Per Pupil Spending

Not wanting to break form, the Oklahoman and Oklahoma State Department of Education are again showing that they just don’t understand public education. An article in the paper this morning highlights the fact that Oklahoma spent more than only three states per student in 2010. The map below shows state-by-state spending more clearly.

In the article, SDE spokesman Damon Gardenhire glibly states, “If you look at academic results, per-pupil spending doesn’t necessarily correlate to good academic results…Most people would agree Washington, D.C., is … very challenged academically.” Referencing D.C. schools makes for a nice distraction, but it isn’t relevant to Oklahoma, for a number of reasons. While only slightly larger than OKC and Tulsa Public, the political and socio-economic structure of the population served is altogether different.

The article showed per pupil spending from the districts in Oklahoma with more than 10,000 students. Using 2010 data, since that correlates with this study, I also looked at the achievement scores of the highlighted districts. To provide context, I also added a column for their free/reduced lunch rates.

As you can see, the state’s two largest districts are also the poorest districts on this list. They are also the highest spending and lowest performing districts represented here. (For reference, I used the published API scores from 2010 – you know…the ones that Superintendent Barresi thinks confuse parents…because numbers are harder to understand than letter grades that take a 32 page treatise to explain.)

District	2010 Spending	2010 Poverty	2010 API Score
Broken Arrow	$6,669	30.8%	1194
Edmond	$6,868	23.6%	1346
Moore	$6,924	39.7%	1257
Union	$6,924	47.0%	1166
Putnam City	$7,116	65.9%	1124
Norman	$7,243	41.9%	1259
Mid-Del	$7,390	63.5%	1114
Jenks	$7,492	26.3%	1298
Lawton	$8,022	57.5%	1098
OKC	$8,252	83.5%	896
Tulsa	$8,630	83.1%	920
State Average	$7,896	58.9%	1092

For the most part, the data show that Oklahoma’s larger school districts have less money to spend per pupil than the state average. Since OKC and Tulsa have such high levels of poverty, they get more federal funding, boosting their capacity to spend. The data also clearly show that the districts with less poverty do better academically. Of course, I showed that as well as I know how when I started my blog two months ago, writing that rewarding academic achievement is really little more than rewarding relative wealth.

In Remedial Math for Legislators, I also showed the extent to which state support for public education has declined. By keeping education funding flat this year, the state of Oklahoma is still funding public education at a lower level than it did in 2007. Gardenhire, who has never worked in public education, goes on to say that “a scattershot approach” will not work. He’s right about that. The state should target specific needs and fund them. The agency paying his salary is doing neither of these things.

It bears repeating that the legislature and SDE are implementing more reforms at one time than public education in this state has ever seen. It also bears repeating that schools have to do more, for more students, and more poor students than ever before – but with less money. We have a moral and ethical obligation to teach children effectively. No amount of rhetoric from disingenuous politicians and their complicit newspaper can change that.