Oklahoma Education and You

I’ve made the argument that Oklahoma needs more transparency in how funding generated by bilingual and economically disadvantaged weights is used in schools. Hopefully, Governor Stitt’s study of public school spending will look closely at how those dollars are used. If the review goes in that direction, I believe it may find that funding generated by those weights is often absorbed into broader district needs instead of being clearly targeted to the students who generate it.

The formula itself reflects the idea that some students cost more to serve well. Students learning English often need language development services, bilingual communication with families, translation support, smaller-group instruction, and teachers trained in language acquisition. Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may need academic intervention, attendance support, counseling, extended learning time, family engagement, transportation stability, and additional wraparound services.

But there is a problem. Whenever the funding formula is not sufficient to meet the full needs of a school district, it becomes tempting to use additional formula dollars generated by bilingual and economically disadvantaged weights to pay for broader operating needs instead of the services that best meet the needs of the students who generated the extra funding.

Since 2020, Oklahoma’s base school funding factors have not kept pace with inflation.

School districts have faced rising costs for salaries, utilities, transportation, insurance, maintenance, instructional materials, technology, food service, substitutes, and special services. However, the combined Foundation Aid and Salary Incentive Aid factor increased from about $3,580.76 in 2020 to about $4,250 in 2025. That is an increase of about 18.7%.

Inflation over that same period increased by roughly 25%, using the South-region Consumer Price Index as a reasonable proxy for Oklahoma inflation. Depending on the exact months or fiscal years used, the number may vary slightly, but the larger point remains: inflation grew faster than the main operating factors.

The problem looks worse when the mandatory teacher pay raises for the 2023-24 school year are considered. In 2023-24, the Legislature mandated certified employee pay raises of $3,000 to $6,000. State guidance at the time estimated that $285 million of the $500 million in new formula money would be needed just to cover those raises. That matters because the headline increase in formula factors overstates how much new money was actually available for other operating pressures. After accounting for the required salary increase, the practical increase available for non-mandated operating costs was much smaller than the 18.7% factor increase suggests.

That leaves districts facing inflationary pressure for transportation, utilities, insurance, maintenance, support staff, instructional materials, technology, and programs without enough base formula growth to cover those costs.

That means the main operating factors lost purchasing power during a period when districts were already facing serious cost pressures.

Transportation is even more concerning. Oklahoma’s transportation formula factor was stuck at 1.39 for decades before increasing to 2.00 in 2024 and 2025. Even with that increase, transportation funding remains far below where it would be if it had kept pace with inflation since 1992.

When the base funding level is inadequate, weighted dollars are easily absorbed into ordinary operating costs.

That is especially true in districts with high numbers of economically disadvantaged or bilingual students. Those districts may generate more weighted aid, but they also often face greater general operating challenges: higher intervention needs, higher mobility, more attendance problems, more family support needs, greater transportation needs, and more pressure on teachers and support staff.

At the same time, they still have to meet the needs and expectations of teachers and parents regarding elective offerings, athletics and extracurricular activities, and facility upkeep.

When base aid does not cover those basic expectations, superintendents naturally look to every available dollar, including bilingual weight dollars, economically disadvantaged weight dollars, and federal funds. The result is that money intended to support students with greater needs can get folded into the general cost of operating schools.

This matters a lot for bilingual and economically disadvantaged students because they are often the least able to demand that the money be spent on them.

Economically disadvantaged students may need more academic intervention, but their families usually have less political influence in district decision-making.

English learners and bilingual students may need language support, but their parents may face language barriers, work schedules, transportation challenges, or unfamiliarity with the school system.

Meanwhile, other district priorities are highly visible. Parents notice whether class sizes are large. They notice whether buses are late. They notice whether buildings are clean. They notice whether sports, band, FFA, electives, and activities are available. They also notice whether the district appears financially stable.

All of these are important, but maintaining them at the expense of students with greater resource needs hides the larger problem: the entire school system may not be adequately funded to meet the needs of all students.

Governor Stitt has stated an aspirational goal of making Oklahoma a top-ten state. Yet Oklahoma remains near the bottom in many student academic outcomes. Hopefully, his call for a closer look at school spending is aimed at improving the system. One way to do that is to examine whether funding meant to address the specific needs of at-risk students is actually being used for that purpose, and if not, why not?

The answer may be misguided priorities in some cases, inadequate base funding in others, or a combination of both. But without better transparency, Oklahoma cannot know whether weighted student funding is truly serving the students it was designed to support or simply helping districts keep the lights on.