Worth it to review classroom spending
FOUR years ago, state schools Superintendent Joy Hofmeister decried administrative waste in schools. Today she is rejecting an examination of administrative spending.
This episode is notable because it represents a lost opportunity to ensure Oklahoma taxpayers and students are getting the maximum benefit from education tax dollars.
Gov. Mary Fallin issued an executive order seeking an audit of classroom spending in Oklahoma’s 519 school districts. Fallin wanted the Department of Education to compile a list of districts that spend less than 60 percent of their budget on instruction and suggested possible administrative consolidation or annexation of schools failing to meet that threshold. According to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics, just 44 districts devote at least 60 percent of funds to classroom instruction.
So far, Hofmeister and the members of the state Board of Education, all of whom are Fallin appointees aside from the superintendent, have not complied. They argue that definitions of administrative spending are too vague or confusing, and question whether the governor has the authority to request a report and related plan of action. Some critics argue the 60 percent threshold is arbitrary.
Yet even if the governor can’t mandate a review, why shouldn’t the Department of Education conduct one anyway, especially at a time when schools are reportedly starved for dollars? And if all spending is justified, an examination would bolster the case for funding increases. A review of spending can only benefit the school system, not harm it.
In a Facebook post, Hofmeister described Fallin’s order as follows: “Gov. Fallin ordered me to create a list of schools that could be targeted for forced consolidation, but I refused. Let’s focus instead on clearing barriers for students, equipping teachers, increasing funding for classrooms, lowering class sizes and preparing all our kids for success.” But Fallin’s proposal stressed
administrative consolidation over school closures. And if money is being wasted on excessive administrative pay, it makes it harder to equip teachers, increase classroom funding, lower class size and prepare kids. This is a point Hofmeister raised in the past.
In 2014, she criticized her Democratic opponent, Peggs Superintendent John Cox, for having a $141,678 salary when he oversaw a K-8 district with only 13 teachers at the time. “If John Cox weren’t paid twice the state average he could pay his own teachers more,” she said, calling Cox part of a “good old boy system.”
Oklahoma routinely ranks high in national measures of administrative spending and low in classroom spending. A U.S. Department of Education report showed student enrollment in Oklahoma increased 14 percent between 1992 and 2013. During that same time, the number of teachers increased 11 percent while administrative and nonteaching staff surged more than 33 percent.
Thus, Oklahomans have reason to think administrative waste may be a problem in schools. Rather than play political games, Oklahoma’s elected leaders should ensure that taxpayer dollars given to schools are spent efficiently to educate the children in those schools.