Being that education cuts have affected so many, and our legislators are sneaking their plans through, I figured I would share what they have done with our education funding regarding the top 20 "winners" and "losers" in the first set of budget cuts. The reason this is important is because out of the 20 "winners", seven were charter schools, and three of those were virtual charter schools.
I would like to point out that the reason I am sharing this is more so from a fiscal standpoint in relation to the proportion of students who were positively or negatively affected since charter schools serve a much smaller amount of the population.
Charter schools are still considered public schools.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30
In the state of Oklahoma, they do not have to follow certain state curriculum and/or regulations such as:
-state teacher certification requirements
-mandatory minimum teacher pay
-tenure
http://www.publiccharters.org/…/automatic-exemptions-state…/
If you'd like a look at more policies of charter schools in our state, they can be found here:
http://sde.ok.gov/sde/oklahoma-charter-schools-program
In 2014, there were 688,300 students enrolled in public education, which includes 2 percent or 16,585 students in charter schools. With this, there were 1,793 schools breaking down to 1.8 percent or 27 schools that were charter schools.
http://sde.ok.gov/…/20…/state-student-public-enrollment-2013
(amount for charters can be found in the next link listed)
Of those in charter schools, 62 percent or 8,294 students in the 2013-14 school year (nothing for 2014-15) were in virtual charter schools which make up 20 percent or five schools being used for those 8,294 students.
http://www.publiccharters.org/…/health-of-moveme…/states/OK/
The schools involved are in this list -
(http://m.tulsaworld.com/…/article_dd9d747c-8f85-536b-8ae7-3…)
- and will make up our 20 biggest "winners" and 20 biggest "losers".
To keep numbers simple, we will keep the "winners" to just charter schools, being that there was not one single "loser" that was a charter school.
Of the 20 "winners", 7 were charter schools that (alone) "won":
Total "won": $15,706,136
Students affected: 1.4 percent or 9,773 of the total student population
Virtual charter schools: three
Five biggest overall "winners" (amount-includes public schools on this):
**Epic One On One Charter School: $8,750,851
Norman Public Schools: $2,169,957
Broken Arrow Public Schools: $1,837,221
**Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy: $1,649,245
**Oklahoma Connections Academy: $1,649,185
Five biggest overall "winners" (percentage-includes public schools on this):
*Santa Fe South Middle School: 58.77 percent
**Oklahoma Connections Academy: 50.28 percent
*Santa Fe South Elementary School: 46.51 percent
**Epic One On One Charter School: 46.22 percent
*Tulsa Legacy Charter School: 31.25 percent
Biggest "winner" charter school vs. public school (percent):
*Santa Fe South Middle School: 58.77 percent
vs.
Newcastle Public Schools: 13.32 percent
Biggest "winner" charter school vs. public school ($):
**Epic One On One Charter School: $8,750,851
vs.
Norman Public Schools: $2,169,957
Lowest "winner" charter school vs. public school ( percent):
**Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy: 18.14 percent
vs.
Lawton Public Schools: 1.04 percent
Lowest "winner" charter school vs. public school ($):
*Tulsa Legacy Charter School: $627,110
vs.
Elgin: $525,086
*indicates charter school
**indicates virtual charter school
Our 20 biggest "losers" breakdown:
Total loss: $13,306,714
Students affected: 25 percent or 174,635 students
Top 5 largest schools involved: 4
5 biggest "losers" ($):
Pryor: $1,948,714
Tulsa: $1,1918,675
Edmond: $1,347,901
Ardmore: $1,343,274
Oklahoma City: $1,286,610
5 biggest "losers" ( percent):
Pryor: 55 percent
Canton: 55 percent
Davis: 26.33 percent
Yale: 19.53 percent
Ardmore: 16.87 percent
Lowest "loser" ( percent):
Moore: 0.93 percent
Lowest "loser" ($):
Pawhuska: $219,665
Now, what is truly interesting is putting some of our numbers in comparison.
Those who were positively affected only made up 1.4 percent of the population, but those who were negatively affected made up 25 percent of the student population.
We gave $15,706,136 to 1.4 percent of the student population, and took $13,306,714 from 25 percent of the student population.
Even if we took out four of the five largest school districts in Oklahoma, it still breaks down to this:
Total districts: 16
Total students: 5.9 percent or 41,214 students
Total monetary loss: $8,169,131
What is even more baffling is that Epic Charter Schools accounts for only 0.6 percent or 4,370 students of the overall student population, but received $8,750,851 in comparison to those 16 districts that account for 5.9 percent or 41,214 of the overall student population with a loss of $8,169,131.
What's worse, is that we have no public report card for Epic Charter Schools, so we do not even know if they have a history of using money properly.
http://sde.ok.gov/sde/current-charter
So, in conclusion, do you think our money was being used properly in relation to the per pupil spending?
Do you think our legislature did this underhandedly and/or forced this on us?
Do you think they made a productive investment being that Epic One On One Charter School who received $8,750,851 has been in an ongoing investigation of fraud for three years?
If you ask me, I think it's safe to say that since our state already planned to move to charter schools, that they are simply sweeping these little tidbits under the rug with the hope of making our kids suffer.
The reasoning is simple:
They will have disproportionately less kids in comparison to funds available which obviously will skew the way their stats look compared to public schools. If/when schools are cut to the point that our educational facilities begin having to close, all our legislature has to do is point their finger at charter schools and no one is the wiser.
It's kind of interesting to see a true "House of Cards" plan in your own state isn't it?
