A survey conducted by Professional Oklahoma Educators indicates that almost 80 percent of teachers, administrators and support staff do not support SQ 801, which calls for a vote of the people on the November ballot to amend the state constitution.

If passed, SQ 801 would allow local school districts to use money from property taxes, now used primarily for building funds, for operational costs including teacher pay and textbooks, without raising additional taxes.

When asked if respondents believed SQ 801 would help improve public school districts’ financial difficulties, 78.71 percent said no. Many commented that their schools already struggle to cover the costs of building maintenance, and the passage of this state question would cause buildings to fall further into disrepair.

Overwhelmingly, at 75.89 percent, educators believe the passage of SQ 801 will affect building maintenance at their schools if their district is allowed to tap into maintenance funding accounts to pay for teacher salaries and other classroom expenses.

“Our schools are just like our homes;” one teacher said. “If we don’t keep the maintenance up on them, then they will fall into disrepair and cost us a lot more money when the problem has become too big to continue to patch or Band-Aid, and the funds will not be there.”

While many educators indicated that they like the idea of flexibility and local control when it comes to finances, many years of insufficient funding have led them to consider new ideas more carefully. Sixty-nine percent of survey respondents do not think SQ 801 would accomplish its supporters’ goal of allowing local communities to best decide what to do with local dollars.

“This would complicate the issue because there would be conversation on whether the funds are being allocated properly or not,” one teacher commented. “With the [current] law, this is black and white. Allowing flexibility can result in disagreement about fund allocation and cause problems in a district.”

Furthermore, one teacher noted, “The lack of consistency in [school board representation] would preclude any kind of effective long-term planning for the district’s needs.”

Without additional funds being added to the system, many teachers argued that the passage of SQ 801 would be touted as “freeing up money” when, in reality, it is more of a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach.

They also expressed fear that the legislature would use the passage of the state question to put off allocating additional funds to education.