Since 2018, per-student revenue in Oklahoma public schools has surged by 51 percent, yet academic outcomes have gone in the opposite direction, declining even as spending increased.

One possible explanation for that disturbing trend: Much of the money provided to schools is not reaching the classroom.

Data recently released by state Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, show that less than half of school funding is going to instruction in roughly 150 of Oklahoma’s more than 500 school districts. The schools spending less than half of their funds on classroom instruction include several of the state’s largest districts, and other major districts are only a few percentage points away from falling below the 50-percent mark.

“The general public, and even most policymakers, are not aware that so much public-school spending is spent outside the classroom on support services,” said Ben Scafidi, a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University whose research has highlighted the dramatic surge in administrative spending in schools. “It is far too common already, and soon becoming the norm, that public school districts spend less than half of their budget on instruction. The proportion of district budgets spent on non-instructional expenditures has been increasing for many decades, and I see no signs that this long-term trend will reverse itself.”

Another national expert is not surprised that many Oklahoma schools spend so little on instruction.

Several years ago when Patrick J. Wolf, the 21st Century Endowed Chair in School Choice at the University of Arkansas, led a research team that examined expenditure patterns in Tulsa Public Schools and public charter schools in 12 cities, his group found that officials at Tulsa Public Schools spent just 40.4 percent of their funds on instruction, if you define that category to include spending on teachers, paraprofessionals, substitutes, non-employee instructional spending, and instructional computers.

Even when the group used the “broadest definition” of instructional expenses, Wolf noted that Tulsa schools still spent an average of just 56.6 percent of revenues on instruction and instructional support.

“It certainly concerns me that less than 60 percent of the monies dedicated to K-12 education are spent on personnel and activities that directly support student success,” Wolf said. “Clearly, there is a lot of inefficiency in K-12 education, especially in the urban areas that we study.”

School districts that spend less than half of their funding on instruction include the state’s two largest brick-and-mortar districts.

Oklahoma City spends just 48 percent of its funding on instruction, while Tulsa spends just 47 percent.

A likely related statistic: The academic outcomes of students in the two districts are very poor.

Just 18.3 percent of students in the Oklahoma City district met or exceeded grade-level standards on state testing in 2023-2024, while only 18.8 percent of Tulsa students achieved proficiency or better on state testing.

Notably, those poor results have occurred even though per-student funding in Oklahoma City is well above the state average, as is per-student funding in Tulsa.

Union, a major suburban school district in the Tulsa area, also spends less than half its funds in the classroom, directing just 48 percent to instruction.

In the Sand Springs district, just half of the funding goes to instruction. In Ponca City, only 49 percent reaches the classroom. In both Muskogee and McAlester, instructional spending comprises only 47 percent of school funds.

Two smaller suburban districts in the Oklahoma City area also devote a surprisingly small share of funding to instruction—and have extremely poor academic results.

Per-student funding in the Western Heights district is more than $15,000 per child, far above the state average, but just 14.1 percent of students met or exceeded grade-level standards on state testing in 2023-2024. Only 46 percent of funding in that district goes to instruction.

Similarly, Crutcho, a dependent school district in the Oklahoma City area, devotes just 45 percent of its funding to the classroom. Only 17.2 percent of Crutcho students achieved proficiency or better on state testing in 2023-2024.

The problem of low classroom funding is not isolated to schools in the state’s metro areas, however.

In Clinton, just 45 percent of funding goes to instruction. In Ardmore, that figure falls to 44 percent. And in Okmulgee, just 39 percent of school funds go to instruction.

While some other major districts do devote more than half their funding to instruction, they barely do so.

In Edmond, only 53 percent of school funding goes to classroom expenses. In Bixby, Stillwater, and Broken Arrow, that figure stands at only 52 percent.

In Jenks, Midwest City-Del City, Lawton, and Enid, only 51 percent of funds is expended on instructional uses.

In contrast, other schools across Oklahoma spend well above half their funding on instructional expenses.

Yukon, which is the state’s 14th largest brick-and-mortar district by enrollment, directs 60 percent of its funding to instructional expenses.

In Bethany, 63 percent of school funds go to the classroom. In Ada, 59 percent of funding pays for instruction, while in Bartlesville that figure stands at 57 percent.

Some smaller, rural schools also devote much more of their budgets to instruction.

The McCord district directs 63 percent of funding to the classroom, while officials in Flower Mound use 58 percent of their budget for instructional uses. In Chisholm, 54 percent of funding goes to the classroom.

Millions could be put into classroom

National data show that schools in other states devote, on average, well over half of funding to instruction, meaning that Oklahoma schools hovering around 50 percent or below are extreme outliers compared to many national peers.

North Carolina schools spend an average of 63.5 percent of school funds on instruction. Utah spends 63 percent on instruction. Florida spends 60.7 percent. Idaho spends 60.7 percent. Schools in Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington spend an average of 60 percent.

If each Oklahoma district spent a comparable amount—62 percent—on instructional costs, it would shift millions of dollars into classrooms across the state, particularly in districts that currently spend only half (or less) of their money on instruction.

In the Oklahoma City and Tulsa districts alone, devoting 62 percent of funds to instruction would shift money from other uses and increase classroom funding by $63.7 million and $64.1 million, respectively.

In other districts, the increase in classroom funding would also be substantial if each district devoted 62 percent of money to instruction: Edmond ($25 million), Union ($24.5 million), Broken Arrow ($20.4 million), Lawton ($17.3 million), Midwest City-Del City ($14.4 million), Jenks ($14.3 million) Enid ($9.1 million), Muskogee ($8.9 million), Bixby ($7.7 million), Western Heights ($7.2 million), Stillwater ($7 million), Ponca City ($6.6 million), Sand Springs ($6.2 million), Ardmore ($6 million), McAlester ($5.9 million) Clinton ($4.9 million), Okmulgee ($3.8 million), and Crutcho ($796,000).

Caldwell, the lawmaker who has highlighted the lack of funding going to state classrooms, recently sought to require schools to put at least half of funding into instruction.

House Bill 1280, by Caldwell, would have required that 50 percent of a school district’s annual budget go to “instructional expenditures” starting in the 2025-2026 school year.

But the legislation drew strong opposition from school organizations.

The Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA), a lobbyist group funded with schools’ tax dollars, opposed the bill, claiming HB 1280 “is an intrusion on local control and prevents school boards from allocating funds based on the needs of students.”

Form-style letters sent to lawmakers on behalf of school administrators and their allies declared, “Locally elected school boards and our local superintendents should be able to make the best decisions for their students when allocating their budgets.” One such email called the 50-percent mandate “arbitrary” and warned it “could result in schools being forced to purchase unnecessary classroom supplies.”

The Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition (PLAC) backed school administrators who opposed the legislation, dismissing calls to make classroom funding a priority as “spending unnecessarily in classrooms in order to meet a baseless budget mandate.”

HB 1280 failed on a 36-57 vote in the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

Notably, many of the opponents of HB 1280 continue to lobby for increased spending on public schools—even as they argue that increased funding should not necessarily go to the classroom.

“Once again, Oklahomans are being asked to pour more of their hard-earned money into schools through taxes, only to watch some resist even half of it reaching actual classrooms,” Caldwell said. “The irony is hard to ignore. The priority seems to be making sure funding gets lost in the maze of bureaucracy while teachers scramble for the resources they need to shape the future.”