The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has a new look to their website and one would hope that would come with a new commitment to accuracy and thoughtful analysis—not holding my breath. The lead page is “2018 Legislative Victories” which lists two for Education, “Funding Silos” referring to SJR 70 about which I’ve written before ( The Bice Is Not Right , Trent’s Double Fault and SJR 70, A Solution In Search Of A Problem ) and “Union Opt Outs”, referring to SB 960, about which I have not written, though I have been a card carrying member of both the OEA and AFT, engaged in a legal strike of several weeks, and crossed picket lines when it became illegal. I suspect SB 960 is some ALEC legislation which Stink Tanks are expected to promote in the name of liberty, freedom and the right of workers to remain poor. Still I will leave this issue to others or another day.
What’s most notable about this short list is that it says nothing about the historic Education legislation increasing teacher and support employee compensation OR the funding measures passed to pay for those increases. This despite the OCPA’s “support” during the process for an increase, yes INCREASE, in the gross production tax. Back to this later.
I worry, too much probably, about the Fellows at the OCPA who, surpassed only by their Texas envy, are obsessed with Oklahoma’s school funding “silos” and have convinced themselves that they are a major barrier to properly funding public education in our state. Their obsession is either an intentional distraction from the real barrier, inadequate resources, or shows their failure to comprehend how Oklahoma’s schools are financed. I’ll try one more time; here’s what they write, emphasis added:
“The Legislature adopted Senate Joint Resolution 70, which will let Oklahomans vote to begin breaking down the funding silos in our state’s public education system. If voters pass SJR 70 on the statewide ballot later this year, local voters and school boards will gain new flexibility with a portion of local school ad valorem funds. Money that would typically be available to school districts only for buildings and athletic facilities could also be used for teacher pay, textbooks, classroom supplies, or whatever a school district needs most. (This measure would not apply to bond funding.)”
Contrast “buildings and athletic facilities” with this statutory language stating what the 5 mill Building Fund levy can actually be used for:
“…may be used for erecting, remodeling, repairing, or maintaining school buildings, for purchasing furniture, equipment and computer software to be used on or for school district property, for repairing and maintaining computer systems and equipment, for paying energy and utility costs, for purchasing telecommunications utilities and services, for paying fire and casualty insurance premiums for school facilities, for purchasing security systems, for paying salaries of security personnel, or for one or more, or all, of such purposes.”
Using FY 2016 data the Building Fund 5 mill levy, statewide, accounted for about $161 million of just over $5,110 million in new revenue received by school districts in the four primary “silos”, being their General, Co-op, Building and Child Nutrition funds. Of that $161 million, here is how 90.3% of it was used:
There’s maybe $15 million, at best, statewide that would have been “freed up” by SJR 70, being less than a third of one percent of the new operational revenue for Oklahoma school districts. I may vote for its passage, mainly because it should bring focus on the huge disparity in property tax capacity among school districts; still there’s little there, there. What is truly in play is not a silo, it’s barely a grain sack left in the barn.
Additionally–and here I opine with no research other than having read SJR70 and my memory–I am not sure that if the Constitution is amended that the building fund will immediately be available for the proposed “operations” without each district holding a new election to activate the broader definition. My logic is that the current five mill levies were specifically voted on as “building fund for erecting, remodeling or repairing school buildings, and for purchasing furniture”. So perhaps districts who want to take advantage of the new language will be required to “reauthorize” its levy with a new election. If that is the case I suspect few will risk doing so since, as I’ve shown, there is already great flexibility available.
After the OCPA takes its victory lap for having found a grain sack outside one of those silos, where might they turn next? Here is a succinct and accurate summary using new revenue for FY2017.
The “logic” behind the silo complaint alleged by the OCPA has been that there’s plenty of money for teacher raises if only districts could look beyond their General fund where most teachers’ compensation is funded to all the other silos that have money being wasted on frills and unnecessary stuff. So what’s in each those mysterious silos that befuddle the good fellows?
Co-op Fund: This is primarily for instructional and student support programs that school districts manage together in the interest of efficiency. Expenditures are simply an extension of the districts’ general funds and reported separately because multiple districts are mixed together.
Building Fund: Already 90% same as the general fund, may soon be 100%.
Child Nutrition Fund: This is primarily federal funds AND families’ payments with some state matching mixed in—all earmarked to feed students, not to pay teachers. You could take away the accounting silo (it has its own function coding) but not one more dime would be made available for teacher salaries.
