Districts Compared
540
Oklahoma School District Spending
How much do Oklahoma school districts spend on administration versus classroom instruction? This analysis compares all 540 public school districts using Fiscal Year 2025 data.
Understanding This Analysis
What we measure: The ratio of administrative spending to classroom spending. A district with a 50% ratio spends $1 on administration for every $2 spent in the classroom.
Where the data comes from: All Oklahoma school districts submit annual spending reports to the Oklahoma State Department of Education through a system called OCAS (Oklahoma Cost Accounting System). This dashboard analyzes that publicly available data.
Districts Flagged for Review
227
Critical (Over 50%)
65
State Average Admin Spending
28.3%
Districts With Highest Administrative Spending
These districts spend more on administration relative to classroom instruction than typical.
| District | Type | Status | Admin Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| PROUD TO PARTNER LEADERSHIP CHARTER ACADEMY | Charter | CRITICAL | 131.1% admin ratio |
| CARLTON ACADEMY - CANADIAN CHARTER | Charter | CRITICAL | 107.8% admin ratio |
| DOVE VIRTUAL ACADEMY (OK INFO AND TECH) | Virtual | CRITICAL | 72.3% admin ratio |
| LIBERTY | Traditional | CRITICAL | 69.5% admin ratio |
| WANETTE | Traditional | CRITICAL | 66.3% admin ratio |
About Interlocal Cooperatives (ILCs)
What are ILCs? Interlocal Cooperatives are regional organizations that provide shared services to multiple school districts—things like special education programs, technology support, and teacher training. Because ILCs don't typically have classroom teachers on staff, comparing their spending to traditional schools isn't meaningful. We show them separately below for transparency.
| Cooperative Name | Total Spending | Administration | Instruction* | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (ILC) CHOCTAW NATION | $12,193,846 | $2,910,300 (23.9%) | $8,370,524 | High classroom spending (69%) - may operate instructional programs |
| (ILC) TRI-COUNTY | $4,674,667 | $401,424 (8.6%) | $1,253,320 | Moderate classroom spending (27%) |
| (ILC) OSAGE COUNTY | $7,429,148 | $1,581,972 (21.3%) | $1,451,816 | Admin exceeds classroom |
| (ILC) FIVE-STAR | $7,447,603 | $875,125 (11.8%) | $4,238,679 | High classroom spending (57%) - may operate instructional programs |
| (ILC) SEMINOLE COUNTY | $618,278 | $58,855 (9.5%) | $160 | Minimal classroom spending (typical for service cooperative); Admin exceeds classroom |
*Most ILCs have minimal "instruction" spending because they provide support services rather than teaching students directly.
Where This Data Comes From
Oklahoma Cost Accounting System (OCAS)
Every year, all Oklahoma school districts submit detailed spending reports to the Oklahoma State Department of Education. This data is publicly available and covers Fiscal Year 2025.
How we categorize spending:
- Classroom spending = Teachers, instructional materials, and direct student instruction
- Administrative spending = Superintendent's office, central administration, and management overhead
About This Site
This site makes Oklahoma school spending data accessible to taxpayers, journalists, and school board members. It analyzes publicly available state data to highlight spending patterns that may warrant review.
Created by 918 Software in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Updated as new data becomes available.
About Charter and Virtual Schools
Charter and virtual schools are included in this analysis, but their spending patterns may look different from traditional schools. Virtual schools, for example, spend more on technology and less on classroom teachers—which is expected given their online delivery model.
High administrative ratios for these schools may simply reflect how they operate, not inefficiency.
Important Notes
This is not an audit. This dashboard shows patterns in publicly available data. It does not represent findings, conclusions, or accusations against any district.
Districts may have good reasons for their spending patterns that aren't visible in this data. High administrative costs might reflect legitimate needs like rural transportation, special education requirements, or facility improvements.
Data is submitted by districts to the state and has not been independently verified. Some variations may reflect reporting differences rather than actual spending differences.
Use this as a starting point for questions—not conclusions. If a district's spending looks unusual, the next step is to ask them about it, not to assume wrongdoing.