years old but still makes a point: http://newsok.com/article/5448167

Oklahoma needs to consolidate it's districts. I'm sure the parents and students of those districts that get shutdown would say it isn't fair, but it cost money to pay those superintendents, principles, and teachers as well as upkeep for the buildings, electricity etc. There shouldn't be districts with total enrollment of around 50 students or 80 students etc. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be but it should definitely be above 100. We're wasting money and resources. And what kind of education and experience can these students be getting in such small districts? They can't possibly get the whole school experience that students in larger districts get. They don't even have enough to field a 1 deep football team or baseball team.

I know we've talked about this before, and I've posted about it before, but we've got too many small, rural districts.

This article is a couple of years old but still makes a point: http://newsok.com/article/5448167

Oklahoma needs to consolidate it's districts. I'm sure the parents and students of those districts that get shutdown would say it isn't fair, but it cost money to pay those superintendents, principles, and teachers as well as upkeep for the buildings, electricity etc. There shouldn't be districts with total enrollment of around 50 students or 80 students etc. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be but it should definitely be above 100. We're wasting money and resources. And what kind of education and experience can these students be getting in such small districts? They can't possibly get the whole school experience that students in larger districts get. They don't even have enough to field a 1 deep football team or baseball team.

School district consolidation would not come close to closing the statewide education funding gap. Nonetheless it is not a bad idea. But seriously this is a red herring.

I am becoming convinced that the legislature keeps not doing this not only because of the political blowback from rural areas, but because the existence of the issue obscures the real matter, which is disinvestment in education.

I know we've talked about this before, and I've posted about it before, but we've got too many small, rural districts.

This article is a couple of years old but still makes a point: http://newsok.com/article/5448167

Oklahoma needs to consolidate it's districts. I'm sure the parents and students of those districts that get shutdown would say it isn't fair, but it cost money to pay those superintendents, principles, and teachers as well as upkeep for the buildings, electricity etc. There shouldn't be districts with total enrollment of around 50 students or 80 students etc. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be but it should definitely be above 100. We're wasting money and resources. And what kind of education and experience can these students be getting in such small districts? They can't possibly get the whole school experience that students in larger districts get. They don't even have enough to field a 1 deep football team or baseball team.

Yep how many other states in this country have only one district per county, several from what I've seen. All it does is eliminate admin, it's not like these schools would be losing their identity.

For reference, Salem Keizer school district in Oregon has 40,000 students and operating budget revenue of $677 Million. OKCPS has 46,000 students and a budget revenue of $402 Million.

You consolidate 50% of the rural school districts and you would not come close to bringing in the $277 Million difference between the two districts, and that is only OKCPS.

School district consolidation would not come close to closing the statewide education funding gap. Nonetheless it is not a bad idea. But seriously this is a red herring.

I am becoming convinced that the legislature keeps not doing this not only because of the political blowback from rural areas, but because the existence of the issue obscures the real matter, which is disinvestment in education.

I wasn't trying to say that it would close the funding gap. I just thought it was pertinent to what Midtowner had said. It may not fix it but it would help at least somewhat.

I can see this. Oklahoma and Oklahomans get bashed by people saying we don't care about education or teacher pay, but that's just not true. We're always talking about spending more on education and passing things like the lottery and talking about wanting to give teachers raises, but it's how the schools are run that's hamstringing us as a state when it comes to education. When more money does get voted for or when more money comes through with something like the lottery, instead of being efficient with the money or spending it on teacher pay or directly affecting the students' education, schools say, "Great. Now we can hire more staff." So we never see the increase in teacher pay or education funding that we think we should get. Perhaps not all of that staff is needed. Only some.

First, we are not spending more on education. When you account for inflation and enrollment increases, we arent keeping up, let along increasing spending. In fact, since 2009 our entire state budget for 2017 is 15% less, adjusted for inflation. So for all these "government needs to become efficient" folks, we have been getting efficient and smaller. Plenty of state govt jobs have been shed, 3,000 of them since 2009 to be exact.
Secondly, care to identify any part of common education that isnt run efficiently? You arent very specific with your accusations.


For reference, Salem Keizer school district in Oregon has 40,000 students and operating budget revenue of $677 Million. OKCPS has 46,000 students and a budget revenue of $402 Million.

You consolidate 50% of the rural school districts and you would not come close to bringing in the $277 Million difference between the two districts, and that is only OKCPS.

This is true. Everyone likes to claim that we need to consolidate without know how much, or little in this case, it will save. At most, the state might save $50 million with major consolidation. That might not even be enough to give all teachers a $1,000/yr raise. School consolidation isnt some perfect answer to our problems. Besides, republican lawmakers have shown no interest in consolidating.

Everyone likes to claim that we need to consolidate without know how much, or little in this case, it will save. At most, the state might save $50 million with major consolidation. That might not even be enough to give all teachers a $1,000/yr raise. School consolidation isnt some perfect answer to our problems. Besides, republican lawmakers have shown no interest in consolidating.