MAPS & Municipal Funds: Very few districts receive this local money about which I know little and at 0.1% not enough to fill a grain sack much less a silo.
Bond & Sinking Funds: Here’s the there, there, where Texas envy meets Silos. If you read an OCPA rant that shows amounts way greater than the $681 million reported, being 11.2% of total new revenue that year then they’re double counting again ( Double, Double, Toil and Trouble ) and don’t merit your attention. Bond funds are borrowed money approved by local voters in each district; the Sinking fund is property taxes used to pay the loans back. It is presently neither legal nor smart to borrow money to pay for current expenses like salaries; it can be smart to use borrowed money to pay for the acquisition and construction of new facilities which is what over three-quarters is used for.
Student Activity Fund: This revenue is from football game ticket sales, band turkey sales, FFA sausage sales, elementary school cookie dough sales, etc. You fellows really want to go there?
Endowment, Agency & Trust Funds: I managed two of these for my district, one we used to segregate significant gifts to the district so we could more easily show donors we were carrying out their wishes, the other was an accounting pass-through managing a workers compensation settlement made years before. Sorry fellows, this 0.5% has nothing for you.
Their silo talk is silly and has always been, either by design or ignorance, a distraction from the core issues of whether Oklahoma schools have adequate resources and whether they are effectively using the resources they have. What I’d like to know from the good fellows at OCPA is where they stand on the referendum veto effort led by Dr. No. Was their support for raising revenue to finance teacher pay raises sincere, or are they now rooting for revenue failures to “starve the beast” and gleefully watch implementation of the required teacher pay increase by school districts that will have to dig way deep into their fund balance (the Bad in The Glib, The Bad and The Ugly ) and reduce support employee staffing (the Ugly in The Glib, The Bad and The Ugly ), both serious proposals made repeatedly by the OCPA in the run up to the 2018 legislative session.
As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location.
The “logic” behind the silo complaint alleged by the OCPA has been that there’s plenty of money for teacher raises if only districts could look beyond their General fund where most teachers’ compensation is funded to all the other silos that have money being wasted on frills and unnecessary stuff. So what’s in each those mysterious silos that befuddle the good fellows?
Co-op Fund: This is primarily for instructional and student support programs that school districts manage together in the interest of efficiency. Expenditures are simply an extension of the districts’ general funds and reported separately because multiple districts are mixed together.
Building Fund: Already 90% same as the general fund, may soon be 100%.
Child Nutrition Fund: This is primarily federal funds AND families’ payments with some state matching mixed in—all earmarked to feed students, not to pay teachers. You could take away the accounting silo (it has its own function coding) but not one more dime would be made available for teacher salaries.
MAPS & Municipal Funds: Very few districts receive this local money about which I know little and at 0.1% not enough to fill a grain sack much less a silo.
Bond & Sinking Funds: Here’s the there, there, where Texas envy meets Silos. If you read an OCPA rant that shows amounts way greater than the $681 million reported, being 11.2% of total new revenue that year then they’re double counting again (double) and don’t merit your attention. Bond funds are borrowed money approved by local voters in each district; the Sinking fund is property taxes used to pay the loans back. It is presently neither legal nor smart to borrow money to pay for current expenses like salaries; it can be smart to use borrowed money to pay for the acquisition and construction of new facilities which is what over three-quarters is used for.
Student Activity Fund: This revenue is from football game ticket sales, band turkey sales, FFA sausage sales, elementary school cookie dough sales, etc. You fellows really want to go there?
Endowment, Agency & Trust Funds: I managed two of these for my district, one we used to segregate significant gifts to the district so we could more easily show donors we were carrying out their wishes, the other was an accounting pass-through managing a workers compensation settlement made years before. Sorry fellows, this 0.5% has nothing for you.
Their silo talk is silly and has always been, either by design or ignorance, a distraction from the core issues of whether Oklahoma schools have adequate resources and whether they are effectively using the resources they have. What I’d like to know from the good fellows at OCPA is where they stand on the referendum veto effort led by Dr. No. Was their support for raising revenue to finance teacher pay raises sincere, or are they now rooting for revenue failures to “starve the beast” and gleefully watch implementation of the required teacher pay increase by school districts that will have to dig way deep into their fund balance (the Bad in ) and reduce support employee staffing (the Ugly in ), both serious proposals made repeatedly by the OCPA in the run up to the 2018 legislative session.
As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location.