Inadequate State Support of Oklahoma’s Common

Schools’ Funding FormulaKen Hancock, PhD

Northeastern State University

Problem

Oklahoma has become the national leader in decreasing funding to common education since 2008.

Impact: Decreased equity that adversely affects the poorer school districts.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

ACTUALRatio of State to District Support

Ratio

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

ACTUALRatio of State to District Support

Compared to the Restricted Range

Ratio Actual RR

Research Question

Has the 2014 level of state support of the Oklahoma Funding Formula continued downhill?

Has the fiscal neutrality of the funding formula continued to drop?

Hypotheses

For all scenarios: There is no significant difference in the Pearson r

correlation coefficient of district wealth to state support in 2013 compared to 2014.

The Restricted Range increased in 2014. The number of districts breaking the formula

increased in 2014. The ratio of state funding to district funding

became smaller.

Methodology There were three scenarios that were viewed

ActualPearson r was calculated between district wealth and state

appropriations

A Restricted Range (RR) was calculated

Ratio of RR to total dollars was calculated

Ratio between local support and state support was calculated

Simulation 1All the above

Number of districts that broke the formula

Simulation 2All the above, excluding the districts that broke the formula.

Methodology for comparing correlations:

Pearson rFisher’s z’Standard ErrorZ scoreAccept or reject hypothesis based on a Z score of

2.56 or greater.

Results2013 r RR Ratio N RatioActual -0.827 $1597 340.79 516 $0.91Simulation 1 -0.879 $ 144.84 44.19 516 $1.12Simulation 2 -1.000 $ 20.01 6.43 455 $1.22

(61 districts broke the formula in whole or part.)

2014 r RR Ratio N Ratio

Actual -0.738 $ 517 155.78 517 $1.30

Simulation 1 -0.863 $ 283.21 85.31 517 $1.02

Simulation 2 -1.000 $ 20.70 6.63 440 $1.15(77 districts broke the formula in whole or part.)

Results: Comparing Correlations

  Actual Simulation 1 Simulation 2

  2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014r = -0.827 -0.738 -0.879 -0.863 -0.999904 -.999888

N = 516 517 516 517 455 440Fisher’s z’ = -1.179 -0.946 -1.371 -1.305 -4.971 -4.897Std Error = 0.0624 0.0624 0.0671

Z score = -3.725* -1.063 -1.102

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Restricted Range: ActualMiddle 80% of Districts

Broke Actual

r = 0.438

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20140

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Restricted Range: ActualMiddle 80% of DistrictsWithout 2012 & 2013

Broke Actual

r = 0.737

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

-40

10

60

110

160

210

260

310

Restricted Range: Simulation 1Middle 80% of Districts

Broke Sim-1

r = 0.913

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Restricted Range: Simulation 2Middle 80% of Districts

Broke Sim-2

r = 0.870

Conclusions

2014 overall was worse than 2013.Significant difference in correlations Increase in number of districts breaking the formula.Decrease in RR*Ratio of state funding increased.*

*Due to local revenue going down