Oklahoma Education and You

Oklahomans will soon decide whether to keep or eliminate property taxes. Property taxes are problematic in several ways, one of which is how Oklahoma funds school facilities. We fund the most permanent part of a child’s education—the buildings they learn in—through a system that guarantees unequal opportunity.

School facilities in Oklahoma largely rise and fall with a district’s property wealth. A district with a high per-pupil valuation can raise the same amount of dollars for buildings with a much lower millage rate than a district with a low per-pupil valuation. This has real repercussions for schools. Roof and HVAC replacement, preventative maintenance, and needed updates to buildings place different burdens on districts depending on their valuation. This affects academic programming and student outcomes.

We now may have fresh evidence that these valuation differences track with academic results.

Using 2025 Oklahoma district report card component grades and district valuation data, I analyzed how per-pupil valuation relates to the probability that a district earns a letter grade for Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, Chronic Absenteeism, and Postsecondary Opportunities, using artificial intelligence. The analysis controlled for district size (ADM), district type (elementary/middle/high school models), and size band, so the comparisons are closer to apples-to-apples.

The pattern is hard to ignore.

For Academic Achievement, districts in the highest 10th percentile of per-pupil valuation had about a 14.17% chance of earning an A or B, compared with 17.96% in the lowest 10^th percentile. The chance of earning a D or F drops from 57.20% for those in the highest 10^th percentile to 50.44% for those in the lowest 10^th percentile.  Even the probability of an F falls, from 12.07% to 9.34%.

For Academic Growth, the probability of earning an A or B rises from 36.82% to 42.07% as per-pupil valuation moves from low to high, while D/F declines.

Facilities aren’t neutral in that ecosystem. A modern, well-maintained building affects student and staff attendance, safety, classroom disruptions, and whether a district can offer labs, career-tech spaces, fine arts rooms, and reliable technology infrastructure. Facilities also affect whether a district can attract and retain teachers. In short, facilities are a platform. And right now, Oklahoma’s platform is uneven by design.

That’s why Oklahoma needs a bonding-capacity equalization system—so a child’s learning environment isn’t determined by the taxable value of their ZIP code.

 

Here are three practical options, all used in some form in other states:

• A Guaranteed Tax Base for Facilities: The state sets a target tax base per student. If a district’s per-pupil valuation falls below the target, the state provides matching aid so that a given mill levy yields comparable bond capacity across districts. This preserves local control and voter approval, but removes the structural penalty for being property-poor.
• State Facilities Equalization Grants: Create a facilities fund that prioritizes high-need projects (HVAC, roofs, safety, ADA, overcrowding relief) and allocates grants based on a formula that includes facility condition, enrollment pressure, and per-pupil valuation. Districts still bond locally, but the state fills the gap that local valuation cannot.
• State Credit Enhancement or Bond Guarantee: When the state backs bonds for property-poor districts, interest rates fall and borrowing becomes feasible. Lower interest costs mean more classroom space and fewer dollars lost to debt service. This doesn’t replace equalization, but it is a powerful lever.

Predictably, critics will say, “That’s a bailout,” or “Why should my community subsidize another community’s buildings?” The answer is simple: the state already subsidizes facilities—just unevenly. When one district can pass a bond and build modern schools with a modest millage increase, while another district can’t meet basic needs even with high millage, the state has already chosen winners and losers. Equalization doesn’t punish wealth; it prevents wealth from becoming destiny.

Others will argue that districts should tighten their belts or prioritize. But you can’t budget your way out of a tax base problem. Two districts can levy the same mills, manage responsibly, and still end up worlds apart in what they can build.

Oklahoma should not accept a system in which students are more likely to attend substandard facilities—and more likely to receive lower academic grades—because their district has less taxable property value per child.

A child’s classroom should not depend on a district’s property wealth. It’s time for Oklahoma to equalize bonding capacity so every community can provide safe, modern, functional schools and every student can learn on a level playing field.