Still it looks like if, say, 3 very small neighboring school districts combined, an attractive amount of new money could be shared between them, especially for enticement, the legislature would agree the same amount of money would be going to the schools for the first few years after administration consolidation. Maybe other savings could be found, such as fewer buses needed to be run.

I just want to see an audit of our Oklahoma school system expenses. Is that too much to ask? Lets open the books on who is paid what and what for. The city of Ponca City with a population only a little larger than Yukon has a school administrator that receives a salary package of $227,000/yr.
http://newsok.com/article/3498525

I just want to see an audit of our Oklahoma school system expenses. Is that too much to ask? Lets open the books on who is paid what and what for. The city of Ponca City with a population only a little larger than Yukon has a school administrator that receives a salary package of $227,000/yr.
http://newsok.com/article/3498525

Im sure this can all be found somewhere online. As to Ponca paying their superintendent that amount, you should take that up with the Ponca school board. They are the ones responsible for that salary. Even then, we dont know how many hats that super wears, or if other positions were let go to help pay for it.

Would be nice to see funding totals of every district, and then broken down to totals for supplies, teacher pay, admin pay, maintenance.

I'd love more details too, but really, if you look at per pupil spending, even compared to states with similar costs, and we're way low, so it's hard for me to feel like there's much waste. 36 of the states spend over 10k per student, with some spending much more. We're under 9k, and it'll be lower this next school year.

Way low yes but cost of living here is low and IMO the money is there to provide the raises the teachers are asking for. It's just being misspent.

Way low yes but cost of living here is low and IMO the money is there to provide the raises the teachers are asking for. It's just being misspent.

Desks, text books, supplies, equipment, maintenance costs...these dont really vary from place to place. Utility costs, fuel costs for buses do a little, and I suppose you could argue getting away with paying teachers a bit less because cost of living. But cost of living makes very little difference in the price of educating kids.

I still would like specifics on where you think the money is being misspent. Lots of folks like to say that the state isnt good with our money but when you ask them, they have no specifics.

Read post #16

Way low yes but cost of living here is low and IMO the money is there to provide the raises the teachers are asking for. It's just being misspent.

Just to clarify this whole "low cost of living" thing here - the only thing that really costs less here in OK is gas and housing, pretty much everything else from retail to utilities is pretty much the same price as elsewhere. Anecdotal evidence from living in 4 other states and travelling through many others is how I came up with that, but I'm pretty sure it's a fairly accurate statement. It's not like everything here costs half as much as everywhere else, so the whole "we can pay everybody far less than what they'd make in other states because the cost of living here is so low" is BS.

A radical idea:

No more public schools. Have the daycare centers handle the "education". Private schools, charter schools. Take your pick.

12 years of school to learn how to read, write, and do basic math? The system needs an overhaul.

I had a lot of "teachers" who shouldn't have been teachers. They just liked it because it was easy and they got summers off.

A radical idea:

No more public schools. Have the daycare centers handle the "education". Private schools, charter schools. Take your pick.

12 years of school to learn how to read, write, and do basic math? The system needs an overhaul.

I had a lot of "teachers" who shouldn't have been teachers. They just liked it because it was easy and they got summers off.

Not just radical, but dumb as hell.

If you look at comments from Trump voters, 12 years wasn't enough.

http://newsok.com/economics-professor-non-teaching-staff-surge-prevented-oklahoma-teacher-pay-raises/article/5531583


Read post #16

So sure seems to be some missing figures here. Use of percentages doesnt tell me much when you dont know the actual number or base line he is working from. And the pro-voucher suggestion lets me know what side he is on.

But about his $255 million in savings that he thinks we could have, he leaves out serious and critical info to know where he got this. But lets say $255mil is "wasted" on non-teaching staff like bus drivers, cafeteria workers, aides for pre-K, tutors, janitors, etc, if you figure each one of those makes an average of $50,000, thats 5,100 non-teachers. So either his numbers dont add up, or every school district in the state has added 100 non-teachers over a 23 year period. My guess is he is not depicting the situation very accurately.

Secondly, care to identify any part of common education that isnt run efficiently? You arent very specific with your accusations.

To answer your question, I thought I was fairly specific when I said there's too much staff/administrators that don't directly affect student learning. Now don't jump to conclusions and think I said all staff needs to go except teachers. I didn't say that.

Also, I think Bunty makes a good point too with the idea of consolidation.

But reading your other comments in this thread, it seems your mind is made up and you're more interested in convincing everyone else and changing our minds than open discussion and sharing of ideas.

Now I do think there are things that can be done to improve efficiency. But they won't fix all the problems on their own. For example, Oklahoma City Public Schools has about 50 schools that take place in the USDA program to provide free lunches for all children. This saves them money in multiple ways (administration of the free/reduced meal applications, federal funds, etc). Edmond is doing their digital conversion program which will reduce costs vs textbooks while keeping information up to date and reducing the need to worksheets and such. It also benefits the students significantly.

But they won't fix all the problems on their own.

