Oklahoma legislators to get 35 percent pay raise

[inactive]

So TPS would be able to vote a tax increase in Broken Arrow? Claremore? Jenks?
OKC vote increases in Moore, Mustang, Norman, Edmond? Personally, I can't see that going well....

I agree with most of your broader points, but I will point out that school board district taxes/bonds are based on the district. The districts are often coterminous with cities and towns out of practicality, but not exclusively. So districts like Jenks, Union, Owasso, Berryhill, I even the north parts of B.A district and southern fringes of Catoosa even overlap with the City of Tulsa limits, do in fact vote for tax increases in the city of Tulsa limits. Random examples from districts with LARGE Tulsa populations:

https://ktul.com/news/local/bond-issue-for-union-public-schools-passes-allowing-forward-progress
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-new...wo-bond-issues-for-14-million-in-improvements

 

[Riley]

I agree with most of your broader points, but I will point out that school board district taxes/bonds are based on the district. The districts are often coterminous with cities and towns out of practicality, but not exclusively. So districts like Jenks, Union, Owasso, Berryhill, I even the north parts of B.A district and southern fringes of Catoosa even overlap with the City of Tulsa limits, do in fact vote for tax increases in the city of Tulsa limits. Random examples from districts with LARGE Tulsa populations:

https://ktul.com/news/local/bond-issue-for-union-public-schools-passes-allowing-forward-progress
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-new...wo-bond-issues-for-14-million-in-improvements

Quite true, but they don't apply to the rest of the city outside the residents in the specific district.

Heck, in the rural parts of the state I'll bet you could have two or perhaps three counties involved before you got to 10K students. So then, if each county had their own Super with asst supers what has been accomplished besides adding a level of bureaucracy?

I do recognize the good intent and possible necessity to get more dollars to the classroom and out of administrative costs and that consolidation of districts presents a tempting target. However it is a thorny topic, that I am sure would require a bunch of small district supers to shoulder the economic impact. Perhaps some should......

 

[p238shooter]

Does anyone have info of how some other states operate? Even Kansas for example right next to us.

 

[SoonerP226]

Heck, in the rural parts of the state I'll bet you could have two or perhaps three counties involved before you got to 10K students. So then, if each county had their own Super with asst supers what has been accomplished besides adding a level of bureaucracy?

I'm not following you here. How does going from 400 superintendents to 40 superintendents add any bureaucracy at all? It significantly reduces the number of highly-paid employees in a layer of bureaucracy that already exists, which sounds like reducing bureaucracy to me.

Maybe the boundaries are set at 10K students or the county line. Even that would result in a significant decrease in administrative overhead.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I'm not at all in favor of paying more in taxes until I see some evidence of education being good stewards of the money I'm already paying--and a state this size having over 500 school districts is a prime example of them being a very bad steward of my money.

 

[Riley]

While this article is a few years old it will refute a few conclusions that appear to have been drawn.

https://oklahomawatch.org/2014/06/28/is-oklahoma-spending-too-much-on-school-administration/

I'll cherry pick a few quotes -

"It spends just above the national average on school administration. In 2011-2012, Oklahoma ranked sixth among states in percentage of funds spent on district administration, at 3.2 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."

"In 2010-2011, the state had 578 school districts, charter schools, technology centers and service agencies, the 10th most in the nation, although it ranked 27th in enrollment, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Despite efforts to consolidate, including financial incentives, the number of Oklahoma districts declined from 524 in 2010-2011 to 517 this year, according to state data."

"McCuiston said small districts are not bloated with personnel; more often they’re understaffed, forcing administrators to fill multiple roles. McCuiston, for example, is not only superintendent, but also works as an elementary school principal, a teacher and mows the lawn. Freedom Public Schools has two administrators and 10 full-time teachers."

There is also a neat sort-able table at the bottom of the linked article if you want to mess around and rack an stack stats.

 

[Frederick]

35% is still excessive.

well, the inflation in the last 22 years was 52%. So actually they're paid less now after you account for inflation than they were 22 years ago. not to mention the increase in living costs that have been higher than inflation for the same period.

The problem isn't that our politicians in Oklahoma are paid 35k a year, which is pitiful, but that the wages of the american worker has not scaled either. I think 47k a year is still high, personally, i think 40k a year is more reasonable, especially given their great benefits. I think pay and benefits should track the average benefits and pay of an Oklahoman worker.

It's important we offer our legislators a fair, liveable wage, otherwise the only people who will become legislators are the rich and wealthy, or the corrupt.

 

[SoonerP226]

While this article is a few years old it will refute a few conclusions that appear to have been drawn.

https://oklahomawatch.org/2014/06/28/is-oklahoma-spending-too-much-on-school-administration/

I'll cherry pick a few quotes -

"It spends just above the national average on school administration. In 2011-2012, Oklahoma ranked sixth among states in percentage of funds spent on district administration, at 3.2 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."

"In 2010-2011, the state had 578 school districts, charter schools, technology centers and service agencies, the 10th most in the nation, although it ranked 27th in enrollment, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Despite efforts to consolidate, including financial incentives, the number of Oklahoma districts declined from 524 in 2010-2011 to 517 this year, according to state data."

"McCuiston said small districts are not bloated with personnel; more often they’re understaffed, forcing administrators to fill multiple roles. McCuiston, for example, is not only superintendent, but also works as an elementary school principal, a teacher and mows the lawn. Freedom Public Schools has two administrators and 10 full-time teachers."

There is also a neat sort-able table at the bottom of the linked article if you want to mess around and rack an stack stats.

I don't know what they're defining as "service agencies," but there are a grand total of 58 vo-techs and charter schools in the state (29 of each). As noted in the article, that still leaves over 500 school districts in Oklahoma.

Looking at the chart here: https://oklahomawatch.org/2016/03/06/school-superintendent-salaries/ , we see that Woods County (where Freedom is located) has three superintendents for about 1,300 students (as of 2016). That is a job which should easily be doable by one superintendent (much larger districts are run by one superintendent), which would result in savings, as you would no longer be paying someone to be both superintendent and principal...

 

[John6185]

I read that the rationale for the increase in pay to to recruit good/better people for the legislative body. That implies that we don't have the best that the state could offer. Yet, many people run every election cycle since they want the jobs which indicates that the 35% increase in pay was unnecessary. Moreover, the increase means that their retirement will be higher placing an additional burden on the state.

 

[CHenry]

That's true, but Oklahoma doesn't need the number of superintendents it has, and keeping them really isn't a luxury we can afford. As I recall the numbers, there are several "districts" that are smaller than single schools in the bigger districts; there's no way a principal worth his salt in those districts couldn't also handle the superintendent's duties.

While I agree, thinning the administrative positions in OK schools wouldnt buy a biscuit in the overall picture of our state budget. But its a small headway. It actually would pay for even one new bride project at ODOT. Well maybe one small bridge

 

[CHenry]

There are several here that I think should run for the local School Board in their counties. They seem to have all the answers.