True. But there is a contingency out there that wants that ONE magic bullet that's going to fix everything instead of doing due diligence to find different ways to fix something here, or help something there, fix something somewhere else and maybe those things will add up to make a difference. To me, if it helps then we should look at it seriously before dismissing it as, "Well, it's not going to fix everything so let's forget it."

And do know that I'm not trying to imply that that is what you're saying, jerrywall.

To answer your question, I thought I was fairly specific when I said there's too much staff/administrators that don't directly affect student learning. Now don't jump to conclusions and think I said all staff needs to go except teachers. I didn't say that.

Also, I think Bunty makes a good point too with the idea of consolidation.

But reading your other comments in this thread, it seems your mind is made up and you're more interested in convincing everyone else and changing our minds than open discussion and sharing of ideas.

No, Im all for efficiency. And at the very least I am for consolidating the K-8th grade ISDs. But I get tired of people saying that we should stop wasting our tax dollars when they really cant cite many examples. I also know that with some consolidation, efficiency measures that it would amount to very little in our overall education budget.

Simply put, our admin spending is not so out of whack that it is draining our education budget. The draining is coming from lawmakers who like to starve the government and dont think that its wise to invest in education, health or people.

Just show us where the money is going and we can decide what is waste and what isn't. Apparently the schools don't want us to know the facts.

Now I do think there are things that can be done to improve efficiency. But they won't fix all the problems on their own. For example, Oklahoma City Public Schools has about 50 schools that take place in the USDA program to provide free lunches for all children. This saves them money in multiple ways (administration of the free/reduced meal applications, federal funds, etc). ...

I think it's more than 50 schools that are doing that for the next school year, and it will extend to breakfasts too.

http://okgazette.com/2017/05/24/okc-public-schools-enhance-existing-lunch-and-breakfast-programs-with-support-from-a-federal-initiative/

I think it's more than 50 schools that are doing that for the next school year, and it will extend to breakfasts too.

http://okgazette.com/2017/05/24/okc-public-schools-enhance-existing-lunch-and-breakfast-programs-with-support-from-a-federal-initiative/

One thing that stood out in the article...


In the Sooner State, 15 percent of eligible districts and 21 percent of eligible schools adopted the program.

So how much money is being left on the table by the other eligible schools and districts?

http://newsok.com/economics-professor-non-teaching-staff-surge-prevented-oklahoma-teacher-pay-raises/article/5531583

This is a really poor, vague analysis. In many cases, non-teaching positions can be aides that are essential to helping in special education classrooms. Without more details, this is pretty worthless analysis. And, then, our of left field, he argues for vouchers. Seems like a partisan piece rather than sound economic analysis.

A radical idea:

No more public schools. Have the daycare centers handle the "education". Private schools, charter schools. Take your pick.

12 years of school to learn how to read, write, and do basic math? The system needs an overhaul.

I had a lot of "teachers" who shouldn't have been teachers. They just liked it because it was easy and they got summers off.

So since you had a few bad teachers, we should get rid of a formal education system? Oh my. This thread...

Just show us where the money is going and we can decide what is waste and what isn't. Apparently the schools don't want us to know the facts.

If schools were a wasting a lot of money they wouldn't be raising class sizes, cutting sports, and going to 4 days a week. I have seen no evidence of a significant waste problem. If you find evidence of one then let's address it, but this pure speculation is counter to all the evidence we have.

Guess some would rather not know where their money is going.

Guess some would rather not know where their money is going.

Who doesn't want to know where their money is going? Did someone make that claim? If you have some tangible information then please share, but baseless speculation isn't helpful.

Nice diversion. Show us the figures on school expenditures or tell us why you don't want them out in the open.

Nice diversion. Show us the figures on school expenditures or tell us why you don't want them out in the open.

The State Auditor regularly audits school district spending. This year's batch should be in at the end of June.

https://www.sai.ok.gov/audit_reports/municipal_school_trust_audits.php?action=showtype&type=6

Nice diversion. Show us the figures on school expenditures or tell us why you don't want them out in the open.

The figures on public school expenditures are not hidden. It takes about a minute to access the OKCPS budget online for anyone who is interested. I am sure that almost all public school districts are as easily accessible. The districts use a common accounting report so the reports can be easily compared.

I looked at one of them but the non-teaching positions weren't readily apparent (maybe it's there but not found in my scan of one report) nor did I find salaries of individual school employees.

I can only imagine you're complaining because you didn't really look that hard. I just clicked on the first 2016 school audit I saw .

https://www.sai.ok.gov/olps/uploads/2016_regulatory_audit_reportaftonfinal_39my.pdf

Page 13 shows instructional vs. support spending.

It would probably be very instructive for you to read through the entire audit. It's a pretty good description of how school budgets work. They don't just get money they can spend however they want to . It all has strings attached. Teacher salaries are mostly determined by a schedule and by step raises. Administrator salaries are decided by the School Board which is elected locally. There is a list of all administrator salaries published. You can Google it.